Farmers Branch fallout

As long as we're composing theoretical messages from our government (from separate branches, no less): Maybe the message from the court is that -- in our system -- we should use our voter clout to force the federal government to do a better job of enforcement? As you've said before: maybe we get the government we deserve.

I guess it looks different in Texas. We have tons of illegals in California, thank God (we couldn't get the crops in without them, and agriculture is the basis of the economy), but no one is talking about forcing apartment owners to check up on people's green cards. Sheesh. Since when are apartment owners the appropriate agents of government? How are they supposed to be able to tell forged documents from real ones?
I agree with anonymous. Someone is grandstanding.

Rod, the message is simple, with all due respect to the quite valid outrage of citizens: Know your laws, know what local control means, and pass a [damn] ordinance that is in compliance with all superceding laws. I'm sorry, but with 14 years of legislation/regulation experience (that I am overjoyed to no longer have to suffer) where federal law pre-empts state and local law, the process is so well defined that I cannot muster more than a contemptuous yawn when this sort of thing happens. Anyone who takes a "message" from this is indeed falling for the grandstanding. When a local situation fails to be covered by the pre-emptive laws, courts are going to be quite friendly; but not if they are forced to look at it as competing legislation. One thing I have yet to see tried: a lawsuit demanding that the feds actually enforce their laws. Wouldn't that be a novelty?

Folks, fellow Americans, etc. reread my post. I didn't say anyone was racist. I said that this kind of behavior can only look so, so I criticized the tactic. I wouldn't call Rod a racist, but it can be seen how easily he falls into the mentality-- using the term "under siege" as if the people "invading" their town are some sort of paramilitary group. It's the exaggerated portrayal of the problem that makes them look racist. Rebeccat, why would someone from Eastern Europe make you want to hurl?

Out here in Los Angeles the reality of illegal immigration hits you in the face daily. For the most part, one just lives with it, kinda like the smog, earthquakes and 350 days of sunshine a year, it's part of living in California. To be honest, the only issue I have with the out of control immigration is that somehow I've been chosen to be responsible to pay for it. The ugly reality is those in high-illegal immigration areas have to foot the bill. Our property taxes go to educate illegal's kids. We have "special" assessments to pay for emergency room [i.e. free health care for illegals]. We pay for bonds to build roads overcrowded by illegals. We pay more in insurance because every single person I know has had at least one accident with an uninsured, and always an illegal alien. The issue is if our Federal Government thinks massive illegal immigration is a good thing then [a] spread the cost, someone living in Minnesota should be as financially responsible for footing the bill as one in California [b] Require corporations, farmers and construction companies, who gain most from cheap, exploitable labor, to foot the bill too. Please don't quote me the myth of all the money illegal pay in taxes, if you add up the costs to educate their kids, the trips to the ER, and the entitlements, it's pennies on the dollar. Random guess, but I'd say 70% of those against illegal immigration just want the cost to be shared as if you happen to live in California, Arizona, or any other border state, you get the shaft big time. If you have kids in public school then they get the shaft because 30-40% of their classmates either don't speak english and thus slow down the rest of the class, or worse, at the high school level don't even want to be in school and/or part of a violent street gang. These are realities of illegal immigration totally missed by most of America. Either one lives in an area devoid of illegals, or rich enough to not have to deal with the real burden illegal immigration puts upon a society. I can tell you this, I guarantee not one Senator in Washington has ever had to deal with the real costs of immigration. I can also guess every single one has received money from a corporation or lobbying group which favors it.

People moan and groan about taxes here too, and we don't have an illegal immigration issue. What is completely absent from the immigration debate is adult conversation. Let's start with the basics: 1) We aren't going to deport 12 million people. Nevermind whether such an undertaking is feasible. It is not going to be done. Adults will accept this and try to form policy from there. 2) This country borders Mexico. There is a long rich history of intermingling. This is not unique to the US. The French/German border has a similar blended identity. Adults will recognize this and form policy accordingly. 3) People still look derisively at the phrase "Your papers please." This phrase's origin is Russia where people were stopped on the streets to verify that they were allowed to be in the region of Russia that they were. How different is such a thing as employers verifying with the government that a person has the right to work and how different is it from an apartment owner being asked to verify if a person has a right to shelter? Adults will recognize that there are tradeoffs to having a police state. 4) The crime rate in many neighborhoods of our major cities would put to shame any barrio in Mexico. Typically these neighborhoods are predominately native people although you will find some such neighborhoods filled with immigrants. Urban culture has been decimated in this country for over 70 years; it isn't an immigration phenomena. Adults will recognize this.

Rod, I really do sympathize with the situation, and I have no objection to your POV... but I also have way too much exposure to that exact situation, even outside my former area of expertise (FTR: ERISA). Almost every home rule municipality has on staff (not always full time, granted) an attorney paid to help them avoid unnecessary litigation costs by avoiding passing ordinances that have no hope of standing up to a court challenge. Even those that do find a way to run afoul of superceding laws sometimes, but in this case I cannot offer any sympathy when the issue is as high-profile as immigration status. I leave it to you to offer a clarifying description as to the reality in FB. When I chalk it up to grandstanding, I see it in two ways: legislators trying to pull a feel-good fast one on voters, knowing that their "popular" legislation is not going to survive a court challenge; and the referendum is equivalent to the registered voters thinking they can set the value of pi to 3.0 simply by voting for it. If either or both the FB council and voters do not fit that "grandstanding" description, then my hat is off to them for at least knowing what they were getting into. But the question remains: if politics is motivating them to pass a measure that will be stricken down, then isn't politics also preventing them from trying real solutions? If I, an educated layman, can think of suing the feds to enforce existing laws (something that has a strong precedent), why can't they?

"I'm sorry, but with 14 years of legislation/regulation experience (that I am overjoyed to no longer have to suffer) where federal law pre-empts state and local law, the process is so well defined that I cannot muster more than a contemptuous yawn when this sort of thing happens." Franklin, the legal concept you cite has meaning where a Federal statute or court holding already specifically addresses the issue sought to be addressed by a state or political subdivision thereoff. Please cite such SPECIFIC, superceding Federal statute or court decision. The court in the FB case may just be asking the plaintiffs to do so. The legal burden is theirs.

Cleveland, from the article linked in Rod's blog post: "The court recognizes that illegal immigration is a major problem in this country, and one who asserts otherwise ignores reality," Lindsay wrote. "The court also fully understands the frustration of cities attempting to address a national problem that the federal government should handle; however, such frustration, no matter how great, cannot serve as a basis to pass an ordinance that conflicts with federal law." From the rest of the article, it appears to be a standard restraining order situation: litigation has been brought to contest the enforcement of the ordinance. The judge who ruled on the restraining order clearly has an opinion on the local-federal conflict involved. Does that answer your query? Please remember, I am not a lawyer. :) As for your request for citation, do a search on "federal pre-emption". You will see plenty of cases where a state attempted to contradict a federal statute and lost. While it may have happened, I know of no such case where the state won.

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 ;-).

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.