––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
- Posted September 09, 2011
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Runestad announces rally in Lansing against new immigration policy
Oakland County Commissioner Jim Runestad will march on Lansing on Tuesday, Sep. 13, beginning at noon. He will hold a rally on the east steps of the capital in Lansing. This rally is in opposition to the new immigration policy of President Obama that circumvents the United States Congress's authority on the issue of amnesty for illegal immigrants and extend amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrants.
"Time and time again Congress has rejected amnesty for illegal immigrants and now the president is offering illegal aliens the right to say and work in the United States," stated Runestad.
Runestad has been a staunch proponent for tougher immigration laws working closely with State Representative David Agema's efforts to require use of the federal E-verify program to stop the hiring of illegal workers by businesses that have government business contracts with the state and various levels of government.
He successfully implemented Oakland County's E-verification Policy with the support of his colleagues that requires any business that wants to conduct business with Oakland County must use the federal e-verify program. The county's e-verify policy went in effect in the spring of 2011.
Published: Fri, Sep 9, 2011
headlines Oakland County
headlines National
- Exodus: Thousands of federal lawyers left their jobs by choice or by force in 2025
- Wisconsin moves to UBE to ease access-to-justice woes
- The Burton Book Review: A discussion on ‘When You Come at the King’
- Facebook, Instagram pulling ads from lawyers looking for plaintiffs ... to sue them
- Florida law school pressed to include chapter of Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA
- BigLaw firm faces questions over $35M bill




