Posted on 03/20/2014 10:29:32 AM PDT by jazusamo
A Homeland Security initiative to put fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border could discriminate against minorities, according to an Obama-appointed federal judge who’s ruled that the congressionally-approved project may have a “disparate impact on lower-income minority communities.”
This of course means that protecting the porous—and increasingly violent—southern border is politically incorrect. At least that’s what the public college professor at the center of the case is working to prove and this month she got help from a sympathetic federal judge. Denise Gilman, a clinical professor at the taxpayer-funded University of Texas-Austin, is researching the “human rights impact” of erecting a barrier to protect the U.S. from terrorists, illegal immigrants, drug traffickers and other serious threats.
A 2006 federal law orders the construction of fencing or a wall along the most vulnerable portions of the nearly 2,000-mile southern border. This includes reinforced fencing along 700 miles of the southwest border with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determining the exact spots. Professor Gilman wants the identities of the landowners in the planned construction site to shed light on the impact the fencing will have on indigenous, minority and low-income communities. The feds refused to provide the information, asserting that it’s private.
The professor sued in federal court arguing that the public interest in how the fence will impact landowners outweighed any privacy concerns. The data will allow the public to analyze whether the government is treating property owners equally and fairly or whether the wall is being built in such a way that it disadvantages “minority property owners,” according to the professor. It will also help the public understand the actual dimensions of the wall and decisions related to where it’s placed.
Judge Beryl Howell, appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by President Obama in 2010, agreed that the public interest is significant. Her 37-page ruling also seems to indicate that she bought the discrimination argument. “Revealing the identities of landowners in the wall’s planned construction site may shed light on the impact on indigenous communities, the disparate impact on lower-income minority communities, and the practices of private contractors,” Howell wrote.
This is simply the latest controversy to strike the border fence project since Congress approved it to protect national security and curb an illegal immigration and drug-trafficking crisis. In the last few years the mayors of several Texas border towns have blocked federal access to areas where the fence is scheduled to be built, an Indian tribe tried to block the barrier in the Arizona desert by claiming the feds were intruding on tribal land and a group of government scientists claimed the fencing would threaten the black bear population.
Last summer Mexican officials expressed public outrage over U.S. efforts to secure the southern border, calling it a human rights violation and an “unfriendly act.” The fact is, a number of government reports have confirmed that it’s not just Mexicans crossing into the U.S. seeking a better life. In 2010 DHS warned Texas law enforcement agencies that a renowned Al Qaeda terrorist was planning to sneak into the U.S. through Mexico. That same year a veteran federal agent accused the government of covering up the growing threat created by Middle Eastern terrorists entering the country through the vulnerable Mexican border.
Violent crime in the region has been well documented with heavily armed Mexican drug cartels taking over chunks of land that serve as routes to move cargo north. In fact, a few years ago a State Department report exposed a “dramatic increase in violence” along the Mexican border and warned of “violent attacks and persistent security concerns” in the area. The document also lists tens of thousands of narcotics-related murders attributed to sophisticated and heavily armed drug cartels competing with each other for trafficking routes into the U.S.
D'UH!!!
Only, by definition, the criminal illegal ones!
Doofus!
Certainly, the fence would discriminate against minorities.
LAWBREAKING, ILLEGAL ALIEN minorities.
But minorities, to be sure.
If the criminals become the MAJORITY will they have to stop discriminating against us?
So it will affect minorities. The real important question is what effect will this have on women?
In the new hard-left Amerexico, the border fence will have the same status as the Berlin Wall - a “sad legacy of past oppression”. Children will take museum field trips to the remaining segments to learn of the evils of “racism” and “xenophobia”
This guy must be
Judge Obvious -
the judicial equivalent of the good Captain.
I had to double check to make sure this wasn’t satire...
Discrimination against minorities is the whole issue, judge.
Why don’t you go hear some lawsuit against suntan lotion companies discriminating against minority customers while you are at it.
idiot.
I understand about the satire thing, this is something that John could have written and wish it had been.
I wonder what the good judge has to say about the 10% tax on tanning salons...
So they want to put up a fence that only keeps out white people?
This is what happens when too many invaders are allowed in a country.
Disparate effect is the purpose.
The fence discriminates between Americans and non Americans
That's why Obamas response to the current Ukraine affair has been so week. It has set the stage for the annexation of a good chunk of the US because the “people” will demand it and they have a right to self determination.
I've noticed that for the past couple decades, the rest of us are nothing but sh!t. Nobody ever considers the MAJORITY of Americans, only the "special" groups.
You’re correct, the leftist activists have been successful in their crusade.
I’ve always pointed out that where we are going with race discrimination laws is to a suicidal endpoint: the Border itself will be declared discrimination.
So, they’re 99% of the way there with this one.
Invasion will now become a Civil Right....as long as the Invaders are non-White.
It would be Racist to Resist.
And we all know where the criminal alien known as Eric Holder comes down on this one.
Wait, this isn’t from the Onion?
At the same time Mexico laments USA building a border wall, Mexico is busy building it's own border wall between itself and Guatemala. Mexico is brutal in their own treatment of immigrants, illegal or not, yet they publish and distribute, on and off-line, a handbook dedicated to helping Mexican nationals cross the USA border illegally (Guía del Migrante Mexicano) and raise official protests at every opportunity to promote special privileges for their illegals residing in the USA.
Let's look at how Mexico treats their legal immigrants:
a) immigrants must have the financial wherewithal to support themselves and their dependents at all times or they are deported.
b) immigrants must be of a desirable occupation that contributes to “national progress” or they are deported.
c) if the ethnicity of a immigrant would “upset” demographics, they are deported.
d) immigrants must be “physically and mentally healthy” or they are deported.
e) immigrants are forbidden from running for office or “interfering” in politics. The penalty for doing so is deportation.
f) illegal immigrants or immigrants found to have broken any law are subject to immediate deportation including seizure of all assets without due process.
g) Immigrants, and their homes, are subject to search at any time for any reason.
h) Mexican border guards are well known for brutalizing illegals; rape and murder is not uncommon.
i) immigrants are restricted in what property they can legally own. For instance, they cannot own ocean-front property or even ocean-view property; only Mexican nationals can own that.
j) Detailed records must be kept on each immigrant and updated regularly by local authorities (constant surveillance).
K) Mexico reserves the right to close their borders to all immigrants at any time in the name of “national interest.”
Contrast that to how the USA treats illegals.
An interesting article, linked below, details how Mexico seeks to keep their immigrants loyal to Mexico, while insisting on a myriad of benefits while domiciled in the USA:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_mexico.html
Th whole silly notion of “disparate impact” is being used as a battering ram to tear down whats left of Western Civilization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.