Directories
Quick Searches
Find a Job
Quick Search
For Employers
Yahoo! HotJobs Local Search
Council should focus on Escondido
By: JIM TRAGESER - Staff Writer | ∞
It may be odd to start this column by pointing out that I don't think the since-rescinded Escondido rental ban was unconstitutional.
Unwise, unwarranted and unnecessary?
Absolutely.
And while I understand the local ACLU chapter's argument that local agencies can't override federal law, my understanding is that states and local agencies can pass laws that complement federal legislation. Way back in 1842, the U.S. Supreme Court set in place a precedent that still stands today: While states can refuse to enforce federal laws (as Pennsylvania was doing with the Fugitive Slave Law), they can't block federal agents from enforcing federal law.
The case was Prigg v. Pennsylvania, and we still see it at work today, on issues from immigration to drug legalization.
Prigg v. Pennsylvania is why and how local police agencies can refuse to enforce federal immigration law. It's how and why California can "legalize" medical marijuana but can't offer protection to its residents from prosecution on federal charges for growing, selling or smoking pot.
Which brings us back to the once-failed and perhaps-to be-resuscitated Escondido law that required prospective renters to provide proof of citizenship or legal residence to their would-be landlord.
The ACLU and other groups filed suit, and a federal judge issued a stay that prevented the city from enforcing the law, before the City Council voted to abandon the law in the face of mounting legal bills to defend it.
While I'm no lawyer, I didn't see anything in the Escondido ordinance that contradicted federal immigration law.
There are numerous examples of state and local laws adding on to federal legislation. From stricter pollution requirements to stronger privacy rights, the lawbooks are full of instances in which a federal law is supplemented by state and local ordinances.
While racial discrimination is indeed against the law, the Escondido law seemed to require all renters to provide the same level of proof. And while even racial animus on the part of the legislative body passing an ordinance can be cause for striking down a law, it's immigration supporters themselves who make the case that a huge number of those who are in this country illegally are not Latino. So being against illegal immigrants isn't necessarily derived from a racial or ethnic prejudice.
Still, having said all that, I hope the Escondido City Council lets this issue go. I realize it's a vote-winner for politicians with ambition to higher office.
But it's also been a divisive distraction in the city, and one that is ---- if we're to be completely honest ---- unlikely to change a darn thing.
The city is facing a budget deficit measured in the millions, most of its residents have to leave city limits to find good-paying jobs, the arts center has yet to fulfill its incredible potential, and no one seems to have a firm idea what's going to happen to the existing hospital building that anchors our downtown area.
We have a Congress that possesses at least the power to address illegal immigration, and a local representative who seems to share most of the council majority's views on the issue.
But there's no one else to take on the local issues that face the city if the council gets distracted once again.
-- Contact columnist Jim Trageser at (760) 631-6628 or jtrageser@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Reardon wrote on May 16, 2007 9:40 PM:It would certainly be cheaper to do code enforcement on existing housing, parking, license, insurance etc. issues and let the pressure slowly build on those absolutely legal and easily enforceable issues. There are plenty of issues where pressure can more easily be applied...which is not to say that the rental ban should not come back at an appropriate time...it just argues that there is more low-hanging fruit that can be picked.
Jim wrote on May 17, 2007 7:01 AM:If Escondido focused on serving its residents, regardless of legality, the city would become the crown jewel of North County.
I don't know where you live Jim, wrote on May 17, 2007 8:33 AM:but unless Escondido gets rid of the illegals, they will never be the crown jewel of North County....
CA State Law Requires Cooperation wrote on May 17, 2007 8:42 AM:California state law (Penal Code 834b) require every law enforcement agency in California to fully cooperate with Federal Immigration authorities when it arrests a person and suspects that the arrested person is in the United States in violation of Federal immigration laws. Every California law enforcement agency shall '(1) attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity.' Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation as required is expressly prohibited. Penal Code 834b(c).
sdraoul wrote on May 17, 2007 1:04 PM:Jim must be smoking medical marijuana. The Constitution of the United States with all attendant Supreme Court decisions states explicity that all are guaranteed "due process of law (14th Amendment)." Additionally, the Constitution prohibits self-incrimination (5th Amendment) and prohibits unwarranted "search and seizure" in the 4th Amendment. Escondido violated the Constitution by forcing real landlords to act as police agents of the city. There is no law in the country that allows non-government employees to demand proof of citizenshp. Even though employers can ask to "see" certain documents, they cannot rule on the validity of those documents, nor can they pass the documents on to anyone. There is no basis in the Constitution for this. Only federal agents can determine citizenship, thus for landlords to demand proof fo citizenhip violated "due process of law." As no non-government employee can ask if one is legal, nothing in the Escondido proposed law was legal...Nothing. Especially deadlines and punishment for landlords who are not, and cannot be government agents unless they are federal employees specifically ermpowered to demand proof of citienship. Even the FBI can't go around willy-nilly demanding proof of legal residency for they cannot make a determination from documenst or any form of proof. Jim needs to defer to federal judges, after all they are the first line of constitutionality, not city council people elected by a handful of votes in some smallbackwater city in either Hazelton, PA, or Escondido, CA.
Advertisement