Thread: Cherokee ordinance on shaky ground

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opin ... rokee.html -

Cherokee ordinance on shaky ground

By ISAIAH D. DELEMAR

Published on: 12/29/06

Cherokee County recently followed the lead of Escondido, Calif., by prohibiting landlords from renting to unauthorized immigrants. Now that the California city has abandoned the ordinance and agreed never to enforce it, Cherokee County should do the same.

Under the Escondido measure, landlords would have been given 10 days to evict unauthorized immigrants or face fines, misdemeanor charges and the loss of their business licenses. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and other civil rights organizations sued the city because the ordinance violated fair housing laws and would have encouraged landlords not to rent to any Latinos, citizens or otherwise. Moreover, the ordinance involved the city in areas of federal jurisdiction. Under the Constitution, cities can not have their own immigration policy any more than they can have a foreign or military policy.


(ENLARGE)
Isaiah D. Delemar is acting Southeast regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal and Educational Fund.

After a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against the city's enforcement of the ordinance, the city agreed to a permanent injunction and to pay attorney fees to the organizations. It also incurred an estimated $100,000 in fees for its own lawyers. Similar ordinances in Missouri and Pennsylvania have suffered the same fate in state and federal courts as well. If Cherokee County examines the rulings in the other states, we believe it should repeal its ordinance.

The Cherokee ordinance has already caused significant damage by heightening tension within the county's diverse community. It collectively describes undocumented immigrants as threats to public safety and well-being and blames them for myriad social ills. But the ordinance ignores the fact that undocumented workers across Georgia and in Cherokee County pay federal and state taxes each year, contribute significantly to the consumer economy and fill critical gaps in America's labor force.

The Cherokee County ordinance will turn landlords into Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, with an obligation to verify immigration status without the training or knowledge on how to properly do so. There is no record system available to cities or landlords to verify the immigration status of tenants. Nonetheless, the ordinance will hold landlords strictly liable despite their best attempts to comply, imposing sanctions on landlords who unknowingly rent to undocumented immigrants.

This shift in responsibility of immigration enforcement hurts persons who are simply trying to make a living in unincorporated Cherokee. It does not deport anyone or create legal opportunities for people to work. But it does encourage landlords and law enforcement to engage in discrimination and racial profiling. There is a real and unintended consequence that would affect all individuals who sound or look "foreign," including U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

Local anti-immigrant ordinances are contrary to the Constitution and are bad public policy. MALDEF, in partnership with other advocates and people of goodwill across many communities, will vigorously fight anti-immigrant ordinances in court, where we expect they will meet the same fate as the Escondido ordinance.

Cherokee County would better serve its community by not incurring legal fees for an unnecessary foray into immigration policy and instead focus on the local issues facing its residents. It should bring business, labor, religious and ethnic groups, and others together to find the solutions that will unite the community.

We all agree that the immigration system is broken and federal reform is vitally needed. Cherokee County can only make a bad situation worse – for its own residents as well as those in neighboring jurisdictions – by permitting this ordinance to go into effect.

Meanwhile, in Washington, where decisions on our immigration laws and policies must be made, MALDEF calls upon the new Congress and President Bush to enact comprehensive immigration reform early in 2007.


Sponsored Links

Under the Constitution, cities can not have their own immigration policy any more than they can have a foreign or military policy.

Tell ya what ... When Washington starts functioning under the Constitution maybe the Cities will until then... all rules are out the window incase DC hasn't noticed.

Originally Posted by xanadu

Under the Constitution, cities can not have their own immigration policy any more than they can have a foreign or military policy.

Tell ya what ... When Washington starts functioning under the Constitution maybe the Cities will until then... all rules are out the window incase DC hasn't noticed.

Good answer xanadu.