Restraining order filed in Farmers Branch to keep controversial ordinance from being implemented

kirk, says:

Most, if not all, of us are descended from immigrants who arrived on these shores without valid visas and worked without "green cards." Every wave of immigration to this country has included people who would not meet today's immigration standards: poor, uneducated people who have lived by their wits, and decided to try their luck in this country after poverty or persecution or bad luck got the better of them at "home."

Even if your ancestry goes back 400 years to the founding of Jamestown, VA, your family came to North America under the sponsorship of English "coyotes" -- private investors set on bringing in "undocumented" workers to enrich the owners back home.

Consequently, instead of persecuting people with special-purpose municipal ordinances, we should show compassion toward all people who come here looking for a better life, freedom or a safer place to raise their families. Would any of our ancestors, freshly arrived here, have been able to pass the scrutiny of Farmers Branch's law? Probably not.

Personally, I am going to express my outrage at Farmers Branch by declining to do business with any organization in that city.

Scott, says:

What we need is a tall fence around Farmers Branch. It would keep undocumented workers out and the white separatists in. Seems like it would work out to everyone's satisfaction.

twisteddog, says:

The ordinance may work just like a fence. Workers who can't live in the city where they're employed might choose to change jobs rather than commute.

okme2, says:

The LEGAL voters in Farmers Branch have spoken - case closed!

kirk, says:

Mr. Cave:

I hope those business owners obtain the injunctive relief they are seeking. I hope a federal injunction puts an end to the lunacy behind the ordinance. In the meantime, as long as Farmers Branch has the ordinance on its books, I will exert my prerogative not to purchase anything from anyone in the town.

Does that hurt the people who live in those areas or work for those companies? I don't know, but I do know that I can sleep at night knowing that, in some small way, I've let my conscience be my guide that day.

When enough people stopped buying South African goods because of the policy of apartheid, South Africa changed the policy.

kirk, says:

okme2:

In 1933, the LEGAL voters in Germany gave the Nazis the majority of Parliament, which gave Hitler the chancellorship. The case wasn't closed for another 12 years.

J_Mortimer, says:

"Boycotting businesses in Farmers Branch will only hurt the owners of those businesses"

Actually not. It would deny them sales tax revenue. Further, I would suspect that the few who would boycott would do so on moral and not punitive grounds. That is, the point of not spending money there would be to avoid supporting a government they felt was doing something immoral rather than having the goal of hurting someone.

J

ladygold, says:

According to the 2000 Census, the population of Farmers Branch was 27,508. The number of votes for the ordinance was 4058. That means that only 14.8% of the population voted for it.

I think we have a bigger problem with apathy than with undocumented workers. And that is very sad.

~LB Farmers Branch Voter

sgtmajorbrad, says:

Go ahead and boycott...I'll drive to Farmers Branch and spend my money there to support the citizens of that city and our country. You gutless wonders force a vote and then P&M about the results. Kind of shallow don't you think? For the staff member citing human rights...there's no anchor tied to your butt; get on down to the country of your choice that's the origin for the illegal alien you're championing and do something about it. Tell how well you are doing and how well their government receives your efforts to correct their mistakes. Please also tell us how many amateur Proctologists you meet in jail.

Lemastre, says:

I'm not sure that the FB ordinance will be found unlawful. But illegal immigrants may not be costing this country money, as some of the ordinance's proponents like to assert. I believe the comptroller of Texas calculated that illegals provide a net profit for Texas. I'm not much good with financial statements, so my reading of the numbers may be wrong.

However it's done, the country needs to get better control of who enters. If we want immigrant labor, then we should provide a regulated way for it to get here. The way it's done now offends my sense of orderliness. Sort of as if I could sneak into Texas Instruments through a window and work in a lab, getting some money from the lab supervisor under the table every month or so, without ever being on the company roster.

interestedcitizen, says:

Basic human rights would allow people to emigrate from a country where they are persecuted for religious and ideological beliefs. Basic human rights do not allow people to migrate from a country of origin simply to pursue a richer lifestyle. In the United States, we have the fundamental right to travel from state to state and city to city to find our best employment opporunities, but we do not have a fundamental right to travel to Switzerland to work there. Switzerland imposes very high entry barriers that most of us cannot afford. None of us could say we were denied basic human rights upon being refused admittance to Switzerland without proof that we were financially self supporting. As for the pre-emption argument, it is full of holes. Local governments enforce many laws that are indirectly related to functions delegated to the U.S. Take counterfeiting for example. The power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof is delegated to Congress. Counterfeiting is the practice of illegally coining money. States have the right to punish people for counterfeiting money. We can talk about bankruptcy. While the Federal Courts are the only places where a person can seek bankruptcy relief, there are numerous state statutes that provide for dealing with insolvent estates and corporations and that deal with creditor's rights and remedies. The mere fact that the right to create a procedure by which a person is declared a legal immigrant is delegated to the United States, in no way preempts a state or a city from enacting an ordinance preventing people within its borders from entering into a contract with a person who has no right to live here.