Last Updated:October 22 @ 09:16 pm

Appeals court rules illegal alien rental ordinance unconstitutional

By United Press International

For a second time, a federal appeals court ruled a Texas city's ordinance barring undocumented workers from renting within the city is unconstitutional.

In its ruling Monday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said the Farmers Branch ordinance infringed on the federal government's authority, The Dallas Morning News reported.

Monday's decision ended the Dallas suburb's second appeal to the court, which upheld a lower court ruling last year. The city sought a rehearing after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down parts of an Arizona law.

The appeals judges criticized Farmers Branch's ordinance, which would have required all renters to obtain licenses proving they were in the United States legally. They also criticized the plan to fine or revoke licenses of landlords who leased to immigrants lacking permits.

"The ordinance not only criminalizes occupancy of a rented apartment or single-family residence, but puts local officials in the impermissible position of arresting and detaining persons based on their immigration status without federal direction and supervision," the court said.

City officials said they were reviewing the decision and hadn't decided whether to appeal, the Morning News said.

Ana Reyes, the first Hispanic to serve the city's council, praised the ruling and said she wanted the city to drop the issue.

"The anti-immigration ordinance was outside of our local jurisdiction," she said. "It is unconstitutional. This issue has been extremely divisive and costly for the citizens of Farmers Branch. It's now time to move forward and reinvest our residents' hard-earned tax dollars back into our community."

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 5.8/10 (37 votes cast)
Appeals court rules illegal alien rental ordinance unconstitutional, 5.8 out of 10 based on 37 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

55 Comments

  1. inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
    July 23, 2013 @ 11:38 am

    The American Constitution prohibits you from discriminating according to race,,,,,,nowhere does it prohibit you from discriminating on the basis of being illegal, which it NEVER should allow. IN Article 10, Those powers not designated to the federal government not mentioned in the Constitution devolve to the people and to the states. The federal government will never have enough enforcers to enforce all the federal laws so they MUST rely on local authorities to enforce and do battle against the dark forces of illegality in all forms,,,not just the ones the administrations in power choose to enforce to their own benefit. That is true equality under the rule of the LAW, not the rule of your thumb which you use to thumb your nose at “THE PEOPLE” Obama,,,DUH! SO if a terrorist is about to set off a bomb under the President’s car, I suppose the local sheriff should just look away and state it is not a matter of his jurisdiction??? We can only hope!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (122 votes cast)
    • darralComment by darral
      July 23, 2013 @ 2:42 pm

      What did you really expect from a Democratic Party controlled court, A lawless party, A CRIMINAL Justice system, Where in the Constitution does it give rights to Non Citizens or Illegals,

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (79 votes cast)
    • beelpComment by beelp
      July 23, 2013 @ 3:04 pm

      WHY would this “story” even appear on the GOPUSA website when most of the GOP is in favor of something like this?? You know, all the big mouth RINOS like McCain, Graham, Rubio, etc?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (28 votes cast)
    • gopluvaComment by gopluva
      July 23, 2013 @ 4:36 pm

      So if I rent out property by law I would have to rent to an illegal? I dont think so. Our American constitution is for citizens not people who dont belong here in the first place. These laws are really getting skewed. So laws are meant to be broken if they dont fit in with this despotic admin?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (38 votes cast)
    • paoldguyComment by paoldguy
      July 23, 2013 @ 4:56 pm

      Sorry to burst your bubble. This case was decided by a Republican controlled Court. Of the 15 Judges who heard the case 9 agreed for various reasons that it was unconstitutional.4 said it was constitutional and 1 judge said that part was unconstitutional but that the remainder was constitutional. Cite for the opinion is http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/10/10-10751-CV1.wpd.pdf
      Of the 15 active judges on the Court 2 were appointed by Obama, 2 by Clinton and 1 by Carter (5). Reagan appointed 4 & Bush 43 6. Of the Senior Judges 1 each were appointed by Carter, Reagan, and Clinton. 4 were appointed by Bush 41.
      You can have your own opinions but not your own facts.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (13 votes cast)
    • usafoldsargeComment by usafoldsarge
      July 23, 2013 @ 6:17 pm

      for paoldguy, golllllleeeeeee for once someone uses real facts instead of a song and dance in the deefence of a decision made by so-called right that benefits the left bleeding hearts and do gooders

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.6/5 (5 votes cast)
    • xjandinComment by xjandin
      July 23, 2013 @ 6:27 pm

      I think you’re missing a major point here:

      “would have required all renters to obtain licenses proving they were in the United States legally. They also criticized the plan to fine or revoke licenses of landlords who leased to immigrants lacking permits.”

      Do you really want the government to require you to get a license to be able to rent?? It’s bad enough that Landlords have to get a license to rent to someone. I certainly don’t want to have to go to the city to get a license to be able to rent an apartment.

      This is a bad law and there are much better ways to approach it. Yes, I am strongly opposed to illegal immigration. And having said that, I am UNWILLING to give up my rights as a free citizen because the Federal government is not competent/honest enough to actually secure the border.

      Landlords should be able to rent without a license, renters should be able to rent without a license and the government should be required to show probable cause to arrest someone, regardless of what they are arresting them for. If we fail to protect our rights when they are inconvenient, we will lose them altogether.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (22 votes cast)
    • wumingrenComment by wumingren
      July 23, 2013 @ 8:19 pm

      Landlords are taking a risk whenever they rent to someone, but the risk is manifold when that someone has no identification. Besides risk of property destruction, landlords face other issues, including the use of their property for occupancy of more people than can safely be domiciled in a given home or apartment.

      When I worked for the Census Bureau I often came across two bedroom apartments that had 20 or more adults living there. There were mattresses (given away by others who didn’t want to pay the landfill fee) laid out on every square inch of floor space (except the bathroom, though I’ve heard that some occupants even sleep in the bathtub).

      The strain on the facility is ridiculous, as the additional junker vehicles fill the available slots that other tenants likely needed. If its “utilities included,” that’s not fair to the landlord or to the other tenants either.

      Some city governments are holding landlords responsible when tenants use the property for criminal activities, such as prostitution and the manufacture or sale of illegal drugs. How is a landlord supposed to protect himself when the law breathes down his neck, but then turns a blind eye on the tenants? Since when does it become the responsibility of the landlord to do the work of law enforcement, especially when they are given all the responsibility but none of the requisite authority?

      Maybe landlords could just require massive security deposits from anyone who can’t prove who they are. Show me a valid ID, and you pay first month’s rent before moving in and one month security deposit. No ID or invalid ID, you pay six months’ rent in advance and six months security deposit. You can’t afford that? Okay, bye-bye….

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (18 votes cast)
    • rzraickComment by rzraick
      July 23, 2013 @ 10:47 pm

      Actually gopluva, the Constitution states principles of freedom which apply to all humans, not just those who are American citizens. But it is also true that the Constitution can only protect the citizens of the U.S. from abuse of rights by the government.

      That being said, no criminals should have any rights. The commission of a crime (illegal) forfeits those rights under the law.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (7 votes cast)
  2. ColumbaComment by columba
    July 23, 2013 @ 11:47 am

    “Anti-immigration ordinance”???? The ordinance had nothing to do with immigration or even with immigrants. It had to do with people in the midst of an act of lawbreaking, i.e., illegal entry.

    I know some people are trying to suppress the illegality of the act by saying “undocumented” instead of “illegal,” but it appears that few people even remember what an immigrant has always been defined as, i.e., someone who seeks entry into a country with the intent of making it his permanent home, learning its language and customs, and obeying its laws. That last phrase alone disqualifies people who are here illegally — and often guilty of identity theft and forgery as well, in order to OBTAIN “documentation” that they need in order to dip into taxpayers’ pockets.

    So is a shoplifter actually an undocumented purchaser? Would it be unconstitutional to keep him from walking out the door with his “purchases” simply because he has no receipt (“documentation”) for them?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (87 votes cast)
    • lfg50Comment by lfg50
      July 23, 2013 @ 1:22 pm

      My issue with all of this, is: if someone is undocumented, illegal etc. how can that individual enter into a legally binding document – such as a lease agreement? How would the leasor be able to act on his/her legal rights when that undocumented/illegal individual truly has no rights or obligations under our laws – cause that person doesn’t legally exist.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (79 votes cast)
  3. jb80538Comment by jb80538
    July 23, 2013 @ 1:24 pm

    Ok so they can’t rent to an illegal immigrant just because they are here illegally…The law allows for a credit check. run that and when it comes back that they have no credit history, simply don’t rent to them based on that.
    If they can’t read the form because it’s in English, oh well. There are MANY reason rent can be denied and the property owner not get in trouble. Be creative!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (81 votes cast)
    • mvotano58Comment by mvotano58
      July 23, 2013 @ 1:51 pm

      Good idea. My complex is full of illegals and this is why I am moving. Besides the fact they let their American born children run like animals and destroy every thing in sight they expect the rest of us to “watch out” for said children. The men are always out drinking and carrying on, making rude and crude comments to my 22 year old daughter and acting like ungrateful slobs. Gonna have to pay a lot more rent but who cares…my safety and the safety of my family means a lot more to me then mere dollars. If local law enforcement tells me it’s a bad place then its a bad place….not a single LEO will live there.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (68 votes cast)
    • Cape ConservativeComment by Cape Conservative
      July 23, 2013 @ 2:47 pm

      I meant to hit 5 and got 4 instead…please forgive me…your rating should still be a 5!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (23 votes cast)
    • nmleonComment by nmleon
      July 23, 2013 @ 6:16 pm

      The case was not about whether a landlord can refuse to rent to illegals (as you pointed out they can), it was about whether the city can make it it illegal for an illegal to rent.

      I suspect that had the law only made it illegal for landlords to rent to illegals it would have passed muster, since the feds have no jurisdiction to enforce such a law.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  4. crustyoldgeezerComment by crustyoldgeezer
    July 23, 2013 @ 1:40 pm

    Exactly what ‘federal authority’ is infringed upon?

    It cannot be an ‘immigration’ authority because the federal government has abdicated that authority.

    If the illegal person is in this country illegally, then it stands to reason that they are also in that town illegally.

    And furthermore, as an aside to the court, the Constitution only protects the RIGHTS of Citizens, and no others.

    Illegals do not have “Constitutional Rights” in any manner.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (69 votes cast)
    • felps1Comment by felps1
      July 23, 2013 @ 3:46 pm

      Most people are to young to understand history and cant see were we are heading. It must be remembered that Adolph Hitler was elected with a 98% vote German Jews included. It started out with prosperous times for all and slowly evolved into what we now realize was the most destructive government ever. It had to be done slowly if it were to succeed playing to peoples greed and gaining the support needed. So Now look at where this country is headed with the entitlement programs, the unraveling of our sacred constitution and laws being disregarded by the high courts ever since the current president twice elected has been in office along with a self serving congress. That’s how Hitler did it. Remember those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (35 votes cast)
  5. bigjackComment by bigjack
    July 23, 2013 @ 1:42 pm

    I guess we have to change the definition of the word ” Illegal ” . Seems like our own government doesn’t know the definition. Our government officials responsible do not uphold the laws on the books regarding illegals. Is it any wonder we have this issue still facing us. And now our justice dept. has unwittingly given us another step toward legalization of illegals without even passing a new illegal immigration bill. Very stupid, does not include common sense but hey, what do I know.?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (41 votes cast)
    • knanComment by knan
      July 23, 2013 @ 4:19 pm

      Our good ol gov doesn’t even follow the laws when it pertains to the affairs they are elected to do. how can we expect any different?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (16 votes cast)
  6. whodunitComment by whodunit
    July 23, 2013 @ 1:48 pm

    Ah, yes, more Liberal lack of logic . . .

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (29 votes cast)
  7. capricorn1Comment by capricorn1
    July 23, 2013 @ 1:54 pm

    if you dont like the law hell just make one you do like.
    to hell with the people,we know whats best for you shut up and deal with it.the united states of america isnt going to end well.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (26 votes cast)
  8. chamuielComment by chamuiel
    July 23, 2013 @ 2:16 pm

    ‘It’s now time to move forward and reinvest our residents’ hard-earned tax dollars back into our community.”

    What she actually means is spend it on the illegal aliens.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (34 votes cast)
  9. patriotgamesComment by patriotgames
    July 23, 2013 @ 2:24 pm

    The Constitution is in place for American citizens.

    If it is legally for everyone, why aren’t we trying cases in other countries for violations of it?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (26 votes cast)
  10. gsreaganComment by gsreagan
    July 23, 2013 @ 2:49 pm

    “Forward” and “reinvest” are progressive terms used by liberals to justify fed interference of state and local laws. Is it 1776 … again. We need a new revolution to start over and establish the original constitutional Republic.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (32 votes cast)
    • jb80538Comment by jb80538
      July 23, 2013 @ 2:58 pm

      It needs to happpen!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (22 votes cast)
  11. ElderAmbassadorComment by elderambassador
    July 23, 2013 @ 3:18 pm

    As mentioned, it’s a simple Contract Law issue. If you are not here legally, you can not be held legally liable for violating any contract you sign, whether for a microwave or an apartment lease.

    Send them down the road to the local bridge.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (15 votes cast)
  12. tayopaComment by tayopa
    July 23, 2013 @ 3:26 pm

    Good morning Ladies & Gentlemen: A cool limeade to calm down? Freshly picked and tinkly with ice.
    In regards to the question what rights does an illegal have in the US? You may be surprised, but with the exception of the right to remain in the US, and to vote in a federal election, or hold a federal job which requires citizenship, they have the same rights as you. Their critical loop hole.

    This is actually a protection for the Citizen. ‘Innocent until proven guilty’.

    More limeade?

    Tayopa

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 2.0/5 (20 votes cast)
    • ultimate1red1Comment by ultimate1red1
      July 23, 2013 @ 3:36 pm

      Your interpretation is very odd. Perhaps, you are afflicted with an undiagnosed case of dyslexia?

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (28 votes cast)
    • nmleonComment by nmleon
      July 23, 2013 @ 6:34 pm

      http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • usafoldsargeComment by usafoldsarge
      July 23, 2013 @ 6:49 pm

      No LIMEADE, you need to read and understand the US Constitution of the United States of America, as amended by the 14th Amendment! To wit: The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase natural-born citizen. It does provide that “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.” Thus, you can see my friend there has been no provisions made for those that entered the US of A without permission. They are foreign to our land, hence they are illegal aliens…. Definition of foreign= alien. Now is it that hard to figure out?????????????

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (9 votes cast)
  13. sacheveraljames42Comment by sacheveraljames42
    July 23, 2013 @ 3:27 pm

    What the majority of us who comment on this blog know without a great deal of “intellectual” thinking and by using common sense is that the ruling is wrong on several points. Nevertheless, what stupefies me is the stupidity of these types of rulings by judges who haven’t the slightest idea how it affects the general citizenry. Many of them live in very protective gated communities, hidden from the effects if their decision making and it’s consequences, at taxpayer expense, I might add,while they go and live where they chose because of personal freedom. They fail to recognize that even the least of of our citizens have the right of personal freedom too. Their failure to adhere to the Constitution will eventually lead to their own removal or demise. You cannot ignore the premise of what the laws really mean or how they are to be applied if they are not reasonably applied under the U.S. Constitution. Without that, the citizenry will rebel and chaos will follow. I think the time for lifetime appointed judges should be repealed and they should be elected, State and Federal, in the jurisdiction they represent. That is the way I see it.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (24 votes cast)
  14. ultimate1red1Comment by ultimate1red1
    July 23, 2013 @ 3:38 pm

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Section 4
    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

    [Article XI]
    The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of ANY FOREIGN State.

    The power of Congress “to exclude aliens from the United States and to prescribe the terms and conditions on which they come in” is absolute, being an attribute of the United States As a sovereign nation, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens, it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power. *** The united States, in their relation to foreign countries and their subjects or citizens are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory. — SCOTUS 1889
    “If Congress can forbid the entry ***, it can punish those who cooperate in their fraudulent entry.” — SCOTUS 1909

    Solution deemed by the Founders:
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (19 votes cast)
    • arwenusaComment by arwenusa
      July 23, 2013 @ 5:28 pm

      When they wrote that, they never dreamed that it might need to be used against a government with fighter jets, bombers, nuclear subs, missiles, automatic weapons, etc., not to mention weapons that the government probably has but won’t admit to. Also not to mention – FEMA camps, complete with an unknown number of hermetically sealed coffins – each of which will hold four adults.

      They have all of that (PLUS U.N. and Russian troops – and Mexico would likely be very happy to send some troops to put down the American middle class to make more room for Mexicans).

      We have pistols and rifles.

      Good luck to us.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.8/5 (6 votes cast)
  15. hkazComment by hkaz
    July 23, 2013 @ 3:41 pm

    Rewrite the law to prohibit renting to “Foreign Invaders”. Who could argue with that?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (15 votes cast)
  16. Jack ReacherComment by Jack Reacher
    July 23, 2013 @ 3:43 pm

    Oh silly me! And all this time I thought the constitution was for the USA and all its CITIZENS.

    I wonder what the political makeup is of that 5th District Appeals Court, (conveniently located in liberal New Orleans).

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (19 votes cast)
    • arwenusaComment by arwenusa
      July 23, 2013 @ 5:23 pm

      I think this ruling tells us what the politics of this court are!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.9/5 (9 votes cast)
  17. tps12Comment by tps12
    July 23, 2013 @ 4:11 pm

    Not a citizen, not pledging allegiance to our country, Not covered by our Constitution.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (17 votes cast)
    • arwenusaComment by arwenusa
      July 23, 2013 @ 5:22 pm

      The judges probably don’t pledge allegiance to the US any more.

      It’s a race now to see if we can stop the Evil Elite before they replace the American middle class with AOTA (anything other than Americans).

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (10 votes cast)
  18. montie364Comment by montie364
    July 23, 2013 @ 5:32 pm

    This just proves how far in the toilet our legal system is. These people (those here illegally) do NOT have the protection of the bill of rights, and have already established their criminal status. The court system along with the rest of our supposed government no longer support ANY of our laws that once protected us from tyranny. It is now simply a matter of time until America either surrenders ALL of our constitution and rights or the second revolutionary war is started. We as a nation are in exactly the same position we were in in 1776, ALL forms of remedy have been exhausted or completely perverted for the sole purpose of elevating a select few into complete control over us all.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (11 votes cast)
  19. nmleonComment by nmleon
    July 23, 2013 @ 6:19 pm

    If the federal government would perform one of the few duties allowed it in the Constitution and protect our borders, all of these state and city laws would be moot.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (11 votes cast)
  20. tayopaComment by tayopa
    July 23, 2013 @ 8:00 pm

    Evening Sarge: You posted –>

    “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.” Thus, you can see my friend there has been no provisions made for those that entered the US of A without permission. They are foreign to our land, hence they are illegal aliens…. Definition of foreign= alien. Now is it that hard to figure out?????????????
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Nope, You are absolutely correct, but we are not talking about citizenship as such, but the rights of anyone found in the US – including you – to have equal protection under the law. I.E. you are ‘presumed’ to be innocent until proven guilty.

    If under questioning by a legally authorized agent of the US, you cannot produce the required documentation, or give reasonable answers, you are “subject” to deportation.
    —- pre Obama —–.

    Many times just a matter of just a few hours leeway will determine if you have the legal basis to be considered a citizen, some times even unknown to the subject, which leaves 99 % of the US population unable to properly determine legal citizenship..

    However, what law in a Republican form of Gov’t requires you to produce proof of citizenship to simply rent a home, or any of a multitude of other things, or even why should it???

    This means they,like you,can legally utilize any service in the US that is not specifically designated for US Citizens
    only.

    It makes this quite clear, at least it did when I was in the Border Patrol.

    It only becomes another crime if they utilize such a service.

    Emergency hospital service for example,does not specify that a US Citizenship is required.

    Enough for this nice evening, would you rather have a cuppa of nice strong Mexican Hill coffee instead of that Limeade?

    Don Jose de Tayopa

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 2.6/5 (5 votes cast)
    • nmleonComment by nmleon
      July 24, 2013 @ 6:27 pm

      “Many times just a matter of just a few hours leeway will determine if you have the legal basis to be considered a citizen, some times even unknown to the subject, which leaves 99 % of the US population unable to properly determine legal citizenship..”

      What on earth have you been smoking?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  21. sacheveraljames42Comment by sacheveraljames42
    July 23, 2013 @ 8:16 pm

    To: paoldguy. Who the hell cares what party they belong to or who appointed them. Most of us know who appointed Chief Justice John Roberts. That didn’t stop him from voting for Obamacare. What we are talking about is decisions made by judges who have no accountability for their decisions or live in an area affected by their actions. We have too many judges who take it among themselves to promote “social justice” by finding nuances in the law and applying that nuance to justify their decision contrary a strict interpretation of the law itself. In my opinion, when you list as fact that just because a judge belongs to a certain political party that makes an issue moot. What it does is reflect a thought process by you that borders on hallucination.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  22. goosemanComment by gooseman
    July 24, 2013 @ 6:40 am

    A couple decades ago I lived in Italy for several months. I had to produce a passport to rent an apartment. I went sightseeing one weekend and time got away, I got tired, and decided that a wise course of action would be to get a hotel room for the night and head back to “my” town in the morning. I tried to rent a room for the night and was informed that in order to just get a hotel room, I’d have to surrender my passport, which was safely locked in the safe at the apartment office where I had been required to surrender it to rent that domicile. I can’t understand how some requirements to establish someone’s legality is out of line.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (2 votes cast)
    • tayopaComment by tayopa
      July 24, 2013 @ 8:15 am

      Good morning Gooseman, coffee? You are correct about Europe, but they live under a different form of gov’t. They use the Napoleonic law base, while we use the Republican Yankee type.

      They presume that you are guilty until proven otherwise, while we still cling to the illusion that we are innocent until proven guilty. Need I mention Zimmerman ?

      They live under the very thing that most in here are fighting against, gov’t control.

      We are crying about Obama and the govt’s escalating control getting out of hand, yet here some are advocating giving the gov’t even more control, not realizing that they also would be subject to the same power,the ability to determine just who can do what.

      hmm, as a matter of fact, they almost have that control now. sniff.

      Next to utilize any service we would need to produce proof of citizenship or legal residence to go to a restaurant, buy gasoline, groceries, or whatever.

      Once you open Pandora’s box, you cannot close it easily. sigh. So think on what you are advocating. Always be certain on the full implications on what you demand. You give an inch, the Gov’t will take a foot.

      Tayopa

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.3/5 (3 votes cast)
    • goosemanComment by gooseman
      July 25, 2013 @ 6:08 am

      Well, your logic is slightly flawed in that the presumption of innocence is a concept that applies to those that are citizen members of the United States, not the filthy criminal interlopers squatting here illegally. So since your specious argument flows from that, the entire logical flow is ka-ka.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  23. ElderAmbassadorComment by elderambassador
    July 24, 2013 @ 6:09 pm

    I see references to SCOTUS decisions as being the final word. It isn’t. The final arbiter of the intent of the Constitution is the People. Illegals are not citizens and are not subject to our jurisdiction, therefore they are not subject to protection under the Constitution which protects “Citizens” of the United States.

    We need to just ignore decisions that are not in keeping with the intent of the Original Document. Judges are NOT Gods!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • tayopaComment by tayopa
      July 24, 2013 @ 6:27 pm

      G;evening my new friend Elder qmbassador: you posted –>

      Illegals are not citizens and are not subject to our jurisdiction,

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      I believe that you should rephrase that, they certainly ‘are’ subject to our laws while inside of the limits etc., etc. of the United States. Just as I am subject to the laws of Mexico while inside of their limits.

      Coffee my friend ??

      Don Jose de La Mancha

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • nmleonComment by nmleon
      July 24, 2013 @ 6:32 pm

      “We need to just ignore decisions that are not in keeping with the intent of the Original Document. Judges are NOT Gods!”

      You are advocating anarchy. We are a nation with the rule of law.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  24. tayopaComment by tayopa
    July 24, 2013 @ 7:35 pm

    G’evening nmLeon: you posted –> “Many times just a matter of just a few hours leeway will determine if you have the legal basis to be considered a citizen, some times even unknown to the subject, which leaves 99 % of the US population unable to properly determine legal citizenship..”

    What on earth have you been smoking?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Nada, just that many times citizenship, pro or con, depends upon a few hours one way or another — i.e Immigration law changes. It depends upon when one of the immigration laws becomes effective or is cancelled. Go to CFR, Title 8, and have fun my friend.

    Don Jose de La Mancha

    p.s. oops want some fresh made coffee?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  25. nmleonComment by nmleon
    July 24, 2013 @ 8:02 pm

    I’m still waiting for some sort of evidence that 99% of the U.S. population is unable to properly determine legal citizenship. Title 8 certainly provides none.

    Coffee time is past, I’m drinking a Tecate.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • tayopaComment by tayopa
      July 24, 2013 @ 10:40 pm

      G’devening Leon, Tecate eh? good beer, specially when it is cottin pickin hot, but I prefer a San Miguel export myself, picked up the habit in the 40′s when I was in the Philippines. Mactan Cebu.

      In the Border Patrol I had to study that every night for a year to become partially conversant with it, It changes every so often.

      The mother took on the citizenship of her husband and lost her US citizenship upon marriage and her ability to pass it on.

      After midnight on that date, she retained her citizenship and the child inherited it also.

      Then came residence requirements prior to the 21st birthday, for US citizens to pass it on when the birth is in a foreign country and on — this in turn was again modified and on, and on into infinity through the various laws taking effect and other becoming eliminated..

      And you expect a normal US citizen to know of the various changes etc. ? I think not.

      Suffice to say, I am qualified to practice citizenship cases in a federal court, but under the wing of at titled lawyer.

      So relax, leave it for the pros and drink your cold Tecate, but keep yer hands off of my pretty maid.

      Don Jose de La Mancha

      I exist to LIVE, not live to exist

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Leave a Comment





Reference Pages

  • About
  • Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer