Posted on 12/19/2006 10:42:12 AM PST by NormsRevenge
ESCONDIDO – The lawyers who successfully challenged the city's illegal-immigrant housing ordinance said recent statements by council members that legal obstacles can be overcome are unrealistic.
They also warned that should Escondido try to enact a similar ordinance, it would cost the city dearly.
David Blair-Loy, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties, said fundamental problems will exist with any ordinance designed to banish illegal immigrants. Last week, after the Escondido council agreed to rescind an ordinance adopted in October, several council members said they hoped to create a better one in the future.
“If they even get close to this topic again, we will look at it with a microscope,” Blair-Loy said yesterday in response to the comments. “If we do have to sue them, it will be a lot more painful experience than it was the first time . . . they may not have such a quick, easy, painless exit from the case.”
Alan Mansfield, of the law firm Rosner & Mansfield, concurred. “There would be no discount and be no settlement this time,” he said.
The original ordinance, approved on a 3-2 vote, was intended to punish landlords who rented to illegal immigrants. Proponents said overcrowding and crime caused by illegal immigration – and the federal government's inability to do anything about it – were hurting the city.
The law was challenged in a federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of two landlords, two illegal-immigrant renters and others.
A temporary restraining order was issued by U.S. District Judge John A. Houston, who pointed out numerous problems with the measure.
Last week, the council agreed to pay the ACLU and the various law firms who had filed the suit $90,000 to cover their legal fees and to block enforcement of the ordinance.
But the next day, four of the five current council members said they hoped to return with a new ordinance that could survive legal challenges.
“This is not the end,” Councilwoman Marie Waldron said. “This is the beginning of a fight. I'm looking at this as a glitch, a minor one at that, as we move ahead to strengthen the ordinance.”
Escondido City Attorney Jeffrey Epp said yesterday he was aware of statements by Waldron and other council members, but that there were no plans at present to recraft an ordinance. “We obviously haven't taken any collective action, and we didn't talk about any future actions in closed session,” Epp said.
Philip Tencer of the law firm Cooley Godward said the Escondido ordinance “will require something more substantial than a little tweak.”
Tencer said he hoped the city has learned its lesson. “To blame all the ills of a city on illegal aliens is ridiculous,” he said.
Blair-Loy said several basic constitutional issues would make it unlikely any ordinance resembling the one Escondido passed could be enforced.
First, he said, the issue of housing illegal immigrants is “purely for the federal government. . . . This is not an area the cities and states are allowed to get into.”
Second, he said, it's hard to imagine how a local ordinance could provide due-process rights. He said the Constitution guarantees people – landlords and tenants in this case – the right to contest allegations and to confront their accuser.
Federal fair-housing laws also are likely to be a big hurdle, he said. Just because an ordinance says it won't discriminate based on race or national origin, “In the real world we all know what they are talking about.”
Mansfield said, “If they think they can just amend it, they are sorely mistaken. They should not even be considering it.”
fyi
This is why the ACLU should not be able to obtain attorney fees.
The ACLU should be required to pay its own attorney fees AND they should be prohibited from using law students as interns for law school credits.
I fail to see where illegal aliens have rights under our Constitution.
Pretty soon, they're going to tell the country to call them the 'underpriviledged', because being 'illegal' is too painful.
The ACLU should not get money from the government (meaning us taxpayers!).
Blackmail, nothing but!
The City of Escondido should aet up a legal defense fund. I'd contribute.
There, that seems more accurate.
You can attempt to tell us how the ACLU is protecting the bill of rights here.
ping
This is because of a federal law which allows plaintiffs in "civil rights" actions to recover attorney's fees.
All you have to do is get a judge to say it's a civil rights action, and presto: you get paid. And the vote of the people or their representatives goes down the toilet. The plaintiffs against 187 got millions. Which they are still spending to jackhammer the American border apart, one effect of which can still be seen in New York city where there used to be a couple of buildings.
But of course, the ACLU would argue that the victims of American Imperialism had a civil right to do that.
While it may have sounded noble at the time, the notion of allowing a well funded political group like the ACLU to use the courts to compel their own funding and make threats against anyone who dares disagree with them shows that the law is a joke and is being abused.
And so it should be repealed, or vastly constricted, with a very narrow interpretation and more review than a single judge. In other words, set the bar much higher. Or just build a wall and be done with it.
Funny thing about it is, if you read the initial court decision, it doesn't agree with Blair-Loy's contention that Federal law pre-empts the field. And, in fact, a decision to issue a temporary restraining order has no precedential value whatsoever. The ACLU's just blowing smoke, and auto-back-patting again.
It's an exercise in contrasts to read what the actual court documents (available at escondido.org) say and compare it with Blair-Loy's 'creative' version of the facts.
The City Council of Escondido's not going to let city policy be determined by the threats of a bunch of slick-suited legal extortionists, and I say 'more power to them'.
Hey!........ACLU.....you frickin' moron's! Remember the "A" in ACLU, it stands for AMERICAN and illegal aliens are not Americans, you bass ackwards bastards.
Remind me again which, the U S Constitution or the Mexican Constitution, they're supposed to be defending.
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.