Escondido Bans Harboring Of Illegal Aliens
The Escondido City Council voted to ban the harboring of illegal aliens by landlords. The vote was 3-2. One of those voting for the ban is up for reelection.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/10/05/
news/top_stories/3_00_0010_4_06.txt
My comments to the City Council are included below:
The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution gives the Federal Government virtual exclusivity in defining legal and illegal immigration. Local Governments must accept those definitions, and not conflict with them, when crafting ordinances.
The US Congress has made harboring of illegal aliens, knowingly or with a reckless disregard for the facts, a criminal felony punishable with fines and up to 5 years imprisonment, or up to 10 years imprisonment if the harboring is “done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain.” 8 USC § 1324
It is important to understand the meaning of the term harboring. Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edition) gives the following definition:
Harboring, n. The act of affording lodging, shelter, or refuge to a person, esp. a criminal or illegal alien.
Much has been said about the hardships that this ordinance may have on children, who are U.S. citizens, and who have parents who are illegal aliens. Again, Congress has provided for relief from a removal proceeding (commonly known as deportation) by allowing cancellation of the removal and adjustment of immigration status if the removal would result in a particular level of hardship to the US citizen child and other strict conditions. 8 USC § 1229b(b).
Admittedly, cancellation is not easy to achieve, but the Federal Agencies and Courts deal with cancellation proceedings on a regular basis. It is the Federal Government’s area of expertise. If this Council starts writing exceptions to the federal immigration scheme, it will likely invalidate the ordinance. Congress has set the standard. Further, Congress has required the implementation of a system by which State and Local Governments can efficiently and effectively request verification of immigration status from the Federal Government.
Opponents to this measure are against the express policies of the US Congress. The Supreme Court has upheld local laws affecting illegal aliens that are consistent with congressional objectives on numerous occasions. De Canas; Arizona v. Salazar.
This ordinance is harsh only because those most affected by it have ignored the Federal scheme for immigration. They have decided to live beyond the law. The Federal Government has been overwhelmed by the situation.
Now the illegal aliens are demanding that the US Congress change the law. The US Congress has said no. Instead, the US Congress has decided to build a fence along large segments of the southern border. The US President and the Governor of this State have sent National Guard Units to the southern border to assist in securing it against breach. The congressional objectives have been set. This Council’s objectives have been set forth in this ordinance. I urge you to pass it.
October 4, 2006
Escondido, CA
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/10/05/
news/top_stories/3_00_0010_4_06.txt
My comments to the City Council are included below:
The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution gives the Federal Government virtual exclusivity in defining legal and illegal immigration. Local Governments must accept those definitions, and not conflict with them, when crafting ordinances.
The US Congress has made harboring of illegal aliens, knowingly or with a reckless disregard for the facts, a criminal felony punishable with fines and up to 5 years imprisonment, or up to 10 years imprisonment if the harboring is “done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain.” 8 USC § 1324
It is important to understand the meaning of the term harboring. Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edition) gives the following definition:
Harboring, n. The act of affording lodging, shelter, or refuge to a person, esp. a criminal or illegal alien.
Much has been said about the hardships that this ordinance may have on children, who are U.S. citizens, and who have parents who are illegal aliens. Again, Congress has provided for relief from a removal proceeding (commonly known as deportation) by allowing cancellation of the removal and adjustment of immigration status if the removal would result in a particular level of hardship to the US citizen child and other strict conditions. 8 USC § 1229b(b).
Admittedly, cancellation is not easy to achieve, but the Federal Agencies and Courts deal with cancellation proceedings on a regular basis. It is the Federal Government’s area of expertise. If this Council starts writing exceptions to the federal immigration scheme, it will likely invalidate the ordinance. Congress has set the standard. Further, Congress has required the implementation of a system by which State and Local Governments can efficiently and effectively request verification of immigration status from the Federal Government.
Opponents to this measure are against the express policies of the US Congress. The Supreme Court has upheld local laws affecting illegal aliens that are consistent with congressional objectives on numerous occasions. De Canas; Arizona v. Salazar.
This ordinance is harsh only because those most affected by it have ignored the Federal scheme for immigration. They have decided to live beyond the law. The Federal Government has been overwhelmed by the situation.
Now the illegal aliens are demanding that the US Congress change the law. The US Congress has said no. Instead, the US Congress has decided to build a fence along large segments of the southern border. The US President and the Governor of this State have sent National Guard Units to the southern border to assist in securing it against breach. The congressional objectives have been set. This Council’s objectives have been set forth in this ordinance. I urge you to pass it.
October 4, 2006
Escondido, CA
posted by Robroy at 9:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home