There Goes The Neighborhood

LaShawn, in case you’re not aware (but how an experienced blogger like yourself could be unaware of this I don’t know) — http://www.bugmenot.com has valid logins for many sites that require registration. I’ve used it to get ajc.com registrations…and I’m an AJC employee!

Please don’t share my IP address with the powers that is.

I think people have the right to live as they please in their own homes–suburbia or no suburbia. If they start “driving their car across my lawn” or violating noise ordinances, then the police should intervene. But a law that tells me how much sleeping space I’m required to have per person in my own home is an invasion of privacy.

Libs will always scream with righteousness about “community standards” regarding university communities’ “right” to set speech codes, “harassment” guidelines and the like. But when it comes to local ordinances like what LB has linked to here, OH-MY-GOSH!!! HOW CAN YOU DO THAT??

I hear land use restrictions are bad.

I tend to agree with Sherry. While I’m not eager to have a couple of dozen people living in the house next door, so long as they don’t bother me, it’s none of my business.

Where do you draw the line though in allowing someone’s right to privacy? Numerous children running around (probably unsupervised) outside making noise, groups of grown men hanging around in front of the property drinking and no doubt talking loudly, multiple autos parked on the lawn and in front of neighboring homes on a regular basis. Common sense says that having 10 to 12 grown people in addition to their children living in a living space designed for no more than 4 to 5 people will begin to take a toll on the property and surrounding area. On a daily basis that is a great deal of traffic going in and out of that one home.

People move to such areas for many reasons,one of those reasons is the expectation that if you move into a neighborhood with homes designed for small families, then thats exactly who is going to be living there. When that standard is broken it becomes my business.

The major violators are Mexicans. They are NOT a race. If Mexicans are 90 % of illegal aliens it’s not racism to accuse them. It’s LOGIC!
Those who cry “racism” are dishonest at best.

This problem should be left up to the cities and counties to decide. If they want to welcome families to jam themselves into housing fit for 2, then so be it. If not, then their representatives will pass laws saying so. Immigrants will find somewhere to live, so why not let the market dictate where.

I hate how the story compares to the Irish immigration of a century ago. Just like a newspaper to mismanage the truth. Truth be told, back then, immigrants didn’t have access to social services on the taxpayer dime. My great-grandfather didn’t have free hospital services to rely on. Anyone who wants to make that argument in this thread will be talking about apples and oranges.

There’s something else that people don’t discuss, or aren’t aware of if they don’t live around it: illegal immigrants don’t like to call the police because they’re afraid that the police will find out they’re illegal, and will call immigration. So it makes those types of areas good breeding grounds for gangs and black-market activity. There are even people in those types of neighborhoods that like to shake down the illegal residents, and hold the threat of contacting immigration over them.

I have a neighbor like that in my neighborhood.

I am almost sure that they run a day-care out of that house, and a party hall.

Thankfully in Texas there’s enough room to go around.

I’m in the middle about this.

I don’t see a problem w/regards to rentals, but with private property, your rights as a neighbor extends to my fence line. If we took property rights to heart, the market would adjust and take some of the heat out of ridiculous pricing and speculation.

If it’s a matter of illegal activity et al, there are other laws to deal with that.

I guess it’s easier to throw stones than pick them up and build something. The economy, the unemployment rate, lack of affordable housing and other societal issues all contribute to this. I have more empathy for those that are struggling to survive, than those who push down people in need.

However, we are all responsible for doing our best to create viable living enviroments for ourselves and families. The advocate in me gives people resources, the mother in me will help nurture the hurting souls and the GOD in me will pray for the disenfranchised.

What are YOU doing?

Is this REALLY about “illegals” or is this about the uncomfortability of dealing with issues of humanity? How many EUROPEANS come to this country illegally and stay, but because these people are perceived as being more productive, their numbers are swept under the rug?

GWB opened the door to this when he created the amnesty programs for Mexico. These people come to the US for a better life, work for little, exploited for alot, yet it’s easier for folks to thumb their noses at their plight instead of finding viable options.

Makes me wonder, I guess for some, being a Christian stops at the border?

Hmm.

“And if you recall, the Bible has a lot to say about the law and lawbreakers. It has nothing to do with what begins and ends at the southern border.”

And rendering unto ceasar.

I would add to Sepialove – are people enraged that this is happening or that this is happening in the suburbs? Is legalized overcrowding of urban centers – for non-illegals, as reprehensible? I do believe that overcrowding is a problem that needs to be addressed systematically. Lawlessness is never good.

However, as Christians, we need to be careful about where we draw the line – at the border, the other side of the trackds, etc – for which “people” we will do something for or what issues will invest ourselves into.

#25 Sepia wrote, “GWB opened the door to this when he created the amnesty programs”

He never created an amnesty program. He simply talked about it [proposed it].

#25 Sepia wrote, “These people come to the US for a better life”

“These people” need to come legally. This country allows MORE legal immigrants than all other countries combined. Therefore as generous as we are we don’t need to allow “illegal” immigrants as well. The nature of “illegal” means our national security is at stake. Your position seems extreme and makes our country very vulnerable.

Sepia wrote, “I see it as a humanity issue as well. These are people, not stray dogs to be round up and placed into a kennel.what do we do in the meantime?

We assert our right to protect our nation and assert our right to make sure that people come here “legally” [being that we are generous we don't also need to be taken advantage of].

La Shawn, #31 can be whacked. I missed a greater than symbol and therefore had text missing.

Thanks for your time.

Scott, I think it was in context to the previous posters attempts to call something anti-Christian. My interpretation was that it should help that poster have some reflection about how she wrote callously about someone being anti-Christian.

We aren’t all perfect.

Baklava,
I wasn’t asking for perfection, just clarification of the statement “anti-Christian.”

La Shawn,
Thanks for the link. I will read it. I’ve only been reading your blog for a month now, so I haven’t yet reviewed your archive extensively.

And for the reading closely clarification, I don’t support illegality or breaking the law as being Christian practices, though neither do I support the scapegoating of immigrants or anyone as being a Christian practice. And this isn’t a racial thing, I truly believe it is a biblical thing. That’s why I made the references.

I believe employers, for one, should be held more closely accountable for the hiring of undocumented workers. And since we live in a global, not national, economy, I believe that we should evaluate immigration as a global, not just national, issue.

I recently posted about this at:
P.S. I would have to add biting sarcasm as un-Christian. If you want the reference, let me know.

http://2deepthoughts.blogspot.com/2005/06/immigration-reform-employers.html

“We assert our right to protect our nation and assert our right to make sure that people come here “legally” [being that we are generous we don’t also need to be taken advantage of].”

I’d love to make sure that people were legal.

“Even though I know you are trying to be funny. ”

I’m very serious. My cousin is undocumented. I’d like her to be legal.

Under Chapter 24 of the Life Safety Code (2003), “A residential building that is occupied by four or more individuals, but not more than 16, each renting from a landlord, without separate cooking facilities, should be considered and regulated as a lodging or rooming house in accordance with Chapter 26.” (Life safety Code)

If there are more than 16 occupants, then you get into the chapter relating to hotels and dormitories. Then the landlord needs to spend thousands of dollars for fire alarm, sprinkler systems and handicapped accessibility (36” doors, restroom, van accessible parking space, ramps, etc.)

Zoning ordinances and building codes are specific about the number of occupants, parking spaces and the type of activities that the structure is designed for.

For Single-Family zoning, operation of a business from within the structure is prohibited. Where there are variances of the zoning to allow for a business, there are requirements for parking, handicapped accessibility and health codes.

You don’t allow someone to break codes and laws because they cannot afford to meet the requirements.

What would you think if the structure that the 10-20 people were living or where we live and work did not meet construction requirements for fire, wind, seismic or health just because the owner could not afford to, was unwilling to, or incompetent to construct it to codes?

I’m not trying to persuade. I want her deported. We have to start somewhere and somehow. Thanks for informing everyone. The authorities can work from here.

We are the most generous country that allows more legal immigrants than all other countries combined and we do not need to (post 9/11) allow illegal immigrants as well. It’s against the law and we need to uphold the law.

“Are you or others taking steps to make this woman legal, or just keeping her under wraps?”

We really just treat her like any other person.

soooo, the law only matters when you can use it to your advantage, and can be ingnored when inconvienent? You might have a bright future in politics ahead of you.

“Is that what you’ll say concerning all law breakers?”

No.

“So, as a future officer of the court, how do you justify shielding a criminal, actus? ”

What shield am I providing by telling you my cousin is undocumented?

“You skipped the second question: Or just the ones related to you? ”

No, as well.

“You are sheilding by not providing the name and/or not reporting the crime to the authorities”

I don’t think it’s that much of a crime. You really think it’s shielding that I don’t post the name — anonymously — on the web?

“If “no as well” then there is a contradiction”

I won’t say that concerning all criminals, and I won’t say it concerning just the ones related to me. Perfectly consistent. I won’t even say it everytime a criminal is related to me either.

“Answer to #3 contradicts #”

I won’t say it concerning all of them. I won’t say concerning just ones related to me. That doesn’t contradict. I could simply believe that it applies to a set of criminals which is not all of them, but not exactly the ones related to me.

Take this example: I could not say it concerning Dick Nixon. I could say it conerning Daniel Ellsberg. And I could say it concerning my cousin.

Yep. If someone commits a felony and I know about it you bet.

Ted Kazinsky the extremist environmental mail-bomber was turned in by his family.

For a non-killing example you can turn to any number of family members including MOM’s who have turned in their sons when they are into drugs. I have two daughters and if they wouldn’t stop doing drugs I’d do the same.

“Ted Kazinsky the extremist environmental mail-bomber was turned in by his family”

This is why i love having intelligent fact based discussions around here.

“For a non-killing example you can turn to any number of family members including MOM’s who have turned in their sons when they are into drugs”

I’d try to find them help. This may or may not involve the cops. I’m sure it would depend on the parent.