Jury still out on local immigration enforcement in Tx

H2 Note: This is a veiled LaRaza attempt to paint the citizens of Farmer's Branch, Texas as racist hate mongers for NOT wanting to rent their properties to illegal aliens.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jury still out on local immigration enforcement in Tx

Eyes turn to Supreme Court for Az's SB 1070 ruling

Quote:

---

“The early part of the opinion says that the purpose of the ordinance is to push Latinos out of Farmers Branch, so you see a recognition in the decision that there was a strong racial element to what Farmers Branch had done,” she said.

---

Posted Mar 23, 2012, 7:12 am
Julian Aguilar The Texas Tribune

http://s3.amazonaws.com/static.texas...x1000_q100.jpg
Immigration protest at Texas Capitol. February 22nd, 2011


Wednesday's ruling that the city of Farmers Branch does not have the authority to enact immigration legislation sends a stern warning to municipalities intent on enacting similar laws, attorneys for the plaintiffs argue. But they caution that it doesn’t mean every form of immigration enforcement passed by local or state agencies won't hold up in court.

In the Farmers Branch case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision that a city ordinance that banned illegal immigrants from renting housing in the Dallas suburb was unconstitutional because immigration enforcement falls under the purview of the federal government.

“Because the sole purpose and effect of this ordinance is to target the presence of illegal aliens within the city of Farmers Branch and to cause their removal, it contravenes the federal government’s exclusive authority over the regulation of immigration and the conditions of residence in this country,” the court ruled.

Nina Perales, the vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who argued the case before the 5th Circuit in October, didn’t downplay the significance of the ruling, which she said came from one of the most conservative appellate courts in the country.

“This is a stern message from the federal court that ordinances that target people for expulsion based on their race or ethnicity are unconstitutional, even if you dress them up as local immigration laws,” she said.

But while the ruling is a victory for immigrants in the realm of housing, she said the effects on other aspects of immigration law cannot be easily predicted. That’s because immigration laws are often packaged into big omnibus bills, she said — including some pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“A lot of these laws are a smorgasbord,” she said. “Some have to do with police, some have to do with employment, day laborers, solicitation of employment, some with housing.”

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in Arizona’s case against the federal government next month. Federal courts blocked portions of Senate Bill 1070, the state’s controversial immigration legislation, including a provision that makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally and another that requires local law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally.

The bill is considered the landmark legislation that led several other states including Texas to pass or attempt to pass their own forms of immigration laws. The Texas Legislature tried twice in 2011 to pass a bill that would have denied state funds to local or state entities that prevented their law enforcement officers from inquiring into the immigration status of a person arrested or detained. The legislation, dubbed the “sanctuary cities” bill, failed to make it to Gov. Rick Perry's desk despite being deemed an emergency item.

Perales said that no matter what the court’s ruling in the Arizona case is, it would be difficult to use it as a litmus test to forecast outcomes on other immigration cases.

“It’s hard to make a prediction about whether any portion of an SB 1070 ruling would inspire further anti-immigrant laws,” she said. “What we have in Farmers Branch is aimed at housing. It’s different than a law that may address employment.”

To illustrate the complexity of the issue, Perales pointed to an earlier U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a different immigration law passed by the Arizona Legislature. In Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting, the court ruled 5-3 that the federal government’s Immigration Reform and Control Act did not preempt the state government from revoking the business licenses of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. And it upheld Arizona's ability to mandate the use of E-Verify.

State Rep. Burt Solomons, R-Carrollton, the author of a Texas-based immigration enforcement bill last legislative session, said Thursday that he suspected lawmakers would wait and see what becomes of the Arizona law before considering another attempt. But he said the issue would remain heated regardless of the ruling.

“I suspect someone will try to move forward with [legislation],” he said. “There will still be attempts and I think that is going to continue until we see a national [immigration] reform.”

In the Farmers Branch case, the appellate court also touched on the notion that the immigration system is broken and needs a nationwide solution. Judge Thomas Reavley said that while millions of Latinos live in the country illegally, “a great majority live quietly, raise families, obey the law daily and do work for our country.”

“For all that they contribute to our welfare, they live in constant dread of being apprehended as illegal aliens and being evicted, perhaps having their families disrupted," he wrote. "As unsatisfactory as this situation is it is the immigration scheme we have today. Any verbal and legal discrimination against these people, as Farmers Branch exemplifies by this ordinance, exacerbate the difficulty of that immigration scheme.”

Though Wednesday’s decision was limited to housing, Perales said it’s a major victory because it addresses the racial profiling potential attached to the ordinance.

“The early part of the opinion says that the purpose of the ordinance is to push Latinos out of Farmers Branch, so you see a recognition in the decision that there was a strong racial element to what Farmers Branch had done,” she said.

The city of Farmers Branch has three options, Perales said: to drop the case altogether, request a review by the entire 5th Circuit Court or petition to have the case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

source: Jury Still Out on Local Immigration Enforcement — Immigration | The Texas Tribune

This is one of the most biased pro illegal immigration invasion articles ive read in a long time. Not a single source quoted from the side supporting Farmer's Branch.

W

I think we all know what is behind all these false claims of racial profiling and these challenges that only the feds have a right to enforce immigration laws. It has nothing to do with either of these things in reality. It is all about Hispanics that put their tribal mentality above the best interests and the laws of this country and their panderers wanting to protect Hispanic illegal aliens from detection and deportation. Who do they think they are fooling????

5th Circuit: Immigration Law Complicates Relations With Mexico
March 26, 2012 | 3 Comments

Check out what a federal appellate court just determined when striking down a Texas town’s law banning illegal aliens from renting housing; the “unconstitutional” measure has no other purpose than the exclusion of illegal aliens, which complicates immigration issues and relations with other countries, particularly Mexico.

It may seem unbelievable, but read the ruling for yourself. It was issued recently by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit against the Dallas suburb of Farmers Ranch. A three-judge panel from the New Orleans-based court further clarified that the “sole purpose” of an ordinance banning illegal immigrants from renting housing is to “exclude undocumented aliens, specifically Latinos.”

The court also injected a lecture on the positive contributions of Latino’s in the United States. “This country has a large Latino population and millions of Latinos live here without legal permission,” according to the ruling. “However, the great majority live quietly, raise families, obey the law daily, and do work for our country. For all that they contribute to our welfare, they live in constant dread of being apprehended as [undocumented immigrants] and being evicted, perhaps having their families disrupted. As unsatisfactory as this situation is it is the immigration scheme we have today…”

The ruling marks the latest of many defeats for local measures seeking to curb an illegal immigration crisis that’s draining municipalities across the nation as the feds sit idly by. In this case Farmers Branch has spent about $5 million to defend a law—passed by elected officials and endorsed by voters—requiring renters to obtain a city license after proving legal status in the U.S.

Leftist civil rights and open borders groups challenged the measure in court and in 2008 a Clinton-appointed judge (Sam A. Lindsay) ruled that the ban on rentals to illegal immigrants is unconstitutional because only the federal government can regulate immigration. That, in turn, allows the federal government to pre-empt local laws, according to the judge.

Farmers Branch appealed and last week the Fifth Circuit upheld Lindsay’s decision though the three-judge panel took it a step further by also saying the ordinance, not only presents an obstacle to federal authority on immigration but also the “conduct of foreign affairs.” By forcing noncitizens to relocate, the town’s law regulates immigration across and outside of its borders, the court wrote.

The law also imposes additional ordinances on aliens not contemplated by Congress, the judges said. “For example, the ordinance requires illegal aliens to declare themselves to the city building inspector, denies them the ability to enter into private contracts for shelter, and subjects them to criminal sanctions, all in an effort to exclude them from the city. “ Farmers Branch officials are contemplating appealing to the U.S. Supreme court.

5th Circuit: Immigration Law Complicates Relations With Mexico | Judicial Watch

“However, the great majority live quietly, raise families, obey the law daily, and do work for our country. For all that they contribute to our welfare, they live in constant dread of being apprehended as [undocumented immigrants] and being evicted, perhaps having their families disrupted. As unsatisfactory as this situation is it is the immigration scheme we have today…”

Obey the law daily? They broke the law just by coming here, either stole an identity or over stayed a visa, use fraudulant documents etc.

Do work for our country???? They are doing the work an american citizen should be doing!

Live quietly? They blast their music, yell at their many children and have loud parties!

Contribute to our welfare? It costs us billions of dollars in free schooling, free medical, cheap housing, food stamps etc. for these illegals!

Are court not supposed to uphold the law? Of course its designed to run illegal invaders out. SInce that PA ordnance for Hazletown was upheld how can the court do this?