Nearly a month after the Evanston City Council unanimously approved a resolution asking the federal government to reform immigration policies, city residents on both sides of the debate remain dissatisfied.
During a March 10 meeting, the council called for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and reaffirmed that Evanston will not provide city services based on immigration status. But they stopped short of formally enacting policies that would prohibit police and government workers from asking about a person's immigration status unless instructed to do so by law.
The resolution has appeased no one. Its opponents resent language that suggests Evanston will continue to provide benefits to all residents, regardless of immigration status. Supporters think the resolution is deficient because it does not specifically guarantee local immigrant rights.
Evanston resident Rachel Heuman, who spearheaded support for the resolution, said she had wanted the bill to provide rights to both legal and illegal immigrants.
"People are here not to break the law," she said. "The current situation necessitates breaking the law because if (undocumented immigrants) waited for documents, they would be too old."
Dawn Mueller, coordinator of the Illinois Citizen Security Network, a group opposing illegal immigration, said the original draft resolution risked making Evanston a "sanctuary" city for illegal immigrants. Taxpayers would have to pay for social services, education and law enforcement for undocumented people, she said.
"Evanston has been for many years involved in the practice of harboring aliens in the country illegally," Mueller said. "We were successful in encouraging the city council to consider that circumventing federal immigration law on harboring illegal aliens was not in the best interest of the City of Evanston and its taxpaying citizens."
The resolution that passed was a good compromise, said Ald. Elizabeth Tisdahl (7th). Tisdahl said she supported the bill from the beginning, but was convinced the amended resolution, which refrained from codifying city policies, is better than the original draft version.
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 6
Roger Chaillet
posted 4/04/08 @ 9:20 AM CST
Why is citizenship seen as an entitlement?
They should be deported, forcibly, if necessary.
I live in Dallas, Texas. I assure Rachel Heuman that if she were living here she would not be calling for citizenship for illegals. (Continued…)
Buzzm1
posted 4/04/08 @ 10:38 AM CST
The costs of the free benefits received by illegal immigrants, to American taxpayers, is every bit as much as the cost of the War In Iraq.......think about it, please. (Continued…)
MikeN
MikeN
posted 4/04/08 @ 3:41 PM CST
Which country allows in more legal immigrants than all other countries combined?
Answer: The United States, the most compassionate & giving country, bar none
Now,let's look at illegal immigration & understand the destruction & anarchy it causes
Business interests have learned long ago that can can hire a new illegal serf labor class which brings with it higher profits. (Continued…)
Bobby
posted 4/04/08 @ 3:47 PM CST
A path to citizenship which all that implies. The same benefits legal citizens receive without all the negatives, since they will really be eligible for all the social services then, paid for by the good old taxpayers. (Continued…)
Dave
posted 4/04/08 @ 5:52 PM CST
Stop complaining about the illegal immigration occupation of our nation! Unless we act now the new president will enact a new AMNESTY for the 12 to 20 million illegal entrants. (Continued…)
Margaret
posted 4/04/08 @ 6:55 PM CST
Illegal is illegal, the end. Please keep in mind the larger picture....The North American Union (SPP-http://www.spp.gov/) which encourages the free flow of people, goods and services. (Continued…)
Post a Comment