Naperville A Sanctuary City? Councilwoman Becky Anderson Would ‘Welcome All’

Sooner or later it had to happen, the idea of Naperville as a sanctuary city. It’s been circling around the city like a beat-up, nasty, ping pong ball circling in a toilet bowl that’s just been flushed. Watch and listen as a resident (Anthony Castagnoli) from somewhere throws the topic at the Naperville city council:

He references CNN, the culprit in ‘fake news’, and Civics 101 as the basis for resisting the Trump train. With all due respect to Anthony, he probably would have benefited from also taking a class in Civics 102. We applaud his right to state his position, and the courage to do so.

This was followed by Naperville councilwoman Becky Anderson’s response to the speaker and anyone listening:

We have a Naperville city council member, other than councilman Kevin Coyne, willing to take a stand, even it if means losing her council seat, which most likely would happen. While most other Naperville council members and candidates beat around the bush, and are wishy-washy about using the name ‘Naperville’ and the words “sanctuary city” in the same sentence, councilwoman Anderson is willing to “welcome all” to Naperville, though she did give herself a little wiggle room by tacking on the words “more symbolic than anything”. However her sentiment is clear, bring them in (to Naperville) one and all.

Councilwoman Anderson takes Emma Lazarus’s quote associated with the Statue of Liberty, “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free….” and by her use of the word “all” adds a few more folks to the group including felons, and as President Trump states, “some really bad dudes”.

Naperville councilman John Krummen is leaning towards Anderson’s position when he stated during the Naperville Area Homeowners Confederation Forum for candidates that he supports “our police not being actively involved in helping the Federal authorities rounding-up illegal immigrants”. What is so difficult to understand about the meaning of the word ‘illegal’?

It appears Krummen would echo the words of speaker Anthony Castagnoli who said “local law enforcement should not be engaged in seeking out people suspected of a crime in regards to being documented or not”.

Could Naperville become a sanctuary city? It just takes five of nine to approve the idea. Right now the vote looks like two most likely in favor, one against (Coyne) and six remaining silent…nothing but crickets.

Would Naperville remain a sanctuary city? If President Trump holds true to his position, and there is no reason why he wouldn’t based on his first month in office, Naperville city officials would fold like a bad lawn chair and cave in to the the almighty dollar, when the Federal money grab pipeline drys up.

Show 44 Comments


  1. Gerard H Schilling

    Just what the city needs more crime, disease, wagon riders and potential terrorist to make life more interesting and expensive for legal tax paying citizens. Maybe they welcome everybody but I only welcome legal, law abiding, tax paying contributors who want to assimilate and become assets not liabilities to the community.

  2. Julie Berkowicz

    Yes, all means all, illegal or not. Law abiding or criminal. Councilwoman Anderson also mentioned they would not enforce the law as well, going on to ask for comments from the Chief of Police. It would be good to include this as well for people who were not at the meeting. This attitude towards the laws that govern our Country makes me fear what could happen if you toss words around so carelessly.
    As the child of a World War II survivor, I have appreciated the life that we have in America since I was old enough to remember. I am a Pacific Islander, my Mother came to this Country when she was a teenager and Mom and her siblings didn’t speak one word of English. They suffered 5 years in the jungles of the Philippines, hiding from the Japanese and were also Prisoners of War in a concentration camp. My Grandmother, Anne Reporto Salva, assisted the Filipino Guerilla Army, and guided the “Boys” (the American Troops) through the jungle showing them the trails of their enemy combatants. Anne also lost 3 children, because of malaria and starvation, while they were hiding in the jungles. After the war, they eventually came back to America, because Anne had to return to take care of her ailing Mother. I still remember the day Grandma set me upon her knee and told me about this. They arrived at the California base on the USS Carp with the military boys. One of the few things my Mother would say early on, when Grandma spoke about the war, was that there were all these boys and they couldn’t understand anything they said. They landed in CA with only the clothes on their backs. They were not given any assistance and my Grandmother brought her children here to Chicago. Her children could not attend school until she taught them English, which she did when she came home after her shift as a Nurse’s Aide at Cook County Hospital. As a teenager, my Mother attended Kindergarten and she was moved up as her language skills improved. She endured many attacks, and physical ones as well, still bearing a beautiful tattoo on her arm of a girls’ perfect teeth marks after she took a chunk out of Mom’s arm. But they were tough and they grew up to love this Country and become “AMERICANS”. They do not call themselves Filipina Americans, they always refer to themselves as Americans. My Grandmother instilled the principals that we should love and respect our heritage but always be loyal to the great Country that we live in. She was part of a great generation that seemed to understand that humans have faults, yet we can find a way to endure and thrive. Life can bring bad things but your people will be there to suffer with you and help you pick up the pieces. So as I listened to these words, tossed around so carelessly that evening, I thought about our society and the demise of common sense and patriotism, and thought about my aunts and uncles and Grandparents and that I am so glad that all my relatives that fought to defend their native homeland, and their forever homeland, the United States of America, are not around to see this.

  3. Maudie

    So we have council people who think it is ok to break the law? Vote them out. I hope President Trump arrests all mayors and other elected officials for supporting sanctuary cities. Treason? Subversion? Etc. Not sure what the charges would be but I have no doubt there are several LEGAL methods and charges.

    • Julie Berkowicz

      Maudie and Leiv, I am a candidate for Naperville City Council in the April 4th election and do not support a sanctuary city status. Would you like to get more information? I would appreciate your support. My email is:

      • Joe

        Thanks you have our votes. Where can I get a sign

  4. Leiv Mealone

    My ancestors were LEGAL immigrants, LEGAL, a distinct difference. They waited their turn, came thru Ellis Island, had their surnames changed to by immigration officials to be easier to pronounce. And they called/call themselves AMERICANS period. Not Italian Americans, or Irish Americans, or Polish Americans, just Americans. They learned to speak and read English, and wanted to assimilate into the American population and way of life. They did not come here to change America into Italy or Poland or Ireland. They came here because they wanted to be Americans. Not so now. People from other countries want to come here and turn America into the country they came from, WITH, the all the free benefits of American tax payer money! And crazy liberals want to help them do it. Another reason Trump was elected.

    • Joe

      Same for my grand parents and my wife’s grandparents.

  5. John

    It is beyond my imagination that some of our elected officials would support lawlessness . I wish we would have that fervor to support our Veterans . Nothing surprises me anymore .

  6. Christopher Lawson

    If we focus on the word “people” as opposed to
    “Illegal”, does your position change?

    Being a sanctuary is about giving people a place to be without fear, a safe place.

    I think there is some kind of Christian thing in play there too.

    • Maudie

      Excuse me? “People” who kill others and do not want to follow American laws ? Is that what you want? All Americans are descendants of immigrants who came to this country to be part of this country – not to kill other people.

      American citizens are the people who must have sanctuary – to be at home without fear, a safe place.

      Really? Christian thing? Christian thing is to be moral and believe that Jesus died for us. Muslim thing? Die for Allah and kill the infidels.

      • steve

        Sure! “People” who are knowingly and willfully violating the law.

  7. Jim Haselhorst

    The real issue here is do we as citizens of Naperville want our police force cooped into the Federal Government to be used to search out illegal aliens who have not violated any local or state law rather then investigating and apprehending those people in our community that are breaking these laws?

    The Federal Government has stated repeatedly that, on immigration, they alone will determine what is legal and illegal, what is acceptable and not, who shall and shall not be allowed to become a citizen. The Courts and Congress have repeatedly reaffirmed this authority. As such the responsibility for enforcing these Federal policies should fall solely to the federal government.

    Until congress starts providing funding to local law enforcement to do the job of ICE (immigration and customs enforcement) requiring local law enforcement to engage in these duties places a further burden on local governments who’s main responsibility is the health, welfare and safety of their residents, not enforcement of national policy they have no say in. So long as a person declared to be “illegally” in this country, by a federal authority that does not give local or state authority say in this process, and they do not break any local or state laws then they are not the responsibility of local law enforcement to police. Until evidence can be provide that a person here “illegally” is a threat to public safety, health or welfare they should not be the subject of local law enforcement scrutiny.

    Finally if you believe local law enforcement should be engaging in these activities without receiving federal funding to pay for them and without having any say in these policies, then you need to let your local officials know you approve of a special property tax levy to be used solely to fund these operations.

    • steve

      I think they should use the federal funding they cut off off from these municipalities to fund it rather than raise our taxes. You know if I violate a federal act like hipaa I can be personally fined? Maybe those people that willfully ignore federal law should be fined, and we can use those funds to offset the expense as well

  8. Karen Do

    Being “nice” and “welcoming all” are ideological arguments that have no place in following the law. When a town becomes a “sanctuary city” it essentially invites and harbors criminals. Word of mouth spreads and more will come. For every one person who comes to this country ILLEGALLY, there are PLENTY more people who are following the law and waiting their turn IN LINE to be here LEGALLY and will have the rights and blessings to pursue the American dream. Many of these folks will have waited years for the opportunity to come to America. Illegal immigrants unfairly CUT THE LINE. They are unfairly using resources that could otherwise be allocated to LEGAL immigrants and American citizens. Supporting illegals is a slippery slope as to drawing a clear line of which laws to follow and which to subvert, opening up Pandora’s box.

    • Jim Haselhorst

      Federal immigration laws are not criminal statues, but administrative law, meaning violating them is not a criminal offense. A person that violates immigration regulations is no more subject to criminal prosecution then someone that violates a city ordinance or school district regulation. While it has become common practice to call illegal aliens criminal, they are in fact, in the eyes of the legal system not criminals at all. That is the reason they are not place in prison or jails with other criminal when being held but at separate detention center. If they were criminals then law enforcement would be required to mirandize them, provide them with free legal counsel, and permit them a trial by jury, none of which happens.

      Also the number of people allowed into the US is not effected by the number of illegals in this country and the length of “waiting in line” is also in no way effected by the present of these illegals. As illegals they cannot access any of this country’s social programs without risking being found out by ICE and deported, so they do not use benefits up causing legal immigrant or residents to be denied. Immigrants tend to be taken advantage of by people in our society because they can not get a bank account or have credit cards. This means they keep all there money in cash on their person or in their residents, which make them perfect targets for criminals.

      All sanctuary cities do is pass an ordinance that does not allow their law enforcement to engage in any immigration capacity, which most cities police forces presently do not do anyway, This ordinance is a proactive step by these cities to insure that the president does not co-opt their police into doing immigration enforcement thus reducing the resources available to do the type of police duties most of us expect from our local law enforcement.

      You post is an excellent example of the common misconceptions people have about illegal immigrant and sanctuary cities.

  9. Maudie

    Jim: I have read some amazing comments from you, but this one takes the cake. Your argument taken to its logical conclusion means that no one has to obey any Federal law unless they are reimbursed to do so.

    Yet you also state that the main responsibility of local government is the health, welfare and safety of their residents. Guess that means not protecting residents from harm perpetrated by a an illegal, but protecting residents from harm perpetrated by another resident? Do you define “resident” as only being legal American citizens, or legal immigrants, or the all inclusive anyone living here?

    You really believe that local governments do not receive any federal funding?


    • Jim Haselhorst

      Your post is an excellent example of the most common misconception about illegal immigrants, which is that they are criminals. Federal immigration laws are not criminal statues, but administrative law, meaning violating them is not a criminal offense. While it has become common practice to call illegal aliens criminals, they are in fact, in the eyes of the legal system not criminals at all. That is the reason they are not placed in prisons or jails with other criminals when being held but at separate detention centers. If they were criminals then law enforcement would be required to mirandize them, provide them with free legal counsel, and permit them a trial by jury, none of which happens.

      Also no were in my posted did I say anyone suspected of violating any criminal statue should not be arrested and prosecuted just because they are in the US in violation of immigration laws. Sanctuary cities do not give illegal immigrants a pass when they violate criminal laws, they arrest them, prosecute them and incarcerate them just like any other criminal.

      As to what is a resident. As the term indicts an resident is anyone maintaining a residence in our community. In other word if the place they call home is within the city boundaries then they are a resident of the city and yes that has nothing to do with their immigration status.

      The only time the City of Naperville has received Federal funds is when they are approved for a special federal grant. The federal government does from time to time provide a limited opportunity for some cities to apply for federal grants in support of some specific federal program, but they do not provide constant ongoing funding to any city.

      In closing I reiterate, that while it has become politically expedient to call illegal immigrants criminals they are in fact not criminals. If they were afforded the same rights we provide criminals deporting them would take years and be almost impossible. Criminals have a right to free legal counsel and a trial by jury. The legal maneuvering in preparing for these trials can take years. Criminals are also presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a standard that would be almost impossible to apply to illegal immigrants. In fact a person detain as an illegal immigrant only gets what counsel they can pay for and are assumed guilty until they can prove other wise.

      • Maudie

        So your alternate facts and logic says an illegal who is a resident because he owns a home has the same rights and privileges as an American citizen? No – just a good cover for the illegality of his or her presence in the community. Illegal automatically says the person is breaking the law. Illegal means no constitutional protections in my opinion because the constitution is for legal citizens, and perhaps those allowed to be in this country legally on the way to legal citizenship.

        And guess what? those illegals you say are arrested and incarcerated are the very ones the sanctuary cities are refusing to deport and subsequently throw back into society to commit more crimes when sentence is finished. These are the people ICE wants to deport and our laws require to be deported.

        Good luck with your arguments Jim. The more you write, the deeper the hole you dig.

        • Jim Haselhorst

          I have to asked, did you pass your high school civic class? The SCOTUS has ruled the US constitution applies to anyone in the US regardless of their citizenship, so yes the constitutional right guaranteed to US citizens also apply to illegal immigrants.

          As I have said repeatedly sanctuary cities are not refusing to arrest anyone that commits or is suspected of committing a crime. Any Illegal immigrant convicted of a crime will be sentenced and once they have finished their sentence will be deported, local police have no say in this matter, only the Federal, State and County Governments control prisons, and thus what happens to a prisoner upon release. So sanctuary cities can not prevent convicted criminals from being deported, nor is it the intent of sanctuary cities to do so.

          Some examples of people that would not be citizens today if their illegal immigrant parents, that had committed no crime, were deported are Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

          • steve

            Kermit Eby was my civics teacher. I believe Eby uses the Constitution as toilet paper.

  10. Gerard H Schilling

    As usual Jim (the unelected but adopted member of city council) knows not of what he speaks. For those of you who want to know the law on legal immigration here is a link.

    Sanctuary cities also harbor drug gangs mostly comprised of illegal aliens who degrade the security of the citizen not to mention contributes to the drug problems and overall crime rates of the city.

    Only buttercups and snowflakes (aka bleeding heart liberals) would endorse and support this type of self-immolation and ultimate suicide. Protect our OWN first then lets worry about non-citizens who have no constitution rights to come here or remain here. Visiting the US is a privilege not a right so also is being a refugee. Accept our laws, assimilate to our customs and culture, take a oath of allegiance when becoming a citizen or get the hell out and good riddance.

    • Jim Haselhorst

      Since your link does not provide any reference were it got it information, it is hard to know exactly what they are saying and if it is correct or not. Under federal law there are two type of immigration violations. Those that enter this country with valid entry documentation and those that don’t. The first group are illegal immigrants the second group are undocumented immigrants. Illegal immigration is not a criminal offense but a civil offense while undocumented immigration is a misdemeanor criminal offense. It is estimated that the ratio of undocumented to illegal immigrates is 9 to 11.

      The Federal government treats all immigration violators as illegal because of the added costs and difficult in handling them as undocumented. Because undocumented is a criminal offense they would have to be treated in accordance with the SCOTUS rules on criminal rights (miranda, free legal counsel, trial by jury, etc). These standards do not apply to civil detainees.

      Deportation as an undocumented would require a criminal trial were the accused is consider innocent until proven guilty by the government beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, that the accused entered the country without documentation. This means proving that Federal immigration records are infallible and no mistakes are ever made. You see the impossibility of winning such a trial.

      It is far simpler under civil standards were illegals are considered to have violated administrative law, so criminal rights do not apply and the case is heard by an administrative judge were the standard for guilty is the reasonable man (if it is reasonable they committed the offense then they are guilty). This means proving they do not have a valid visa or residency card, very simple – if they can not provide one they are guilty.

      Also while a lot of local and state governments have adopted laws making multiple misdemeanors a felony the Federal government does not have such a law.

      Drug and other criminal gangs have be around longer then sanctuary cities, existing just as easily and violently in non-sanctuary cities. If you have data showing a causal link between sanctuary cities and violent criminal activities and gangs I would very much like to look at it (please provide a link).

      Finally the SCOTUS as ruled that everyone in the US is protected by the constitution regardless of their citizenship status. I also served with many foreign nationals that swore and oath to defend this country, it’s Constitution and it’s citizens that as soon as their enlistments were up became illegal immigrant (enlisting/serving in the US military does not guarantee US citizenship). Still feel zero tolerance toward all illegal immigrants is just?

    • Jim Haselhorst

      So you support the righteousness of your post by providing a link to a statement by some obscure former celebrity judge, who’s claim to fame is helping in the investigation of a serial killer over three decades ago? There are literally thousand of people with these types of credentials or better.

    • Jim Haselhorst

      The prevalence of Spanish and Hispanic Culture in the US has more to do with the fact that most of the Mid and Southwestern part of the US (West of the Mississippi River) as well as Florida were originally colonized by people of Spanish decent (Spanish speaking people who had live on and owned these lands for generations) then immigration. When these territories became part of the US entire Spanish speaking communities became US citizens. These communities were no different from the communities that already exist over large parts of the West settled by Swedes, Norwegians, Germans, Austrians, Russians, etc were the language of the country they immigrated from was dominate in the cities they built. Examples of these communities still exist all across this country.

      The prevalence of Spanish was furthered by bilingual schools, the majority of which were Spanish because, again, 1/3 of the US is former Spanish colonies (8 of the 10 largest states). So it is not surprising that in these communities Spanish is still spoken by 3rd and 4th generations immigrants and natives, which proudly celebrate and conserve their Hispanic heritage.

      There is a difference between heritage and nationality, it is possible to be proud of both your heritage and nationality without conflict. Just because someone is proud of their Spanish heritage, celebrates it, displays it and teaches it to their children, does not mean they are not equally proud to be an American and does not make them less of a patriot and citizen. I am of German heritage and proud of it. At family gathering (reunions, weddings, holiday, etc) we serve dishes, play music, do traditional dances, etc. that reflects this heritage and my parents speak German as did the five to six generations of Americans before them. We do not feel giving our heritage along with our Nationally (German-American) makes us lessor citizens. Many of my relatives have serviced in the military and some died in that service and we are proud of all of them and their sacrifices. Calling them German-American does not diminish their patriotism.

      As to the claim that waving a foreign flag in another country would get you “exported”, this is not only udderly ridiculous it is plain ignorant. During my military service I have been in over a two dozen countries. In all of these countries (including China and former Soviet States) I have seen people waving flags of other countries and adoring their buildings with such flags. None of these people were “exported”. In fact they were not even harassed and pick on the way that it is becoming popular to do here in the US, a nation of immigrants and diverse heritages.

      The kind of divisive language and rhetoric this post and others like it spread are doing more to hurt this country and our unity then our nation’s immigrants (immigrant heritage) has done or will ever do. Spreading hate and intolerance has never made any nation stronger! World history, in fact, teaches us that this kind of behavior eventually destroys nations. If anything is hurting patriotism in this nation it is the spreading of hate and divisive behavior not illegal immigrants, refugees, Islam, Liberals/Conservatives, etc.

  11. John

    Illegals are invaders while trying to take over our culture . I don’t want to press # 2 for Spanish . All this talk is confusing the issues . The new wave of Illegals don’t want to assimilate . I have seen foreign flags waved in demonstrations . Do that in any other country ,ie Mexico and you will be exported .
    I do understand businesses wanting Illegals because it means more Sales for them .
    Coming here is a privilege and not a right .

    • Jim Haselhorst

      My response to your post was posted as a reply to the post before you by Maudie. Not sure how this happened. It said it was being posted as a reply to you when I typed it.

  12. Jim Haselhorst

    Seen several posts were people have made a big point about their ancestors being legal immigrants. Not much of a claim if they entered the US before 1917 (1882 for Chinese). Before this date the moment you set foot on US soil you were an Immigrant with full residence status. No prior application required, no screening, no documents to fill out or required to be provided, no one ever denied entry, no oath of allegiance required. So there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant, if you had the means to travel to the US you were given the equivalent of today’s residency status.

    The US federal government did not ever do anything with immigrants until 1890. So prior to this time the federal government did not keep track of immigrants or maintain any documents on immigration. Before this the local government for the port city of entry did what processing immigrants did under go. And the earliest any of these cities started doing this was 1855. So prior to 1855 the only immigration records are ships manifests.

    Again prior to 1917 (1882 for Chinese) no one that traveled to the US and claimed to be immigrating was turned away and all were given the equivalent of today’s residency status, there simply was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. Starting in 1917 immigrants were required to pass a literacy test before being granted residency status. And in 1924 limits were placed on how many people would be allowed to immigrate each year. The immigration laws, as we know them today, came into existence in 1965.

    • jude

      Jim, may I ask if you would be willing to be the first to take in a Family of Immigrants, give them shelter, food, medical and education assistance out of your own pocket? You and other Liberals seem to play the collective card to push an agenda. I personally know a Progressive, retired older woman from an administrative school level. While enjoying 1st class healthcare paid for by her union, a very healthy pension and being the biggest tightwad I have ever seen, she has ended up very well off. This woman thinks like you, all talk of making everyone else chip in through the collective argument – you would be in a better position if you led by example – adopt of few of these illegals and report back to us on how it goes. (And please not just an over nighter – long enough until they can support themselves, learn the language etc.)

      • Jim Haselhorst

        You are using the terms immigrants and illegals interchangeably and they are not. Are you against all immigrants? Because unless you are a full blooding Native American you’re heritage, as is most of this nation’s heritage, is that of an immigrant. One of the requirements of the immigration process of the US is that the immigrant must have the means to support themselves, in other words, to a “productive” member of our community, So these immigrants do not get anything you or I do not get.

        The exception to this rule is refugees, which make up less then 10% of total immigrants per year. These people typically have nothing and are simply looking for a safe place to start over. The vast majority of these individuals are under the age of 17 or single mothers (>76%), that typically do not speak English. Their abilities to make a living upon entering the US is very limited, so on average, these individual will be granted 6 months of economic support. These immigrants are not being provide housing in affluent communities like ours, but more often then not more rural communities were cost of living is lower and more obtainable for these immigrants. They are highly motivated and are not looking for a hand out, simply a new beginning, so extension of these supports beyond 6 months are rare. Also refugees are defined by UN agreement and any nation, like the US, that is a signatory of this agreement are bond by it’s terms, which requires providing such individuals economic assistance as well as permanent residence status.

        On the issue of illegal immigrants, were do you get your information that these people are getting economic, medical and educational assistance provided without cost? If you say the federal government then I would ask – Are you saying our government is knowingly giving medicaid, welfare, food-stamps, etc. to people in this country illegally? Because that would be a violation of federal law, not to mention immigration law. My guess is you are getting this second hand without knowing the source or from some questionable media source that also did not provide its source (every time I ask a person that makes a post like yours to provide supporting data I get crickets). The simple fact is anyone purchasing any goods in this country (food, clothes, gasoline, etc) are paying taxes. Anyone paying a mortgage or rent in this country is paying property taxes. Finally, while some illegals work for cash, most are getting a regular payroll check with FICA withheld just like the rest of us. So in reality most of these 11 million illegals immigrants, if they are receiving any of these benefits, are also paying the taxes that support these benefits just like you and me.

        Other annoying facts for people with your attitude is that only around 10% of the illegal immigrants in this country are undocumented (meaning they entered the country without authorization, typically by crossing a border). The majority enter this country legally with a valid visa and then simply do not leave when the visa expires (i.e fathers of Senators Cruz and Rubio). During the time their visa is valid they can get drivers licenses and in some cases social security cards that make their remaining in this country undetected very easy. The US simply does not have a system to track people entering the country with a valid visa, which means they don’t know if they have left the country before their visa expired or were they are if they are still here. So spending a few million on developing and implementing a tracking system for these visas would have 10 times the impact on illegal immigration then that of billions spent building a wall. But a wall makes for better photo ops when running for a election then a computers display.

    • Jim Haselhorst

      What is your basis for this assumption? Has any spokes person for a sanctuary city ever said they will not arrest and convict illegals that commit crimes? Once a person is convicted of a crime they go into the federal data base, which means deportation if they are illegal.

      Also, the article only states that he was turned over to Immigration not why and the federal spokesperson would not say why either. It is your assumption this guy is an illegal, but he could just as easily be in the US legally and was turned over for violating his visa.

  13. Steve W

    4/4/17 is next week. My vote for or against a candidate will be clear based on what I see. It will be wise for them to make their opinions VERY clear at this time.

  14. steve

    Does Naperville endorse hiring illegal immigrants, selling or leasing them property?

    • Jim Haselhorst

      The city only has control over city hiring not hiring by organizations or individuals within the city. That is controlled by federal law (SCOTUS has confirmed and re-affirmed only the federal government has immigration authority and no state or local government can pass any law effecting US immigration policies, which a law or policy on hiring based on immigration status would be.) The federal government’s requirement for verifying legal status for hiring is listed on the I-9 form but the two documents typically used for this verification are a valid Drivers License and a Social Security Card, both of which are easily legally obtained by most illegal immigrants (as I have explained in previous posts). So the city has no policy endorsing or not endorsing hiring of illegals because it would violate the US Constitution according to the SCOTUS.

      Again the city only has control over the sell and leasing of city property. Private Property sells and leasing are considered private contracts falling under civil law not criminal. The city can only regulate such contracts if they violate criminal law, and the city can not enact any law involving immigration status as explained above. Further there are no laws prohibiting selling or leasing property to citizens or organization from other countries. Again any such laws would have to be enacted by congress.

      While I understand your interest, the reality is these two areas are not within city authority to control or influence and if the city did officially adopt any such position it would quickly be struck down by the courts as illegal.

      • steve

        I understand that the city of Aurora requires landlords to register their properties with the city. I’m wondering if Naperville has our plans to have a similar ordinance. I’m also wondering if that ordinance would require landlords to ensure there tenants are not in violation of federal law.

        • Jim Haselhorst

          The city of Aurora has several ordinances regarding rental properties that in Naperville are part of a voluntary program. These have nothing to do with immigration but are in place primarily to fight drug dealing within the community. Naperville city council did look at making this voluntary program mandatory (like it did with the management practices for late night operators in downtown Naperville) but during public hearings there was a fair amount of resistance from both landlords and tenants with basically no support so the this program remains voluntary.

          As was pointed out in the article on Session’s statement, federal law makes participation possible but not mandatory. Resisting the strong arm tactics of the present administration to force compliance to voluntary programs even when there is no evidence such participation will in anyway benefit the community is a big part of the sanctuary city movement. Several of these cities are already preparing to sue the Trump administration if they actually cut off federal funds, so joining a class action suit is already a possibility. Administration immigration policies are also classified Administrative laws (not criminal) and do not involve incarceration. So it is easy for Sessions to talk about Administrative policies being laws but actual laws that state and local governments are required to comply with have to be enacted by congress not the president.

          • steve

            Thank you for letting your opinion and interpretation be known. I have reviewed Mr strick and Ms. Berkowitz commentary on the matter. I vote today. Thank you for helping me make an informed decision.

          • Jim Haselhorst

            Thank you for taking the time to vote. Unfortunately you will likely be only 1 in 10 of your neighborhood’s registered votes that will. Naperville has one of the highest percentages of overall population voter registrations, but the 1 int 10 turnout for the last consolidation election in 2015 was a high mark. It is unfortunate that so many of our neighbors do not see how much more important these elections are to our community then national elections.

            Again, thanks for taking the time to get involved, ask questions and most importantly vote.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *