Groups Block Texas Town's Immigrant Ban

[Oscarsjava]

The ACLU is at it again...

LINK

By ANABELLE GARAY, Associated Press Writer

Latino activists and civil liberties advocates asked a federal judge Tuesday to block a voter-approved ordinance that prohibits landlords from renting apartments to most illegal immigrants in the Dallas suburb of Farmers Branch.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union, which have already sued the city, requested the temporary restraining order in U.S. District Court.

The ordinance, scheduled to take effect next Tuesday, requires apartment managers to verify that renters are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before leasing to them, with some exceptions. Violators face fines of up to $500.

"It is unfortunate that the residents of Farmers Branch have chosen to implement a law which is not only bad policy, but is likely also unconstitutional," said Lisa Graybill, legal director for the ACLU of Texas. "Now the issue will have to be resolved in federal court."

City council members first approved the ban in November without discussion, then revised it in January to include exemptions for minors, seniors and some mixed-status families. On Saturday, residents voted to approve the ban with 68 percent of voters in favor, according to unofficial results.

Councilman Tim O'Hare, the ordinance's lead proponent, contends the city's economy and quality of life will improve if illegal immigrants are kept out. O'Hare declined to comment Tuesday.

Since 1970, Farmers Branch has changed from a small, predominantly white bedroom community with a declining population to a city of almost 28,000 people, about 37 percent of them Hispanic, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Farmers Branch already faces four lawsuits brought by civil rights groups, residents, property owners and businesses, who say the ordinance discriminates and puts landlords in the precarious position of acting as federal immigration officers. Their attorneys argue the ordinance attempts to regulate immigration, a duty that is exclusively the federal government's.

Nationwide, more than 90 local governments have proposed, passed or rejected laws prohibiting landlords from leasing to illegal immigrants, penalizing businesses that employ them or training police to enforce immigration laws.

*****************

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that our US Constitution extended to NON US CITIZENS. By jove, our Constitution applies to the entire WORLD, apparently!

I really hope RP members are considering Tom Tancredo as a legitimate presidential candidate - www.teamtancredo.org

[txinvestigator1]

The media, and even you, Oscarjava, get it wrong from the start. This is not an immigrant ban. I have not heard ONE person be against immigrants. This is an ILLEGAL ALIEN issue.


The liberals are so full of it. When Farmers Branch decided to enact the ordinance, the libtards decided to get a petition requesting a vote, as is within the law. They raised enough signatures to force a referendum, calling it "Let the Voters Decide".

Now that the voters decided, they have decided NOT to follow their own motto, and instead wish to file suit.

Our country is already being invaded. It has been happening for years.

[Oscarsjava]

Tex, that was the headline from the Yahoo article, not my own wording. I know it's about illegals, not immigrants - I come from a family of legal immigrants. That's the AP there with the headline.

[BP348]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that our US Constitution extended to NON US CITIZENS. By jove, our Constitution applies to the entire WORLD, apparently!

The U.S Constitution applies to everyone the second they step into the United staes. It's one of the things that makes America great!!!

Why do you think Bush is holding all thoses people at Gitmo? Because if he brought them here they would be covered by the Constitution.

[acreature]

Why do you think Bush is holding all thoses people at Gitmo? Because if he brought them here they would be covered by the Constitution.

Smart man.

[PVPD124]

The U.S Constitution applies to everyone the second they step into the United staes. It's one of the things that makes America great!!!

Why do you think Bush is holding all thoses people at Gitmo? Because if he brought them here they would be covered by the Constitution.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It seems to me, and I'm no lawyer, that the 14th amendment says that you are a citizen and protected under the constitution only if you are born here or have gone through the naturalization process, and that being here without proper doccumentation (Visa) the constitution would not apply to ILLEGAL ALIENS

But then what do I know, our county here in central Oklahoma only houses 60-70 Illegal Aliens a week waiting for deportation.

(I'll put on my flame retardant suit now)

[txinvestigator1]

An illegal alien arrested for say.....Burglary, has all of the rights guaranteed in the constitution.


If you actually comprehend the 14th, it tells you that ALL PERSONS, not all citizens, are afforded due process and equal protection under the law. :rolleyes:

[BP348]

It seems to me, and I'm no lawyer, that the 14th amendment says that you are a citizen and protected under the constitution only if you are born here or have gone through the naturalization process, and that being here without proper doccumentation (Visa) the constitution would not apply to ILLEGAL ALIENS

Ever alien legal or illegal, and visitors to the USA are covered. I arrest hundreds of aliens each year. What's the first thing they get? That's right Miranda. If not any LEO could pick up an alien and do whatever they want.

Didn't we just have two Border Patrol Agents sent to prison for a violation of an illegal aliens rights?

[Oscarsjava]

If that's the case then every political science, constitutional analysis, and rights history class I've taken has been wrong, and my B.A. in Poli Sci is worthless and based on lies. It's one thing when it comes to whether or not litigation is a probability, say, for example, a police department being sued. It's another when it comes to the rights a citizen of the US has as opposed to the rights an illegal has. The accepted interpretation of the Constitution is that it applies solely to to US citizens, and was written exclusively for US citizens. That's what makes it our Constitution. Now, illegal aliens are afforded humanitarian rights, but as far as the rights given to US citizens, they don't apply.


And to just point out...the FIRST thing illegals do once they step foot into this country is break a law. The mere fact of being here ILLEGALLY makes it ILLEGAL.

[Mr. Peanut]

Farmers Branch has set up a legal defense fund to help them fight the lawsuit and hopefully let the ordinance stand. They are accepting contributions on their website, and they're probably going to need all the help they can get to fend off attacks from several well-funded organizations.

http://www.farmersbranchlegaldefensefund.com/

[BP348]

The accepted interpretation of the Constitution is that it applies solely to to US citizens, and was written exclusively for US citizens.

So why do we have 2 Border Patrol Agents in prison for violating the rights of an illegal alien?

Everyone in the USA be they a citizen, alien, tourist, legal or illegal is protected under the constitution.

The way it's written may say US citizens but it's applied to everyone in the USA no matter how they got here.

[txinvestigator1]

If that's the case then every political science, constitutional analysis, and rights history class I've taken has been wrong, and my B.A. in Poli Sci is worthless and based on lies. It's one thing when it comes to whether or not litigation is a probability, say, for example, a police department being sued. It's another when it comes to the rights a citizen of the US has as opposed to the rights an illegal has. The accepted interpretation of the Constitution is that it applies solely to to US citizens, and was written exclusively for US citizens. That's what makes it our Constitution. Now, illegal aliens are afforded humanitarian rights, but as far as the rights given to US citizens, they don't apply.


.

No Oscar, you just didn't pay attention. :p

Are you implying that illegals have no rights under the constitution, and that an illegal has no right to counsel, no right to be free from unreasonable searches, or to be free from cruel and unusual punishments, etc?

Do ya really believe that?

[ahenry]

Are you implying that illegals have no rights under the constitution, and that an illegal has no right to counsel, no right to be free from unreasonable searches, or to be free from cruel and unusual punishments, etc?

Do ya really believe that?

It’s a stickier issue than first blush might make you think it is.* In 1999 SCOTUS ruled 8-1 in Reno vs. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee that “[a]s a general matter -- and assuredly in the context of claims such as those put forward in the present case -- an alien unlawfully in this country has no constitutional right to assert selective enforcement as a defense against his deportation." (Justice Scalia). This ruling wasn’t specifically about an aliens’ (whether legal or illegal) constitutional rights, but SCOTUS did decided to touch on the issue. Albeit without really resolving into it. It is also worth noting that most/many immigration advocates view this decision as a limitation (to a degree) on an illegal aliens 1st amendment rights.


*As a practical matter, regardless of case law or anybodies personal interpretation of the Constitution, both policy and tradition afford the full protection of the Constitution to any person in the United States regardless of their legal status. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with that stance. I merely offer the information as a counter point, and as an intellectual/hypothetical point for conversation.

[Oscarsjava]

*As a practical matter, regardless of case law or anybodies personal interpretation of the Constitution, both policy and tradition afford the full protection of the Constitution to any person in the United States regardless of their legal status. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with that stance. I merely offer the information as a counter point, and as an intellectual/hypothetical point for conversation.

Good point, good point.

There are a lot of things this country does that goes against the Constitution but it's done anyway and nary a peep is made, Tex. The Constitution was written to give legitimacy to the United States and to US citizens. It was written to give us a sense of unity and self-importance after having lived under England's rule for so long. It was meant to show that we have something others don't have, inalienable freedoms and rights, and that if you (a foreigner) wanted to have these freedoms, you needed to be a US citizen. That's also why we have a naturalization process.

I understand there's a "way it should be", and a "way it is". Unfortunately, there's a lot more of the "way it is" going on.