Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New law barring non-citizens as airport screeners found unconstitutional
AP ^ | 11/15/02 | Gary Gentile

Posted on 11/15/2002 8:45:44 PM PST by Rome2000

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

Copyright © 2002 AP Online

        Save to your PDA with AvantGo   

 


By GARY GENTILE, AP Business Writer

 
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.
 AP Photo/Lucian Read
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.



TOPICS: Breaking News
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-180 next last
The enemy comes in all shapes and sizes, some of them are Federal judges.
1 posted on 11/15/2002 8:45:44 PM PST by Rome2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
right, and some of them are members of the ACLU
2 posted on 11/15/2002 8:47:09 PM PST by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
Is this the Ninth Circus?
3 posted on 11/15/2002 8:47:39 PM PST by Maedhros
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
How can restrictions on non-citizens be unConstitutional? It boggles the mind.
4 posted on 11/15/2002 8:48:09 PM PST by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
Madness. Sheer madness.
5 posted on 11/15/2002 8:48:19 PM PST by relee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
I mean, I know this is a District Court, but could it be appealed to the Ninth Circus?
6 posted on 11/15/2002 8:48:35 PM PST by Maedhros
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
If they are non-citizens why are they not deported?
7 posted on 11/15/2002 8:49:00 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
Why don't we just make them all Saudis and be done with it?

What insanity, what kind of judge is this?
8 posted on 11/15/2002 8:49:34 PM PST by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maedhros
"Is this the Ninth Circus?"

Geez...that was my first thought too.

9 posted on 11/15/2002 8:49:46 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: phasma proeliator
a "You have GOT to be kidding me" ping
10 posted on 11/15/2002 8:51:06 PM PST by da_toolman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
Next they'll be allowed to be mechanics on the F-117 fighter/bomber.
11 posted on 11/15/2002 8:51:29 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
We are going to P.C. ourselves into oblivion.
12 posted on 11/15/2002 8:53:48 PM PST by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
This judge will get his due. The law is certainly not unconstitutional.

Although the constitution specifically does not mention citizenship, the prior law established on this will be the basis of a ruling overturning the wacko.

13 posted on 11/15/2002 8:53:50 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
I thought that name sounded familiar.
More.....

Judge's Ruling Indicates Part of PATRIOT Act Is Unconstitutional
On June 21, a federal judge dismissed the Justice Department's case against seven persons charged with funneling charitable donations to People's Mujahedin, a group thought to have been partly responsible for the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
Judge Robert M. Takasugi of the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles ruled that a law passed by Congress in 1996 that classified certain foreign groups as "terrorist organizations" is ''unconstitutional on its face.'' The law makes it a crime to provide ''material support'' to any foreign organization deemed by the State Department to be a national security threat. Therefore, the judge ruled, the law cannot serve as the basis for criminal charges. ''I will not abdicate my responsibilities as a district judge and turn a blind eye to the constitutional infirmities," opined Takasugi. Because the government's list of "terrorist organizations" was secret, the judge concluded, ''The defendants are deprived of their liberty based on an unconstitutional designation that they could never challenge.''

The defendants in the case had been collecting money from travelers at the L.A. airport, saying the donations— amounting to over $1 million by Justice Department estimates— would be used for charitable relief efforts in Iran. Instead, the government charged, the money went to support People's Mujahedin military camps in Iraq.

The government's case against John Walker Lindh, the U.S. citizen accused of aiding the al-Quaida in Afghanistan, deemed a terrorist group by the U.S. Justice Department, is based partly on the antiterrorism law now ruled unconstitutional by Judge Takasugi. makes it a crime to provide ''material support'' to any foreign organization that the State Department deems a threat to national security. But the law gives these groups ''no notice and no opportunity'' to contest their designation, a violation of due process, Takasugi ruled.

The Justice Department may appeal the ruling.






Updated for the Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel by Allegro Web Communications on July 3, 2002.

Isn't the internet a wonderful thing!
God bless Google.

14 posted on 11/15/2002 8:55:12 PM PST by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
Well if you liked the ruling above you're gonna love Judge T's ruling here
15 posted on 11/15/2002 8:55:23 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
Here is his track record... from various sources...

Judge Robert Takasugi ordered the FBI to answer questions about why it kept a file on (John) Lennon.

Judge Robert M. Takasugi of U.S. District Court in Los Angeles ruled on Friday that a 1996 law passed by Congress to classify foreign groups as terrorist organizations is ''unconstitutional on its face,''

Los Angeles U.S. District Judge Robert M. Takasugi, a Democrat appointed by former President Ford...

Judge Robert M. Takasugi threw out charges against six US citizens arrested for raising funds for the Iranian(terrorist organization), the People’s Mujahadin.

16 posted on 11/15/2002 8:59:27 PM PST by Lunatic Fringe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Well you've actually hit on the critical point. Airport screeners, like Air Force mechanics, are federal employees whose work is important to national security. The taxpayers put a lot of trust in their loyalty.

Offhand, I seem to remember that Courts have allowed non-citizens to take jobs as school teachers and postal workers. But for a law enforcement and military positions, the Courts have let Uncle Sam set its own standards. For another example, for some intelligence positions, not only must you be a citizen but you won't be hired if any member of your family (such as your spouse) is a foreign national.

This idiotic injunction Court will be overturned. If it isn't, then there would be no legal way the military or the FBI could refuse to hire an otherwise qualified Iraqi or North Korean immigrant.
17 posted on 11/15/2002 9:01:09 PM PST by Maximum Leader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
So I wonder if there will be a Constitution left, let alone judges to interpret it, once the non-citizens have finished destroying this country and killing us all?
18 posted on 11/15/2002 9:01:31 PM PST by Stefan Stackhouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rome2000
How long are the American people gonna put up with this bu!!$#*^ ?
19 posted on 11/15/2002 9:03:08 PM PST by P8riot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
They probably cannot be deported because they're legal immigrants, or in INS-speak "Legal Permanent Residents" (LPRs). This means they came here on legal immigrant visas (1 million per year!) or as refugees, or came illegally and then legalized through amnesty, asylum, marriage, etc. BUT, since they are not citizens yet, they have no formal allegiance to the United States. They have never sworn an oath (the naturalization oath) to uphold the Constitution, defend the Country, and to put aside all other (foreign) national loyalties. Formalities aside, they also most likely haven't been in the country terribly long, and therefore have less personal attachment to this place than do the native-born and longer-resident naturalized citizens. In short, they present a greater risk for disloyal acts, like terrorism, which is why Congress wrote the law they wrote. The Judge is an ass and the ACLU... well the ACLU simply operates most of the time as a domestic enemy.
20 posted on 11/15/2002 9:03:11 PM PST by RodgerD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-180 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson