Despite facing several lawsuits filed against their city because of their actions, the thick-headed pendejos on the Farmers Branch, Texas City Council decided (5-0) last night to let their anti-immigrant ordinance barring apartment owners (but not--go figure--house or duplex owners) from renting to unauthorized immigrants go into effect this Friday. They had a chance last night at their council session to do the right thing and revoke or at least put a stay on this anti-immigrant measure until a court ruled on it, but they failed miserably to do so. Now a judge is going to have to slap them down. In the meantime lots of businesses and hard-working folks are going to be hurt and that city will have to spend thousands of dollars (that it doesn't have) defending this incredibly stupid measure.
A petition signed by over 1,200 registered voters of Farmers Branch, however, forced the City Council to put their anti-immigrant apartment ordinance on their May 12 election ballot, where voters will have an opportunity to accept or reject it. Submitting this divisive and hateful issue to a referendum sounds like the democratic thing to do, but voter approval of it still wouldn't make it legal--or right. Federal judges have already issued restraining orders in at least two cases against ordinances similar to the contested Farmers Branch measure. In November a federal judge in California issued a temporary restraining order blocking the City of Escondido from implementing a housing ordinance that penalizes landlords who rent to unauthorized immigrants. According to a report at ImmigrateUSA.com:
Throughout the three-hour hearing, Judge Houston appeared particularly concerned over the possibility of tenants being identified as illegal immigrants and being evicted without due process or a public hearing. He also expressed concern that landlords could lose money from forced vacancies or be sued by prospective tenants who allege they were falsely shut out of housing based on their immigration status. "They're out of pocket either way as a result of this ordinance," Houston said.
And on Octer 31, 2006, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against the Hazleton, Pennsylvania City Council preventing it from enforcing its "Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance." In that case Judge James Munley found (citations omitted):
After a careful review, the threat of irreparable injury is present in the instant case. For example, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 risks being evicted from her apartment along with her two young children, although not an “illegal alien” under the laws of the United States. Plaintiffs John Does 5 - 6 and Jane Does 3- 4 are minor school-age children residing with their parents in Hazleton, who may be forced to leave Hazleton and their schooling if the ordinances are enforced. Plaintiff Brenda Lee Mieles is a United States citizen who may be evicted from her residence because of her inability to establish her citizenship. Plaintiffs Rosa and Jose Luis Lechuga have suffered and continue to suffer a great loss of business in their store and restaurant located in Hazleton, which they blame on the ordinance. A monetary price cannot be placed on such matters as plaintiffs’ housing, livelihood and education. Therefore, monetary damages would not be sufficient to make the plaintiffs whole, and the plaintiffs’ risk irreparable injury if the temporary restraining order is not granted. We find that this factor weighs heavily in favor of granting the temporary restraining order.
The third factor we must consider in deciding this matter is “whether granting the preliminary relief will be in the public interest.” We find that this factor favors granting a Temporary Restraining Order. The plaintiffs have shown they will suffer irreparable harm from enforcement of the ordinance. We find it in the public interest to protect residents’ access to homes, education, jobs and businesses. No evidence offered by the City suggests that the public interest in enforcement outweighs these concerns. As stated above, defendant offers only vague generalizations about the crime allegedly caused by illegal immigrants, but has nothing concrete to back up these claims. Moreover, since the plaintiff makes claims that implicate constitutionally protected rights, the public interest would best be served by delaying enforcement of the City’s ordinances until this court has an opportunity carefully to consider their constitutional implications. See Council of Alternative Political Parties v. Hooks, 121 F.3d 876, 883-84 (3d Cir. 1997) (holding that “In the absence of legitimate, countervailing concerns, the public interest clearly favors the protection of constitutional rights”).
Clearly, the City of Farmers Branch would have suffered absolutely no harm and would have saved itself thousands of more dollars in legal fees had the members of its City Council done the right thing last night and put their ordinance on hold until the legal dust settled. But no, they were too stupid to do that. But maybe their stupidity is being augmented by another factor. Michelle over at group blog calle vienna feels certain that the principle City Council pendejo pushing the anti-immigrant Farmers Branch measures proposed and got those ordinances passed in a deliberate scheme to further his career as a politician. And a Dallas lawyer who knows that pendejo well has the direct evidence to back Michelle up. According to attorney Angel Reyes, Tim O'Hare, Farmers Branch City Council Member, Place 2, and Deputy Mayor Pro Tem, told him of his plan to get more big injury cases:
1) run for City Council; 2) either wait his turn or hope for something politically bad to happen to the current mayor of Farmers Branch; 3) get elected Mayor of Farmers Branch; and 4) when he was done with his term in the Mayor's office, he would sit back and get "all the good cases" in Farmers Branch and beyond. Why? Because his political fame would ensure he was the "go to guy" in Farmers Branch.
As Angel Reyes says, Tim O'Hare "wants to spend a few years in public service, only to then trade those years for a lucrative private practice predicated on the connections he gained while in public service." And at the expense of hard-working folks struggling to make a better life for themselves and their families. What a deplorable scheme and despicable schemer.
No comments:
Post a Comment