For the record I created the logo.

Scott, it doesn't appear that you support local government action to fight illegal immigration. Are there any local steps you have heard about that you could support?

On the contrary, I support what works and can pass judicial scrutiny. If the court comes back and reaffirms the city's ordinance, then I think a discussion needs to occur in all communities on how to implement it.

As for the logo, I like it. Thanks.

Hi Scott,
Our City Attorney is reviewing that ordinance. If you will remember, I brought it up a couple of months ago, and although I know it is not perfect, I believe it is a step in the right direction. My grandparents and many other grandparents came from Ireland or Europe and they cam in the "front" door, and as you know, some were turned back to the native countries, because of health reason or some other reason, but the still came in the front door, and I expect no less from anyone else...

When our political leaders are prepared to begin arresting illegal EMPLOYERS we will quickly see the end of illegal immigration. The cost of making American employers pay for selling out their Country will be a lot cheaper than a 700 mile fence and another 50,000 border guards.

GS what is an employer to do? If you run a fast food company with all legal residents and your competitors do not you price yourself out of the market. There are few exceptions and this works across many industries. Employers are stuck because our national government refuses to do the basic role of government. Protect the borders!

The city doesn't employ illegal aliens, but do we know if they subcontract out services to companies that might? Are landscape workers that take care of things like traffic medians city workers or subcontracted out? With a few million illegal aliens in the state I think the city could check their own practices before they start shaking down us that rent out apartment complexes.

If they are city workers, could I get an estimate? I need landscape people that work cheap.

A lot of people try and say that the illegal immigrant problem is a federal government issue or the fault of nameless companies who hire them. But the truth is that many private citizens also hire them to do yardwork and home improvements. Many landlords profit of renting to illegal immigrants, often overcrowding their properties with far more people than should be occupying a property, which can be hazardous and unhealthy.

Correcting this issue has to involve the federal government, yet at the same time it must also involve the state government, local government, and even private citizens. Those that fight every attempt at addressing this issue typically have a hidden agenda. The reality is that many of them want an open borders policy, but they are unwilling to openly state their position. Instead they simply come up with every excuse possible against building fences, or putting restrictions on taxpayer services. But all of these are just excuses. If the problem is to be addressed a good place to start would be at the local level. Those that fight it are simply looking for excuses to hide their real motives.

I agree with Barbra that we should be exploring local ordinances to address some of these problems. The problem has grown too big for us to keep ignoring it. Among other things, this issue impacts education, housing, the environment, the criminal justice system, and healthcare. The success story of our democratic system is that the solution to many problems often start at the grassroots level in local communities. I see no reason why the illegal immigration issue is any different.

Hi Barbra--

I remember you brought it up and figured I'd post a follow-up on where other cities are on this. I do believe the city could pass an ordinance limiting contracting with companies that do business with illegal immigrants and that is a pretty tested ordinance at this point.

I know, for instance, Santa Clarita has a rule in place.

While Congressman Gallegly has focused on the banking industry, particularly Well Fargo, for offering accounts to illegals, I've been looking at check cashing places, which usually create the under-economy for illegal immigration to thrive.

I think the city could develop an ordinance or even go after check cashing and pay day loan places, that benefit from illegal immigration, to pay for it.

I was also interested in finding out where the league of cities is on these types of ordinances.

GS:

There is a great article on how companies are utilizing subcontractors to keep their involvement in illegal immigration in the dark to both consumer and employer. I'll find it and post a link.

Bubba--

I agree. If your going to rely on the federal government to do anything other than raise your taxes or build bridges to nowhere, this problem will continue.

The Federalist papers clearly outlined that it wanted states and localities to be laboratories for innovative new rules. Unfortunately, the federal government's preemption policies have undermined this process and sadly residents throughout the United States have suffered for too long.

I need to clarify something. It was Gallegly's article that provoked me to look at other financial arrangements a the local level. The way I wrote the above statement makes it sound like I worked with Gallegly and I don't want that impression to be given. Thanks.

ADAM SMYTH... it's only BECAUSE authorities haven't the will to enforce our laws that one employer can get away with hiring non-legals at a cheaper cost than the law-abiding competitor across the street, and thus compete unfairly. If Voters force authorities to start arresting illegal employers that problem dries up overnite.

I'm guessing that if Ventura County announced the arrest of 300 illegal employers on Friday evening our illegal employment problem and much of its accompanying problems would be gone by Monday morning.

I say we start arresting cities that subcontract out work if it is given to illegals. Do you think all city of Simi Valley contracts are carried out by citizens or legal immigrants?

I say we start arresting cities that subcontract out work if it is given to illegals. Do you think all city of Simi Valley contracts are carried out by citizens or legal immigrants?

I dont believe the City contracts work out to illegals but some of the firms they do contract out work to probably hire illegals from time to time. If caught, the employers should be penalized. In addition, municipalities should make a point to banning those contractors that are caught hiring workers illegally.

Check out this article. A town in Nevada is going fine someone who flies another country's flag.

GS:

You understand the subcontractor issue very well and how it shades things for both employer and consumer.

Question, Do you think a city could be sued if they decided not to give a contract to the lowest bidder who utilizes illegal immigrant labor in it's subconracts?

To me, if a firm is involved in activity that is illegal, they should not be able to file suits on low bid rules.

I'm also glad Barbra brought up her grandparents as I feel the same way. My great grandparents came here and worked menial jobs at the bottom.

While we talk about it in terms of economics let's not forget that wage depression in those starter jobs means, it's more difficult today to do what my great grandparents and her grandparents did.

I'm concerned about upward mobility.

Question: Is it really fair to people who come here legally to have their wages depressed by those who didn't? What about those that play by the rules for their American dreams to come true?

ANYONE can sue ANYONE for ANY reason. But that's a DIFFERENT problem. Municipalities have a lot more leeway than you think in adding conditions to their bidding processes. If a contractor made it clear he intended to break the law by hiring illegals I'm certain the city could deny his bid. Courts have already upheld municipalities' rights to demand minimum wages & other conditions from their contractors.

I think you guys are missing it. I am not saying the city hires illegals on purpose. They just don't want to know. Kind of like you don't ask your gardner for proof every guy mowing your lawn is here legal. In our economy with millions of illegals all of us employ or cause to be employeed illegal aliens.

The border is not secure because big business/Bush don't want it to be secure. If there is a law, but the government has no intention to enforce it and would rather prefer it to be broken, there is no law!

Therefore, illegals are actually legal.

George Bush could request that illegals leave, but he doesn't want them to. The government wants illegals. Therefore it doesn't matter what the law says it is what the law does.

Agreed! Authorities may look the other way (and they do!) but every citizen has it within his/her power to point and scream until those authorities come running. If you KNOW that a city contractor is hiring illegals write a letter to the newspaper and point it out. If you KNOW the fast food place across the street from yours is hiring illegals contact the authorites and raise a fuss. The squeaky wheel really DOES get the grease so make noise and get others to make noise with you.

People do know this is a problem and they are screaming about it, but the government has not been responsive because politicians would rather pander in order to attract the hispanic vote.

People are trying to take action themselves by volunteering to patrol the border, but the sypathizers and apologists brand them as racists in order to silence their voice.

People in their communities are trying to rise up by passing local ordinances that crack down on hiring or renting to illegal immigrants, but the activists use the court system to stop any grassroots movement. They try to explain it all away as being a Federal issue, when the real agenda is a desire for open borders.

It was Californians who took the lead in the country to do something about this problem back in 1994 when voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 187. A single Federal Judge issued a temporary restraining to block implementation of the law. The issue was winding its way through the appeals process when newly elected Governor Gray Davis, who opposed the law, directed the State to drop all appeals, which effectively killed the law without ever having its day in court.

The passage of Prop 187 should have been a watershed moment in history when we finally began to take action on this issue. Instead democracy and the will of the people was cast aside, and what we are left with is a growing problem with ordinary citizens being trampled on every time they try to do something about it. And now the illigal immigrant sypathizers and revisionist historians paint Prop 187 as a "racist" initiative.

People have been trying to do something about this for a long time. This isn't about the squeaky wheel getting the grease, it's about the squeaky wheel getting kicked every time it makes noise.

Bubba,
You are correct. I've had several conversations with elected officials, and they don't want to disturb the status quo. As of this moment, there are no elected official(state or Federal) that want to take the bull by the horns and say ENOUGH si ENOUGH, so we continue to stew in this mess.. I believe in my heart of hearts, that local jurisdictions want answers, but city attorneys are afraid of the consequences if they overstep their bounds. It is my belief that until we get local elected to push the envelope we will not make any headway. I am of the belief that if local elected push that envelope, maybe we can embarrass state and federal of get off their hands and do something.

Maybe the city council woman should draft a ballot proposition and see what the voters think. How many signatures are required and what is the process?

Bubba:

I'm happy you outlined the lost opportunities on this issue and your frustration as I believe it reflects the silent majority in this country upset with the status quo. I believe it is important to view this in context of the critical failures that have given rise to what I think is worsening crisis.

I say a local ballot proposition is too premature. To accomplish something locally we need buy-in from many parts and to educate the public. We should allow Barbra, the rest of the local electeds, and staff to start coming up with some solutions to offer the public.

If nothing is accomplished, then and only then should we consider other options. I believe we have very strong leadership in this community, so solutions will most likely be forthcoming.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN STRONG LOCAL LEADERSHIP? EVERYTHING OUR COUNCIL DOES HAS BEEN DONE ELSEWHERE. WE ARE NEVER ON THE CUTTING EDGE OF SOLUTIONS!

I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING THAT LOCAL LEADERS HAVE DONE TO HELP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SINCE THE LAST ROUND OF AMNESTY UNDER THEIR DEITY RONALD "ILLEGAL ALIENS" REAGAN.

NOTHING.

MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST CONTINUE TO WAIT.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote and take a deep breath. Here's the deal, local government's job is to serve the people not the federal government.

Maybe you should get involved and offer some innovative solutions before you start throwing stones.

Elected officials pay attention when the public gets in their FACE...
The best place I know to do that is at a City Council Meeting under Public comments. It will take time, energy, persistence and lots of people who are at their wits end and want to see a change and/or reform. This isn't going to get done with chit-chat on a blog people. Get out and be HEARD! If you want to be heard, you must speak..LOUD and CLEAR to your local represenatives in front of television cameras where all can see and hear the voices of many. Write letters to the Editors, talk with your neighbors. If you want change, get off your backside and so something instead of just talking about it. Illegal immigration is here to stay unless you demand we put a stop to it.

Why can't we communicate with our elected officials while staying at home? It seems like an elaborate kowtow ritual under their rules.

Barbra,

You're right, it's not going to be solved on a blog "chit-chatting", but I still wouldn't discount the fact that people are interested in this topic.

The blog was used pretty effectively to talk up or down candidates, why can't we use it to talk about local issues as well?

This is just the beginning of the process. You said yourself that the above ordinance was under review with the city attorney. I look forward to seeing the result of that...

It is going to take persistence and this blog discussion is part of that.

By the way, Happy Thanksgiving if I don't say it later this week.

Scott

I work nights so I cannot come to meetings. It is sad that our representatives expect us to come to their meeting. What other ways can we express our opinions that "counts" for them? Maybe they should read blogs and newspapers about local issues.

With that being said I am confused. Are undocumented people a new problem or a problem at all in Simi Valley? How come the sudden fuss? Is it a recent fad that will go the way of term limits, flag burning, Ross Perot, Bo Gritz, and that lady from Wendy's that asks " Where's the beef?"

Let me know where the "beef" is that causes this to be a local problem.

Maybe we could issue licenses to the workers so that they could get to work safely.

Good Morning Bild:

I'm not totally sure this is a fad as the issue is really melting over into all levels of government. Of course, it could very well be.

The source of the topic had to do with the city of Escondido passing these rental restrictions that are now being challenged in court.

Simi Valley, as many community's do, has a housing overcrowding challenge as this was brought up before on this blog.

This discussion was more of a revisit of that previous topic.

Here's the question: should individuals who have broken federal immigration law be treated the same in rental housing situations as regular citizens?

With apartments rents continuing to rise due to demand, should immigration status be used to make sure those that follow the law get first opportunity at rental units?

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Hmmm, I can see people are frustrated with illegal immgration, but to think about an ordinance that denies housing to illegal immigrants, that would create at best segregation or even homelessness seems a little too harsh to me. In fact it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

I think fair housing laws should apply to all and but I think that cities should be able to create ordinances that make sense to their communities without federal intervention as long as it does deny basic human rights. These rights include Health Care, Housing and a decent Education.

Instead of solving problems, we tend to create more problems from ordinances like these. It is in the same vein of denying health care or education to children and their families because people think it will save a buck or two. This thinking perpetuates the suffering of families.

As for passing judicial scrutiny I don't think it will pass muster.

Here's the question that I think Scott would be interested in hearing: should individuals who have broken federal immigration law be treated the same in rental housing situations as regular citizens?

Yes I think all should be treated the same because once we take away the rights of any individual, we are asking for trouble for all individuals. This is a basic question involving human and civil rights.

With apartments rents continuing to rise due to demand, should immigration status be used to make sure those that follow the law get first opportunity at rental units?

No we are talking about the potential for discrimination and even segregation. No what we need is more affordable housing in the area. Not just more Senior Centers which everybody seems to agree is a great idea. But more affordable family and single dwelling studios in the area.

Although I do not think this is situation is a fad. I do believe the question of immigration comes in generational cycles. Whether it is about Legal or Illegal immigration when times get bad it seems that attention is always diverted to the status of immigration.

What can I expect next mass deportations and seperation of families. I would have thought this would have ended in my grand father's time. Yes in the 1920's and 1930's there were mass deportations in Southern California of Mexican and Mexican-Americans.

Barbara you said something funny about your grandparents coming through the front door. My Great-Great-Great grandfather was in California in 1834, so he must have been a greeter at the front door.

I am thinking of that line in the movie "Bobby". "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us". Well My Great Great Grandfather was made American citizen by the Act of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. So in a sense he wasn't an immigrant but a migrant.

Talking about economics that is the reason many illegal immigrants come here. They seek a better life for themselves and their children. Like your grandparents Scott they are hardworking and courageous and seeking a better life.

Before anyone says I am for illegal immigration, I think the Federal Government has an obligation to secure our borders. When I served in the U.S. Army I participated in Operation Ground Hog a joint U.S. Army-U.S. Border Patrol Operation in 1987. I had an opportunity to look first hand to look at the immigration problem. While at Fort Huachuca, Arizona I also supported Operation Hawkeye and Joint Task Force Six, both were border operations.

Thanks again Scott and Brian for this forum.

I am also including a story about mass deportations in the 1930's. click on my name to see the article.

Sincerely,
Tim Camarillo

Should illegal immigrants that were raised, but not born here, pay in state tuition?

I think if you have graduated from a California High School or have resided in California for at least three years you should be eligible to pay in state tuition, that goes for all public schools from the Community College System to the University of California.

However if you graduated or resided in California and decide to for example to go to a public college in Nevada or New York you should pay out of state tuition.

It makes sense to me that you would encourage all immigrants legal or illegal to seek an education, that this investment in education would help build an educated flexible workforce and promote responsible citizenry in your community.

I also included an interesting article that was posted on CNN. Click on my name to read article.

Sincerely,
Tim Camarillo

Sorry but I don't agree with the philosophy that as long as no one's doing anything about your illegal presence, you automatically have some inalienable right to the same entitlements as law abiding citizens. Simple ease of entry to the USA is no excuse for a failed immigration policy.

This nation is unable to take care of its own and it should not be poking more holes in the entitlements system until EVERY American is covered with basic health care, minimal food & housing and a first class educational opportunity. When the US can do that then we can start thinking of extending entitlements to those who are here illegally.

Listen to yourself GS, and then tell me why is it that we do not have basic health care, minimal food and housing or even a first class educational system for all Americans. Please don't say it's all the immigrants fault because that would be scapegoating.

The issue about immigrants has been one of placing blame on others when times are bad. Much progress has been made and yet 80 years ago in Simi Valley and much of Ventura County. We had segregation, seperate schools and PTA's for Mexican Americans. We had mass deportations of Mexican and Mexican-Americans in Southern California. We had the Ku Klux Klan that was very active in Santa Paula.

The U.S. legislature subsequently addressed the issue through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Sec. 201. which states: (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Let me repeat this!

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Sec. 201. states: (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

As for inalienable rights are you telling me GS that only U.S. Citizens are entitled are entitled to these inalienable rights. Is this what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that we create a social and caste system of us vs. them. I don't think so.

I think we would want to include any immigrant into the mainstream and not create a society of segregation or homelessness.

Oh yes GS how simple it is to come to the United States over the Border. Maybe those Canadians, Chinese, Indians who overstayed their VISA's. Maybe the poor guy who travels over the border with a gallon or two of water who crosses the Sonoran Desert. Maybe the middle class Mexican who can pay a coyote to help him cross the border. All these immigrants have the guts and determination and dream to make it in America. And yet some have died in the hot desert of Arizona or off the shores of Florida trying to pursue the American Dream.

Is it to practice religious, political, or economic freedom. Is it a dream that their children have decent health care, a good education a decent roof over their heads. Is it to seek these inalienable rights you think only to U.S. Citizens should have.
Think we all share and seek a better life for ourselves and our families.

The Constituition states "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Sincerely,
Tim Camarillo

Para 1: Never said our inability to provide those entitlements is due to illegal immigration or legall immigration, as you are suggesting.

Para 2: I have NO problem with immigration...only with illegal immigrants getting in line ahead of those that do it legally.

Para 3-5: The Civil Rights Act does NOT extend those accomodations to those who are here illegally. The Courts have consistently made clear that border security trumps civil rights. If Customs can do it to a returning US citizens it can certainly do it to someone who's enetered this country illegally.

Para 6: We're not talking about "immigrants", are we? We're talking about illegal immigrants.

Para 7: Its a tragedy that the US's AND Mexico's failure to solve the illegal immigrant problem has led to such deaths.

Para 8: Everyone, everywhere has a dream for a better future but while it makes for good copy on a greeting card it's no basis for rational policy.
This nation could do a hell of a lot better for its neighbors by exporting those dreams, making it MORE attractive to stay home and work for their country's future rather than flee to a USA that's under so much political, economic and social stress of its own that it may well implode within the next generation.

Legal immigration's done well for this country but we have little experience with the massive waves of illegal immigration that's becoming more and more of a devisive factor in America. Until we have a plan to deal with it (and making excuses why we shouldnt or cant deal with it IS NOT a plan) America's heading for big problems.

OK GS let's look at what you wrote and I will try to rebut.

For Para 1:

"This nation is unable to take care of its own and it should not be poking more holes in the entitlements system until EVERY American is covered with basic health care, minimal food & housing and a first class educational opportunity. When the US can do that then we can start thinking of extending entitlements to those who are here illegally."

Then you wrote that "Never said our inability to provide those entitlements is due to illegal immigration or legall immigration, as you are suggesting".

Para 2: This what I wrote:

The issue about immigrants has been one of placing blame on others when times are bad. Much progress has been made and yet 80 years ago in Simi Valley and much of Ventura County. We had segregation, seperate schools and PTA's for Mexican Americans. We had mass deportations of Mexican and Mexican-Americans in Southern California. We had the Ku Klux Klan that was very active in Santa Paula.

If you know history then you know that this was mixture of legal and illegal immigrants that were segregated and deported from Southern California. The argument you make was the same argument that was used in the 1920's and 1930's. What was said was "let no white man be unemployed and do not hire Mexicans".

For Para 3-5
this is what you wrote "The Civil Rights Act does NOT extend those accomodations to those who are here illegally. The Courts have consistently made clear that border security trumps civil rights.

I believe the Civil Rights act extends to all who live in the United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Sec. 201. states: (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

So if I hear you correctly our individual liberties and rights should be placed behind Border Security. Now once we lose our civil rights, how will we ever regain them.

Para 6:
We're not talking about "immigrants", are we? We're talking about illegal immigrants.

I think we are talking about human beings plain and simple. Whether their status is legal or illegal they are still immigrants.

Para 7:
I agree it is a tragedy and it's even more tragic to see it in person. This question about illegal immigration has been going since 1905 when their was a plan to squash illegal Chinese immigration.

Para 8 you wrote

Everyone, everywhere has a dream for a better future but while it makes for good copy on a greeting card it's no basis for rational policy.

So I geuss no ""Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..."

you wrote:

This nation could do a hell of a lot better for its neighbors by exporting those dreams, making it MORE attractive to stay home and work for their country's future rather than flee to a USA that's under so much political, economic and social stress of its own that it may well implode within the next generation.

I geuss those who want a better opportunity and life should stay at home.

I also geuss by exporting those dreams to places like Iraq. They are ready for democratic ideals without killing each other in a civil war.

Also in the 1980's we had massive illegal immigrants from El Salvador just because they were fleeing death squads and political persecution. Also we had massive immigrants from Nicaragua fleeing the war. Boy we sure did export democracy to these nations but at a cost.

The plain fact is there are just some areas of the world that are not ready for democracy.

You wrote:

Legal immigration's done well for this country but we have little experience with the massive waves of illegal immigration that's becoming more and more of a devisive factor in America. Until we have a plan to deal with it (and making excuses why we shouldnt or cant deal with it IS NOT a plan) America's heading for big problems.

Yet in the 1920's and 1930's we had massive immigration from Mexico because of the Mexican Revolution and yet the solution then was mass deportations that resulted in familes being seperated even if they had been American citizens they were still considered to be Mexican.

I see only two plans that can be accomplished at this time.

Either assimulate illegal immigrants, make better citizens and shut off the border completely.

or deport all illegal immigrants whether or not if they are Mexicans, Canadians, English, Chinese or Indians and completly shut off the border.

There are two other things that bother me.

One is that big corporations like Halliburton will make a fortune building fences or using high technology to build these physical and electronic barriers.

The other is a 2nd Mexican Revolution that could take place in Mexico within the next 10 years. This would totally flood the United States with Immigrants and create big problems.

Thanks GS for your thoughts and ideas. I know we don't agree, but at least we have an open dialogue.

My last thoughts are I really think the Federal Government has a responsibilty to solve this problem. Immigration is a Federal problem and if you pass the buck to local government you tend to create more problems of segregation, due process and homelessness.

GS you have the last say and rebuttal.

Sincerely,
Tim Camarillo

The Dialogue is everything! enopugh of it can solve the World's problems and its cheaper than solar power.

We've been moving away from a discussion of entitlements & expectations of citizens and legal residents, towards a more global discussion of immigration. That's fine. It's a dialogue that most Americans only participate in when they need to blame someone for something that's out of their control.

The following is a letter that appeared in THE STAR a while ago and although my participation in the campaigning side tracked the issue, a number of people had started networking on such a proposal. I agree that there's a workable policy somewhere in the proposal. Let me know what your think.

"When it comes to solving the problems of Immigration, our leaders are at a loss of what to do. They thrive on simple, black & white issues, win-lose situations that are easy to sell to voters but that divide America. Even though most Americans sense that the immigration problem can have a win-win solution they also know that they can't look to these leaders for an answer. They fear that the punishment-based solutions coming out of Congress will only cause more problems for future Americans.

Though I'll bet there are many, here�s one possible win-win solution. Start by making all undocumented aliens register for a public works labor pool. Those that don't (and I'll bet they'll be few) would be subject to immediate deportation and forever lose any chance to reside in the U.S. legally. The public service sector, ie, hospitals, schools, municipalities and other institutions that provide a tangible public good, would have priority on hiring from this labor pool. Only after those public works jobs are filled can private industry access the pool. At the end of their three year enrollment, workers would have the option of applying for permanent residency in the U.S. but to receive it they would have to pass a comprehensive English & Civics exam. If not they would need to return to their home countries but would have priority on applying for residency at a future date.

Enrollment in such a program would give these workers a path to residency and help accelerate their absorption into the American community. It could provide the Nation with a burst of resources and energy that hasn't been seen since the great public works projects of the 1930s. Our Nation�s deteriorating infrastructure could be upgraded, with new hospitals & schools, rails & bridges. Threatened cities, like New Orleans, San Francisco and others could be retrofitted more easily with such labor resources. Along with a mini-Marshall Plan for Mexico, that would make working there more attractive than seeking work here, a win-win solution could make a stronger and more secure Western Hemisphere. While we're at it, let's add an option that would give American teens a fast track into this public works program, as a way for them to enter the job market and gain new skills. And let's encourage the Nation's underemployed workers to bring their skills and experience to help manage and run the program.

But wouldn't we simply be creating another government spending program? No, we'd be creating an national investment program. A few decades ago America dropped the term "investment" in favor of the word "spending". We've done it with our Schools, with our Parks and with our Jobs, and look at the results. Somehow we've convinced ourselves that any cost is wasteful, even the cost of maintaining a strong and healthy Future. Yet the inescapable fact is that if America doesn't invest Americans will see no returns. So too with Immigration.

When our leaders thought big and painted with a wide brush, our Nation leaped ahead of all others. Now they think small and focus narrowly on the tip of their pens and America stumbles. By thinking big we can turn Immigration and all of our problems into win-win solutions. Think about it."

Good Morning:

I've been trying to follow the dialogue and I agree that it's important. I'm more interested in a discussion of local response, but see there is more to this issue than just a local response.

I was intrigued with the use of the Civil Rights Act and am interested Tim in whether you have any back-up legislative or otherwise that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was focused on illegal immigrants?

Second, Tim, if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the basis of the argument, is it then illegal for border patrol to stop illegal immigrants as this would be a search and seizure violation or illegal to deny illegal immigrants from voting?

I don't agree that the Civil Rights Act applies in the way you are using it, but concede you may have back-up I'm not aware of.

GS: In terms of fair housing law, how would you propose the city treat issues where illegal immigrant parents have children who are US citizens?

While illegal immigrant parents can be denied housing, what about their US citizen children? Would these US children be denied fair housing opportunities?

All legal residents, including the citizen children of illegal immigrants, deserve ALL the protections and entitlements available, including those contained in our housing laws. I also believe the illegal immigrant parents of US citizens deserve a special status when being treated by the INS & Justice systems; I just am not certain how such consideration would work.

Hi Scott the reason I think we are talking Federal Law is because it supercedes State then local laws. So in a sense in order to talk about local ordinance you really have to look at the big picture.

I am still researching the civil rights angle but this what i know for sure. Basic Constitutional rights, such as the rights of free speech, freedom of religion, due process, etc. are rights guarenteed to every person within the jurisdiction of the Constition.

The Supreme Court has said this on numerous occasions and it is a well established and largely uncontroversial cornerstone of constitutional laws. See, for example, Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886); Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976); and Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

There are also basic statutory rights that immigrants have. For example if an employer pays an employee below minimum wage, or violates other labor laws, that illegal alien has the right to sue and collect damages. The very practical problem, of course, is that even though they could win the suit, the law becomes aware of their illegal status and they can be deported and fined. It is for this reason that most illegal aliens do not assert their civil rights. Similarly illegal aliens have a right to attend public schools where they are residents.

As for search and seizure and voting, both are covered under U.S. Codes. I think that these Federal Codes supercede the Civil Rights Act. Here are the U.S. Codes:

Section 1325 [of Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII]. [U.S. Code as of: 01/06/03] Established 1929
Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed.

Voting is covered by

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 29 > 611

611. Voting by aliens

How Current is This?

(a) It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, unless
(1) the election is held partly for some other purpose;
(2) aliens are authorized to vote for such other purpose under a State constitution or statute or a local ordinance; and
(3) voting for such other purpose is conducted independently of voting for a candidate for such Federal offices, in such a manner that an alien has the opportunity to vote for such other purpose, but not an opportunity to vote for a candidate for any one or more of such Federal offices.
(b) Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(c) Subsection (a) does not apply to an alien if
(1) each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization);
(2) the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16; and
(3) the alien reasonably believed at the time of voting in violation of such subsection that he or she was a citizen of the United States.

I am not sure about this law becuase it implies that illegal and legal aliens are ineligible to vote for Federal offices, but does not state whether it is illegal to vote for State or local offices. Maybe that's different can of worms.

Anyway thank you for the questions Scott, and thank you GS for the dialogue

Sincerely,
Tim Camarillo

Tim:

While I understand that federal law preempts local law in a lot of ways and this is an important prism to look through when dealing with a local response, I do not think local officials should be put in a position to watch the federal paint dry so to speak, especially when dealing with the needs of their own community. Otherwise, why have local government?

I think under public nuisance law, a city should be able to regulate public nuisances under "police power", which was specifically given to states and localities. I believe a city should be able to have the latitude to experiment with new means of dealing with local issues in this case ensuring legal residents have supply to housing, which is in dire supply in this state.

I know this may invite many "what if's" scenarios, but in the case of Escondido, I am anxiously waiting to see how the case comes out.

Hi Scott

I think we will wait and see about Escondido. I believe organizations like the ACLU and MALDEF are arguing over the Civil Rights of the landlords and tenants.

I guess for localities it becomes a question of Civil Rights Vs. Public Nuisance laws. The implications go far from illegal aliens to that of the homeless.

If localities pass laws like these they only pass the buck to other localities, instead of facing the problem ourselves we create problems for others. These ordinances are a quick fix with no long term planning or solving. What we create is a world of segregation between the haves and have nots. I think one man's public nuisance is another man's misery.

I think the job of local officials is to provide services for the better good of the Community and not to deny one's Constitutional or Civil Rights.

As a side note with the Election of Peter Foy, we will see if he makes good of his promises of denying services to illegal aliens while trying to save money for the County.

If this is so, I think there will be fear and mistrust in the Hispanic Community not seen in this County since the 1850's after the end of the Mexican-American War. You will probably see the organization and rise of the League of Latin American Citizens and other Civil Rights organizations in Simi Valley.

I fear that Simi Valley will not be remembered for it's sense of Community, but as a city of extremism. That it will only be remembered as a city that will deny human and civil rights, and for igniting the Los Angeles Riots of 1992.

Thanks again Scott for the dialogue.

Sincerely,
Tim Camarillo

I don't expect Peter Foy will get much changed as far as immigration goes. He will be fighting a majority that has never expressed interest in such ideas. If he makes this the hill he dies on, every other issue important to Simi Valley will be neglected.

His first task will be to make a to do list and choose what goes at the top. Will it be term limits, illegal aliens, or community interest in the Knolls and Somis? Any way he does it he will become a politician in every sense of the word.

In four years expect him to come back with vague bragging points like "opened the books" or "fought for public safety" but not " created term limits" or " banned optional services for illegal aliens".

Forgot the guy you think you knew. Politics will change Foy just as it does to almost everybody.

Are local law enforcement officers allowed to ask about a person's legal status? I haven't thought out all the reprecussions but I am curious what the current policy defines.

Brian:

Are you talking about police randomly verifying people's legal status or those detained because of criminal activity?

Brian:

To get back to your question with mroe depth. It appears deputies in Orange County are being trained to identify illegal immigrants and prepare for deportation. I left the link. It appears LA county has this program and has deported 6,000 people.

I wonder how many beds that opened up, so we don't have to early release property criminals who escalate into larger crimes because we aren't keeping them off the streets long enough?

In the course of a typical encounter liek a traffic stop or an investigation. Does anyone know the policy for local police? I know about LA from Jon and Ken @ KFI-640AM

Brian:

I believe Ventura County works with imigration to deport illegal immigrants here as well, but welcome someone with more expertise than me. I'll check on that question.

The other side to that coin is how a department treats witnesses.

Let's say an illegal immigrant witnesses a murder of an American citizen and has the first hand account, but because of the potential of being deported, they don't come forward.

Meanwhile, a murderer is still on the streets because the law was written in a very broad way.

I think any rule such as this one needs to be written very specifically to increase public safety.