"The city of Lafayette acknowledges the importance of immigrants to the city economy and its cultural life" and that "Lafayette calls upon both the President of the United States and the Congress to pursue a course towards immigration reform that is realistic and comprehensive, that provides a path to citizenship, addresses the immigration backlog, unifies families, and provides a safe, legal and orderly avenue for migrant workers to enter the United States."Tuesday night Lafayette City Council passed the above statement, 5-2, with Councilors Bensman and Phillips opposing. Their reasons and other comments are found in this Camera article.
I support the sentiment that urges nation (federal-level) immigration reform. I don't know what "unifies families" implies, and I'll reserve skeptical judgement until I speak to the sponsors of the language.
Just for some context, check out the requirements for anyone wishing to move INTO Mexico and reside there. Other countries have similar expectations and requirements.
16 comments:
Dan,
The original resolution was to support a ban on Federal anti-immgration raids. The language was endorsed on 4/4/07 by the Latino Advisory Board. The council liasion and city liasion were present.
At the next LAB meeting, the minutes of the 4/4/07 meeting were not approved, not even considered. Then an employee of Project Yes supported by LAB asked the council to consider the original ban on ICE raids. So no one outside of that meeting knew about it or had seen the language. In fact, the draft minutes weren't posted until 5/14/07. Six weeks later?
Now normally I would not raise much of a fuss about this until I read the quote of the Project Yes employee that she viewed the revised draft as "appeasement". And no one at that LAB meeting thought to get legal advice on the original.
The original would, if passed, have invited a challenge that it violated SB 06-090. If so, Lafayette would have been ineligible to receive local government financial assistance through grants administered by the state's Department of Local Affairs until that resolution was revoked.
To my knowledge, at least three councilor members supported the original. Now passage of the revised resolution is going to invite new investigations of Lafayette and services provided to illegal immigrants. If these are successful, the city will face the same predicament.
So those who voted for the revised resolution may feel some level of satisfaction. But now they have put the city on a slippery slope that could in the end defund the departments that help the very groups the proponents thought they were supporting.
The challenges started yesterday. Pandor's Box has been opened.
The Lafayette News quoted someone saying the city might be "audited" to see if they are following immigration laws. Does this have to do with what was passed last year statewide about employers needing to verify citizenship of every employee?
I don't know much about it.
Audited may not be the right word.
There are required procedures to determine the validity of the recipient receiving city supplied services to residents. And requiring those entities that receive city assistance in doing the same.
More comments on this are in this article from the
Lafayette News yesterday...
Like I said, opening up Pandora's Box.
I'm going out to try that ***burger. Unfortunately it's in Louisville. Maybe I'll suggest revenue sharing.
Kerry,
Just to be clear, the resolution that council passed does not violate SB-090. Were you suggesting that it does? If so, please tell us how?
Also help me understand the "slippery slope" and "pandora's box" comments? What exactly are you talking about?
If anyone is interested here is a link to the full text of revised resolution: http://www.cityoflafayette.com/files/itemo051507.pdf.
Here's the link to SB 06-090.
I don't see a direct conflict with this language from Lafayette's proclamation; if anything the folks supporting illegal immigrants must feel the proclamation doesn't help at all.
SB 06-090 says you can't direct your local law enforcement guys to avoid or undermine federal immigration law, that's my understanding.
They were resolutions, not proclamations. And per the council handbook which the council adopted, public hearings are not allowed for either. The mayor overruled the council handbook.
You miss my point. The original resolution which was brought forward and endorsed by LAB would have brought SB 06-090 to bear if unchecked. Our city liaison and council liaison allowed that version to be presented on May 1. No one checked with the city attorney to request a research the ramifications before May 1 and even afterwards.
Fortunately some of us prevailed and there was the revision. But there are other state laws now which are now going to be brought to bear which have nothing to do with the approved resolution. These were stated by number at the public hearing. So a major confrontation was avoided this time. But another storm is on the horizon. I don't know if and how fast it will hit the city.
During my council remarks, I requested that the city attorney provide legal advice to our advisory boards regarding proposed proclamations or resolutions.
The other point you miss, Dan, is that several of the whereas clauses are also in serious error and extemely vague.
But here is an interesting question: is an official who is elected by voters who are U.S. citizens responsible for those residents who are here illegally which is a felony?
(If you haven't heard, the battle begins in Congress now and this felony issue is a major source of contention).
Kerry,
Thanks for the response but I'm still having trouble...
You said, "Fortunately some of us prevailed and there was the revision." Please help me understand what role you played in that revision.
Also you mention that other state laws will be brought to bear. What laws are you referring to? What do they say and how will they be brought to bear? Please describe the storm that you see coming.
Also just to clarify, LAB did not bring the resolution forward. An outside citizens group did.
David, were you OK with the way the original resolution was worded?
Dreamer,
No.
In fact, that was why I took the lead, got on the phone and helped draft the revised version. I felt the original draft had a real potential to act as a wedge issue that would solve nothing and divide our community.
It was my hope that the revised draft would find a broader consensus by focusing on the core issue of immigration reform and by pulling people in from both extremes.
When Kerry says there is a storm coming and that other laws will be brought to bear, I am very interested in what he means. Those are scary statements and I hope he'll explain.
OK, David. I'll try again.
Because the LAB minutes of 4/4 were not published, the council did not know that this was coming and what the language was until 5/1 when it was proposed and the LAB support mentioned. The LAB minutes of 4/4 which weren't published until 5/14 don't identify the outside "group" that proposed it. Project-Yes says it wasn't them. Who is it?
You attended that meeting so you knew.
Several council members independently deemed without consulting with each other that the original was unacceptable.
The revision as stated in the press was Ms. Aquilar and your work. I had no part in the revision and wanted no part in it. Ms. Aguilar's quote in DC that she viewed the revision as "appeasement" but better than nothing. Since you attended the LAB meetings, helped rewrite the original and presented it at the council meeting, your participation is quite clear. There is no record that the original endorsed by LAB under went any legal review.
As for what "storm" may be coming, there was public testimony and it has been covered in LN and DC. Contact the person who spoke since his name is in the council draft minutes now posted and he is front page DC today.
As library liasion a couple of years ago, the library board voted against internet filtering at the Library and protecting/preventing minors from accessing undesirable web sites. Councilor Cameron remembers this since she voted against the filtering as a member of the board. I alerted the council that this was going to come forward and queried the city attorney as to what the council options on this would be. I did not relate the board's position. So the council was prepared. That's how I defined the liasion role.
For the record, I did not vote against filtering. I didn't vote at all. I was a non-voting alternate to the board at the time.
I believed then and still believe now that the boards and commissions should make recommendations that they believe to be the best for their constituency or department.
It is the job of the city attorney to judge the legality of items in front of us and the City Council's job to vote based on the advice of the attorney and our personal beliefs in representing our constituents. And to adhere to our oath of office.
So is the answer: You don't know or will you just not say what type of storm is coming and what laws will be brought to bear?
The resolution was a presented by an outside citizens group. They told LAB they intended to ask council to put this on an agenda for debate. Nothing was a secret. You could have voted 'No' if you didn't want to discuss it.
I could not find a direct quote in the Daily Camera where Karla Aguilar called the revised resolution "appeasement." Could you provide a link?
David,
I wanted the original discussed. At the last council meeting, the chair wanted to go directly to the revision without addressing the original. I had to interrupt and request that the original be discussed as we had voted previously. The council decided 7-0 to consider the revision instead. You sat right next to me.
Again, who is the group that proposed the original? Why do the minutes avoid this?
The link:
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/may/14/local-city-mulls-immigration-statement/
As for the state laws, I told you who to call. He testified right in front of you. Watch Channel 8. Read the newspapers. Call him.
FYI - Anyone who cares to take this debate to the Daily Camera has a wide open invitation, as this is the topic of the current Virtual Editorial Board.
Post a Comment