Texas town vows to keep illegals from renting houses

Originally posted by lpowell0627


1. The Constitution simply grants power and authority to the [Federal] Government.

2. The Federal Government only serves citizens of the United States as quoted above.

Illegals are neither, so how are they included in the Constitution at all?


[edit on 26-4-2010 by lpowell0627]

YOU are one of the people I'm talking about , Instead of using your flawed logic... GO RESEARCH WHO IS COVERED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION!!!

You are simply confirming what I'm talking about. Don't get mad and reply... just do me a favor and learn.

Sorry for the derailment

[edit on 26-4-2010 by EyesWideShut]

reply to post by lpowell0627


This is all pretty simple stuff. It only requires some political will. For decades New York was a dung heap. I lived there. There were over 2,000 murders a year during the Koch and Dinkins administrations. Times Square was a haven of prostitution and drug marketers.

The reason nobody cleaned it up was always because the pressure groups resisted it, saying that enforcing those laws would more heavily impact minorities.

Guliani came in and did nothing by act in a non-racial way. He arrested folks for breaking any laws, from breaking windows, peeing in the street, graffiti, all of it. He just enforced the laws on the books and had the stones to stand up to the pressure groups.

Now you have one of the lowest crime rates per capita in NYC and there are areas of the city that ALL citizens can enjoy. There are librarys that can be used safely, parks that are not open drugs markets.

He took a lot of heat, but he did it

Living conditions are also something too loko at/into, regarding illegal immigrants. In my city years ago, a few guys iw orked with at a food store, were illegal. Theyde tell me about thier living codnitons though...up to 20 can stuffed into a 2nd level room of a house renting out its upper level garbage mess time to time filth and rats were around, as well as drugs and alcohol, and less than often, unconsentual sex. I know a place near me dowtown area, back in 1992, polish freind livd thier , same kinda neighborhood. one night in summer, just as sun went down, was in my car going home...heard weird scratching noises* tunred my headlights on and...thier were lilke a hundred rats going all over eachother, in and out the top of a small industrial dumpster over packed with smelly garbage. Was like 15 feet in front of me!
The people who rent these rooms/floors out, are also the same ones, responsable for not keeping building codes up to date/par. Some had roof leaks the tendant ddint bother to fix for well over half a year! tis kinda shady...renting rooms to illegals which is illegal, not keeping building and health codes on par, and ripping them off. I wonder how common this is?

reply to post by spark9576
I will try to post a link....

www.aclupa.org...

This is the ACLU press release regarding the Hazleton case. The law that they wanted to enact did cover renting properties to illegals as well as employers hiring illegals.
I am in Reading, PA.

Originally posted by lpowell0627

Originally posted by clay2 baraka

I think we need to get more serious about illegal immigration. That being said, your statement is false:

The US Supreme Court has been very clear on this issue.

I am fully aware of how the Supreme Court handles this, however, their ruling is the interpretation of the Constitution by which they changed the true meaning of We the People.

Or, as the Supreme Court likes to call it -- reasonable construction.

But, to get back to the soup and nuts, the Constitution is simply:

Q. What is meant by the term "constitution"?
A. A constitution embodies the fundamental principles of a government. Our constitution, adopted by the sovereign power, is amendable by that power only. To the constitution all laws, executive actions, and, judicial decisions must conform, as it is the creator of the powers exercised by the departments of government.

Source: www.archives.gov...

So...the Constitution merely says what the government can and can not do. It protects the people from a government becoming a dictatorship.

The Constitution is really simply an outline for the Federal Government.

So, if the government's purpose is:

Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the United States Constitution is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government. Its first three words – “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens.

source: www.senate.gov...

So, the Constitution says what the government can and can not do.
And government, as stated above, works only for its citizens.

Then how can an illegal, that is not government NOR citizen, claim rights to the protections afforded in the Constitution when they are neither.

You are correct the main body of the constitution outlines the duties of the Federal government. You are missing one important piece of paper, the Bill of Rights.

Here are some sample questions from the test given to prospective US citizens:

84. Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Everyone (citizens and non-citizens) living in U.S.

85. What is the introduction to the Constitution called?
The Preamble

86. Name one benefit of being citizen of the United States.
Obtain federal government jobs, travel with U.S. passport, petition for close relatives to come to the U.S. to live.

87. What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens?
The right to vote

88. What is the United States Capitol?
The place where Congress meets.

usgovinfo.about.com...

You may disagree with the law of the land, but it is still the law of the land. .




[edit on 4/26/2010 by clay2 baraka]

Fremont, Nebraska in the eastern part of the state, is doing the same
thing. They have either passed this law or are in the process of doing so.
There are a number of cattle processing plants in the area and a lot of
'illegals" work there. They raid these slaughter houses a couple of times a year and find all kinds of "illegals". This is mostly due to the employers
who want to hire cheap labor. Not all that work there are "illegals"
though.

They are cracking down on employers finally and getting really serious
about this for a change. Also the city is not going to allow anymore
"illegals" to rent property, get free health care, free this, free that and drain
the cities economy any longer. I say bravo to them for standing up to this
mess and deciding to actually do something.

And it is ironic that the ones doing the screaming and squealing are the
local Latino's and the "illegals". But not all Latino's are objecting to this.
A lot of them are for these laws as most everyone else locally are.
The "illegals" have drained the city of their money with their demands for
gimme, gimme, gimme, and Fremont has said NO MORE. If Washington
and the spineless lizards there don't want to protect our country, and
start spending our money on American citizens, then I say that every
single city, town and village across America should start creating the same initiatives and tell the deaf people in DC to start looking for a new job
because the Americans are going to put into office those who work for
the citizens. We don't work for them.

I say good for Texas. I hope that California, New Mexico, Nevada all
follow suit with Arizona.

If it causes a lot of so called unrest in this country, so what? Let it begin
and let's get this mess cleaned up. What do you call all of what's going
on now? Is it not serious unrest? The dust will finally settle oneday.

Yeah Texas.

Sorry if I got off subject here, but that's just me. I guess I can be booted
to the curb as they say.

Instead of being "illegal" why don't they just submit the application to be LEGAL. Why should we protect those who are not following the rules right off the bat? This issue is definitely a double edged sword and I believe that legislation could be used to stop all of the people and businesses who take advantage of the fact that we have a lot of latinos in the Southwest with "questionable" immigration status.

Basically, I find it ironic that Al Sharpton and other Democrats are marching saying that this is racist. In my opinion, that is WRONG. What they are marching for is the new version of SLAVERY. In my opinion, businesses, lobbies, and a lot of other nefarious elements out there have been dressing up this issue as xenophobic, which I think is the wrong assessment and assists with deflecting the issue that many of these people are not being paid or treated like the human beings that they are. What you are seeing is a corporate party looking at a potential voting block who's needs will never be addressed once they have agreed to the proper choice of their "selected" officials.

However, this should be upheld because you do have a right as a property owner to be picky about who you rent to. Period. It's called private property rights.

reply to post by butcherguy


The law in PA was poorly written and they were able to successfully challenge it on the basis of a right to housing.

This law is written from a contractural law perspective. The reason the workplace laws have been allowed to stand is because when you hire someone you are entering into at least a defacto contract. The illegal, by virtue of not having the status to engage in an employment contract when they have no legal standing to be in the US makes that contract null and void. Entering into a illegal contract is why they can arrest the folks who hire illegals.

A rental agreement is a binding contract. Landlords can not be forced to engage in illegal contracting by the federal government. If the wording is too loose and this is struck down, you better believe that another one will be ready to be enacted within days after it has been struck down which focuses on contract law.

Don't focus the constitutionality of this issue. Contract law is the way to go.

reply to post by dolphinfan
I hope it works for them!

It's sad the way things are going for the border states.

Originally posted by clay2 baraka
I think we need to get more serious about illegal immigration...The US Supreme Court has been very clear on this issue.

I think I could safely ignore that. The Supreme Court doesn't give a blip about the US Constitution so they have no problem applying it equally to a citizen and non-citizen alike. It obviously does not fully apply to non-citizens unless we give them the right to vote -- which would be absolute lunacy right? I don't see how people can defend illegal immigration and then argue that everyone must be body scanned at an airport, why everyone must answer the census or be fined or imprisoned. How is it that laws are selectively applied and the most inane freedom-stripping laws are to be applied but the laws that actual try to protect our country from foreign influence and invasion are to be ignored?

April 26 2010

"Mexico's government will use everything in its power to defend the rights of Mexicans who are affected by this legislation and we'll spare no effort to ensure the dignity of every fellow compatriot. -Felipe Calderon, Mexican president April 26, 2010

Compatriot?

Originally posted by clay2 baraka
You are correct the main body of the constitution outlines the duties of the Federal government. You are missing one important piece of paper, the Bill of Rights.

I am fully aware of the Bill of Rights. Here is the official standpoint from our government as to what the Bill of Rights is and how it came about:

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.
Source: www.archives.gov...

For a document that, according to you, encompasses non-citizens, it sure does use the specific word citizen often enough.

I know how the Supreme Court rules, however, we all know that to be their interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and varies greatly on whether or not there is a left- or right-leaning court. The fact that their rulings vary dependent upon the current justices, shows that it is heavily influenced by their political beliefs and political interpretation. Not necessarily based on strict interpretation. Rather, they "modernize" it for the times. Are illegals a problem now and weren't then? Of course.

I just find it ironic, that our own federal government specifically states that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to further protect citizens from a tyrannical government, and yet, I am supposed to skip over the word citizen -- as if it is meaningless -- and apply it to everyone in this country, whether they are here as a criminal or here by right.

Somehow, in the fight against illegals, we seem to have forgotten the true value of citizenship.

I for one, am not willing to say it applies to everyone nor am I going to say that being a citizen of this great country is so meaningless that it is given freely to anyone and everyone that simply wants a piece of it.

If all of the same rights are given to trespassers as they are to citizens, what then is the value to actually being a citizen in this country?

To protect any person that violates our own federal law by illegally crossing the border and granting them the same rights as a lawful citizen of this country is rather a sharp slap in the face when discussing the value of being a US citizen.





[edit on 27-4-2010 by lpowell0627]