Home (Post) Mobile Authors Say Anything Register Login

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

How to Reverse the Invasion of Illegals

By MICHAEL RUBINKAM

Hispanics Flee Pa. Town Before Crackdown

Elvis Soto’s variety store used to make money. But few customers have been walking through his door lately, and his merchandise _ calling cards, cell phones, car stereos, clothing _ is collecting dust on the shelves.

With bills mounting, Soto might have to take another job to stay afloat financially, and may even close the store.

On Wednesday, a tough, first-of-its-kind law targeting illegal immigrants goes into effect in this small hillside city in northeastern Pennsylvania. But the evidence suggests many Hispanics _ illegal or otherwise _ have already left.

That, in turn, has hobbled the city’s Hispanic business district, where some shops have closed and others are struggling to stay open.

“Before, it was a nice place,” said Soto, 27, who came to the United States from the Dominican Republic a decade ago. “Now, we have a war against us. I am legal but I feel the pressure also.”

The ordinance, approved by City Council in September, imposes fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and denies business permits to companies that give them jobs. The law empowers the city to investigate written complaints about a person’s immigration status, using a federal database.

Mayor Lou Barletta, chief proponent of the new law, contends illegal immigrants have brought drugs, crime and gangs, overwhelming police and municipal budgets. He announced the crackdown in June, a month after two illegal immigrants from the Dominican Republic were charged in a fatal shooting.

[...]

Opponents sued on Monday to block the law and a companion measure, saying they trample on the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration.

“These ordinances are nothing more than an officially sanctioned witch hunt,” said Cesar Perales, president of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, a group representing plaintiffs in the case. They include the Hazleton Hispanic Business Association, several illegal immigrants, landlords and a restaurateur.

The mayor said he would fight all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, saying the ordinance is “as bulletproof as we can get it.”

Hispanics began settling in large numbers in Hazleton several years ago, lured from New York, Philadelphia and other cities by cheap housing, low crime and the availability of work in nearby factories and farms. The city, situated 80 miles from Philadelphia, estimates its population has increased from 23,000 to 31,000 over the past six years, with Hispanics now representing 30 percent of the population.

No one knows how many of the new arrivals came to the United States illegally, but assimilating such a large number of people, many of whom speak little English, in such a short amount of time has been difficult.

Many white residents resent the newcomers, complaining about rising crime and overburdened schools. Tensions have flared over relatively minor annoyances such as loud music and double parking.

“You don’t like the big-city stuff coming here,” said insurance agent Vincent Santopoli, 49, a lifelong resident. “We’re not used to it.”

Barletta, who has risen from political obscurity to become a darling of anti-illegal immigration activists nationwide, said he sympathizes with struggling Hispanic business owners. But he said the fact their revenues are down is proof the city had a problem with illegal immigration.

“I’ve said from the beginning my goal was to make Hazleton one of the toughest cities in America for illegal aliens,” he said. “Today, if I was an illegal alien, I certainly wouldn’t pick Hazleton as my home.”

Police Chief Bob Ferdinand said his officers appear to be responding to fewer calls. But on Oct. 20, a legal immigrant from the Dominican Republic was accused of shooting and killing two Hispanic men, one in the country illegally.

Todd Betterly, 37, who was awakened by the gunshots, said the killings are proof the crackdown is necessary.

“There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to find out who belongs here and who doesn’t,” he said. “If we could have stopped one murder by knowing where these people are, isn’t it worth it?”

A second ordinance going into effect Wednesday requires tenants to register their name, address and phone number at City Hall and pay $10 for a rental permit. Landlords who fail to make sure their tenants are registered can be fined $1,000, plus a penalty of $250 per tenant per day. The goal is to discourage illegal immigrants from even trying to rent in Hazleton.

A 32-year-old Mexican who slipped into the United States nine years ago to find work said he has no intention of registering.

“What is the mayor gaining by this law? I’m not a drug trafficker, I don’t run around in gangs. I do my job and I go home to my family,” said the married father of two, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of his immigration status.

Pennsylvania native Kim Lopez and her husband, Rudy, a Mexican immigrant, closed their grocery store Oct. 1 after business tailed off dramatically over the summer. They lost more than $10,000 _ their life savings.

“Everyone was running scared and left town,” said Lopez, 39. “We had customers who came in who were legal citizens and they didn’t want the harassment and hassle and told us they were leaving.”

Read the whole thing.

It won’t be easy, but what we have here is a blueprint for what needs to be done nationwide.  The longer we wait to act, the tougher it will be, but that’s no reason to hesitate.  We have this example of what to do about illegal immigration, now it’s up to us to do it.

Comments

Avatar for gregdn

I wish local and state governments didn’t have to do the Fed’s job, but it’s a sad fact of life nowadays.

gregdn on November 1, 2006 at 03:52 am

Gregdn:

I wish local and state governments didn’t have to do the Fed’s job, but it’s a sad fact of life nowadays.

There is some difference of opinion here. Some of us see the role of state and local to be complimentary to the federal government. To me, it’s not surprising at all that the state & local government can generally do a better job of enforcement than the feds.

Carrick on November 1, 2006 at 04:18 am
Avatar for gregdn

Carrick:
I didn’t mean to imply that it’s wrong or illegal for them to enforce immigration policies.  It bugs me that they have to do it.

gregdn on November 1, 2006 at 06:15 am

I’m glad I ain’t a Mexican.


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on November 1, 2006 at 07:24 am

Sparkie: I’m sure you meant “a Mexican who is here illegally”, right?  You are smart enough to know the difference, aren’t you?

Frankly, I think it is the job of every real American to oppose this invasion of illegals.  I have never thought that restricting local and State law enforcement made any sense at all in this matter.  We all have a stake in stopping illegal immigration.  Why wait for the Feds to act?  Isn’t that the real reason for the Katrina “debacle”?  The locals refused to act, telling the populace that the Feds would save them, and then blamed the President for the failure of the approach of the local authorities.


If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

robert108 on November 1, 2006 at 08:21 am

Gregdn, I understood that.

My point is that state & local governments typically work better for this type of function than the federal government does.  It’s not due to incompetence that the federal government can’t do better, it’s intrinsic to the problem of centralized decision making that it can’t do better.

Carrick on November 1, 2006 at 08:23 am

Sparkie: I’m sure you meant “a Mexican who is here illegally”, right?

I meant ‘a Mexican’ robert108. It obviously sucks down there… The legal ones up here are discriminated against because of jerkoffs who think that anyone who speaks spanish isn’t an American - they are threatened by it… most of whom can’t even speak proper english.


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on November 1, 2006 at 08:28 am

That may be your own personal fantasy, but it’s not what the article said.  I know you make up things when they aren’t actually there, but your anti-Mexican bias is showing.  I live in an “impact area” of illegal immigration, and can tell you what you wrote is untrue.
If there were any discrimination against Americans of Mexican descent or against legal Mexican immigrants, it would be understandably due to the behavior of the illegals.  You seem to be unable to make a simple cause and effect analysis.


If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

robert108 on November 1, 2006 at 08:54 am

Actually no, I’m just not as comfortable justifying ethnic-based descrimination as you are robert108. And I wasn’t making reference to the article. It was merely a general comment. I am much happier to be a english-scottish-slavic-polish-nativeamerican mutt than to be a Mexican. Americans of Mexican descent or legal immigrants should not be discriminated against. If we do slander people who only speak spanish, we offer no incentive for people to become legal if they will face the same discrimination they would face as an illegal.
I feel that absolutely no illegals should be in our country. I feel if we punish those who hire them there will be plenty of Republicans among the ranks. I also feel that the labor unions would be especially keen to get the illegals out and punish those employing them.


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on November 1, 2006 at 09:09 am

Actually no, I’m just not as comfortable justifying ethnic-based descrimination as you are robert108. As usual, you make thing up; I never even addressed any issue of “ethnic-based discrimination”, you did. And I wasn’t making reference to the article. It was merely a general comment.So, you admit you were trolling; a rare instance of honesty from you. I am much happier to be a english-scottish-slavic-polish-nativeamerican mutt than to be a Mexican.So your position is of being ethnically and racially superior to the Mexicans?  You are the racist here, then. Americans of Mexican descent or legal immigrants should not be discriminated against.I agree, and have never said any different. If we do slander people who only speak spanish,This is your subject, not mine. we offer no incentive for people to become legal if they will face the same discrimination they would face as an illegal.
I feel that absolutely no illegals should be in our country. I feel if we punish those who hire them there will be plenty of Republicans among the ranks.  Why is that something important for you?  Are you politically biased against Republicans? Do you discriminate against Mexican Republicans? I also feel that the labor unions would be especially keen to get the illegals out and punish those employing them.  Of course, the exact opposite is true.  The unions are losing membership, and need the illegals from socialist countries to prop up their sagging enrollments.


If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

robert108 on November 1, 2006 at 09:30 am

First just let me say Wow. WOW!

As usual, you make thing up; I never even addressed any issue of “ethnic-based discrimination”, you did.

Sorry. What was this:

If there were any discrimination against Americans of Mexican descent or against legal Mexican immigrants, it would be understandably due to the behavior of the illegals.

I am much happier to be a english-scottish-slavic-polish-nativeamerican mutt than to be a Mexican.

So your position is of being ethnically and racially superior to the Mexicans?  You are the racist here, then.

Actually if you look close, with your english speaking superior eyes, you won’t find the word ‘superior’ or any equivalent.

Americans of Mexican descent or legal immigrants should not be discriminated against.

I agree, and have never said any different.

Actually you said its ‘understandable’.

I feel if we punish those who hire them there will be plenty of Republicans among the ranks.

Why is that something important for you?  Are you politically biased against Republicans?

Its funny because a bunch of GOP people bitch about the Mexicans, then turn around and plunder them, then turn around and bitch about the people who plunder them.

Do you discriminate against Mexican Republicans?

No. Interesting question though.

I also feel that the labor unions would be especially keen to get the illegals out and punish those employing them.

Of course, the exact opposite is true.  The unions are losing membership, and need the illegals from socialist countries to prop up their sagging enrollments.

Ha! You’re wrong. Not much else to say about it.
Also - are you saying Mexico is a socialist country or are you referring to all those goddamn illegal Canadian immigrants down here?


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on November 1, 2006 at 09:48 am

Sparkie: You didn’t know that Mexico is a socialist country?  Now that’s ignorance!

As far as the rest of your rant is concerned; I got it right and you got it wrong, and you are still unable to admit it, and have to make up your own fantasies.  You went off-topic; you brought up discrimination, and you did say you were “happy” to be your own ethnic makeup rather than being a Mexican.  Unless you develop some honesty and the ability to think, we have no basis for discussion.  You always steer the dialogue around to yourself, like the typical self-absorbed leftie.
BTW, I never supported discrimination against Mexicans; I did say that if there is any, it’s due to the behavior of the illegals, like scheming our system and increasing the crime rate.  That is explaining it, not advocating it.  If you can’t differentiate the difference here, I pity you.  You are in the same position as a one-legged man at an ass-kicking contest.


If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

robert108 on November 1, 2006 at 10:04 am

’Understandable’ implies that you can sympathize with the motives of those that do discrimnate. While its stronger than explaining, I’ll agree its not advocating.


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on November 1, 2006 at 10:08 am

’Understandable’ implies that you can sympathize with the motives of those that do discrimnate. While its stronger than explaining, I’ll agree its not advocating.

I simply stated a cause and effect relationship.  “Implying” is your game, not mine.


If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

robert108 on November 1, 2006 at 10:22 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses. Confirm your email address here.