Some residents of Fremont, Neb. are disappointed by the recent suspension of a new law banning anyone within city limits from offering employment or rental units to illegal immigrants.

City ordinance No. 5165 would have been implemented last Thursday, if not for a city council ‘s decision to delay the law’s passage to prepare for the legal battle to follow.

The ordinance states that no business will hire anyone without documentation to be in the United States. Businesses would have to register with the federal E-verify program to check the legal status of workers. Violations could result in suspension or termination of a business’s license.

Also included in the ordinance is the prohibition of an illegal immigrant’s ability to rent any dwelling. To enforce this provision, renters would have to obtain an occupancy license where their information would be subject to city review.

Any violation by the landlord or renter could lead to a fine of $100 per violation along with other punishments.

The law was put to a vote after residents decided on making immigration reform a priority for the city by proposing this ordinance, even thought there are federal laws already similar to the ordinance. Many people believe the federal government has not done enough to uphold immigration laws, including the prohibition of renting to illegal immigrants. Federal authorities have responded by stating that this ordinance may violate the federal law and is one of the questions that will be answered during this upholding period.

During Aug. 4’s orientation session, where members of the public addressed their concerns to the city council, tensions over the ordinance became evident.

The majority of residents were disappointed with the halt to the ordinance because they had voted for it and expected the city council to follow through with enforcement. Yet others are understanding of the situation, saying that if it takes another six months to get it right, they will wait.

Those opposed to the new ordinance include the ACLU and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, who state that the ordinance raises legal and ethical questions.

“It makes sense if they did it for the job aspect because of the economy, but not because of the renting part,” said UNO senior Samantha Siderewicz. “If they eliminate the people they rent to, they reduce the money they bring into the city.”

The money concern is shared by the city council members, who say it might cost over a million dollars to support the legal battle and implementation of the law.

The city has until August 12 to respond to the lawsuits currently blocking the ordinance.