• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Miguel asks a stupid question

b33fj3rky

Thinker
B
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
129
Location
In an ivory tower.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cherokee/stories/2006/11/14/1115metIllegal.html

Cherokee targets illegals' landlords

By CHRISTOPHER QUINN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 11/15/06

In what is believed to be the first such action in the state, Cherokee County, Georgia is considering fining property owners who rent apartments to illegal immigrants...

"If they don't rent to us, where are we going to live?" said Miguel Rodríguez, who came to Cherokee from Zacatecas, Mexico, and was trying to find work Tuesday on a street corner as a day laborer.

Rodríguez, who says he is here illegally, rents a trailer in Cherokee County with five other men, who split the $170 weekly rent.

The ordinance, he said, would discriminate against Hispanics, some of whom won't be able to make a living if they don't have a place to live.

"For those who are illegal like me, taking away housing is like taking away our jobs," Rodríguez said. "If there is no place to live, then we can't work either. Where are we going to go, to the woods?"

* * *

How about he goes back to Mexico, where he legally belongs?
 
b33fj3rky said:
The ordinance, he said, would discriminate against Hispanics, some of whom won't be able to make a living if they don't have a place to live.
Click to expand...

No, the law of the land is simply being enforced. If you haven't been legally documented and processed as an immigrant to this country, then you are here against the law. This is not a matter of racism, it just happens that most of the people this affects are Hispanic.

The day there are roving gangs of brownshirts painting "Achtung Mexicano" on Hispanic-owned store fronts, and even legal Hispanics are forced to wear armbands of the Mexican flag, then I'll reconsider.
 
It's being tried in Texas too, in Farmer's Branch, a suburb of Dallas. Landlords make a good case against it though. It should not be their job to enforce the law.

Also notably, other buisnesses are exempt from such restrictions. There are no such rules to make sure companies don't hire illegal immigrants, only to rent to them. That strikes me as blatant discrimmination against a single type of business. No doubt such laws will be tossed out immediately if they go to court, and rightfully so.

By limiting housing, but not employment to illegals, what Cherokee County and Farmer's Branch are saying is, "We want your services, but we don't want you living near us."

If they had any balls, they'd go after the employers for two reasons:

1) Employers can easily check social security information.

2) Without jobs, there would be no housing issue.

But that won't happen because businesses want cheap labor, and customers want cheap prices. The residents also want somebody to blame when they can't find jobs, and who can they more safely blame than a virtually powerless group of people?
 
Cello Man said:
No, the law of the land is simply being enforced. If you haven't been legally documented and processed as an immigrant to this country, then you are here against the law. This is not a matter of racism, it just happens that most of the people this affects are Hispanic.
Click to expand...

Although I agree with this, I can also see how it could be used to discriminate against Hispanics in practise. That doesn't mean that such a measure should not be brought in, just that there should be some safeguards.
 
WildCat said:
How?
Click to expand...
Take the social security number (which is required in order to withdraw taxes etc.) and check it against the information that the Social Security Administration has for that person. While it is possible to obtain a real social security card fraudulently, it is fairly difficult. Usually it is the card that is fraud and will be revealed as such if you check with the SSA. But most employers of illegals don't really care, because they have no intent of paying taxes or benefits anyway.

If you catch a company that has not done this check, nail 'em. Easy.
 
Tricky said:
Also notably, other buisnesses are exempt from such restrictions. There are no such rules to make sure companies don't hire illegal immigrants, only to rent to them. That strikes me as blatant discrimmination against a single type of business. No doubt such laws will be tossed out immediately if they go to court, and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

This is one problem. Second, the argument that "they are illegal" doesn't seem to apply to other criminals. For example, why can they rent to drug dealers but not illegal immigrants? Both are breaking the law, yet one is targeted and the other is not. Hence, it seems to be targeted to only a specific group of lawbreakers.

There is plenty of good reasons to be concerned about such a law.
 
pgwenthold said:
There is plenty of good reasons to be concerned about such a law.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Technically being an illegal immigrant means that everything about your existence in the country is against the law. How about fining stores for selling a loaf of bread to an illegal immigrant? Fining bus drivers for letting them buy a ticket? Requiring intrusive ID verification for every transaction?
 
acuity said:
Agreed. Technically being an illegal immigrant means that everything about your existence in the country is against the law. How about fining stores for selling a loaf of bread to an illegal immigrant? Fining bus drivers for letting them buy a ticket? Requiring intrusive ID verification for every transaction?
Click to expand...

Or refusing to treat them for trauma or life-threatening illness; that'll teach them to be here illegally! If they die bill their families to ship their bodies back to Mexico. This will have the added advantage of

A. getting rid of an illegal immigrant, and

B. making a little money for an American business (mortuaries).

The way I figure it, not renting them homes, not treating them medically for accidents or illnesses, not selling them food or water, not allowing their children in schools where they'll suck up all our education, and tattooing (when discovered) their illegal status on their wrists will prove the final solution to our horrible, horrible problem.

(edited to add) I'm agreeing with your concern through sarcasm, acuity. I didn't mean for this to sound as though you endorsed the ideas behind these laws. :)
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
This is one problem. Second, the argument that "they are illegal" doesn't seem to apply to other criminals. For example, why can they rent to drug dealers but not illegal immigrants? Both are breaking the law, yet one is targeted and the other is not. Hence, it seems to be targeted to only a specific group of lawbreakers.

There is plenty of good reasons to be concerned about such a law.
Click to expand...

Well, if the land lord knew that the person they were renting to was a drug dealer at the time the rental contract was enacted, then I would say at the least that the land lord should be charged as being an accessory. However, it is quite reasonable to surmise that the land lord would not know such thing since drug dealers are known to lie from time to time.

By the same token, if the land lord knew that the person they were renting to was an illegal worker at the rental contract was enacted, then I would say at the least that the land lord should be charged as being an accessory.

However, in the case of the illegal workers, the state is deliberately avoiding prosecuting those who hire the illegal workers (who already have the legal obligation to check the work status of their employees), while trying to charge those who are housing the illegal workers (who do not have an obligation or the official authority to check the work status of the people that they are renting to).

People renting housing, unlike employers, do not have the legal authority to force their potential renters to produce two forms of identification along with a Social Security Number that can be used to validate the person in question.

Therefore, I would expect that the courts would nullify this sort of law.
 
Crossbow said:
Well, if the land lord knew that the person they were renting to was a drug dealer at the time the rental contract was enacted, then I would say at the least that the land lord should be charged as being an accessory.
Click to expand...

But are they?

Are we required by law to turn in a person you know to have used illegal drugs? If you know that your brother is a drug user, are you charged as an accessory if you don't turn him in to the police? If you know that your sister once drove while under the influence, are you required to turn her in?

If the answers to these are "no," then why the separate standard for landlords?


However, it is quite reasonable to surmise that the land lord would not know such thing since drug dealers are known to lie from time to time.
Click to expand...

Whereas illegal immigrants advertise the fact? Nah... Or do we just rely on the fact that the guy is hispanic, and therefore is likely to be illegal? Whoops.

Why should the renter be required to verify that they are not illegal immigrants but not drug dealers? Both are illegal.

By the same token, if the land lord knew that the person they were renting to was an illegal worker at the rental contract was enacted, then I would say at the least that the land lord should be charged as being an accessory.
Click to expand...

What if it is "don't ask, don't tell"?

However, in the case of the illegal workers, the state is deliberately avoiding prosecuting those who hire the illegal workers (who already have the legal obligation to check the work status of their employees), while trying to charge those who are housing the illegal workers (who do not have an obligation or the official authority to check the work status of the people that they are renting to).

People renting housing, unlike employers, do not have the legal authority to force their potential renters to produce two forms of identification along with a Social Security Number that can be used to validate the person in question.

Therefore, I would expect that the courts would nullify this sort of law.
Click to expand...

I sure hope so.
 
Pretty sure that a law similar to this one has already been struck down somewhere else, so I don't see it lasting. Wish I could provide more information, but I don't recall much about it.

As far as the assertion that checking social security numbers is easy for land lords or businesses to do, no way. The SSA isn't in the business of helping identity thieves by verifying whether a name and a social security number match up. To the best of my knowledge, SS information is completely confidential, with no exceptions. This was actually discussed on NPR the other day.
 
Cello Man said:
No, the law of the land is simply being enforced. If you haven't been legally documented and processed as an immigrant to this country, then you are here against the law. This is not a matter of racism, it just happens that most of the people this affects are Hispanic.

The day there are roving gangs of brownshirts painting "Achtung Mexicano" on Hispanic-owned store fronts, and even legal Hispanics are forced to wear armbands of the Mexican flag, then I'll reconsider.
Click to expand...


However with the enacting of this law, I fear you will suddenly have landlords reluctant to rent to Hispanics and viewing them with more scrutiny than they would the rest of the population, regardless of thier legal status.

Which is illegal.
 
acuity said:
Agreed. Technically being an illegal immigrant means that everything about your existence in the country is against the law. How about fining stores for selling a loaf of bread to an illegal immigrant? Fining bus drivers for letting them buy a ticket? Requiring intrusive ID verification for every transaction?
Click to expand...

Because renting an apartment is a transaction you only do every few years or so, so verifying information is not prohibitave. Further, many landlords do background checks anyway as a means of protecting their investment.

Pescado said:
As far as the assertion that checking social security numbers is easy for land lords or businesses to do, no way. The SSA isn't in the business of helping identity thieves by verifying whether a name and a social security number match up. To the best of my knowledge, SS information is completely confidential, with no exceptions. This was actually discussed on NPR the other day.
Click to expand...

But a simple credit report will at least verify that the given name matches the number and give a history of where they have lived before.
 
Mycroft said:
But a simple credit report will at least verify that the given name matches the number and give a history of where they have lived before.
Click to expand...
You're right. A credit check would accomplish the same thing. I was stuck in the line of thinking that the SSA must be involved in order to verify SS information. Obviously that isn't the case. I stand corrected.
 
pgwenthold said:
This is one problem. Second, the argument that "they are illegal" doesn't seem to apply to other criminals. For example, why can they rent to drug dealers but not illegal immigrants? Both are breaking the law, yet one is targeted and the other is not. Hence, it seems to be targeted to only a specific group of lawbreakers.

There is plenty of good reasons to be concerned about such a law.
Click to expand...

I think its different because simply being here is the crime for illegal immigrants. if a drug dealer was constantly making drug deals (even in his sleep) I doubt a landlord would rent to them. there are few crimes that anyone can commit 24/7.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom