For a second I actually considered entitling this post after a Dickens’ novel, but that would’ve been too obvious. Suffice it to say that both Escondido and National City have received much attention in recent weeks for the polar opposite directions they are taking on the issue of illegal immigration.
National City Mayor Nick Inzunza has garnered headlines for his announcement that he would declare a "Sanctuary City" for illegal aliens, which he simply refers to as immigrants (see my prior posts). Yesterday, Inzunza signed the sanctuary proclamation (SDUT story), while — on the advice of law enforcement, apparently in no mood to try to protect him — he was holed up in city hall during 
another protest rally outside. This was the second such rally in two weeks, with illegal immigrant apologists (see photo to the right, thanks to Anthony Porrello) and Minutemen taking stances on opposite sides of the street.
On the other hand, the Escondido City Council will on Wednesday take a vote on an ordinance that would impose penalties on landlords that rent to illegals. Championed by Councilmember Marie Waldron, and thus far supported by a council majority, the proposed law is a tad controversial, to say the least.
The Escondido city attorney says the ordinance is "entirely consistent with federal law." Perhaps, in a nutshell, that may explain the city council’s desire to adopt such an ordinance: federal law is in place, the feds aren’t doing nearly enough in this regard, so we’re going to do something about it ourselves.
That feeling, in fact, is a basic impetus for having local governments in the first place, and one of the main reasons cities incorporate, to have some local control over their destinies.
The ACLU, on the other hand, has shot off a letter to the city council indicating the proposed law is likely preempted by federal law and thus violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
That, alternatively, is a basic belief often held by liberals, that only the larger levels of government have any real understanding or authority regarding these things, and that’s why we need the feds to check the rampant attempts at control made by local government.
Following is a portion of the Escondido ordinance:
The harboring of illegal aliens in dwelling units in the City, and crime committed by illegal aliens harm the health, safety and welfare of legal residents in the City.
Because such individuals are not in this country lawfully, there is an increased chance that they will reside in dwelling units without typical leasing, payment and other tenancy arrangements that enable the civil and regulatory processes of this City to be effective. The regulations of the City regarding housing and property maintenance often depend upon reporting by residents and neighbors as a means of bringing unlawful conditions to the City’s attention. Because illegal aliens do not wish to call attention to their presence, such individuals are less likely to report such conditions, and notify authorities, or to participate in subsequent proceedings to remedy such conditions. This creates an increased likelihood that housing and property maintenance violations will remain unreported and, because such conditions are unreported, an increased chance that such conditions will multiply in the future.
Because of the lack of tenancy arrangements which are subject to normal civil and regulatory processes (such as written leases, records of rent receipts, and related documentation which normally accompany a tenancy arrangement) there is a greater chance that such individuals will occupy residential units in excessively large numbers, or under living conditions, that do not meet applicable building and health and safety codes. This creates unanticipated burdens on the units and the public infrastructure supporting such dwellings.
Follow the link to read a SignOnSanDiego story on the ordinance, as well as see the full text, the attorney’s opinion, and the ACLU letter.
Have a great Sunday.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:00 am
How about we bus the illegal residents of Escondido and deposit them in National City? Wasn’t there a politician/slumlord down that way with available units?
October 1st, 2006 at 12:00 am
Exciting stuff here. Hazleton, PA was great.
However, Escondido is taking it to a whole new level with respect to size, demographics and location.
The biggest red herring propagated by the opposition to this local enforcement is that these measures preempt the federal governments role by regulating immigration.
These local efforts do nothing to regulate immigration and have absolutely no impact on who can and cannot come over the border. But, they will stop at nothing to achieve their goal of undermining the sovereignty of this great nation.
The beautiful part of going to the local level and targeting landlords who rent to illegal aliens is that you are able to circumvent Plyler v. Doe, the 1982 Supreme Court ruling that mandated public education be given to illegal aliens.
If you cannot live in the district, then you will be unable to attend schools in that district.
Kudos to Abed, Gallo and Waldron for having the courage to step up to the plate on this issue.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:00 am
To answer Shana Black’s question, yes, indeed, ironically, the slumlord and the politico calling for sanctuary are one in the same, Mayor Nick Inzunza. Truth is stranger than fiction.