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.

[pray4liberty]

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.

We're fighting a war on terrorism, you jerk, and you quibble about this? Let me make it easy for you: those who have not sworn an oath of loyalty to the United States should not be working at a job that in any way compromises our national security.

If they want to work at the airport, apply at the INS first!

[henderson field]

In World War II, ten percent of Japanese living in the U.S. were spies and saboteurs. The other ninety percent were members of Japanese cultural and political organizations, protecting them. Only by interning them were we able to save the West Coast aircraft factories, without which we would have lost the war.

[KQQL]

Here is what I am saying.

COngress has to re-classify these jobs as " Highly sensitive National Security jobs"
(Remember, no citizenship is required for flight attendants, airline mechanics, pilots or "members of our military"! )

After re-classification of these jobs, the GOVT can mandate these employess be US Citzenship..

If the US govt doesn't re-classify these JOBS , then these
workers are protected under the Constitution to allowed to work, as long as they are legally in the US..

[The_Media_never_lie]

This is just oh so much stupidity! Where in the constitution does it say that aliens have a constitutional "right" to jobs in this country?

Don't get me wrong, I'm for the US but we don't deserve to win without basic common sense.

[The_Media_never_lie]

The fact that we have to have a "legal" debate over such stupidity is amazing!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Does the US Army have a "citizens only" clause in their recruitment manual?

[AgentEcho]

New law barring non-citizens as airport screeners found unconstitutional

It appears it's time for an Amendment then, huh.

[KQQL]

no citizenship is required for flight attendants, airline mechanics, pilots or "members of our military"! )

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

I bet it wouldn't be hard to find a liberal judge to find that the language in the Constitution that restricts the Presidency to citizens is un-Constitutional.

[sweetliberty]

"Does the US Army have a "citizens only" clause in their recruitment manual?"

I really wouldn't know, but if they don't they should.

[Luis Gonzalez]

If a person is legally admitted into the US, it normally follows that this person will become a US citizen. If that's a fact, then there is no real reason not to allow them to serve in the military.

If terrorism is the issue here, I would point out that the DC sniper, and the Oklahoma bomber were both ex-military, and native-born.

[KQQL]

Our Consitution protects all persons legally here in the USA..

Here have a look:
http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.lev.alienliberties.html

Bottom line:
Congress has to re-classify these jobs as " Highly sensitive National Security jobs"
(Remember, no citizenship is required for flight attendants, airline mechanics, pilots or "members of our military"! )

After re-classification of these jobs, the GOVT can mandate these employess be US Citzenship..

If the US govt doesn't re-classify these JOBS , then these
workers are protected under the Constitution to allowed to work, as long as they are legally in the US..

[BiffSchneider]

As everyone knows, there were *two* snipers:

"INFO: on "Northwest Immigrant Rights Project: The group that freed Malvo from INS Detention"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/784605/posts

And, regarding McVeigh:
"Burton's panel finds links to foreigners in Oklahoma blast [McVeigh Linked to Saddam!]"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/739127/posts

Back to the screeners: according to the ACLU, "You're classifying a group of non-citizens as inherently dangerous."

Yes, I think it's fair to say that giving such an important job to someone who doesn't have a stake in this country is very foolish. It'd be like hiring a librarian who doesn't necessarily like books. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn't. But, until she's demonstrated that she really really likes books (say, by getting a library science degree), then I don't think we should let her around books.

The ACLU should remember that we aren't talking about books here, we're talking about cases where people's lives are at stake.

- one in which thousands of people could be killed

[sweetliberty]

I don't think it necessarily follows at all that just because somebody gets into this country that they will become a citizen. I suppose if they are in the process and have sworn some kind of allegiance to the United States then as far as the military is concerned that should be their discretion. But when it comes to baggage handlers at airports, I think they should absolutely have to be US citizens. Obviously, being a citizen is no assurance against terrorism, but at least there is some means for accurately identifying and keeping track of citizens. Putting foreigners in those kinds of positions is an open invitation to terrorists.

There is more than one issue involved here as well. We have skyrocketing unemployment in this country and it is getting worse all the time. There is no way I can, in clear conscience, advocate giving American jobs to foreigners. That, to me is simple common sense and really has nothing to do with national security.

And then there is the issue of immigration which is nearing critical mass. We have been allowing in LEGAL immigrants at over 3 times the number that we can assimilate and sustain. Add to that the estimated numbers of illegals that are getting into this country every year and you easily have twice that number. From a purely practical standpoint, the growth rate due to immigrants, legal and illegal plus their typically higher birth rates are putting a severe burden on our infrastructure and our financial resources.

Then lets look at the cultural burden. America was once considered to be a great melting pot. People who immigrated here typically expected to contribute and be a part of America. They worked hard, they learned the language and they became Americans. Now, increasingly what we have are foreigners who want to come here for the benefits but want no part of the culture that is uniquely American. They want to keep their separate communities and their separate languages and as if that isn't enough, they want Americans to make special concessions to THEIR cultural demands, be it language or religion or custom. Many come here not wanting to be a part of America, but to be a parasite on America. This is especially true of illegals from Mexico. They come over here to use our hospitals and our schools at our expense. Women even wait near the border when they are pregnant and when it is near their time they make the crossing so they can have their babies here thereby giving them a foothold in this country. Drug smugglers storm the borders in droves and infiltrate towns in the heartland bringing with them coarseness and crime and corruption. Those who commit crimes and are caught fill our prisons, and in disproportionate numbers and again, the burden for their care is on us.

I am not going to elaborate furthur on that aspect, just using those examples to say that it isn't just about terrorism or security. There are many other relevant issues at play. And then there is the obvious issue of security. This country is NOT secure. We have little control over our borders and we do not enforce our immigration laws. That is bad enough under any circumstances, but when we are under a constant state of alert because of predominantly foreigners, specifically mideastern extremists from countries whose people openly proclaim their hatred for America and espouse a "religion" that teaches the killing of Christians and Jews and that it is forbidden except in the most extreme circumstances to become a citizen of a non-Muslim nation, continue to pour into the country by the thousands, taking advantage of our freedoms and using our own generosity and laws against us, I have a real problem with that.

I sincerely believe that our most urgent order of business is neutralizing terrorism as completely and as expediently as possible and I believe that there is absolutely no way to do that if we don't get control of the borders. At the very least there needs to be a complete moratorium on immigration from ANY country known to sponsor terrorism. That means no student visas and the revocation of existing ones. It means a zero tolerance policy on people from those countries who are found to be here illegally. I'm not sure I think they should even be allowed to travel here or if they do, it should be with very restricted access. I personally believe that we should have at least a 5 year moratorium on ALL immigration and during that time, in addition to neutralizing terrorism we should build up immigration agencies and find ways of making them work more decisively and efficiently. And, I think that the Mexican border needs to be very high priority. Forgetting for a moment the immigration problems associated with Mexicans themselves, we know that that is a channel where mideasterners are gaining access to the United States using the coyotes in the same way as the Mexicans, though often at a premium rate.

For the sake of this discussion, I won't go into other levels of restriction I think would be appropriate because that would be counterproductive. But it seems very logical to me that we could bomb half the mideast into oblivion but as long as we are embracing the enemy within our borders then it is pointless.

[vannrox]

.


Another 9th Circuit Court Ruling....

*SIGH*

Let me get this right....In matters of National Security, we need to have Airport Screeners.

So to defend Americans using Airport screeners they can be anyone,including our enemies.

Nope. I say not.

The Constitution is quite clear on this. The Sole person or office responsible for the Defense of the United States is the Commander in Chief. That is the President. He and he alone shall establish the guidelines as to whom and what and how our country and our citizens will be defended.


.

[error99]

I have been meaning to tell you this for quite some time.

You probably put lots of effort into your little graphics.

But do you know that nearly all of them just show up as little white boxes with red exes in them?

Not to mention how demanding they are on resources for those using dial-up connections.

Now, I can be comfortable knowing you are aware of these things, so that as you continue to do this, it will be out of arrogance, or of rudeness, but not out of ignorance.

[lepton]

Assuming that it was otherwise unknowable, this would be right. No secret laws.

The law's not secret - just the list of organizations. If you're sending $$ to one of those organizations, you don't need to see the list. You KNOW what you're doing.

If that were true, then a list would be unneccessary. My qualification "Assuming that it was otherwise unknowable" specifies that knowable orgs would not fall under "this would be right." The point is, if a prudent person would understand that the money would be going to terrorist activities, then prosecution is fine - but if the org misrepresents itself, then one is merely being prosecuted for falling for a fraud. Since the list is not accessible, it cannot be used as an aid, and is useless from the point of view of a potential contributor, and functionally the reliance of a law upon it constitutes a secret law.

[lepton]

In World War II, ten percent of Japanese living in the U.S. were spies and saboteurs. The other ninety percent were members of Japanese cultural and political organizations, protecting them.

Are you sure that wasn't and 11/89 split?

[lepton]

"Does the US Army have a "citizens only" clause in their recruitment manual?"

No...but what jobs they can take is limited. Volunteering for military service, then serving "honorably" has long been a route to citizenship - and one that I can thoroughly respect.

[lepton]

If a person is legally admitted into the US, it normally follows that this person will become a US citizen.

There are a LOT of people who move to the U.S., and never become citizens...and a notable number that do that wouldn't if they wouldn't have to leave otherwise.