Thread: Court OKs Calif. City's Day Laborer Crackdown

Jun 9, 8:17 PM EDT

Court OKs Calif. city's day laborer crackdown

By PAUL ELIAS
Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld the city of Redondo Beach's ordinance allowing for the arrest of day laborers who approach automobiles soliciting work.

A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower-court decision.

The appeals court said the city's ordinance, modeled after a Phoenix law upheld by the same court, was a reasonable response to traffic problems that officials said day laborers soliciting work caused at two city intersections. The 2-1 majority noted that Redondo Beach allowed the day laborers an alternative forum to seek work such as passing out literature on sidewalks and in parking lots.

Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote for the majority that "we conclude that the Redondo Beach ordinance is narrowly tailored to serve Redondo Beach's significant interests in traffic flow and safety."

Redondo Beach's law was enacted in the 1980s but not enforced until 2004, when 60 day laborers were arrested in stings by undercover police posing as people seeking to hire workers.

Judge Kim Wardlaw dissented, writing that the ordinance violated the laborers' free speech rights.

"The ordinance effectively eliminates the only means by which day laborers can communicate their availability for employment," Wardlaw wrote.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, known as MALDEF, which sued the city, said it would ask a 15-judge panel of the same court to reconsider the decision.

"Free speech is a paramount constitutional right that belongs to a hardworking day laborer as much as a mega-corporation or the most well-heeled candidate for high public office," said MALDEF president Thomas Saenz.

Nationwide cities are dealing differently with increasing numbers of day laborers, many of whom are Hispanic and undocumented.

Some cities built day labor centers, while others have cracked down on workers when residents have complained of loitering. Anti-illegal immigration activists have filed lawsuits against cities that use taxpayer funds to build the centers.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... SECTION=US

Groups like MALDEF and LARAZA ought to be disbanded for being raciallly motivated. If they can have these groups, why can't we bring back the KKK. They are both extremist organizations. Why is one allowed and the other not?

Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote for the majority that "we conclude that the Redondo Beach ordinance is narrowly tailored to serve Redondo Beach's significant interests in traffic flow and safety."

This is a great decision! Now all cities can pass the same ordinace, so long is it's narrowly tailored to serve that particular cities' interests in promoting traffic flow and safety!

Judge Kim Wardlaw dissented, writing that the ordinance violated the laborers' free speech rights.

"The ordinance effectively eliminates the only means by which day laborers can communicate their availability for employment," Wardlaw wrote.

No it doesn’t! They can steal someone's social security number and usurp a job like every other self - respecting illegal invader does, since our government will do nothing to stop it anyway! Or, they can place an ad in one of the 20 or so spanish papers we have in this state, advertising their services!

This is the insanity the 9th circuit is well known for. Rational just like this! Standing on the street, illegally soliciting work is deemed the only way in which an illegal invader can excercise his so called a 1st Amendment rights; even though exercising this so called "right" would impede the flow of traffic and cause considerable danger and safety concerns to the general public as held by the majority.

Wardlow sounds as if she was engaged in some judicial activism from the bench!

Proceeding under the assumption this is a 1st Amendment issue ; I have a 1st Amendment right to my freedom of speech as well, but I do not have the right to exercise that right by yelling "fire" in a crowed movie theater. There is a well founded reason for that!

Good grief!

Originally Posted by agrneydgrl

Groups like MALDEF and LARAZA ought to be disbanded for being raciallly motivated. If they can have these groups, why can't we bring back the KKK. They are both extremist organizations. Why is one allowed and the other not?

Because the KKK is a group of white people... duh!

Not that I think we should have one, but can anyone tell me a group/club/organization that is exclusive to Caucasians? On the other hand I can easily think of exclusive <insert non-Caucasian race> groups in existence all over.

Originally Posted by Seter

Originally Posted by agrneydgrl

Groups like MALDEF and LARAZA ought to be disbanded for being raciallly motivated. If they can have these groups, why can't we bring back the KKK. They are both extremist organizations. Why is one allowed and the other not?

Because the KKK is a group of white people... duh!

Not that I think we should have one, but can anyone tell me a group/club/organization that is exclusive to Caucasians? On the other hand I can easily think of exclusive <insert non-Caucasian race> groups in existence all over.

The Ayrian Brotherhood, sad to say. And we certainly want no part of them.

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-5343--0-0.html