Posted on 03/21/2012 9:39:59 PM PDT by SmithL
DALLAS (AP) -- A federal appeals court Wednesday upheld a lower court ruling that stopped a Dallas suburb's ban on illegal immigrants seeking housing.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Farmers Branch overstepped its authority in 2008 when it passed a law calling on the city's building inspector to check the immigration status of anyone wanting to rent an apartment who wasn't a U.S. citizen.
Under the law, illegal immigrants would have been barred from rental housing, and landlords who knowingly allowed them to stay could have their rental licenses barred.
The appellate court said the city was seeking to exclude illegal immigrants, particularly Latinos, under the guise of policing housing.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
I'm confused. According to a quote from the decision, the court ruled against the city because the authority to regulate immigration is the exclusive authority of the federal government. Is the writer editorializing to stir up trouble and help the plaintiffs?
Judges should not have the power to make things up. When did foreign invaders get all these rights? They definiteley did not get them from the Constitution.
You know the country has gone to **** when the so called courts start aiding and abetting criminals. We’re in a heap of trouble. These are the same “courts” that are going to rule it “unconstitutional” to deny ObamaCare to all illegals aliens and anyone else on the planet who shows up at a hospital in this country. Keep your wallet ready.
But not if they are not legal residents. “Legal” being the operative word.
There is something deeply wrong with this picture.
This city had a very good mayor that finally threw up his hands and quit in frustration.
No such exclusivity exists. The federal government has the authority to set forth a uniform rule of naturalization. Nowhere does it say the States are powerless to police immigration. They can make laws and enforce them as long as they don't contravene federal laws.
This has been explicitly acknowledged in cases decades old.
The Appellate court is the gang that overstepped their authority.
Not sure who the plaintiff is, maybe LaRaza or some slumlord who makes $$$ off the criminals. In any case, I hope it’s appealed to the USSC then we can all see whose side their on.
This is a ping list promoting Immigration Enforcement and Congressional Reform.
If you wish to be added or removed from this ping list, please contact me.
Almost One year ago: Obama on "gunwalking": Serious mistake may have been made
OUTRAGE: Virginia Community Center Holds Job Fair for ILLEGAL ALIENS
ICE admits releasing alleged child rapist
US is Negotiating with 'El Chapo': Ex-Mexican President
Left wants classes promoting racism and revolution back in Arizona schools
Deadly kissing bugs found in Texas
ICE Admits Releasing Accused Illegal Alien Child Rapist (42 Counts!)
Why Democrats Must Oppose Voter ID
Texas is one of the few states that can be self sufficient.
They have oil, farming, industry, and exports. I’m ready for them to set the pace, and tell Washington to kiss off. Other states would figure it out quickly after that.
What have we come to when a landlord cannot choose who lives on their property?
We have completely stripped our citizens of the right to refuse to rent/lease property to criminals. These criminals being illegals who become so by crossing our borders illegally for the chance to perform criminal acts in the name of welfare cheating and identity theft.
Worse yet, landlords know that when a illegal alien rents their house, first will come one family, then another and then another until the house becomes a hive of illegals with drug trafficking as their main source of income.
Next, the property is trashed and the neighborhood goes down at the same rate as the value of his property.
How many of you seen this happening? I sure have!
Exactly
The court cannot force states to break the laws.
Uh yea.
Reluctantly, considering the relentless, table pounding attempts to intimidate the states into doing things they don't want to do, it seems that we are at a time and place in history where....we should just have a vote, see who wants to leave.
This time I doubt that the Northern states would take up arms against everyone else. They have no dog in the hunt and are too old and tired to care.
The "Federal government" - a few million people in D.C. and the military - might have the arms to take up a war against the states who decide to leave, but would have no support from their remaining client states, who would probably tell them they might like a divorce too.
Better yet, the FedGov folks could just use all that might and take over, mmmm, someplace in Central Africa and setup the daycare camp they seem to want there. Probably be easier then trying to coerce us. They can have the F-16s! The nukes! Bye, and don't bother writing, we won't miss you!
The experiment didn't work. There's no mechanism to make it work. "Checks and balances" - still offices populated by humans, who are prone to abuse of power.
It's amazing. There's no consensus for what they are trying to impose. Yet they continue.
You can only conclude that it's all being done with malice towards the current citizenry.
Yes.
... the court ruled against the city because the authority to regulate immigration is the exclusive authority of the federal government.
Unfortunate but expected based on precedence.
This wasn’t a ruling on a state law, however. This was local.
I think the strategy local governments need to use is to sue for their costs of illegal aliens due to non-enforcement of the law.
“You can only conclude that it’s all being done with malice towards the current citizenry.”
The states should just say “ We have the SCOTUS on our side. We passed a law....Holder STFU...we win, you lose!”
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.