The news media have been reporting on Chicago-area towns and villages that have enacted ordinances to fine interstate bus companies that transport and disembark migrants in their jurisdictions without prior notification and approval. Some ordinances require background checks on each adult passenger. The authorities in these towns and villages have made it clear that they hope the threat of the fines (up to $750 per passenger and $10,000 per bus) and the possible impounding of the offending buses will curtail or eliminate these drop-offs.

As reported, these passengers are given Metra train tickets to Chicago or they have made other transportation arrangements with friends or family. It’s safe to assume that the passengers are only in the town long enough to walk from the bus to the arriving train.

If “Texas” and “migrants” are removed from these scenarios, these buses are simply transporting passengers from one state to another, who then board another mode of transportation (i.e., Metra). This is not illegal. In fact, at the first imposition of a fine or the seizure of a bus, these jurisdictions will find themselves at odds with the U.S. government and the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3), which prohibits state and local governments from enacting laws that curtail or impede interstate commerce.

Ordinances passed by Elburn, Chicago Ridge, Aurora and McHenry do not mention the immigration status of the bus passengers. If these or future ordinances were to refer specifically to the immigrants’ status of being in the U.S. illegally, then the ordinances might withstand legal challenges in that they are curtailing or preventing an illegal activity. The Commerce Clause does not protect illegal interstate commerce.

Otherwise, these towns and villages can expect lawsuits, legal fees and damages.

— Randy Harris, Campton Hills

Some Chicago aldermen have said that there is no point in opposing Chicago’s “sanctuary city” ordinance because Illinois is a sanctuary state.

The fact of the matter is that Rockford recently sent new arrivals to Chicago because Rockford is not a sanctuary city.

Chicago’s ordinance does matter.

— Larry E. Nazimek, Chicago

I wish for:

Fewer than 600 homicides. Housing for all migrants. No new taxes. Gas costing less than $3. More police officers. Drivers using their turn signals. Drivers doing less than 60 mph on DuSable Lake Shore Drive. Criminals getting sentenced to jail. Is that too much to ask?

— Roberto Garcia, Chicago

I’ve always favored a commute by bike and/or public transportation to driving. I live in Old Town, and when I formerly worked in Lincoln Park, this choice was an easy one. When I started a new job in Hyde Park, the Metra Electric Line became an attractive new addition to my commuting menu. I’ve been impressed by the punctuality, cleanliness and speed of the train component of my commute.

That said, in order to take the train, I also need to bike 20 minutes on one end and walk nearly 20 minutes on the other, which is less appealing as a package. If I were able to bring my bike on the Metra, I could cut this total commute.

I have yet to board a crowded train car or had anything short of an abundance of seats. Metra has struggled with diminished ridership since the pandemic began, and I see my problem as an illustration of a larger opportunity the agency could be taking advantage of. Currently, only 1 in every 7or 8 Metra Electric trains allow bikes on board. Although trains run at intervals of under 15 minutes during peak times, there is a two- to three-hour gap between one bike car and the next. The opportunity to bike on both ends of my train commute would significantly increase the odds of me continuing to utilize Metra and the frequency with which I do, and I can’t imagine I’m alone.

I would even consider a bike surcharge a reasonable investment in the additional 30 minutes per day (2.5 hours per week) I’d win back.

I appreciate any attention to this suggestion.

— Carolyn Martineau, Chicago

Kudos to David McGrath’s op-ed of Jan. 1 for his relevant 10 resolutions for 2024 (“Let’s ditch the Electoral College, plus 9 other resolutions”). One that peaked my interest was “extend Medicare for everyone.” The time has come for his proposal to become reality.

The United States spends about 18% of its gross domestic product on health care, twice as much as the average OECD country: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is a unique forum in which governments of democracies with market-based economies collaborate to develop standards to promote sustainable economic growth. Despite having the most expensive health care system, the U.S. ranks last overall compared with six other industrialized countries — Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom — on measures of quality, efficiency, access to care, equity and the ability to lead a long, healthy life.

The U.S. spends about $900 per person on administrative costs, four times the average of other wealthy countries. Although the U.S. spends more on medical care, its health outcomes are generally not any better.

Compared with peer countries, the U.S. has the lowest life expectancy at birth, the highest death rate for avoidable or treatable conditions, the highest maternal and infant mortality and among the highest suicide rates, according to the Commonwealth Fund. The U.S. has the highest rate of people with multiple chronic conditions and an obesity rate that is nearly twice the OECD average.

Obviously, our health care system needs an overhaul, and I won’t even discuss the high cost of medications compared with other countries.

— Sam Solomon, Deerfield

With rising food costs and increased program participation — and with data showing that funding WIC bolsters our local economy — it is more critical than ever that we also strengthen the Women, Infants, and Children program to provide vital nutrition, formula and breastfeeding support for pregnant women, postpartum moms, infants and toddlers in our communities.

Extensive research has found WIC to be a cost-effective investment that improves the nutrition and health of families and gives hardworking moms the tools they need to take care of their families. That’s why for decades there has been a bipartisan commitment in Congress to provide necessary funding to serve all eligible participants.

WIC has seen a 17% increase in child participation since 2020, and this year, it is expected to serve as many as 7 million pregnant and postpartum women, infants and young children.

Should Congress fail to increase its investment in WIC by the Jan. 19 deadline, the program will be in danger of returning to waitlists for the first time since the 1990s, and hardworking families could see a benefit cut.

That is not OK!

— Linda Johnson, Chicago

Join the conversation in our Letters to the Editor Facebook group.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

QOSHE - Letters: Towns hope ordinances will deter drop-offs of migrants - Laura Washington
menu_open
Columnists Actual . Favourites . Archive
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

Letters: Towns hope ordinances will deter drop-offs of migrants

8 0
08.01.2024

The news media have been reporting on Chicago-area towns and villages that have enacted ordinances to fine interstate bus companies that transport and disembark migrants in their jurisdictions without prior notification and approval. Some ordinances require background checks on each adult passenger. The authorities in these towns and villages have made it clear that they hope the threat of the fines (up to $750 per passenger and $10,000 per bus) and the possible impounding of the offending buses will curtail or eliminate these drop-offs.

As reported, these passengers are given Metra train tickets to Chicago or they have made other transportation arrangements with friends or family. It’s safe to assume that the passengers are only in the town long enough to walk from the bus to the arriving train.

If “Texas” and “migrants” are removed from these scenarios, these buses are simply transporting passengers from one state to another, who then board another mode of transportation (i.e., Metra). This is not illegal. In fact, at the first imposition of a fine or the seizure of a bus, these jurisdictions will find themselves at odds with the U.S. government and the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3), which prohibits state and local governments from enacting laws that curtail or impede interstate commerce.

Ordinances passed by Elburn, Chicago Ridge, Aurora and McHenry do not mention the immigration status of the bus passengers. If these or future ordinances were to refer specifically to the immigrants’ status of being in the U.S. illegally, then the ordinances might withstand legal challenges in that they are curtailing or preventing an illegal activity. The Commerce Clause does not protect illegal interstate commerce.

Otherwise, these towns and villages can expect........

© Chicago Tribune


Get it on Google Play