Fremont, Nebraska, Ordinance 5165 Blocking Undocumented Immigrants From Renting Ruled Unconstitutional

Following recent clashes between anti-immigrant sentiment and the law, a U.S. District Court judge struck down the provisions of an ordinance this week -- which, prohibited undocumented persons from renting property in the city of Fremont, Nebraska -- as unconstitutional.

Passed by a majority of votes in a ballot initiative last June, the ordinance would have required the Fremont Police Department to approve "occupancy license applications" before any renter could obtain a lease.

The explicit intent of Ordinance 5165 is to "prohibit the harboring of illegal aliens or hiring of unauthorized aliens." The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF) filed a lawsuit last month.

"Today, the district court corrected Fremont's unconstitutional attempt to drive immigrants out of its city, and we welcome the decision," said Thomas A. Saenz, President and General Counsel of MALDEF, in a press release following this week’s decision.

According to plaintiffs from Martinez v. Fremont, a toxic enviornment is emerging. From the ACLU's press release :

Mario Martinez and other plaintiffs have reported that Fremont "is completely different" than it was before the ordinance passed. Incidents of discrimination and harassment from fellow residents have increased, even towards U.S. citizens such as Martinez.

The city ordinance also requires businesses to participate in the federal E-Verify Program, an online database that checks worker employment eligibility. This provision of the new ordinance was not rejected by the judge and will be effective come March.

Apparently, both sides in the debate claim some success.

Kris Kobach, the controversial Kansas Secretary of State and attorney for the Immigration Reform Law Institute -- a branch of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a "nativist hate group," according to the Southern Poverty Law Center -- is known for having a hand in crafting some of the country's most severe immigration policies. Including, Arizona's SB-1070 and Alabama's HB-56.

Kobach also authored the Fremont ordinance.

On the judge's decision, Kobach told the Fremont Tribune that, "Overall, 75 percent of the ordinance goes into effect...On the housing part of the ordinance, the city wins on the first half of it and loses the second half."

CHECK OUT SOME OF THE COUNTRY'S HARSHEST ANTI-IMMIGRATION LAWS:

Loading Slideshow

• The Template: California Proposition 187 (1994)

  California's Proposition 187 was submitted to the voters with the full support of then Republican governor Pete Wilson. It essentially blamed undocumented immigrants for the poor performance of the state economy in the early 1990s. The law called for cutting off benefits to undocumented immigrants: prohibiting their access to health care, public education, and other social services in California. It also required state authorities to report anyone who they suspected was undocumented. <strong>Status:</strong> The law passed with the support of 55 percent of the voters in 1994 but declared unconstitutional 1997. The law was killed in 1999 when a new governor, Democrat Gray Davis, refused to appeal a judicial decision that struck down most of the law. Even though short-lived, the legislation paved the way for harsher immigration laws to come. On the other hand, the strong reaction from the Hispanic community and immigration advocates propelled a drive for naturalization of legal residents and created as many as one million new voters.

• The Worst: Arizona SB 1070

  The Arizona Act made it a misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to be within the state lines of Arizona without legal documents allowing their presence in the U.S. The law was widely criticized as xenophobic and for encouraging racial profiling. It required state authorities to inquire about an individual's immigration status during an arrest when there was "reasonable suspicion" that the individual was undocumented. The law would allow police to detain anyone who they believed was in the country illegally. <strong>Status:</strong> The law was signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010, immediately generating a swirl of controversy and questions about its constitutionality. In July 2010 and February 2012, federal judges blocked different provisions of SB 1070, setting the stage for the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/sb1070-ruling-supreme-court_n_1614119.html" target="_hplink">the Supreme Court decision of June 25, 2012</a> which struck down multiple provisions but upheld the controversial "papers please" provision, a centerpiece of the law which critics say will lead to racial profiling

• Following Arizona's Footsteps: Georgia HB 87

  The controversy over Arizona's immigration law was followed by heated debate over Georgia's own law. HB 87 required government agencies and private companies to check the immigration status of applicants. This law also limited some government benefits to people who could prove their legal status. <strong>Status:</strong> Although a federal judge temporarily blocked parts of the law considered too extreme, it went into effect on July 1st. 2011. House: 113-56 Senate: 39-17

• Verifying Authorized Workers: Pennsylvania HB 1502

  This bill, which was approved in 2010, bans contractors and subcontractors employ undocumented workers from having state construction contracts. The bill also protects employees who report construction sites that hire illegal workers. To ensure that contractors hire legal workers, the law requires employers to use the identification verification system E-verify, based on a compilation of legally issued Social Security numbers. <strong>Status:</strong> Approved on June 8th 2010. House: 188-6 (07/08/2010) <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/" target="_hplink">Flickr photo by DonkeyHotey</a>

• A Spin Off of Arizona: Utah HB 497

  Many states tried to emulate Arizona's SB 1070 law. However, most state legislatures voted against the proposals. Utah's legislature managed to approve an immigration law based on a different argument. Taking into consideration the criticism of racial profiling in Arizona, Utah required ID cards for "guest workers" and their families. In order to get such a card workers must pay a fee and have clean records. The fees go up to $2,500 for immigrants who entered the country illegally and $1,000 for immigrants who entered the country legally but were not complying with federal immigration law, <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/06/nation/la-na-illegal-immigration-20110306" target="_hplink">according to the LA Times.</a> <strong>Status: </strong> Law went into effect on 03/15/2011 House: 59-15 (03/04/2011) Senate: 22-5 (03/04/2011)

• The Most Comprehensive: Florida HB-1C

  Florida's immigration law prohibits any restrictions on the enforcement of federal immigration law. It makes it unlawful for undocumented immigrants within the state to apply for work or work as an independent contractor. It forbids employers from hiring immigrants if they are aware of their illegal status and requires work applicants to go through the E-verify system in order to check their Social Security number. <strong>Status: </strong>effective since October 1st, 2010

• The Hot Seat: Alabama HB 56

  The new immigration law in Alabama is considered the toughest in the land, even harder than Arizona's SB 1070. It prohibits law enforcement officers from releasing an arrested person before his or her immigration status is determined. It does not allow undocumented immigrants to receive any state benefit, and prohibits them from enrolling in public colleges, applying for work or soliciting work in a public space. The law also prohibits landlords from renting property to undocumented immigrants, and employers from hiring them. It requires residents to prove they are citizens before they become eligible to vote. The law asked every school in the state to submit an annual report with the number of presumed undocumented students, but this part, along with others, were suspended by federal courts. <strong>Status:</strong> Approved June 2nd, 2011 House: 73-28 (04/05/2011) Senate: 23-11 (05/05/2011) <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/longislandwins/" target="_hplink">Flickr photo by longislandwins</a>

WATCH RELATED:

Comments

[nobodysgirl]

12:27 AM on 03/08/2012

It still amazes me that people who are in this country illegally want those who came here the correct way, to overlook their jumping in line, breaking the law, and basically, sneaking in. Countires have immigration quotas for reasons. Where are the natural resources to sustain the ever-burgeoning illegal populations? Like water? Land for more development and infrastructure? Why should someone be called a racist because they believe in upholding the laws of our nation?

Sorry, If you're here illegally, you should return to the country where you are legal. The author of this article very conveniently didn't differentiate between immigrants who are legal and illegal. That's the #1 method used to keep from answering the question: Are you here legally?

[Fred Bronson]

07:16 PM on 02/26/2012

if a city or state does not want illegal hispanics they should not be forced to let them in. once there they put a strain on the medicaid system, take jobs from American workers, and start poping out anchors faster then rabbits.
frederick bronson nc

[Picosa]

10:53 PM on 02/26/2012

Propaganda to smear migrants.

[Youdontgetit]

11:49 AM on 03/01/2012

you mean illegal immigrants, right?

[troothspeeks]

12:51 AM on 03/04/2012

Id like to see more surfer dudes in the fields picking fruit too. Too many hispanics are taking those jobs from the endless americans aspiring to hard labor for minimum wage. GET REAL!!!

[Fred Bronson]

07:58 AM on 03/04/2012

You may be paying cheap fruit prices, but the real cost is being picked up by us borrowing more and more money, to pay for those illegals free medical, their food stamps, and their having anchors. You may pay less right now but your children will see your laziness when they see their life's go to heck, and their country become a third world nation

[nasknit]

04:18 PM on 02/26/2012

Good for Fremont, Nebraska! Nebraska is on my list of states in which to spend my tourism dollars.

[luz2409]

03:39 PM on 02/25/2012

Mexico should ban Americans from owning property in Mexico because of this. Gringos are buying up all the prime property in Mexico for really cheap prices so they can have vacation homes while Mexican citizens can't even afford property in their own country. It's about time that Mexico stand up against Americans, who like to come to Mexico to vacation and play and then go back home and create racist laws against Mexicans. It's ridiculous. Plus we all know America wouldn't make it one day without the Mexican labor.

[spytheweb]

10:23 PM on 02/25/2012

You have not been to many countries outside the US have you? In the Philippines and Thailand anyone who is not a citizen of their country can not buy a house even if you have the cash to pay for it.

BTW, who the hell in their right mind who want to live in Mexico?

"racist laws against Mexicans" Mexicans have their own racist laws against black Mexicans. If you ever seen Mexican tv you'll never see anyone dark unless they are being made fun of. Blacks in Mexico are denied work and education. Most Mexicans consider themselves white, just check their arrest reports.

[nasknit]

03:46 PM on 02/26/2012

Checkout Mexican law! Americans can't buy beach front property, or other highly desirable property in Mexico. Get Real! Also, Mexico prohibits teaching in any language other than Spanish, So cry me a river! They also don't give Any social services to Americans who are in Mexico.

[ManwithaParachute]

05:23 PM on 02/26/2012

As an American who has worked in Mexico, went threw much more hassle getting into Mexico for work than my Mexican counterpart did to get into America. I assign no particular blame judgement on the difference but, it is evident of priority and focus. The Mexican government wants a piece of the action when I work there. However, the businesses which employ immigrant labor want no restriction on the human capital as they see labor as an issue of supply chain.

Illegal immigrants are just people trying to make a life by finding work and better pay. I take no personal issue with them as a group or individual. I do take issue with business owners and management who exploit them and deny jobs to Americans and legal immigrants when they hire someone who is not following the rules. Business owners and management is where the problem lies. Mexican society is the conservative ideology in practice.

[luz2409]

01:30 AM on 02/24/2012

People need to wake up and realize that this extreme anti-immigrant/anti-Latino sentiment does not just hurt undocumented people, it hurts the entire Latino population, legal and illegal. As a legal Latina, whose family was here long before half of Mexico became the U.S., it breaks my heart every day to hear the horrible, mean spirited things people say about Latinos. I try not to let it get to me but it does hurt and this sentiment is spreading throughout the country, making all Latinos feel alienated and super angry that we are called "aliens" in states like California and Arizona that used to part of Mexico. It's ridiculous and sad to see Americans scapegoating immigrants when it's their own fault if they can't find work.

[Tresmilanos]

02:59 AM on 02/24/2012

Luz'

Things like this make people like me stronger.

However, I am concerned about our Latin-American children and the effect this anti-Latino sentiment is having on them. I'm floating a class action suit that will seek damages from each entity that creates or contributes to a hostile environment for Hispanic-American children. This is actually MALDEF's reponsibility, but in my opinion--they are simply not answering the bell.

Stay focused and put pressure on MALDEF, LULAC and LA RAZA to take legal action.

[spytheweb]

10:29 PM on 02/25/2012

"this extreme anti-immigrant/anti-Latino sentiment does not just hurt undocumented people"

This extreme anti illegal alien pro obey the law sentiment was never meant to hurt illegal aliens just locate and deport them.

Every country in the world has laws to protect themselves against illegal aliens don't think this is something only America does. America is one of the weakest on enforcing the laws thou. But don't count on that always being so.

[noodles865]

03:11 AM on 02/23/2012

Why do we do anything for illegals I dont get it what reasons do these latino organisations give ?these people are breaking the law what is their justification for allowing them to influence these issues if these people were Muslims would these latino organisations get behind them as well or just for them and theirs. I am a democrat and dont understand this issue at all with liberals and what is funny is that so many latinos vote republican.I am with democrats on almost every single issue but this and its one I am worried about do I switched sides.

[Shantonu Basu]

01:15 PM on 02/23/2012

We do things for people because they are human beings. If you don't understand that, then so much the worse for you.

As for "these people" breaking the law, yes they broke the law. But the law was a mere technicality. No one, especially the big businesses that employ undocumented workers, was taking the law seriously. There was an implicit deal that was worked out: the undocumented worker crossed illegally and was exploited. In exchange for that, he or she got higher wages than would have been obtainable in his or her home country. American society got cheap labor, food, and housing (think of all of the construction jobs that hire undocumented workers).

Much of this was at the expense of the American working class, but that is another matter. Even an implicit deal is still a deal. So it's unfair to change it now--especially because to do so at this late stage would involve splitting up families and deporting people who have lived here peacefully for 10 years or more doing difficult and important jobs (especially in the agriculture).

You and I eat cheap food because of "these people," and we have been doing so for decades. Forget about the technicalities of U.S. Immigration law. It is morally wrong to now just treat "these people" they way you would a piece of old machinery you no longer find convenient to own.

[noodles865]

05:06 PM on 02/23/2012

I understand that but you view these illegals as wonderful helpful individuals who have been mistreated the the US,so now give them rights.They are not all these helpful wonderful people.I am not naive enough to think the majority are like that. they are also a drain on clinics and other free services to the poor who are citizens.I care about them I dont want to see anyone hurt,but your argument stops just short of opening borders to south Americans.I was drawn in by a story in sanfran a of policy of looking the other way and not turning illegals in,by the cops who arrest them,got people killed.a man who was a gang member who had been arrested many times one night pulled up to a car,shot a father and his three sons who were simply coming home from work no gang members,.the father and two sons were killed. they are not all like that I understand that but explain that to the wife.even if we said ok let them in most are uneducated and would be working poor and most of the kids will not end up college educated members of society.we have enough criminals of our own,again not all will be that way I get that.

[Marcus Anonymous]

10:17 PM on 02/23/2012

"There was an implicit deal that was worked out: the undocumented worker crossed illegally and was exploited. "

I didn't participate in that deal. There is a law and it is not a mere technicality. Nor should America's poor be charged with honoring a deal made at their expense.

Kick out the illegals (who knew they were breaking the law) and make big business pay America's poor higher wages.

But if you feel bad Shantonu Basu, send your own money to the illegals. Don't give away the wages of America's poor. Their wages are not yours to give away -- and giving away the wages of someone else would not make you a philanthropist!

[Vicky Valentine Proud]

02:59 AM on 02/23/2012

I noticed that the margins by which these laws were passed were strongly in favor of having these laws versus not. The states have to do what they can since our federal government will not, and sinces many state budgets cannot simply afford to support anymore illegal aliens. How dare the federal government now want to step in, in a time where it is rough here economically, and want to overturn or declare them unconstitutional. Last I looked the opening line of the US Constitution said (or still says): "We, the people of the UNITED STATES,..." I did not see an asterik anywhere that gives people who are here illegally any sort of rights here. The only right they have is to be returned safely home, wherever that may be.

[Shantonu Basu]

12:29 PM on 02/23/2012

You are simply mistaken about the law. The Bill of Rights applies to citizens as well as non-citizens and immigrants (even those here without authorization). Also the United States has signed several treaties, notably those on refugees, that grant fairly broad rights to non-citizens.

You need to let go of the analysis that leads you to conclude that "illegal=we can treat people badly." It's un-American and un-Christian. The Catholic Church and most mainline Christian groups have publically supported of immigrant rights. The Catholic position dates from 1986. The National Association of Evangelical Church's postion dates from 2005.

This issue is about human rights and transcends the technicalities of U.S. law.

[Vicky Valentine Proud]

12:42 AM on 02/24/2012

Where the church is concerned it is all about the masses, nothing more. And no one we have to treat them badly, they deserve to be retunred safely to their homeland and that is the only right they should be entitiled to. You need to look at the world carefully. How about those who are caught illegally into their countries, do they get the same sort of humane treatment? No, and there is no denying that. I can cite an example in those 3 people who had supposedly crossed illegally into Iran. Then, there is the story about the pastor who was caught in Iran, who refused to convert to Islam, and is now facing execution. So where are the 'human' rights in those cases? While every country has different laws on this issue, it still does not go without punishment of some sort. This country should be no different as we, too, are a country of laws. As far as being un-Christian, I think you may need to do a little more research on how people of different nations were treated and how they had to obey the laws as well. An example I can give you is of Abraham.

[nasknit]

04:01 PM on 02/26/2012

Please explain why every country in the world has the right to secure their borders, except the USA? Please explain EXACTLY how many illegal aliens do WE need to take in to assuage YOUR liberal guilt? 10 Million? 20 Million? 50 Million? 100 Million? 500 Million? 1,000 Million? (AKA One Billion)?.... Because all the Christian platitudes aside, WE cannot support the WORLD. IF every piece of American property was confiscated & sold, and the money given to Charity, IT would still NOT be enough. So, Get Real.

[auntiec72]

04:36 AM on 02/29/2012

Not to mention America is just trying to keep all the evil down there from coming up here which it does every day !!! We now have Mexican terrorist living in are home's next door and killing for whatever they want. Ruining our proud country.

[dispagi]

09:29 PM on 02/22/2012

The reason we have so many undocumented citizens is because immigration policy is woefully inadequate to address the reality of the situation. First we need a simple process to naturalize all people living in this country who want to be American citizens, make them pay a small fine if that's going to make everyone feel better, but we've got to end this second class society that's appeared. All parents of children who have already been deported should immediately be allowed to return and reunited with their kids. Then we should to stop making it so difficult for people to immigrate legally. We don't have to waste billions of dollars annually on a militarized border, we just need an immigration system that works.

[Marcus Anonymous]

11:48 PM on 02/22/2012

That works if the only purpose of an immigration system is to bring in as many people as the rest of the world doesn't need either. Why is that a good objective for American policy?

On the other hand, we don't have jobs for them. We have plenty of unemployed people who would like a job. If every illegal in the country left -- wages would go up and unemployment down. To me, that sounds like a good objective for American policy.

[dispagi]

07:16 AM on 02/23/2012

Most economist have concluded that undocumented immigrants have little to no impact on the unemployment rate. There is a small effect on jobs that are normally worked by legal immigrants though, but that is offset by the jobs they create by spending their money in businesses.

Or just look at the numbers. The real unemployment rate is thought to be 18%. Out of a population of 311 million that is about 56 million. The undocumented population is thought to be about 11 million. Many of those are unemployed and many of them are children or the elderly. So you're left with somewhere between 5 to 8 million laborers. Were all those people to leave it wouldn't even come close to solving the problem, but instead would drive down demand for goods and services, increasing unemployment.

[spytheweb]

10:46 PM on 02/25/2012

 "First we need a simple process to naturalize all people living in this country who want to be American citizens"

Where did this come from? One million legal immigrants is not enough? And at what number is it enough? 5 million, 10 million or 20 million a year? When you have capped a number how do you intend to enforce it.

We don't want all of the world's unskilled, uneducated, criminals, sick and welfare cases. Not everybody's going to make the cutoff, all who apply don't get accepted and should make a life in their country ran by people who they voted for. Our immigration system works in fact it works too well and i think we should cut back on it, one million is way too many.

[spytheweb]

05:31 PM on 02/22/2012

"hiring of unauthorized aliens."?

May 26, 2011

"The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that imposes harsh penalties on businesses that hire illegal immigrants."    

 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/us/27scotus.html

[nasknit]

04:05 PM on 02/26/2012

Good site-thanks!

[BlairCase]

05:20 PM on 02/22/2012

The judge did not reject the portion of the city ordinance that requires businesses to participate in the federal E-Verify Program, an online database that checks worker employment eligibility. Illegal immigration will continuye to decline as more states and cities pass laws requiring businesses to particpate in the E-Verify program.

[Klabb]

05:03 PM on 02/22/2012

The population was this tiny hamlet (pop. 26 thousand!) most have felt cheated when they realized their elevated officials wanted to waste taxpayers money to defend their paranoid ideals?

What would be the economic cost of implementing this scheme?

[nasknit]

04:09 PM on 02/26/2012

Well, how about you tell us what the economic cost is of providing "entitlements" to illegal aliens? Entitlements, like Education, health care, subsidized housing, Food stamps, WIC, ADC, or any of 70 federal entitlement programs? Where I live, education is going for $10,000 per year, PER child. With 13 years of school mandated, that comes out to a "whopping" $130,000 PER Child. Want to compare numbers?

[Karissa36]

04:48 PM on 02/22/2012

This is not much of a victory for illegal immigrants. The city will still be collecting data on the status of every occupant, and sharing that data with ICE.

[Youlielol]

03:31 PM on 02/22/2012

Let's see if I have this correct? If you cross the North Korean Border illegally you get 12 years hard labor. If you cross the Iranian Border illegally you are detained indefinitely. If you cross The Afgahan Border illegally, you get shot. If you cross The Saudi Arabian Border illegally you will be jailed. Cross the Chinese Border illegally you may never be heard of again. Cross the Venezuelan Border illegally you will be branded a spy and your fate will be sealed. Cross Cuban Border illegally you will be thrown into political prison to rot. If you cross the USA Border illegally you get a job, a drivers licesnse,social security card, welfare, food stamps, credit cards, subsidized rent or a loan to buy a house, free education, free health care, a lobbyist in Washington, Billions of dollars worth of public documents printed in your language, the right to carry your country's flag while you protest that you don't get enough respect and, in many instances, you can vote, and the thing: A FREE CELL PHONEWITH FREE MINUTES! It's time to WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

[Klabb]

04:30 PM on 02/22/2012

The time has come to follow in the footsteps of the great nations of North Korea, Iran (a late comer in this respect as they largely ignored its illegal immigrant population until recently, but now deporting about a quarter of a million annually), Saudi Arabia (currently building a fence to keep illegal immigrans at bay) China (who also largely leave its rather small population of illegal immigrants (about two million) alone, Venesuela (who as early as 1995 started deporting, but not detaining(?), its illegal population, and Cuba, is that what you are saying?

[spytheweb]

05:36 PM on 02/22/2012

Like these states the US still practices the death penalty, why not. How's N. Korea's Al Qaeda and Taliban problem?

[nasknit]

04:13 PM on 02/26/2012

Yes, And what do the so called enlightened nations say about illegal aliens & multiculturalism: Merkel in Germany says "It doesn't work", and France & UK's leaders chime in, "She's right!" An historic first, Something Germany, France, & England agree on! Illegal Alien, Go Home!

[Maggie K]

08:55 PM on 02/22/2012

Yes, what lovely examples of human rights and justice these countries are. Let us emulate them.

[Youlielol]

11:30 AM on 02/24/2012

Fear not Maggie K. Continue to keep those blinders on and you will never have a problem until....... it's too late!:)

[freedom1947]

03:16 PM on 02/22/2012

Life is just a female dog.

[Karissa36]

02:51 PM on 02/22/2012

"Overall, 75 percent of the ordinance goes into effect," he said.
"On the housing part or the ordinance," Kobach said, "the city wins on the first half of it and loses the second half.
"The city is allowed to require tenants to get an occupancy license, and the city is allowed to have tenants fill out a form in which they either swear that they are U.S. citizens, or if they are aliens indicate any number that authorizes the alien to be in the United States," he explained. "The city is then allowed to request the federal government to report whether the alien is lawfully or unlawfully in the United States," he continued.
"It's only the final step of the housing section that the judge said the city can't do, and that is revoke the occupancy license.
"Essentially, it appears the way that the judge is looking at it, then the federal government will have that information that an illegal alien is residing at such and such address, and it's up to the federal government to decide what to do, whether they want to come after them and deport them or not," he said."

Read more: http://fremonttribune.com/news/local/judge-issues-split-decision-on-fremont-s-illegal-immigrant-ordinance/article_63bc9234-5c07-11e1-ac0b-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz1n8rkbGZO