|
|
Third Strike for a Texas City's Anti-Immigrant LawsToday a federal court in Texas struck down yet another ill-conceived and unconstitutional anti-immigrant law. In response to a lawsuit that the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) filed on behalf of residents of the City of Farmers Branch, Texas, Judge Jane J. Boyle permanently barred enforcement of this city’s latest anti-immigrant ordinance. The challenged ordinance would have made it difficult for immigrants to rent homes, and would have burdened all renters and landlords. It would have required adults who live in rental housing to register with the city, pay a fee, and provide citizenship and immigration information in order to obtain a so-called “residential occupancy license.” All residents whom the local building inspector deemed “not lawfully present in the United States,” including people living with U.S. citizen children, spouses and parents, would have been denied the right to rent a home. Landlords whom the building inspector found to have run afoul of the Ordinance would have been barred from collecting rent payments. In today’s decision, Judge Boyle held that the Ordinance is unconstitutional, because the United States Constitution makes immigration a federal, not a local, issue. Judge Boyle recognized, as other courts have held, that individual towns and cities are not permitted to effectively expel immigrants from their borders by denying them the right to rent a home. Ordinance 2952 was Farmers Branch’s third attempt to restrict residency based on immigration status. The city withdrew its first ordinance in the face of legal challenges. The second — and today, the third — was struck down in court on constitutional grounds. In fact, no court has ever approved a local housing ordinance seeking to regulate immigrants. By refusing to acknowledge the serious constitutional issues raised by Farmers Branch’s anti-immigrant ordinances despite the growing number of court decisions on this issue, the politicians who supported the ordinances have inflamed anti-immigrant sentiment in this city and have squandered taxpayers’ dollars. Farmers Branch has spent approximately $3.3 million defending its unconstitutional anti-immigrant ordinances, and even before the most recent court case, it was struggling to address a $1.2-million budget shortfall. The plaintiffs’ victory in this case demonstrates once again that such misguided anti-immigrant laws are not only costly and divisive but also unconstitutional.
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 9 Responses to "Third Strike for a Texas City's Anti-Immigrant Laws" |
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Mar 24th, 2010 at 10:37pm
What would the US do without an open border advocate like the ACLU?!
Mar 25th, 2010 at 1:59am
Its ok to run the country into debt and discriminate against taxpayers and local Govt. to help illegals. Thats great! Are you kidding me? What a joke!
Mar 25th, 2010 at 12:42pm
It would have made it more difficult for ILLEGAL immigrants to rent,ect. Quit distorting the truth.
Mar 25th, 2010 at 12:45pm
It used to be that they would burn crosses to drive out undesirable people,
now they pass town ordinances.
Mar 27th, 2010 at 2:40pm
What a waste of taxpayer money. When will towns like Farmers Branch realize that the constitution is the rule of law. Great work ACLU. Keep up the fight against ignorance and myths.
Mar 30th, 2010 at 11:41pm
Paen? You're nuts. Just nuts. Don't compare burning crosses to a town's ability to discriminate. Try comparing separate restrooms and this ordinance. You're probably the same person who compares Hitler to republicans.
Apr 2nd, 2010 at 12:04pm
anon #6. Paen is right. Conservatives have learned that joining the institution they hate is the best chance they have of maintaining the status quo, what conservatism means.
May 11th, 2010 at 6:44pm
I wish the ACLU would move their headquarters to Mexico as it seems they are more interested in protecting law breakers then legal law abiding citizens
May 13th, 2010 at 6:46pm
ACLU=Godless