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.
“It was not going to have any practical impact on any immigrants in Evanston,” Tisdahl said. “It did create a lot of hate mail and a lot of focus on illegal immigrants in Evanston, which is just what they don’t need.”
Evanston resident John Drennan voiced his concern about the legality of the original resolution at council meetings.
He feared the resolution would preempt federal law by directing city workers not to ask about immigration status. He opposes the passed resolution because it calls for Congress to implement a specific immigration platform, including amnesty, and residents weren’t adequately included in council discussions, he said.
“I asked the city council to consider doing this via referendum because it is a complicated issue, and a multitude of citizens aren’t going to wholeheartedly agree,” Drennan said. “They refused to do that. They haven’t asked citizens how they feel about it, and I’m disconcerted about that.”
Fortino Leon, who immigrated to Evanston from Mexico in 1995, said he meets people in his neighborhood who are afraid to complain about mistreatment because they don’t want to expose their immigration status. These people may be denied public services, including treatment at local clinics, he said.
“Unfortunately, there are people who have been treated differently and don’t want to come forward to file a complaint,” Leon said. “The government should be the sole entity that asks for legal documents. City officials should not; they are not an immigration office.”
Those who supported the bill plan to continue looking for ways to impact immigration reform and to protect the rights of all Evanston residents, even though the city did not pass the resolution they had proposed.
“Some people live in the shadows, and they are afraid to come out of those shadows,” said Robert Oldershaw , pastor emeritus of St. Nicholas Catholic Church, 806 Ridge Ave. “We wanted to say very clearly that this community welcomes you. This community does not condition our services on your immigration status.”
