Judge puts restraining order on local ordinance against immigration that was voted on by the public?

Question

A federal judge in Texas imposed a restraining order on an ordinace that was passed last month by the voter in Farmer Branch, TX. The law required landlords to have potential renters to provide documentation proving that the person doing the renting was a citizen or a legal alien of the U.S.

This ordinance was passed in an election. 37% of the population of Farmers Branch, TX is Hispanic. Do you think a federal judge has the right (I didn't say authority) to override an ordinance passed by the population of a city?

Answer 1

It's called legislating from the bench.
They did the exact same thing in California in 1994. Californians passed prop 187 by a landslide. This would have been landmark legislation with the potential to turn the tide of the illegal aliens flooding the state and inundating its' social welfare programs.
The ACLU filed suit, one judge set the law aside. In 1998, a Governor that was later impeached and fought against prop 187 decided that prop 187 would go to arbitration and he would take the FOR side. Consequently the bill simply died a slow death without the courts ever hearing it.

Simply put, the will and desire of millions of Californians was subverted by a handful of political elites.

Take a lesson from California and salute the judge with the middle finger of both hands fully extended. Illegal aliens do it every day with regard to our immigration laws so why can't we?
Tell the judge that until the court makes a decision one way or another the law stands!!!

Answer 2

I also heard of the wonderful election they had despite folks from other states and countries downplaying it as racist and wrong. However, the Federal Law governs "border security". The treaty signed by the Republic of Texas with the United States in 1845 had that entered as part of the treaty at its signing. That is what that judge was speaking of I believe. A commentary I read though made a point...This should show elected officials what the American Public is saying...LISTEN TO US.

Answer 3

The judge has the right if the ordinance is unconstitutional, but this is probably just another case of "judicial activism," or in other words the government thumbing its nose at the people and asserting that it knows better than the unwashed masses.

Answer 4

Discrimination in housing is a violation of Federal law. A local ordinance does not trump federal law. Even well-purposed, we can't have know-nothing landlords violating people's rights. The people in Farmer's Branch, Texas were both stupid and wrong to make immigration judges out of property owners.

Answer 5

Don't count the Texans out, once they set their mind to something they can be as tough as nails. It may have to go to court several times but I look for Farmers Branch, TX to be in the news many more times before this is over.

Answer 6

A judge has the obligation (neither 'right' nor 'authority') to uphold federal law. Unfortunately, most federal laws regarding immigration supersede any local ordinance, as immigration control is a mandate of the federal government.

Answer 7

If the law was passed legally then NO he doesn't have the right to do so. Too many judges are trying to make policy instead of enforcing the law. I think that he should be stripped of his position.

Answer 8

no the judge is a fascist....here in cali 6 million voters passed prop 218, including many of mexican ancestry, said NO to funding illegal aliens via healthcare, housing, welfare etc...ONE JUDGE said it was unconstitutional!!! the stench from the bench is making me clench....next revolution comes along judges and lawyers are first on the list for trials.

Answer 9

Um. Yes. I suspect it is just a preliminary injunction to examine the issues.

I'm anti-illegal immigration, but we all need to follow the rule of law.

Goldenspider, I disagree with that in this context. There is too much case law on many of the elements of this law. I suspect the housing restriction is what is concerning the judge. They put it in because residents, legal or illegal, can go to the schools, and that has a huge impact on our own kids. But it is a provision that has to be scrutinized carefully. I'd rather ban education for children of illegals, so they won't come, then take a roof from someone's head before they can clear up paperwork that shows they have a right to it, after all.

Answer 10

Another liberal judge that doesn't give a crap about what the people voted on - see prop 187 in CA!