As expected, a federal judge has temporarily suspended the recently approved city ordinance in Farmers Branch, a Dallas suburb, that would have required apartment owners to verify the residency status of those seeking to rent. The idea is to prevent illegal aliens from establishing residency in the town. Though the ordinance backers were outspent 7 to 1 in the recent referendum, they won by a decisive 68 percent of the vote. And now, in a stroke, a federal judge has overturned that decision, saying that only the federal government has the right to determine who is in the country illegally.
To be sure, if the ordinance violates federal law, the judge had no choice but to suspend it. But consider the message here. We all know that the federal government has abdicated its responsibility to control the US-Mexico border. Yet the judge is telling local communities that they have no right to act to prevent people who by definition have no right to be in this country from living there. The message from the federal government, therefore, is, "We won't protect you from this invasion of lawbreakers, but you don't have the right to protect yourselves either."
If the judge's ruling is upheld, you are going to see communities that find themselves under siege by illegal aliens -- who, let's not kid ourselves, are going to continue to pour over the border that neither George W. Bush or anybody else intends to secure -- selling out and moving away. But because there is no defense allowed under current law, you are going to see an angry anti-government populist movement arise from people who are sick and tired of having this happen to their communities, and being told by the establishment that they just have to live with it -- and who are sick and tired of being portrayed by the news media as nothing but simple-minded racists.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
I have no problem with localities promoting the enforcement of our immigration laws. When the federal government neglects its responsibilities, in a robust system localities will try to compensate.
Franklin, I requested you to provide the specific, superceding Federal statute or dispositive court holding at issue in the FB case. Not only did you fail to do that, you failed to cite the specific statute or decision upon which Judge Lindsay relied to allegedly find the FB ordinance illegal. The Judge may only have been relating his first blush impression of the facts leading to his action.
Any number of legal factors could be brought into play. For example, while the Federal Government can't make states enforce Federal law without a sufficient reason and compensation, there may well be no law preventing states to enact laws that have the side effect of performing some Federal function. And don't sell the Tenth Amendment short in this case. Because the case isn't yet decided, you may want to place your "contemptuous yawn" on hold. Remember that the good people in FB may think your gratuitous opinion of contempt for them is contemptuous in itself. Of course, they don't know you as well as we on this board ;-).
Cleveland, Maybe I should have reminded you I'm not the judge, either. You either did not read my 2:27pm reply to Rod, or you did not comprehend it. Only you can tell me for sure which it is.
We have tons of illegals in California, thank God (we couldn't get the crops in without them Or the federal subsidies and the water that gets pumped in, screwing up the overburdened ecology. , and agriculture is the basis of the economy), God forbid you actually have to adjust to economic reality. but no one is talking about forcing apartment owners to check up on people's green cards. Tell it to San Bernadino.
Derek, you are incorrect. San Bernardino rejected the measure. Someone who lives there.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.