New law barring non-citizens as airport screeners found unconstitutional

AP ^ | 11/15/02 | Gary Gentile

[Rome2000]

Nation: New law barring non-citizens as airport screeners found unconstitutional

Copyright © 2002 AP Online
By GARY GENTILE, AP Business Writer   AP Photo/Lucian Read Mark Rosenbaum, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, talks with reporters after a federal judge temporarily blocked a rule saying the government's new airport security screeners must be U.S. citizens, outside the federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles on Friday, Nov. 15, 2002. LOS ANGELES (November 15, 2002 7:54 p.m. EST) - A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked a rule saying the government's new airport security screeners must be U.S. citizens. The portion of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act barring non-citizens from the positions is unconstitutional, U.S. District Judge Robert Takasugi ruled. Takasugi's preliminary injunction will remain in place until trial in a civil rights lawsuit brought by nine plaintiffs at Los Angeles and San Francisco International Airports. No trial date has been set. The ruling will affect as many as 8,000 airport screeners, most of whom already have lost their jobs, said Ben Wizner, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which brought the case. Plaintiffs lawyers said the ruling will apply to airports nationwide and will allow the non-citizen workers to reapply for jobs that became federal positions following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. U.S. Justice Department lawyer Elizabeth Shapiro declined to comment on the ruling. She said it was not clear that the injunction would apply nationwide. Mark Rosenbaum, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California, compared the government's attempt to fire non-citizens from screening jobs to the World War II internment of Japanese-Americans. "You're classifying a group of non-citizens as inherently dangerous," he said. A Nov. 19 deadline had been set for airports to remove all non-citizens from screening jobs. Rosenbaum noted that the ban did not apply to other airport workers. "From the pilots to the cargo handlers to people who work in the gift shop, there's no citizenship requirement," he said. Congress passed a law last November to federalize all airport screeners. ACLU lawyers also said they hoped the judge's decision would convince Congress to pass an amendment before the Senate that would allow U.S. nationals to hold airport security screening jobs. One of the plaintiffs is from American Samoa, who had been barred from applying as a baggage screener.

[nicmarlo]

I think Bill O'Reilly needs to see this one.

I agree.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

That was the first thing that I wondered, too...

[error99]

I disagree with this line.
(A nit-picky but important subtle difference.)
"...Unless you are an American Indian, you or previous generations of your family came to the United States as aliens..."

Instead, I would have said:
'Unless all of your ancestors were here prior to or during the Revolutionary War, you or previous generations of family came to the United States as aliens'.

I don't think of the "Founding Fathers" as coming to the United States as aliens. And there is debate as to wheather some American Indian reservations (depending on the specific treaty language for each reservation) are even a part of the United States, today.

[error99]

Amendment XIV.
ratified July 9, 1868
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[Samwise]

How can restrictions on non-citizens be unConstitutional? It boggles the mind.

You must not have read the part that said:

Congress shall make no law restricting the right to Jihad.

[FITZ]

Bcause the Constitution protects every "PERSON" in the US ...

Protects but doesn't guarantee them any kind of job. There is nothing in the Constitution that says foreigners must be given jobs that give them authority over Americans, foreigners don't have a right to screen Americans at our airports.

[FITZ]

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It's stretching things very very far to think this means they entitled to obtain any job they wish for whatever reason they might have. It means they have rights not to be murdered, robbed, and they have certain rights when arrested.

[FITZ]

Also, there is a difference between an LEGAL and An ILLEGAL ALien........

Where does it say that?

[Rome2000]

Note the last name -- maybe he and his family were put in camps during WWII?

He and his family were put away during WWII, something we ought to start thinking about doing to ragheads after the next massive attack on US soil.

There are a lot of people running around under the illusion that what happened during WWII was a bad thing.

I expect they will see the folly of that illusion shortly.

[error99]

"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..."

Here is an odd thought ... The 14th ammendment says that NO STATE SHALL...(an attempt to mend some of the legal issues from the War between the States).
But it does not say that the FEDS can't do it, just that the STATES can't do it...
Just a stray thought wandering around in my brain...

[savedbygrace]

Please be more specific; Art IV, Section 3, last paragragh seems to give Congress the Power to make the rules on federal property and at least certain portions of most airports are de facto federal property today.

[LRS]

I will try this again, and ask again, in a gentlemanly manner, Would you, KQQL, care to expand as to the point you were making to me? Perhaps it would help if I were to expand as to why I seem to be in the dark.

I made a specific post dealing with the possibility that the Judge in the case, may be making rulings based upon a personal bias that stems from a childhood incident. In response, I recieve not only a piece dealing with the 14th Amendment, but one that is presented with bold letters.

Had I addressed the case itself, then I could understand your actions, but I am at a loss as to what your reply has to do with the point I made.

(However, I will say that I think the 14th Amendment is being misused, much as FTTZ expresses in Post #107.)

[gitmo]

Must be using The New International Version of the Constitution.

[rintense]

Time to start freeping the courts. This is a load of crap.

[rintense]

I'm still wondering how non-citizens can join the military.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked a rule saying the government's new airport security screeners must be U.S. citizens.

What's next? A federal judge will rule that one need not be a U.S. citizen to be elected President of the United States?

"You're going to get what you deserve...bow down before the one you serve."

"All hail President ____________________________________ !"
                                  Insert name here (Mustafa, Mohammed, Jugdish, whatever.)

[brityank]

Folks .....remember no citizenship is required for flight attendants, airline mechanics, pilots ...

Do they take an Oath to '... protect and defend the Constitution ...'?

... or members of our military!

They do.

I served in the USNavy, and had to submit a 'Letter of Intent' and take that Oath; which I did gladly. Sorry, regardless of any 'state of war', immigrants should not be allowed in positions without certified clearance and verification. Fire them.

[brityank]

See #117

[ampat]

What is needed here is a three strikes law. If a federal judge, or judges, have 3 decisions overturned by a higher appeals court, then they're out.

[Criminal Number 18F]

If this judge, who has a long history of anti-executive, pro-terrorist rulings, is sustained in this opinion there is a le!��5{��������nd this. Simply change the law to place the financial burden of the background investigation on the would-be employee.

"I see, Mr Abdul Mohammed Kamikazi Sirhan, that you claim you can be a good, loyal American. No problem. However, you will have to bear the expence of us sending an agent here to your mother, father, cousins and beloved camel, 'Semtex,' at One Shaheed Lane in Hezbollah, Palestine."

"Just keep putting quarters in the machine till we tell you to stop...."

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F