Posted on 05/21/2007 4:43:45 PM PDT by kellynla
FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS — For months, a fierce debate over an ordinance that would prohibit landlords from renting to most illegal immigrants has consumed this quiet and otherwise unremarkable north Dallas suburb.
The controversy peaked eight days ago when Farmers Branch residents became the first in the nation to approve such a measure — by 68% to 32% in a strong turnout. Similar apartment rental bans adopted elsewhere were decided by city officials, not voters.
The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a federal judge to block the ordinance but — barring a last-minute restraining order — enforcement will begin Tuesday, said City Councilman Tim O'Hare.
"The problems associated with illegal immigration are out of control," said O'Hare, the lead proponent of the measure. "This is a very pro-American vote and a pro-American town."
At tired-looking apartment complexes along Josey Lane, in a largely Latino section of town, residents wondered whether the measure would worsen anti-immigrant sentiment.
"People work in jobs no one else wants. Now they are kicked out where they live. It's mean," said Blanca Benitez, a renter. She has lived legally in Farmers Branch for three years, she said, but now feels uncomfortable and unwanted in stores and other public places around town. "How would it make you feel?" she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The 2008 Conservative Revolution has started! Now all we need is a CONSERVATIVE to lead the revolution. Because we are in danger of not only losing our two party system but our sovereignty. It is time for CONSERVATIVES to take back the GOP and the time is NOW!
Amen!
How is the landlord supposed to verify citizenship? Must renters bring along birth certificates? Voter registrations?
What if these are faked—is the landlord held responsible to detect fakes?
These laws are not well thought-out and if insisted on will only result in mandatory federal ID cards being issued to all citizens. And that is one step closer to an Orwellian world.
“And that is one step closer to an Orwellian world.”
Cry me a river! ROFLMAO
get over it...
I, for one, fully support that concept. Work, Housing, Medical Care should be dependent on having one. And I don't care if that starts sounding like the Mark of the Beast.
Most owners do background checks on their future renters.....it’s probably not that hard to determine their citizenship.
Too bad. What is she? Five years old?
“mandatory federal ID cards?”
and before I leave you to your ignorance
do you have a Social Security card?
ever heard of Social Security cards?
well if you haen’t they’re FEDERAL ID’s
and before long we are ALL gonna have biometric ID’s
get used to it!
The way it works is that a renter must get a permit from the city. The city checks with federal authorities to see if the person is legal. If he doesn’t check out, then he can’t get the permit. How to get landlords to comply is, of course, another matter.
Another BOO-HOO Piece, trying get your sympathy.
For Illegals, I have none left—fresh out.
Pretty soon this will be moot, as there will be no more illegals.
I proudly carry and show my federal military ID card, to be able to gain access to government facilities, use military facilities, the military hospitals, use my military benefits, use for ID when boarding air craft.. actually a federal ID is not all bad..
“Another BOO-HOO Piece, trying get your sympathy.
For Illegals, I have none left—fresh out.”
excuse me?
I have no sympaty for illegals?
Yes, the town will be divided: part of the town will have law-abiding American Citizens, and part of the town will have CRIMINAL Foreign-invaders/squatters.
Sorry—Didn’t mean you.
LA is Sanctuary Central. MacArthur Park is controlled by MS-13.
I’m just saying that the L.A. Slimes wants you to feel sorry for about half of L A.
You really want to carry a federal ID card with biometric ID, that you have to show to get a job, rent an apartment, get medical care, pay your taxes, etc.? Link that with your phone number, and the government will know everything about you including where you are, who you phoned, what you bought, etc.
That may be coming anyway, but it’s not the type of government scrutiny I want, and I’d like to keep what little is left of my constitutional rights and my privacy for as long as I can.
How about a Social Security card? Last time I heard they were already in circulation.Maybe they can be faked but at the moment there’s essentially nothing else in place !!!
Oops,sorry I missed your posting or I wouldn’t have repeated what you said !!!
“People work in jobs no one else wants. Now they are kicked out where they live. It’s mean,” said Blanca Benitez, a renter. She has lived legally in Farmers Branch for three years, she said, but now feels uncomfortable and unwanted in stores and other public places around town. “How would it make you feel?” she said.
Oh, she’s lived there legally for three years, she says, but now they’re treating her like an illegal? Worse yet, she speaks in cliches.
But it would make me “feel” that maybe I should back to my own country so I’d “feel” more comfortable.
no problemo...
and since you mentioned MS-13,
the FBI is reporting that MS-13 is now in 42 states!
So for those who think that if we make things bad enough for the illegals;
they will just go home.
Those folks have another thought coming regarding illegals.
Because MS-13 is hiring.
HELP WANTED:
Must speak Spanish.
No Gringos Need Apply!
FWIW:
A TRO blocking enforcement was issued today.
No problemo...we’ve been informing folks for years ‘round here that we already have federal ID’s but they still haven’t figured it out! LOL
And for the record, I’d sooner carry a federal ID than a coffin.
It's mean," said Blanca Benitez, (as she stamped her feet and held her breath 'til she turned blue.)
“And that is one step closer to an Orwellian world.”
I am SURE much the same thing was said when SSN’s were first issued. It is 2007, there are cameras everywhere, with the internet nearly everything about you and everything you say (even this) is out there and available forever. One could move to a cabin in the middle of nowhere, use cash or barter only, but that is impracticle and for most, unthinkable. I will take the chance on a national I.D. rather then simply watch the country go down the toilet by being overrun and overwhelmed.
Yep. "Papers please" sounds very, very good to me.
I don’t know what planet you live on but we already show an ID to “get a job, rent an apartment, get medical care, pay your taxes, etc.?”
“She has lived legally in Farmers Branch for three years”
Then this does not applied to her does it now?
The guy I hired to do the home inspection on my rental property suggested inspecting the applicants car as well. If the applicant doesn't take good car of his car, he won't take good care of your rental.
Judge halts enforcement of rental ban against illegal immigrants
© 2007 The Associated Press
FARMERS BRANCH, Texas — A federal judge on Monday halted enforcement of a voter-endorsed ordinance preventing apartment rentals to most illegal immigrants, a day before the ban was to take effect in this Dallas suburb.
U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay wrote in granting a temporary restraining order that only the federal government can determine whether a person is in the United States legally.
Instead of deferring to federal officials, Farmers Branch has created its own classification to determine which noncitizens may rent an apartment, the judge ruled, also noting that the city appeared to have borrowed from federal housing regulations to define who may lease in the suburb.
"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."
The ordinance was to take effect Tuesday, more than a week after voters approved the regulation by 68 percent, according to unofficial election results.
However, "public approval of the Ordinance, by itself, does not guide the court as to whether the Ordinance complies with the law," the judge wrote in his 20-page order.
"This is important guidance for other communities and others effected by this," said William A. Brewer III, who represents several apartment complexes suing Farmers Branch over the regulation.
A call for comment from Farmers Branch Councilman Tim O'Hare, the lead proponent of the ordinance, wasn't immediately returned Monday.
Attorney Matthew Boyle, who represents Farmers Branch, said regardless of the judge's decision, there is still plenty of work left on the case. He declined to comment on specifics.
Opponents of the ordinance filed three requests in federal court for an order to stop its enforcement. Two of those succeeded in getting the temporary restraining order on Monday.
The ordinance requires managers to verify that renters are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before leasing to them, with some exceptions. Violators face fines of up to $500, and each day would be considered a separate violation.
Also Monday, a federal lawsuit and a state district court suit were filed in Dallas against Farmers Branch.
The federal suit, on behalf of three Latino voters who live in Farmers Branch, claims minorities are underrepresented because of the at-large city council system.
It seeks the creation of single-member districts, in which a city council member is elected to represent a specific section of the city. Both large and small cities with diverse racial makeup use the system, said Rolando Rios, the attorney leading the suit.
Activists say if the method had been in place, at least one Latino candidate would have been elected to the council and could represent the group. All five council members are white men.
Since 1970, Farmers Branch has changed from a small, predominantly white community with a declining population to a city of almost 28,000 people, about 37 percent Hispanic, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
The city had not yet been served with the lawsuit, said Farmers Branch spokesman Tom Bryson.
The other suit, brought by real estate broker Guillermo Ramos, alleges Farmers Branch officials violated the state's open meetings law when they approved the ordinance in November and again when they decided to put a revamped version on the ballot.
Council members approved the original, stricter rental ban without discussion and took comment from the public only after their vote.
Before a public meeting was held to consider a petition asking for the ordinance to be repealed or put up for a vote, Farmers Branch officials were quoted as saying they expected to put the issue before voters, the suit alleges.
Boyle, the Farmers Branch attorney, said he could not comment on the suit.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
IV. Conclusion and Temporary Restraining Order
All in all, the court concludes that only the federal government may determine whether an individual is legally in the United States. Farmers Branch, rather than deferring to the federal government’s determination of immigration status, has created its own classification scheme for determining which noncitizens may rent an apartment in that city. Farmers Branch has failed to adopt federal immigration standards. The Ordinance adopts federal housing regulations that govern which noncitizens may receive housing subsidies from the federal government, not federal immigration standards that determine which noncitizens are legally in this country. Because Farmers Branch has attempted to regulate immigration differently from the federal government, the Ordinance is preempted by the Supremacy Clause.
The court recognizes that illegal immigration is a major problem in this country, and one who asserts otherwise ignores reality. 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.
The court, for the reasons herein stated, determines that the Villas and Vasquez Plaintiffs have satisfied each of the elements necessary to obtain a temporary restraining order. Accordingly, the court grants the Vasquez Plaintiffs’ Application for Temporary Restraining Order, grants the Villas Plaintiffs’ Application for Temporary Restraining Order, and denies the Barrientos Plaintiffs’ Application for Temporary Restraining Order.
The court therefore orders that the City of Farmers Branch, Texas, and its officers, agents, servants, employees, representatives, or attorneys, are hereby temporarily restrained and prohibited from effectuating or enforcing Ordinance 2903, pending a hearing on Plaintiffs’ requests for preliminary injunction. As a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo, and this temporary restraining order is based upon the record as it currently exists, the determinations made by the court are not final and may change after additional facts are presented, the issues of law are further developed, and the court has had an opportunity to conduct a more thorough analysis of the legal issues presented.
Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “No restraining order . . . shall issue except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). Plaintiffs ask the court to waive the bond requirement without providing any authority for such a waiver. Defendant objects and notes that without a bond, it cannot recover any damages for wrongful injunction. W.R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, 461 U.S. 757, 770 n.14 (1983). Farmers Branch does not specify what damages it may suffer by the issuance of a temporary restraining order. The court determines that at most the harm or damage to Farmers Branch would be minimal, and that a bond of $1,500 per group of Plaintiffs is sufficient.
Accordingly, the court hereby sets a bond in the amount of $1,500 for the Villas Plaintiffs and $1,500 for the Vasquez Plaintiffs. This temporary restraining order shall not take effect until each group of Plaintiffs tenders to the clerk of the court $1,500 cash, or a bond for $1,500 in a form approved by the clerk of the court, in compliance with Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
It is so ordered this 21st day of May, 2007.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
As specified in the Ordinance.........
The Ordinance amends Chapter 26, Article IV of the City’s Code of Ordinances relating to apartment complex rental. Specifically, the Ordinance adds language to section 26-116(d)(3) and creates a new section 26-116(f) titled “Citizenship or Immigration Status Verification.” Id. § 3(A)-( B).Subsection (1) of the new section (f) defines various terms used in the section, and states that the definitions are consistent with 24 CFR 5.504. Id. § 3(B)(f)(1). The term “Evidence of citizenship or eligible immigration status” is defined as “the documents which must be submitted to evidence citizenship or eligible immigration status for residency in the United States.” Id. “Citizen” is defined as “a citizen or national of the United States.” Id. “National means a person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, for example, as a result of birth in a United States territory or possession.” Id. Noncitizen is defined as “a person who is neither a citizen nor national of the United States.” Id.
Subsection (2) provides: “The owner and/or property manager shall require as a prerequisite to entering into any lease or rental arrangement, including any lease or rental renewals or extensions, the submission of evidence of citizenship or eligible immigration status for each tenant family consistent with subsection (3).” Id. § 3(B)(f)(2).
Subsection (3) relates to “Evidence of citizenship or eligible immigration status” and lists the evidence required to show tenants’ citizenship or immigration status. Id. § 3(B)(f)(3). This section sets out the documentation that tenants must provide. Noncitizens must provide: (1) a signed declaration of “eligible immigration status;” (2) a “form designated by [United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement]2 as acceptable evidence of immigration status;” and (3) a “signed verification consent form.” Id. § 3(B)(f)(3)(ii)(a)-(c).
Subsection (4) outlines the owner and/or property managers’ obligations with regard to the evidence of citizenship or “eligible immigration status:”
(i) The owner and/or property manager shall request and review original documents of eligible citizenship or immigration status. The owner and/or property manager shall retain photocopies of the documents for its own records and return the original documents to the family. Copies shall be retained by the owner and/or property manager for a period of not less than two (2) years after the end of the family’s lease or rental.
(ii) The owner and/or property manager shall require that each family member submit evidence of citizenship or immigration status only once during continuous occupancy. The owner and/or property manager is prohibited from allowing the occupancy of any unit by any family which has not submitted the required evidence of citizenship or eligible immigration status under this Section . . . .
end snip
68-32 isnt really that divided.
Good find deport!!!
It's not that difficult to submit a name and a SS# to the feds and ask if they match.
Indeed, there is already a procedure in place for employers to do so. But it's not mandatory. And the feds specify that only employees who are already employed (as opposed to applicants) are subject to "wasting their time".
Employers who are actually interested in hiring legal workers routinely work their way around the feds' disinterest by saying that the applicants are employees.
In other words, it's not that confirming legality is impossible. It can be done...at least to the level that will significantly reduce the incidence of illegals.
Well, put another way, 1 of every 3 in the town is a criminal?
The issue in Farmers Branch is private gain vs. public pain. The landlord pockets the money from illegal aliens and the rest of the community pays for the social services and education costs. It’s like taxation without representation.
Slick Willie Klintoon
Thanks for the ping. Through all of this, I still don’t know what it is about the word “illegal” they don’t understand?
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.