Thread: Manassas restricts who can live under 1 roof target illegals

By the Associated Press
January 1, 2006

MANASSAS, Va. -- Manassas has passed a new zoning ordinance that restricts who can live together in a household, a measure that overwhelmingly affects the city's growing Latino population and is coming under harsh criticism by civil-liberties advocates.

Under the ordinance, the City Council narrowed the definition of "family" to mean that extended families can't live in a home. The former definition allowed virtually any relatives to live in a single-family house, as long as the total didn't exceed the occupancy limit.

The city acted within its right to control residential occupancy and the new rule was adopted in response to "broad-based community concerns about overcrowding," city officials said in a statement. "The suggestion that changes in the zoning ordinance reflect any other intent on the part of City government are absolutely false."

Although the city says the measure, passed Dec. 5, was aimed narrowly at dealing with overcrowded housing, Vice Mayor Harry "Hal" Parrish said earlier this month that the law also was aimed at addressing illegal immigration and the problems the city associates with it--including parking, garbage issues and tight school budgets.

"I know there's frustration out in the community from the people we talk to, our citizens, and largely they believe, as do I, that the federal government hasn't followed through with enforcing its (immigration) laws ...," he said.

The new definition restricts households to immediate relatives, plus one unrelated person, and excludes aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins and other members of the extended family.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia said that it is "strongly inclined" to challenge the ordinance and is examining its legal vulnerabilities, which, some legal experts say, are many.

"It's hard to describe how many parts of the U.S. Constitution this law actually violates . . . " said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University. "It interferes with constitutional guarantees regarding contracts (to rent rooms), families, equal protection, even First Amendment issues like freedom of association. ... It's hard to believe any attorney actually reviewed this law."

Legal experts say the ordinance might be challenged under the Fair Housing Act on the grounds that it disproportionately affects Latinos. Whether a challenger would have to show an intent to discriminate is a question the courts haven't settled.

Generally speaking, though, the main problem is that it may violate 14th Amendment protections regarding "family" as described in a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a similar law. In that case, a woman who lived with two grandsons successfully challenged a ordinance in East Cleveland, Ohio.

"Ours is by no means a tradition limited to respect for the bonds uniting the members of the nuclear family," Justice Lewis Powell wrote in the majority opinion. "The tradition of uncles, aunts, cousins, and especially grandparents sharing a household along with parents and children has roots equally venerable and equally deserving of constitutional recognition."

City Attorney Bob Bendall was out of the office on Friday and didn't return a telephone message left at his office.

Council member Judith Hays, however, said it's possible the city went too far.

"I admit we're legislators," she said, "part-time legislators. We do the best we can, and if we made a mistake with this, we will reconsider."

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/vi ... s-virginia

I LOVE it! But, the ACLU will rip this one to shreds. It doesn't have a snowball's chance of making it! Too bad because that is a TREMENDOUS PROBLEM.

"It's hard to describe how many parts of the U.S. Constitution this law actually violates . . . " said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University. "It interferes with constitutional guarantees regarding contracts (to rent rooms)

Wow, Turley's really reaching into the bottom of the barrel to fish this one out.

Would he also argue that the Constitution guarantees my right to enter into a contract with a hitman?

Oh, Turley is another one of those FOX "EXPERTS"!!! WE KNOW what HE thinks!

Originally Posted by Bootsie

I LOVE it! But, the ACLU will rip this one to shreds. It doesn't have a snowball's chance of making it! Too bad because that is a TREMENDOUS PROBLEM.

Well, I guess you all know about the Whistle blowers on the ACLU. It might be going to get a little Tough on them soon.

Hha Floyd, so you saw the show where King George had another Presidental moment and couldnt open the door!

well- even if it doesnt pass - it brings to attention how much a problem the invasion is causing
next they should pass a bill to go after the landlords who rent to them-
that will really bring the house down! [pun intended]

What about the whistleblowers and the ACLU, Scub??? I haven't heard that.

Originally Posted by Bootsie

What about the whistleblowers and the ACLU, Scub??? I haven't heard that.

Oh, heard about this a couple of weeks ago. That several of there Ranking members have come out. To explain how they are defrauding the American Tax payers. I think you will see soon. That it is going to get interesting.

That will be VERY interesting, Scub. Let me know if you see anything or post it if you do.

Saw that on Fox, the ACLU whistleblower. GREAT!!!!! He said that they are not for profit, but that the ACLU is collecting attorneys fees anyways.
A little of the subject on Cavuto two nights ago my son and I were watching that guy (English accent, obviously very pro-America), and he was interviewing this guy from the Canadian press and this guy was trying to lay blame for the gang and illegal guns problem in Canada on America and our "lax" gun laws. This Fox reporter said that he was using a very lame excuse and that Canada needs to take personal responsibility for their own problems instead of laying blame on America. It was great. He also noted to this Canadian reporter that Canada should watch how much it attempts to lay blame and stay within Americas good graces as they (Canada) depend a great deal on America for the bulk of their economy through trade, tourism, etc.. I like this guy.
As for the issue of limiting how many can live in a household, I understand that. We live in a small place and my 23 year old and her son live with us, but thats as far as it would go. I think it could be an ordinance as our county says that if you have a two-bedroom place that no more that five people can live there (two per bedroom, plus one) and so on. Now about enforcement, thats another story. Here they do not enforce it although a lot of landlords will. They have the right to give a notice to evict if they find tenants living too many in one place. Our slumlord here does not keep up on it. We have a lot of these people that will have oodles of relatives staying with them. Next door is a good example. It is a two bedroom unit with a garage, and every night there are at least 4 cars parked out there, always blocking the limited driveway we have (which is painted red as a fire lane and is supposed to be kept clear!). Whenever me family stops by for a little bit, they always get blocked in as there are so many people constantly coming and going in this place.