Thread: California State Law ..Against Escondido

"Local governments cannot force landlords to refuse to rent to illegal immigrants – a response to a since-discarded Escondido City Council ordinance"

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/stat ... 1laws.html

Check this out
Fixes that Beeep Beeep kind of Beeeep Beeep right now

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-436107-.html

GregaGreat American:
That makes my day!
Thanks..and Happy New Year!

Originally Posted by xyz

GregaGreat American:
That makes my day!
Thanks..and Happy New Year!

And its working

Happy New Year
To you !!!

Supreme Court Decision:
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT v. RUCKER et al.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... ol=00-1770

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
With drug dealers "increasingly imposing a reign of terror on public and other federally assisted low-income housing tenants," Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. §5122, 102 Stat. 4301, 42 U. S. C. §11901(3) (1994 ed.). The Act, as later amended, provides that each "public housing agency shall utilize leases which ... provide that any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants or any drug-related criminal activity on or off such premises, engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant's household, or any guest or other person under the tenant's control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy." 42 U. S. C. §1437d(l)(6) (1994 ed., Supp. V). Petitioners say that this statute requires lease terms that allow a local public housing authority to evict a tenant when a member of the tenant's household or a guest engages in drug-related criminal activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, or had reason to know, of that activity. Respondents say it does not. We agree with petitioners.

Originally Posted by xyz

Supreme Court Decision:
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT v. RUCKER et al.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... ol=00-1770

.

They closed two Large three hundred unit complexes in northern Kentucky under this law
Newport Kentucky

IF any State or County or City or Person were defying the Courts so blatantly on any other issue there would be Federal Marshals enforcing the Law..That is the Power of the Court through the Attorney Generals Office..
That argument..about who has the authority to enforce the Law..State or Federal..is a red herring..and certainly didn't work in the Civil Rights era..
Who has the power to enforce... is an argument from third world countries..because:
In the US..the Laws are known and obeyed by the people..giving consent to the government to make the law..and agreeing that "ignorance of the law excuses no man."
The arguments..about enforcement.. are stalling actions ..because it is the opinion of the pro amnesty crowd that eventually the problem will be solved by making the illegals ..legal..IF they can stall enforcement long enough or make enforcement impossible..thus serving the interest of Foriegn Nationals and International Business..
It is a bad idea to legalize illegals because..Business does not want Legal Labor..so even if all the "illegals" in the world were legalized..that "newly legal" labor would be pushed onto the government dole and government created jobs while Business would encourage and hire the next batch of illegal labor that would waltz across the border because Business wants Illegal Labor..which is always cheaper..
Can any one give me an example of any Federal Law that is not enforced by the States? And what the Fed's do to any State that defies them? What about the Courts..being blatantly ignored and defied..by Foriegn Nationals within its jurisdiction? That is the really alarming part to me..that the US government rolls over on this..criminal activity..

Originally Posted by xyz

Supreme Court Decision:
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT v. RUCKER et al.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... ol=00-1770

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
With drug dealers "increasingly imposing a reign of terror on public and other federally assisted low-income housing tenants," Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. §5122, 102 Stat. 4301, 42 U. S. C. §11901(3) (1994 ed.). The Act, as later amended, provides that each "public housing agency shall utilize leases which ... provide that any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants or any drug-related criminal activity on or off such premises, engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant's household, or any guest or other person under the tenant's control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy." 42 U. S. C. §1437d(l)(6) (1994 ed., Supp. V). Petitioners say that this statute requires lease terms that allow a local public housing authority to evict a tenant when a member of the tenant's household or a guest engages in drug-related criminal activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, or had reason to know, of that activity. Respondents say it does not. We agree with petitioners.

But how many apartment managers are going to have the courage to utilize these type of laws? My friend worked as an apartment manager and got threats of grievous bodily harm for evictions that had nothing to do w/drugs whatsoever.

There are neighborhoods where private property owners can report and take legal action against anyone who is creating or maintaining a nuisance.
That should be possible for renters who have to share rental properties with criminals to sue or seek other redress when landlords don't do background checks or require identification on renters..
So tenants, neighbors and other interested parties should be able to sue a negligent landlord ...

I want to see a bank robber or a drug smuggler make a plea that it wasn't the local police's authority to arrest him!