City Council members in a Dallas suburb have taken the immigration battle into their own hands. Last Tuesday amidst screaming protestors and clapping advocates, the Farmers Branch City Council voted unanimously to deny renting privileges to illegal immigrants. Ordinance 2903 requires applicant tenants to provide identification verifying their immigration status before they rent houses or apartments.

In November of 2006, Farmers Branch passed a similar ordinance fining landlords for renting to illegal immigrants. A federal judge struck down the ordinance, claiming the city was using a different method to regulate its immigration than the federal government.

Ordinance 2903 is a chance for Farmers Branch to try again, yet this ordinance has complications as well. For Farmers Branch to acquire potential renters’ immigrant status simply from their identification, officials must use the Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (CIS) database, called the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlement (SAVE). Heather Mac Donald, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, told WoW it is unclear whether the database can even accurately supply the information Farmers Branch needs. The CIS is hesitant to allow access and is currently considering whether it would be within the law.

Dissenters believe the ordinance will cause racism and discrimination, while supporters argue the city has a right to enforce immigrant policies. Dividing the sides even more, leading Council member Tim O’Hare announced last week his intention to run for mayor.

Anticipating a fight, on Monday Farmers Branch asked a federal judge to look into the constitutionality of its case. Mac Donald said there is a precedent for local immigration policies, noting both New Ipswich, N.H., and Long Island, N.Y., as former cases: “It is legitimate for a locality to work with the federal government to create an immigration policy. If it is illegal, it does not seem to be illegitimate for them to enforce that.”

Ysaira Paulino excelled in high school, so it was little question that she should attend college. But midway into her junior year, the cost proved to be too much and she withdrew. Why didn’t she apply for federal or state aid that might have allowed her to finish her education? Because she didn’t qualify: She’s an illegal immigrant. 

Hillary Clinton was fuzzy on the immigration issue during the last Democratic presidential debate, but in September, she made clear statements that a new Campaign for a United America is echoing now.

Clinton spoke against public figures who “bash immigrants,” saying “There are many in the political and frankly in the broadcast world today who take a particular aim at our Latino population. I think it’s very destructive.” Clinton’s campaign later revealed that she was referring to Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs. Campaign for a United America also condemns Lou Dobbs for “his vendetta against immigrants,” and is “alarmed by the increasingly scornful actions and hateful rhetoric of an anti-immigrant movement that aims to divide America.”

CUA media liaison Devin Burghart notes the rise of anti-immigrant organizations and groups like the Minutemen, telling WoW that dehumanizing rhetoric has poisoned the immigration debate: “All too often immigrants are used as scapegoats, and we think that’s unacceptable morally, ethically and politically. … It’s time to stop dehumanizing immigrants and it’s time to get down to having a real discussion about it – our immigration tradition and what it means to us as a nation.”

Steve Malanga, Manhattan Institute fellow and co-author of The Immigration Solution: A Better Plan Than Today’s, told WoW he has found that most of the “screaming” takes place between those who hold extreme positions on immigration. Polls reveal that most Americans embrace a moderate position.

Malanga said when it comes to cleaning up the rhetoric of the immigration debate, America’s first challenge is to resolve the issue of illegal immigration: “That gets mixed up with the larger question of our legal policy. … Until we come to a common consensus on that, we won’t have the next discussion, which is ‘what should our immigration policy seek to achieve for us as a nation?’”