Thread: Dallas suburb that’s pushed to ban illegal immigrant renters has new court hearing We

By Associated Press, Updated: Tuesday, September 18, 1:53 PM

DALLAS — A Dallas suburb’s long, expensive fight to ban illegal immigrants from renting homes will get perhaps its most important hearing Wednesday before a largely conservative group of judges with the power to influence the national immigration debate.

Farmers Branch was sued four years ago after it passed an ordinance allowing the city building inspector to evict any illegal immigrant renters. Its case will now go before the full membership of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, comprised of 10 active judges appointed by Republican presidents and just five by Democrats.

So far, no court has allowed Farmers Branch to enforce any form of the ordinance. But the appeals court’s rare move to hear the case a second time, months after a different three-judge panel ruled against Farmers Branch, could be a sign that the town might finally get a victory.

The current ordinance, which replaced an earlier 2006 version, would require all renters to obtain a $5 city license and fill out an application that asks about their legal status. Then, the city’s building inspector would have to check whether any immigrant applying for a license was in the United States legally. Illegal immigrants would be denied a permit, and landlords who knowingly allow illegal immigrants to stay as tenants could be fined or have their renters’ license barred.

The appeals court has directed all sides to focus on the U.S. Supreme Court’s June ruling on Arizona’s tough immigration law. That ruling rejected major parts of the law, but upheld the so-called “show me your papers” requirement, which gives law enforcement authority to check a person’s legal status if officers have reasonable suspicion he or she is in the U.S. illegally.

Farmers Branch’s attorneys argue that the city’s ordinance is substantially different from Arizona’s law and that the Supreme Court didn’t act to stop local officials from restricting illegal immigrant renters.

Attorneys for the landlords and renters who originally sued the town believe Farmers Branch is encroaching on legal territory reserved for federal authorities.

A federal district judge ruled against the city two years ago, and a three-judge panel at the 5th Circuit upheld that ruling in March.

Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for the Latino civil-rights group MALDEF, said she believed local officials could communicate with federal authorities on immigration matters, as long as they didn’t take action on their own.

“Where the Supreme Court has drawn the line is where state and localities are taking unilateral adverse action against people they think are undocumented,” said Perales, who will argue before the 5th Circuit on Wednesday.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a national advocate for tougher illegal immigration laws, will represent Farmers Branch before the full court, in what’s known as an en banc hearing. He said Tuesday he believed the Supreme Court upholding the “show me your papers” requirement strengthened Farmers Branch’s case.

“The fact that the en banc decision was granted in and of itself was a win for the city, getting the opportunity to make the case as to why the panel majority was wrong,” Kobach said.

The full 5th Circuit is generally considered to be one of the nation’s most conservative federal courts. Its decision to hear the Farmers Branch case is rare — fewer than 5 percent of petitions for a full court hearing are granted — though the court rehearing a case doesn’t necessarily mean judges intend to reverse an earlier decision.

Based in New Orleans, the 5th Circuit hears cases from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, and its rulings are binding in those states only. But other circuit courts are considering laws similar to the one passed by Farmers Branch, and one circuit’s opinion can be cited by attorneys elsewhere.

In August, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia heard arguments in a case from Hazleton, Pa., a former coal-mining town that also tried to ban illegal immigrant renters by requiring rental permits. The court has not yet ruled.

Farmers Branch has spent nearly $6 million on legal bills and expenses related to illegal immigration, according to a town spokesman.

Mayor Bill Glancy said in an interview that the town was not inhospitable to minorities, despite complaints from some Latinos that they feel targeted by police. Glancy pointed to English classes offered at the local library that attract dozens of people from different countries.

“They’re against illegal immigration,” Glancy said of his town’s residents. “They have supported legal immigration for a long time.”

Dallas suburb that’s pushed to ban illegal immigrant renters has new court hearing Wednesday - The Washington Post

Ok, just so we are clear : ILLEGALs should NOT be able to Rent nor Buy a home, NOT drive a vehicle, NOT get ANY Free programs (whether its Education, food or housing), NOT get ANY job!

They are here ILLEGALLY (meaning "Against the LAW"), why should Legal Americans suffer and struggle to come up with ways to barely make ends meet, and foot the trickling costs Illegals burden us with?

If they want the "American Dream", they MUST be MADE to go back to wherever they came from, and Follow the Due LEGAL Process of gaining Legal Entry!

END OF STORY!

Shawn

you are 100 % right they just walk all over The USA & I for one is sick of this BS Im still with out a job
thank you the illegal immigrants > I hope the company that hire the illegal immigrants . get shut down . has to
pay agood Penny . another word good buck .
I hear that what they did in AZ Good for them
No amnesty Or Dream act

Posted: September 19, 2012 - 6:11pm
By The Associated Press



NEW ORLEANS — A Dallas suburb asked a federal appeals court Wednesday to uphold an ordinance that would ban illegal immigrants from renting homes in the town.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a national advocate for tougher illegal immigration laws who is also representing Farmers Branch, said that one of the provisions of an Arizona law upheld by the Supreme Court ruling closely mirrors a key portion of the Texas town’s ordinance.

“The problem with the plaintiffs’ argument is that they cannot identify a single federal statute that the Farmers Branch ordinance conflicts with,” he said.

The full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to rehear the case after a three-judge panel from the court ruled in March that Farmers Branch’s ordinance is unconstitutional and impermissibly interferes with the federal immigration system.

The court’s 15 judges didn’t indicate when they would rule after hearing arguments Wednesday from attorneys for the town and a group of landlords and tenants who sued to block the ordinance’s enforcement.

Arguments largely focused on how the case is affected by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June on Arizona’s tough immigration law. That ruling rejected major parts of the law, but upheld the so-called “show me your papers” requirement, which gives law enforcement authority to check a person’s legal status if officers have reasonable suspicion he or she is in the U.S. illegally.

The ordinance, which replaced an earlier 2006 version, would require all renters to obtain a $5 city license and fill out an application that asks about their legal status. Then, the city’s building inspector would have to check whether any immigrant applying for a license was in the United States legally. Illegal immigrants would be denied a permit, and landlords who knowingly allow illegal immigrants to stay as tenants could be fined or have their renters’ license barred.

Kobach said the ordinance explicitly bars the town from making its own determination about whether someone is “lawfully present” in the U.S.

“It must always be done by the federal government,” he said.

“It’s a yes or no from the federal government, correct?” asked Judge Jennifer Elrod, who heard the case last year but issued a dissenting opinion.

“Correct,” Kobach responded.

But plaintiffs’ attorney Nina Perales said the information federal officials provide the building inspector is “very complex and varied” and doesn’t explicitly state whether an applicant is “lawfully present” in the country.

“That’s something that the building inspector is going to have to figure out for himself,” Perales said.

Fellow plaintiffs’ attorney Dunham Biles added: “No one other than the federal government has the authority to classify aliens.”

Perales said the city’s ordinance goes far beyond the Arizona law, forcibly removing illegal immigrants from rental housing instead of merely detaining them and letting the federal government decide whether to remove them from the country.

“This is a complete divergence from the federal system,” she said.

A federal district judge ruled against the city in 2010 before the three-judge panel at the 5th Circuit upheld it earlier this year.

The full 5th Circuit is generally considered to be one of the nation’s most conservative federal courts. Its decision to hear the Farmers Branch case is rare — fewer than 5 percent of petitions for a full court hearing are granted — though the court rehearing a case doesn’t necessarily mean judges intend to reverse an earlier decision.


Kobach defends Texas city in immigration suit | CJOnline.com