Neb. Town Votes To Restrict Illegal Immigration
Voters in the eastern Nebraska city of Fremont on Monday approved a ban on hiring or renting property to illegal immigrants, the latest proposal in a series of immigration regulations taken up by communities around the country.
About 57 percent of voters in Fremont supported the proposal, according to unofficial results that still must be certified by the election commissioner. The measure is likely to face a long and costly court battle, with the American Civil Liberties Union saying it will try to block it before it even goes into effect.
The town of about 25,000 people has watched as its Hispanic population surged in the past two decades, largely due to the jobs available at the nearby Fremont Beef and Hormel meatpacking plants. The city also has an enviably low unemployment rate that matches the Nebraska rate of 4.9 percent.
Nonetheless, residents worry that jobs are going to illegal immigrants who they fear could drain community resources. Proponents of the ballot measure collected enough signatures and fought in the Nebraska Supreme Court to put the question to a public vote.
Supporters say the measure is needed to make up for what they see as lax federal law enforcement. Opponents say it could fuel discrimination.
Trevor McClurg said the measure is fair because it's aimed at people who aren't legally in the U.S.
"I don't think it's right to be able to rent to them or hire them," McClurg said. "They shouldn't be here in the first place."
Clint Walraven, 51, who has lived in Fremont all his life, said the jobs should go to legal residents who are unemployed - something he believes the ordinance would help fix. Discussions on the issue can get heated, he said, particularly if racism is mentioned.
"It has nothing to do with being racist," said. "We all have to play by the same rules. ... If you want to stay here, get legal."
Rachel Fleming said she voted against the measure, noting that the U.S. is a nation of immigrants.
"This country has been founded on waves of immigration," Fleming said. "I just think it's (the ordinance) contrary to the spirit of the country."
From about 165 Hispanics - both legal and illegal - living in Fremont in 1990, the total surged to 1,085 in 2000, according to census expert David Drozd at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He said an estimated 2,060 Hispanics lived there last year.
The measure will require potential renters to apply for a license to rent. The application process will force Fremont officials to check if the renters are in the country legally. If they are found to be illegal, they will not be issued a license allowing them to rent. The ordinance also requires businesses to use the federal E-Verify database to ensure employees are allowed to work.
Communities that have passed such laws have faced costly legal bills and struggled to enforce them because of legal challenges. Hazleton, Pa., passed an ordinance in 2006 to fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny permits to businesses hiring them. The Dallas suburb of Farmers Branch also has tried for years to enforce a ban on landlords renting to illegal immigrants. Federal judges struck down both ordinances, but both are on appeal.
Even before the Fremont measure passed, the ACLU of Nebraska had said it would sue.
"Our goal would be to bring an action to ensure that there is not even one day that the law can go into effect," said Amy Miller, legal director for the ACLU of Nebraska.
Fremont City Councilman Scott Getzschman said he wasn't sure when the ordinance would take effect if it's not blocked by a judge. Once the Dodge County election commissioner certifies it, the City Council must accept the vote.
Getzschman didn't support the measure but said he expects city leaders will respect the outcome of the election and defend the ordinance in court.
The vote is the latest chapter in the tumult over illegal immigration across the country, including a recently passed Arizona law that will require police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally.
Kansas City, Mo.-based attorney Kris Kobach, who helped write the Arizona law, has been working on the ordinance in Fremont. He is also running for secretary of state in Kansas. –Sun News
Unemployed Need Not Apply
The last thing someone who is unemployed needs to be told is that they shouldn't even apply for the limited number of job openings that are available. But some companies and recruiters are doing just that.
Employment experts say they believe companies are increasingly interested only in applicants who already have a job.
"I think it is more prevalent than it used to be," said Rich Thompson, vice president of learning and performance for Adecco Group North America, the world's largest staffing firm. "I don't have hard numbers, but three out of the last four conversations I've had about openings, this requirement was brought up."
Some job postings include restrictions such as "unemployed candidates will not be considered" or "must be currently employed." Those explicit limitations have occasionally been removed from listings when an employer or recruiter is questioned by the media though.
That's what happened with numerous listings for grocery store managers throughout the Southeast posted by a South Carolina recruiter, Latro Consulting.
After CNNMoney called seeking comments on the listings last week, the restriction against unemployed candidates being considered came down. Latro Consulting refused to comment when contacted.
Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that was hiring for a new Georgia facility, also removed a similar restriction after local reporters wrote about it. According to reports, a Sony Ericsson spokesperson said that a mistake had been made.
But even if companies don't spell out in a job listing that they won't consider someone who currently doesn't have a job, experts said that unemployed applicants are typically ruled out right off the bat.
"Most executive recruiters won't look at a candidate unless they have a job, even if they don't like to admit to it," said Lisa Chenofsky Singer, a human resources consultant from Millburn, NJ, specializing in media and publishing jobs.
She said when she proposes candidates for openings, the first question she is often asked by a recruiter is if they currently have a job. If the answer is no, she's typically told the unemployed candidate won't be interviewed.
"They think you must have been laid off for performance issues," she said, adding that this is a "myth" in a time of high unemployment.
It is not against the law for companies to exclude the unemployed when trying to fill positions, but Judy Conti, a lobbyist for the National Employment Law Project, said the practice is a bad one.
"Making that kind of automatic cut is senseless; you could be missing out on the best person of all," she said. "There are millions of people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. If an employer feels that the best qualified are the ones already working, they have no appreciation of the crisis we're in right now."
Conti added that firms that hire unemployed job seekers could also benefit from a recently-passed tax break that essentially exempts them from paying the 6.2% of the new hire's wages in Social Security taxes for the rest of this year.
Thompson said he also thinks ruling out the unemployed is a bad idea. But he said that part of the problem is that recruiters and human resource departments are being overwhelmed with applications for any job opening that is posted. So they're looking for any short-cuts to get the list of applicants to consider down to a more manageable size.
"It's a tough process to determine which unemployed applicants were laid off even though they brought value to their company and which ones had performance issues," he said. "I understand the notion. But there's the top x percent of unemployed candidates who are very viable and very valuable. You just have to do the work to find them." -CNN Money
Voters in the eastern Nebraska city of Fremont on Monday approved a ban on hiring or renting property to illegal immigrants, the latest proposal in a series of immigration regulations taken up by communities around the country.
About 57 percent of voters in Fremont supported the proposal, according to unofficial results that still must be certified by the election commissioner. The measure is likely to face a long and costly court battle, with the American Civil Liberties Union saying it will try to block it before it even goes into effect.
The town of about 25,000 people has watched as its Hispanic population surged in the past two decades, largely due to the jobs available at the nearby Fremont Beef and Hormel meatpacking plants. The city also has an enviably low unemployment rate that matches the Nebraska rate of 4.9 percent.
Nonetheless, residents worry that jobs are going to illegal immigrants who they fear could drain community resources. Proponents of the ballot measure collected enough signatures and fought in the Nebraska Supreme Court to put the question to a public vote.
Supporters say the measure is needed to make up for what they see as lax federal law enforcement. Opponents say it could fuel discrimination.
Trevor McClurg said the measure is fair because it's aimed at people who aren't legally in the U.S.
"I don't think it's right to be able to rent to them or hire them," McClurg said. "They shouldn't be here in the first place."
Clint Walraven, 51, who has lived in Fremont all his life, said the jobs should go to legal residents who are unemployed - something he believes the ordinance would help fix. Discussions on the issue can get heated, he said, particularly if racism is mentioned.
"It has nothing to do with being racist," said. "We all have to play by the same rules. ... If you want to stay here, get legal."
Rachel Fleming said she voted against the measure, noting that the U.S. is a nation of immigrants.
"This country has been founded on waves of immigration," Fleming said. "I just think it's (the ordinance) contrary to the spirit of the country."
From about 165 Hispanics - both legal and illegal - living in Fremont in 1990, the total surged to 1,085 in 2000, according to census expert David Drozd at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He said an estimated 2,060 Hispanics lived there last year.
The measure will require potential renters to apply for a license to rent. The application process will force Fremont officials to check if the renters are in the country legally. If they are found to be illegal, they will not be issued a license allowing them to rent. The ordinance also requires businesses to use the federal E-Verify database to ensure employees are allowed to work.
Communities that have passed such laws have faced costly legal bills and struggled to enforce them because of legal challenges. Hazleton, Pa., passed an ordinance in 2006 to fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny permits to businesses hiring them. The Dallas suburb of Farmers Branch also has tried for years to enforce a ban on landlords renting to illegal immigrants. Federal judges struck down both ordinances, but both are on appeal.
Even before the Fremont measure passed, the ACLU of Nebraska had said it would sue.
"Our goal would be to bring an action to ensure that there is not even one day that the law can go into effect," said Amy Miller, legal director for the ACLU of Nebraska.
Fremont City Councilman Scott Getzschman said he wasn't sure when the ordinance would take effect if it's not blocked by a judge. Once the Dodge County election commissioner certifies it, the City Council must accept the vote.
Getzschman didn't support the measure but said he expects city leaders will respect the outcome of the election and defend the ordinance in court.
The vote is the latest chapter in the tumult over illegal immigration across the country, including a recently passed Arizona law that will require police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally.
Kansas City, Mo.-based attorney Kris Kobach, who helped write the Arizona law, has been working on the ordinance in Fremont. He is also running for secretary of state in Kansas. –Sun News
<><><>*<><><>
Unemployed Need Not Apply
The last thing someone who is unemployed needs to be told is that they shouldn't even apply for the limited number of job openings that are available. But some companies and recruiters are doing just that.
Employment experts say they believe companies are increasingly interested only in applicants who already have a job.
"I think it is more prevalent than it used to be," said Rich Thompson, vice president of learning and performance for Adecco Group North America, the world's largest staffing firm. "I don't have hard numbers, but three out of the last four conversations I've had about openings, this requirement was brought up."
Some job postings include restrictions such as "unemployed candidates will not be considered" or "must be currently employed." Those explicit limitations have occasionally been removed from listings when an employer or recruiter is questioned by the media though.
That's what happened with numerous listings for grocery store managers throughout the Southeast posted by a South Carolina recruiter, Latro Consulting.
After CNNMoney called seeking comments on the listings last week, the restriction against unemployed candidates being considered came down. Latro Consulting refused to comment when contacted.
Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that was hiring for a new Georgia facility, also removed a similar restriction after local reporters wrote about it. According to reports, a Sony Ericsson spokesperson said that a mistake had been made.
But even if companies don't spell out in a job listing that they won't consider someone who currently doesn't have a job, experts said that unemployed applicants are typically ruled out right off the bat.
"Most executive recruiters won't look at a candidate unless they have a job, even if they don't like to admit to it," said Lisa Chenofsky Singer, a human resources consultant from Millburn, NJ, specializing in media and publishing jobs.
She said when she proposes candidates for openings, the first question she is often asked by a recruiter is if they currently have a job. If the answer is no, she's typically told the unemployed candidate won't be interviewed.
"They think you must have been laid off for performance issues," she said, adding that this is a "myth" in a time of high unemployment.
It is not against the law for companies to exclude the unemployed when trying to fill positions, but Judy Conti, a lobbyist for the National Employment Law Project, said the practice is a bad one.
"Making that kind of automatic cut is senseless; you could be missing out on the best person of all," she said. "There are millions of people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. If an employer feels that the best qualified are the ones already working, they have no appreciation of the crisis we're in right now."
Conti added that firms that hire unemployed job seekers could also benefit from a recently-passed tax break that essentially exempts them from paying the 6.2% of the new hire's wages in Social Security taxes for the rest of this year.
Thompson said he also thinks ruling out the unemployed is a bad idea. But he said that part of the problem is that recruiters and human resource departments are being overwhelmed with applications for any job opening that is posted. So they're looking for any short-cuts to get the list of applicants to consider down to a more manageable size.
"It's a tough process to determine which unemployed applicants were laid off even though they brought value to their company and which ones had performance issues," he said. "I understand the notion. But there's the top x percent of unemployed candidates who are very viable and very valuable. You just have to do the work to find them." -CNN Money
No comments:
Post a Comment