Neb. city keeps rules aimed at illegal immigration

Comment: Off

State Sen. Charlie Jansssen of Fremont, third left, Jeremy Jensen, center, and John Wiegert, second right, celebrate in Fremont, Neb., Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2014, after city voters have decided by voting no, to uphold the law designed to bar immigrants from renting homes if they don’t have legal permission to be in the U.S. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

State Sen. Charlie Jansssen of Fremont, third left, Jeremy Jensen, center, and John Wiegert, second right, celebrate in Fremont, Neb., Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2014, after city voters have decided by voting no, to uphold the law designed to bar immigrants from renting homes if they don’t have legal permission to be in the U.S. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

State Sen. Charlie Jansssen of Fremont, second left, Jeremy Jensen, third left, and John Wiegert, center, celebrate with other activists in Fremont, Neb., Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2014, after city voters have decided by voting no, to uphold the law designed to bar immigrants from renting homes if they don’t have legal permission to be in the U.S. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

Rudy Humlicek, left, leaves a polling station in Fremont, Neb., after casting his ballot, Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2014. Fremont voters are voting on whether to scrap the city’s housing restrictions that were supposed to make it hard for people living in the country illegally to live there. This new vote on the ordinance voters approved in 2010 was scheduled because city leaders are worried about possibly losing federal grants and racking up big legal bills defending the law. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

Election official Robert Buresh attaches the curtain to a polling booth at the Salem Lutheran Church polling station in Fremont, Neb., Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2014. Fremont voters are voting on whether to scrap the city’s housing restrictions that were supposed to make it hard for people living in the country illegally to live there. This new vote on the ordinance voters approved in 2010 was scheduled because city leaders are worried about possibly losing federal grants and racking up big legal bills defending the law. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

Rudy Humlicek exits the polling booth in Fremont, Neb., Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2014. Fremont voters are voting on whether to scrap the city’s housing restrictions that were supposed to make it hard for people living in the country illegally to live there. This new vote on the ordinance voters approved in 2010 was scheduled because city leaders are worried about possibly losing federal grants and racking up big legal bills defending the law. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

Buy AP Photo Reprints

FREMONT, Neb. (AP) — Residents of a small Nebraska city voted Tuesday to keep regulations that require all renters to swear they have legal permission to live in the U.S., likely pushing the city back into the forefront of the immigration debate.

Fremont voters decided to keep an ordinance that they originally adopted in 2010. Critics had said the rules were less effective and more costly than anyone expected and were damaging the city’s image. But 59.6 of local voters — more than the 57 percent in favor four years ago — sided Tuesday with supporters, who say Fremont needed to take a stand against illegal immigration.

The conservative agricultural hub near Omaha that is home to about 26,000 residents is one of a handful of cities that have acted on their own over the last decade to curb illegal immigration. Most of those efforts, including ones in Hazelton, Pa., and Farmers Branch, Texas, have become mired in costly court battles.

The same is true in Fremont, where the ordinance — which requires immigrants seeking rental property to swear they have permission to live in the U.S. — was put on hold after it was first adopted while courts reviewed the law.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of the ordinance in 2013, and the city was getting ready to enforce the housing restrictions for the first time last fall when elected officials decided to schedule another vote.

“I don’t see why we have to vote on this again just because the City Council has a vested interest,” said local resident Matt Kwiatkowski, who voted to keep the housing restrictions in place, referring to the fact that at least two council members own rental property.

The 48-year-old said he doesn’t have any problem with immigrants who come to this country legally, but he doesn’t think the U.S. should go easy on people living here illegally. He hopes Fremont’s ordinance will help increase pressure on the federal government to do something about illegal immigration.

“I think more towns need to do this given that the federal government isn’t doing its job,” Kwiatkowski said.

Shawn Stewart, 44, is a lifelong Fremont resident who supported the immigration ordinance when approved in 2010 and again on Tuesday.

“If we’re going to get rid of the ordinance, we might as well open up our borders,” said Stewart, who said he doesn’t have a problem with immigrants as long as they enter the U.S. legally.

Critics said the housing restrictions would be ineffective and might cost Fremont millions of dollars in legal fees and lost federal grants. City Council members worried about the prospect of additional lawsuits.

“When you drill down and look at what this ordinance is about, it does not address immigration,” said Virginia Meyer, who opposes the ordinance and has been campaigning to repeal it, including distributing yard signs.

Supporters insist that the measure does not target Hispanics. The number of Hispanics in Fremont jumped from 165 in 1990 to 1,085 in 2000 and 3,149 in 2010, mostly because of jobs at the nearby Hormel and Fremont Beef plants.

When Fremont first adopted the ordinance, the city was thrust into the national spotlight partly because it acted shortly after Arizona’s strict immigration law made headlines. A couple of other cities, such as Valley Park in Missouri, have modified or abandoned ordinances in the face of court challenges and

Comments

comments

About the Author