The Revolution Rant Episode #2 Special Guest Angel Reyes from Brian Cuban on Vimeo.

Can local municipalities constitutionally enact statutes to deny housing and other services to those in this country illegally? Nationally known attorney and author Angel Reyes joins The Rant to discuss this controversial issue.

The City of Farmers Branch, Texas continues its quest to drive illegal aliens out of the city.  Just like their previous attempts to craft legislation towards this goal, their latest attempt has been rebuffed by the Federal Courts.   On September 13, 2008 U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle issued a temporary restraining order barring the city from implementing its latest ordinance aimed at halting housing rentals to illegal immigrants.  The law if it had taken effect would have required all, apartment and home renters to obtain a city occupancy license by stating that they were U.S. citizens or were in the country legally.  Farmer’s Branch mayor Tim O’ Hare stated:

“I think the will of the people of Farmers Branch is not being carried out,” he said. “I think you’ll ultimately see this matter resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

While not the first to try it, the Dallas suburb of Farmer’s Branch,Texas is the latest to test the Constitutionally perilous waters of limiting the right of those not in this country legally to rent housing and obtain other basic services. It is primarily a Hispanic issue in Farmer’s Branch but the ban would apply to any person in this country illegally.

The controversy started back in May of 2007 when Farmer’s Branch passed a law targeting illegal immigrants by barring them from renting apartments. Ordinance 2903 would have required apartment management to obtain proof of citizenship or legal immigration status before entering into or renewing leases or rental agreements.  The only exception to the ban would have been that mixed-status families could stay if they were already living in the apartment, the spouse or head of household is a citizen or here legally, and the household includes the head of household and spouse and their minor children or parents.

While the Farmer’s Branch statute has not worked its way that far up the federal court ladder, a permanent injunction on the original ordinance was granted by Federal Judge Sam Lindsey blocking the enforcement of the ordinance pending a full trial.  In issuing the injunction Lindsey focused on the Federal Preemption and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

I agree with the Federal Courts.  Whether you agree or disagree with the basic premise of regulating certain rights of those in this country illegally, it  is  not a local or state issue.  The Federal Government has already spoken on this issue and when the Federal Government speaks the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution listens and shouts back.  The Supremacy Clause is shouting that we already have the Immigration and Nationality Act in place speaking loud and clear.  No arm chair legislation needed or wanted.

Do illegal aliens have rights to basic services? Will local regulation herd them all into massive “sanctuary cities?

I am aware we all have basic human and constitutional rights regardless of our immigration status. To what extent however can local government alter those rights based on that status?

While not the first to try it, the Dallas suburb of Farmer’s Branch,Texas is the latest to test the Constitutionally perilous waters of limiting the right of those not in this country legally to rent housing and obtain other basic services. This is primarily a Hispanic issue in this part of the country but the ban would of course apply to any person in this country illegally.

The controversy started back in May of 2007 when Farmer’s Branch passed a law targeting illegal immigrants by barring them from renting apartments. Ordinance 2903 would require apartment management to obtain proof of citizenship or legal immigration status before entering into or renewing leases or rental agreements.

The only exception to the ban would be that mixed-status families could stay if they were already living in the apartment, the spouse or head of household is a citizen or here legally, and the household includes the head of household and spouse and their minor children or parents. You can read about more about the ban here.

The ordinance was modeled after an similar ordinance passed in Hazleton, Pa. which also made national headlines. It is important to note that in July 2007 a federal judge struck down Hazleton ordinance as unconstitutional . The city’s appeal is pending. You can read that story here.

While the Farmer’s Branch statute has not worked its way that far up the federal court ladder, a permanent injunction has been granted by Federal Judge Sam Lindsey blocking the enforcement of the ordinance pending a full trial. You can read that story here. The important connection between the two cases is that both judges focused on the same issue which was Federal Preemption and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. What does that tell you?

So there you have it. Battle lines formed. Swords drawn. Troops storming the field on both ends bent on destruction with those in this country illegally standing right in the middle wondering if they will survive the carnage.

Once such an ordinance passes constitutional muster ,anyone who thinks it will stop there is delusional. After rentals, come education, after education comes medical care, etc etc. The goal is seems to be to make it so miserable for illegals to be in this country that they become of the mindset that there is a better quality of life where they are from and head on back home.

Is it even that complicated? Just get the hell out of our city! Flock to some sanctuary city! Just not here! That may be what many want.

After all, why should those here illegally reap the benefit of services that they are not paying the taxes that are designed to subsidize these services. I am no tax attorney but isn’t it a crime to intentionally not file a tax return to avoid paying taxes? While I do not necessarily agree, I certainly understand the mindset. I don’t like the idea of anyone getting a free ride off my tax payments regardless of whether they are here legally or unless they have been accounted for and and a legitimate determination made that they don’t have to pay.

Of course the counter-argument is that the vast majority illegals don’t file tax returns to avoid detection as illegals and not because they are trying to avoid paying taxes. You say tomato I say…….. Makes perfect sense to me… or does it?

Does it even matter?

It really does not matter.

Whether you agree or disagree with the basic premise, it simply is not a local or state issue. The Federal Government has already spoken on this issue and when the Federal Government speaks the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution listens and shouts back.

The Supremacy Clause is shouting that we already have the Immigration and Nationality Act in place speaking loud and clear for all. No arm chair legislation needed or wanted.

If municipalities like Farmer’s Branch want to arrest every illegal alien within their borders, call INS and have them deported I have no issue with that. Whether I agree or disagree that is within the framework of Federal Law. If that is simply not feasible, write your Congressman, cast your vote for someone with a constitutional fix. Don’t make up crap as you go along and pour perfume on it….. It is still going to stink.

Local municipalities like Farmer’s Branch and Hazleton have lawyers. They have very good lawyers. It is a safe assumption that these good lawyers knew all about the Supremacy Clause when they drafted these statutes It is also a safe bet that they are very familiar with federal court disdain for pre-text bullshit disguised as lofty motives…..

So what does a good lawyer do when faced such an obstacle? A good lawyer tries to find any and every perceived pinhole that will allow them to squeeze that statute right on through…… The pinholes these lawyers try to find is every little fact or situation that the Immigration Act does not mention. If it is not mentioned it must have been the intent to leave it to the states right?

“We are not regulating illegal immigration, we are protecting our tax base and the ability to provide basic services to our tax paying constituents”

“We are not engaging in housing discrimination since we ask for proof of citizenship from everyone.”

There you go! Problem solved! States Rights! 10th Amendment! Equal Protection as well! In other words…

Get the hell out and don’t touch the “Not Welcome” sign as you go!

What does that sound like to me? Take form and call it substance. Take a tomato and call it an orange. It is all hogwash.

It is not where you start, it is where you finish. At this finish you are still regulating illegal immigration regardless of your motives and definitions. You are venturing into an area that Congress has already decided only the Federal Government has the power to regulate.

So why do cities, local governments,etc waste time and money on such futile attempts? The answer is so simple that you don’t have to be smarter than a Fifth Grader to figure it out.

What does every elected official serving a first term want? They want a second term. Constituency trumps futility every time. These statutes have no chance. But hey, people get re-elected, lawyers get paid big bucks and maybe get to argue before the Supreme Court. People find a reason to protest and more people vote. In the end those affected the most, sit in the middle and suck on it. So what, they should not be here anyways right?

So what do you think? Should local government be allowed to regulate illegal immigration even to the extent of denying housing and other basic services? If the answer is yes, what is the legal authority to do so? What is the rational legal argument? I have yet to see one….