Judge says Farmers Branch immigration ordinance will not go into effect Tuesday

Sanders Kaufman, says:

It's not the filling out of the form that's untenable.

The untenable part is the part where business owners are required to turn away hard-working, cash-paying customers.

And if that means that a bunch of angry, ignorant, unemployable bigots get ticked off - so what? They don't buy anything, anyhow.

The migrant workers are ideal renters. They tend to behave in a way that keeps the cops from having to come around all the time, and they don't stick around if they can't pay their rent.

There's no good reason for them to turn renters like THAT away - not here in Dallas. Renters like that are golden.

David Gouldin, says:

<b>1. the ordinance violates federal immigration law</b>

Can anybody give a source or site specifics on this? I'd like to see the part of the law that is being violated and an explanation of how the violation is occurring.

<b>2. [the ordinance] puts landlords in the untenable position of serving as federal law enforcement agents</b>

The world "untenable" is specifically used in reference to landlords "serving as federal law enforcement agents", so I don't think the landlord's desire or lack thereof to rent to illegal immigrants has anything to do with its use in this case. As tailchaser said, how is the requirement here different from any business adhering to any other law or ordinance? What is special about the requirements of following this particular ordinance that move it to the realm of "serving as federal law enforcement agents"?

<b>3. the ordinance violates the fundamental rights of both landlords and tenants</b>

The ordinance is also called unconstitutional. Can anybody cite a passage of the constitution that would uphold the argument that renting to illegal aliens "violates the fundamental rights of both landlords and tenants"?

These are pretty strong claims, but I don't see anything in the article to back them up. Any education on the specifics would be appreciated.

Sanders Kaufman, says:

In response to the question about how the FB anti-immigrant laws are unconstitutional - the ways are so many that you could write a book or two on it. Well, maybe not you, but...

But to start with, it requires innocent people to prove their innocence and it puts the law enforcement requirements in the hands of people who have a conflict of interest.

So that makes the anti-immigration laws not only unconstitutional, but downright DUMB.

David Gouldin, says:

I didn't see anything in the Bill of Rights which seemed directly applicable here.

Brown v. Board of Education was about racial segregation. The ordinance does not discriminate based on race, so I wouldn't consider it applicable either.

14th Ammendment, Section 1:

<i> "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." </i>

There's your case for the ordinance being unconstitutional, specifically "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". I suppose it could be fairly well argued that the ordinance denies illegals the liberty of renting property, though I would think the same case could be made for employment of illegals.

In response to Sanders's comment, maybe I am misunderstanding you, but it seems as though this happens all the time. When I want to buy alcohol, I have to present my ID, thus "proving my innocence" (or, more accurately, proving my status as an individual who can legally purchase alcohol). The store owner has a conflict of interest in refusing to sell alcohol to minors. When I am accepting a job offer, I have to show 2 forms of ID, again "proving my innocence". If I am a good prospect, the company has a conflict of interest in refusing me a job if I cannot provide these documents. Is this the same kind of "law enforcement" to which the article refers? If not, how is it different?

Sanders Kaufman, says:

I think that the comment from the anti-immigrant fellow about how we should "bulldoze" the apartments in order to keep the Mexicans out is a fine example of why the politicians simply can not support the anti-immigrants.

Sanders Kaufman, says:

In response to the comment equating the buying of alcohol with the renting of an apartment - the analogy is not apt.

Alcohol is a luxury, so there's no consitutional mandate to protect minors' right to buy it.

But housing is a basic human necessity. So much so that we even have laws that require us to not deny, and in some cases to outright provide, housing to criminals.

And since we have a constitutional mandate requiring us to not only allow, but to actually PROMOTE the general welfare - it would be unAmerican to require citizens to prove they are citizens before they are allowed to sleep indoors.

Sanders Kaufman, says:

In response to the anonymous poster who claimed that this suite of NEW laws are really just enforcement of old laws.

You're either confused or dishonest. These NEW laws are not OLD laws. They're NEW laws.

It's common for anonymous, anti-immigrant types to use that very kind of hyperbole in order to promote their racist and Nationalist beliefs.

Fortunately, Americans are not wiling to fight a war against its own workforce, simply to please a bunch of bigots. There's just no point in it.

David Gouldin, says:

I'm assuming the mandate you're referring to is the preamble:

<i>"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."</i>

Again I show my ignorance in legal history, but has anything ever been deemed unconstitutional based on the preamble itself? It seems more a general statement of intent rather than any command or decree.

I cannot find any law which the ordinance violates. Here's the Federal Fair Housing Act: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...

I do not believe the ordinance requires a person to be a US citizen to sleep indoors. It merely refers to an illegal alien taking <i>permanent residence</i> in Farmers Branch. We could debate about whether or not it is "unAmerican" to deny permanent residence to people who are in the country illegally. We could also debate about the scope of "ourselves and our Posterity" to which the "general welfare" clause in the preamble applies, but I'd prefer to stick to legal matters rather than philosophical ones.

BTW, I think people would take you more seriously if you'd tone the flame bait down a bit ... but it probably wouldn't be quite as entertaining for you.

Sanders Kaufman, says:

It's unfortunate that so many anti-immigrants feel that speaking openly and honestly about the immigration issue is somehow inflamatory.

As far as divorcing the legal matters from the philosophical ones - it can't be done. That's like trying to discuss religion - without mentioning god.

And I realize that many folks who wish to keep our Mexican brothers and sisters out would like to dismiss the preamble to the constitution as liberal, philisophical mumbo-jumbo.

But in fact, that preamble defines why we have a government at all, and is the foundation upon which ALL other laws are built.

David Gouldin, says:

<i>"And I realize that many folks who wish to keep our Mexican brothers and sisters out would like to dismiss the preamble to the constitution as liberal, philisophical mumbo-jumbo.

But in fact, that preamble defines why we have a government at all, and is the foundation upon which ALL other laws are built."</i>

That may be true, but I'm looking for precedent (as was claimed by the article), not opinion.

And you very well may be "speaking openly and honestly", but if that is the case, the hate speech infused into that open and honest communication reveals much about the speaker.

Sanders Kaufman, says:

David - there was no precedent mentioned in the article.

It's too bad that you think my pro-immigration, anti-bigot positions are "hate-speech".

I get That comment a lot from immigration opponents and religious zealots. They can't defend their hate-based politics, so they rage against those who stand in their way. It gets particularly so right after they lose a decision, or fail to pass a piece of legislation.

And while it may feel good to tell people that their pro-immigration positions are "hate-speech" - it only serves to solidify our belief that y'all anti-immigrant folks are approaching this issue from a position of anger and irrationality.

And THAT bad behaviour, David, is the biggest reason why the federal government and the American people pretty much just blow off y'alls demands for NEW laws to FURTHER criminalize our Guest Woerkers.

David Gouldin, says:

The article states that the ordinance "violates federal immigration law" and calls the ordinance both illegal and unconstitutional. Neither you nor the article have pointed to a specific legal basis for these claims. That is what I am referring to by precedent.

By using the term "hate speech", I am specifically referring to the name calling ("bigot", "white supremacist", "white separatist", "wetback") to which you resort on almost every post. Your ideas can be stated constructively, but instead you choose to throw around divisive and destructive terms.

You also incorrectly assume that I am in full support of the ordinance. Questioning the validity of its opponents' claims and voicing support for the ordinance are two very different things. Your premature association of the two as well as your constant use of slurs and derogatory labels only serve to show your inability to maintain rational, objective conversation.

You've deflected twice. Can you cite any actual legal basis for the claims made in the article? Or can you at least cite a case in which the constitution's preamble was the sole basis for determining whether or not a law is unconstitutional?

Sanders Kaufman, says:

David, I think I see where your misunderstanding is on this.

You're looking only for something like a local statute or ordinance or previous ruling that says it's illegal. But you're totally ignoring the federal laws - like the Constitution - which require due process and such.

This willful ignorance of federal law is common among White Separatists who want to keep our Guest Workers out. But y'all lost the Civil War - so get over it. We're a union, and federal law overrides Farmers Branch's.

David Gouldin, says:

Deflected a third time. I would have gladly accepted a federal argument provided it was well constructed and specific. In fact, a relevant response to my original question #1 would have <i>required</i> discussion of federal law. But I will no longer attempt to squeeze blood from a turnip. All I get in response is rhetoric.

Sanders Kaufman, says:

I never really considered the US Constitution to be mere rhetoric.