Naperville, IL, Councilman Suggests Sign-Up Sheet for Families to House Illegal Immigrants
“So, you know, we do have a very affluent community, a lot of big homes.”
It starts off with an option, but we all know the government uses it as a gateway to mandatory actions.
I grew up outside of Naperville, IL. It was and still is one of the affluent, rich, posh, and up-scale Chicago suburbs.
Councilman Josh McBroom suggested a sign-up sheet for Naperville families to volunteer and house illegal immigrants.
Oh, man. No one in Naperville, especially those in the richer neighborhoods with huge houses, would sign up:
McBROOM: “I do know that there’s a lot of people that do care. And I — I think we live in a compassionate community. So, you know, before we go down the road of, you know, doing what — following suit that some of these other cities are taking action on, you know, my idea would be, let’s find out. Let’s find out who’s willing to help. So, you know, we do hear from constituents on both sides of this, what are we gonna do to preemptively stop this? And then we hear from people that tell us we should do more. So, you know, we do have a very affluent community, a lot of big homes. What I’d like to do is direct staff to create a sign-up sheet so — you know, for individuals that would be willing to house migrant families. And if there’s people that would do that, God bless them. So, if we could raise awareness in that way, I think we need to find out, I think we need to find out who would be willing to house migrant families. So that would be my new business and I’d be looking for support from from the dais. Any questions, discussion, happy to have that.”
Naperville Councilman Josh McBroom wants a sign-up list for residents to host illegals in their homes:
"We do have a very affluent community. We have a lot of big homes."
Naperville is a wealthy liberal suburb on the outskirts of Chicago. Biden won there by a 20% margin in… pic.twitter.com/UdO61MmRKW
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) January 23, 2024
Council members Paul Leong, Jennifer Bruzam Taylor, and Nate Wilson supported McBroom’s proposal.
Staff members have to vet the idea before it’s officially brought forward at a meeting:
By a show of hands, council members Nate Wilson, Paul Leong and Jennifer Bruzan Taylor supported McBroom’s proposal. The idea will be vetted more thoroughly by staff before it is brought back to the council for discussion at a future meeting.
“Our constituents are asking about it more frequently,” McBroom said, adding that he’s heard from community members who are imploring the city to do more as well as some who are asking what the city is doing to prevent buses from coming to Naperville.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
great idea! asking individuals to put their money where their mouth is. Not enough people sign up, you are not a sanctuary city.
Huh? How would that make them not a sanctuary city? Where did people get this weird idea that declaring a sanctuary city involves promising to look after illegal immigrants? Who came up with that? It’s just not true. That is not what sanctuary city means. All it has ever meant is that the city promises not to hand them over to the feds. That’s all. It never promised to feed or house them, and if it doesn’t do so that doesn’t stop it being a sanctuary.
Sanctuary cities don’t even stop the feds from finding illegal immigrants and arresting themselves. They can’t stop them. That would be illegal, so it’s not part of the promise. All they promise is to exercise their unquestioned constitutional right to stand by and not help the feds. If the feds come on their own accord the city cannot and does not interfere.
> If the feds come on their own accord the city cannot and does not interfere.
Actually, they actively stop ICE from reaching the illegals who commit violent crimes. Example: In Boston they just released a rapist (Pierre Lucard Emile) who had raped a “developmentally disabled” woman rather than allow ICE to detain him. Unless this site ban URLs in responses, check out:
NOT an anomaly! So-called sanctuary cities are violating laws and endangering their own citizens by their interference.
Curiously, this site does not ban URLs, but yours never made it. Did you blow the HTML?
False. Pierre Emile was treated exactly the same as he would be if he were here legally. He was held for two months on the rape charge, and then released on bail with a tracker, just as anyone else in the same circumstances would have been. Boston authorities made no attempt to prevent ICE from arresting him, which is what happened. Someone informed ICE of his whereabouts, and they came and arrested him, and Boston did nothing to stop it. What they refused to do was hold him for ICE, which is their constitutional right.
So what you’re saying is that “sanctuary city” is just sedition to virtue signal? Last I checked, the federal government cannot compel a state to enforce federal laws at its own expense, but the state must COMPLY with federal laws. So by openly and with hostility shirking federal law, leaders of sanctuary cities are essentially the new confederacy, sans the testicular fortitude to secede. Seems kinda ineffectual and stupid, but it does seem like a good opportunity for the federalization of law enforcement in “sanctuary cities” and the prosecution of the seditionist traitors in leadership there.
When the Dems broke the seal on lawfare as a political weapon, it was…shortsighted to say the least.
Sanctuary states and cities DO comply with all federal laws. Congress cannot make a law compelling them to cooperate with federal law enforcement, e.g. by informing ICE of an illegal immigrant’s whereabouts, or holding him for ICE to pick up. Any law purporting to require them to do so is automatically invalid and they do not have to comply with it. But they can’t obstruct ICE in any way. They can’t hide an illegal immigrant, or help him evade arrest. All they can do is stand by and do nothing, neither helping ICE nor hindering it.
Milhouse, we don’t CARE what Democrats think of anything. This guy showed once again, that you’re all a bunch of racist hypocrites.
Go back to Vox where you belong.
Why don’t YOU go jump in the lake, where YOU belong.
You first, Josh. Lead by example.
Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the Committee of Public Safety. That’s not the way these things work.
McBroom should demonstrate his commitment by taking in 4-6 immediately.
“Come on in. There are bedrolls and cots in the garage. Grab a leaf blower or a vacuum cleaner on the way in. Breakfast is at 7am. I want my eggs over easy. Try not to get too much pulp when you squeeze my orange juice.”
Sounds like aiding and abetting fugitives to me . . .
Quartering Democrat soldiers in peoples’ homes.
If it’s voluntary, I don’t really care who invite those people to stay in their house. Now if it becomes mandatory that’s a Third Amendment violation, does some would argue against that since they’re not technically soldiers. But they are an invading Army so I think they count. But hey, if the stupid communist really want to pay out of their own pocket to support those criminals, not my problem.
1. The third amendment is not currently in effect, because the USA is at war. It has been continuously since at least 2001, and there doesn’t seem to be any prospect of the state of war ending any time soon.
2. In any case, these are not US troops.
Compulsorily quartering them with households would be a taking, and would require compensation, but it would not be a 3A violation.
Not a declared war so I am pretty sure the Constitution is still in effect.
Hey, everyone, listen to the Democrat telling us we don’t have third amendment rights either.
You wish, leftist.
Yes, a declared war. An Authorization of the Use of Military Force is a declaration of war.
In any event, a state of war does not depend on a declaration. That’s been solid law since the 1790s, when the courts ruled that the Quasi-War, the very first war the USA fought, was indeed a valid war even though neither the USA nor France had bothered declaring it.
Azathoth, you are a fucking liar as usual, and a waste of oxygen.
It would be better if NO ONE supports the illegals, and they are thus encouraged to leave.
Nope.
1. They’re not fugitives; they’ve already been paroled into the USA and are now here legally until their court date comes up some time in the 2030s.
2. Even if they were actual fugitives, he’s not hiding them from ICE, he’s just arranging housing for them. ICE’s ability to find them remains exactly the same. It is not, and probably cannot be, illegal to feed and house a fugitive; it’s only illegal to help him evade capture. If ICE comes for him you can’t stand in their way, but you have no duty to assist them.
They’re invaders. They are not here legally. They are enemies.
Just because Traitor Joe and his junta are using them for the invasion of America doesn’t make them any less the invaders than they are. If some deranged DMV employee started issuing drivers licenses to 5 year olds doesn’t mean that those 5 year olds are now legal drivers. They aren’t. WHat the DMV employee did was a crime. What Traitor Joe and his junta are doing is waging war on America and these illegals are part of their ground operation.
They are here legally because they have been paroled. That makes them legal, by definition. It makes absolutely no difference what the president’s agenda is, or how much you hate it; as soon as they are given those documents they are here legally. They didn’t arrive legally, but they remain legally. As such it cannot be illegal to help them settle in.
LOL. A traitor “legalized” his invading force.
Brilliant.
You have to understand that Milhouse, a registered Democrat, is on Traitor Joe’s side.
He’s here working to demoralize us so that the left can continue destroying America.
And again, Azathoth is a fucking liar and every single word he writes is a lie. As Mary McCarthy said of Lillian Hellman’s lies, that includes “and” and “but”.
Only in the corrupt governments mind. In normal Americans minds…they are invaders that shouldn’t be here, and should be sent home. We can’t afford to support millions of people who have no skills. We already have enough Americans like that, that we have to support.
Give them a call to come in to be vetted; when they don’t, they will be fugitives. Incarcerating them until they are properly vetted is not too much to ask. The process should accompany their court dates.
Let them cool their tired heels while awaiting clearance, if they can get it.
Who should give them this call? The next Republican president? Sure. Do that. But the current president is not giving them that call. He’s happy to have them here until their court dates. So until that changes they are here legally and it’s legal to assist them.
Did the four council members sign up? Of course not, this is how communist operate – OTHER PEOPLES MONEY!!!!!
Why do they need a sign-up sheet? The illegals are allowed to go anywhere they want. They can just break into the houses and stay there as long as they like.
It gives the Council warm and fuzzy feelings to pretend they in any way actually control where illegals stay or what they do.
No, they are not “allowed to go anywhere they want”. If they break into private property they are evicted and arrested, just like anyone else is.
The idea that illegal immigrants are exempt from the ordinary laws, or are treated differently when they commit crimes, is a falsehood made up and circulated by right-wing ratbags who are just as bad as their left-wing counterparts.
“The idea that illegal immigrants are exempt from the ordinary laws, or are treated differently when they commit crimes”….but they are being treated differently. And being illegal and being given drivers licenses, free housing, free medical care, free phone … they are exempt.
Heck, they don’t even need photo ID to get past the TSA to fly. Try doing that as an American citizen
Nope. They are not being treated differently based on their immigration status (i.e. none). They are treated the same as Americans and legal immigrants in the same circumstances, i.e. those without resources are being given all kinds of goodies just like similarly situated Americans are. 0bamaphones and all the rest of it. You can say they shouldn’t be, but they are.
And no, they’re no more allowed to fly without photo ID than anyone else. You can in fact fly without photo ID, if you show up at the airport in plenty of time for them to verify your identity. I did it once, when my ID had expired; it took a while, but they eventually let me through. If I had been cutting it close I would have missed my flight, but I was there in plenty of time so it was just a hassle. Enough of a hassle that the next time I made sure I was carrying a currently valid ID.
Can someone please explain why an expired license or passport is not still valid ID? Sure, you can’t use it to drive or to leave the country, because they want you to pay to renew it; but you’re still the same person, so surely it still proves who you are.
Can you say that to the veterans and seniors that are being evicted to house illegals?
What about students, being deprived of their schools and forced to do provably ineffective remote learning, just to house Biden’s illegals?
Lastly, so illegals can get valid ID, but our citizens can’t (according to the fraud friendly Democrats)?
What was wrong with Pres. Trump’s stay in Mexico policy?
Nobody is being “evicted to house illegals”. Illegal immigrants are not getting priority over anyone else. The temporary housing at Floyd Bennett Field is available for any homeless person who wants it, not just illegal aliens.
And nobody is claiming large numbers of US citizens can’t get ID; they’re claiming that they don’t have it, and the difficulty of getting it (such as getting transportation to the nearest DMV) is enough to be an unconstitutional burden on voting.
(There are some US citizens who really can’t get ID, or face inordinate difficulties getting it, because they don’t have the supporting documentation; e.g. there’s no record of their birth. This isn’t a huge population, but they do exist.)
Oh, and there was nothing wrong with the “Stay in Mexico” policy.
No, but I ran into this exact same problem as a young man. I needed to cash a check at the issuing bank, but I had to first convince the manager that since the ID had by photo and my current address that it still identified me. Fortunately, he was not an idiot.
Okay they would be taken out and arrested, but then they wouldn’t be prosecuted by the da because you know they don’t actually prosecute criminals in those places
Places that don’t prosecute criminals don’t prosecute any criminals. I have never heard of a place that prosecutes citizens and legal aliens but not illegal ones.
You are a truly annoying nut. You know you are lying like a banshee. Everyone knows you are lying.
They are not “immigrants” of any sort. There is no such thing as an “illegal immigrant”. They are illegal aliens.
Have you lost in interest in the old “undocumented” label … that was a really cute one, too.
Gotta agree: the terms “immigrants” is conflating legal and illegal aliens, and “migrants” is just Democrats redefining the language again.
Let them migrate out if they are migrants. As for illegal, incarcerate them until they are approved or rejected. At least we will know where they are.
Or just go back to making immigrants get sponsored by citizens. Hold the citizen responsible for the actions of the illegals they sponsor.
This is why you just have to specify legal or illegal when talking about immigrants. The Left needs to conflate the two for obvious reasons, but it behooves us as gentlemen and scholars to avoid semantic arguments.
Everyone knows you are lying. Claiming that I’m the one lying only destroys your credibility even further. The definition of “immigration” is not at all obscure. It’s in every single dictionary and they all agree that it has nothing to do with any laws.
And Dimsdale’s just showing his bottomless ignorance. No, “migrants” is not Democrats redefining the language. It’s completely standard English. All immigrants and all emigrants are by definition migrants. “Immigrant” is just more specific; it describes the migrant from the point of view of his destination. Your policy prescriptions are irrelevant to the definition of a perfectly ordinary English word, that you and Primordial and a few other fucking liars have decided to unilaterally redefine, and then have the chutzpah to claim that those defending the standard, correct definition are leftists. Go to Hell, both of you, and stay there. You’re both evil people.
Millhouse is very annoying, but only because he’s right. It annoys me too, so you have my sympathy
Also, don’t smear banshees; I’ve never known one to lie
Millhouse isn’t completely right about these matters but I agree his Spockesque dispassionate rebuttals to some of the posters here do seem to inflame passions.
I think the discussions have drifted from the original point of the hypocrisy of moneyed Democrat communities who support Joe Biden’s policies but aren’t likely to put themselves at risk to welcome the
“Huddled masses”.
Tell that to the home owners in Texas that the Government is cutting down their fences and letting the invaders in from.
Tell what to home owners in Texas. Which home owners do you claim are seeing the government cut down their fences?
“If they break into private property they are evicted and arrested, just like anyone else is.”
They broke into the US.
Now shut your Democrat mouth and let the real people talk without your constant leftist blather.
The US is not private property.
One wonders how secure the chain of custody for the sign up sheets will be, and what would happen of the Nomenklatura had their names and addresses put on the sheets and it was publicized?
Purely an intellectual exercise, of course.
Subotai Bahadur
How do you keep something like that secret? Just drive around the gated community towards the sound of the boomboxes.
Indeed. Let them sign up, but make them responsible for their tenants.
What the hell is happening to our country????
The French Revolution.
More the fall of the Roman Republic.
Actually, it’s really more like of a Hale-Bopp/Jonestown thing, but with added cowardice.
Complete with donated tennis shoes
🤣
Fall of the Republic? We haven’t had proscriptions yet.
This feels more like the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, though our legislature still funds a military with citizens in it.
Well they do seem to be having problems with recruiting citizens to serve in the military right now.
Would you risk you ass for Biden’s 10%? Would you risk your son?
A loss of sovereignty. Which implies it is no longer our country.
Subotai Bahadur
Nonexistent borders are a sure sign of that.
An open border is no border.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5ikX1e7TrQ
America’s Future…my tongue is only partially in my cheek.
Money to marbles, the next meeting is SRO.
Call me when the vile, hypocritical and loathsome Obamas, and, their billionaire pals, the Pritzkers, decide to share one of their many abodes, and, some of their undeserved, filthy lucre, with these illegal aliens.
Narcissist-incompetent-dunce, Obama, should follow his own pompous and hectoring admonition, and, “Spread the wealth around.” As he once observed, “At a certain point, I think you’ve made enough money.”
Governor Toilets. If you aren’t familiar with the story, John Kass uncovered it.
I believe Obamalamadingdong has an empty manse in Hyde Park.
Please don’t forget John F’n Kerry and his gigolo mansions.
Once someone starts living with you, you cannot kick the person out without going to court.
In some jurisdictions, the sheriff will not enforce an eviction if it is too cold outside.
I can’t speak specifically to Illinois but in most States the threshold time period is 30 days of continuous residence in the home. Before that they can be removed. After the 30 day mark you gotta go through an eviction process. So be careful letting a friend, family member or anyone else have an extended stay beyond 30 days.
I’m reminded of the old saying about dealing with endangered species on your farm.
Kill it off quietly and don’t tell anybody?
Shoot, shovel, STFU.
Gosh! That would be a real shame, wouldn’t it?
Didn’t they already propose that in Martha’s Vineyard and quietly change the subject when the buses started showing up?
Funny how all of that loudly-professed, much-touted and alleged “sanctuary” hospitality went right out the window, a nanosecond after hordes of illegal aliens began arriving at the Dhimmi-crats’ cherished, tony enclave of Martha’s Vineyard. Then, the Dhimmi-crat hypocrites couldn’t have the illegal aliens removed quickly enough.
What “loudly-professed, much-touted and alleged “sanctuary” hospitality”? Please provide me with even one citation to such an alleged offer of hospitality associated with the declaration of a sanctuary.
In MA, there is a “right to shelter law,” the state’s 1983 “right to shelter” law maintains that any family, regardless of immigration status, is guaranteed immediate state-provided housing.
Note words “any family” and immediate.”
The “hospitality” espoused by every leftist until it comes their time to pay the check their mouths wrote.
And they got it. There was never any guarantee that it would be in any specific community.
And it has nothing to do with sanctuary status. This “right to shelter” is equally available to citizens and to legal aliens. Sanctuary status has never included a promise of anything but not being turned over to the feds.
I would agree, but the policy is being misused to service illegals over citizens. At least here.
The Democrat just keeps talking, defending the leftist agenda.
The liar just keeps lying.
People on welfare milking the system with free everything can sign up and get paid for illegals
Wonder what kind of verification they’ll use for this. I’ve got some some Chicago politicians who I’d like to add to the list since I’m sure they’re all just too busy to do it themselves.
Oh, come on. Let the fool embarrass himself. I’m all for this.
It’s just like the how Massachusetts Republicans pwned the big-mouth, six-figure “Karens from Wellesley” who insisted we all needed to pay higher taxes because they felt THEY weren’t paying enough. The Republicans filed a bill adding a line to the tax form where people could chip in however much extra their liberal guilt demanded. The Democrats’ greed didn’t allow them to oppose it, and it passed. Then several years later, the Republicans disclosed that only something like three people statewide had ever used it.
Maybe the guy is going to embarrass his virtue-signaling neighbors.
If this is strictly voluntary and they’re not receiving government money to do so? I have no problem with these people having these criminals live in their homes. Now, if they want me to pay so that these people can host criminals in their homes, I ain’t on that train.
Brooklyn, NY has a program that offers to match up people needing housing with older people who are living alone in too much housing for their needs, and would appreciate someone to share it. I wonder how much vetting they do, and how effective it is. The pitfalls are obvious, but I haven’t heard of any disasters resulting, so maybe they’re doing it right; who knows?
You are talking about a population of people where literally 100% of them are criminals.
Only technically, and it’s a crime that completely decent people would commit, in desperate enough circumstances. Even Trump admitted that “some of them are decent people”; actually most of them are decent people, and if only we could easily tell who they are I would be in favor of letting them in. The problem is that a significant number are criminals and terrorists and other undesirables, and without a proper system to control it we have no way of knowing which ones those are, so it’s only common sense to treat them all as dangerous until proven otherwise.
So you believe that national borders are immoral?
No. He believes that US borders are immoral–they get in the way of leftist hegemony.
No, but I believe that laws against crossing them are malum prohibitum, not malum per se. There is nothing morally wrong with violating such laws; it’s just a matter of judging the odds of being caught.
And I believe that there are very few people who would hesitate to break such laws, if they had a strong enough need to do so, and an opportunity to do so without being caught. I don’t believe anyone in this forum would hesitate simply because there’s a law.
Right, because it’s just a line on a map. Got it.
Councilman McBroom would have been the first to sign, but he’s having a faucet in his bathroom repaired this week.
Marxist Governor Maura Healy made this same plea in Massachusetts. IT FLOPPED.
John Kerry, Big Chief Warren, Ed “dimbulb” Markey et al all declined.
Predictions, ex-cathetra out of my belly button:
1. Almost nobody will sign up to house an illegal “family”.
2. But some will. And be robbed/raped/murdered by their
“law-abiding” guests.
3. The guests will be arrested by local police but promptly
released out to street the moment ICE shows some interest
in the case.
4. Said “family” will again be homeless and be taken in by another
sign-up family. Repeat from step 2.
don’t care whether these people are “technically” legal or not–the idea that a proposal such as this could ” evolve ” into a gov’t endorsed/enforced policy to wit ANY homeowner could be forced to admit these people (or ANYONE else) to a private residence in order to ” house or shelter them ” is absurd
like you, milhouse, am not a lawyer but neither of us need a jd to know such a policy would be dead wrong
is apparent over the last three years that with fjb and his cohorts in power we can no longer secure our country–if such a policy were ever to come about, to literally come to our front door, will truly be the beginning of the end
I assume McBroom and his fellow Council members who support the idea were the first to “sign-up”. Guess not!
We should make failure to appear at their asylum hearing a felony and automatic deportation.
It already is automatic deportation, pending appeal. I think they get 60 days or something like that. But these hearings are not until some time in the 2030s, and then when they don’t show up and are ordered deported you first have to find them. And then they claim they didn’t know, they moved three times and the letter never got to them, and they should be allowed to appeal even after the deadline, and we start all over again. Which is why the whole policy of releasing them until the hearing is wrong.
Better Call Saul.
Bob Odenkirk is from Naperville.