The Preferred Citizen

2007-04-19T22:03:00.000-07:00

The Preferred Citizen

Rafael Buelna March 5, 2007

Recently some communities have responded to pressure, economic, social and political, by passing ordinances or laws to block or persuade immigrants, lacking legitimate federal permission to work and reside within our union, from living within their boundaries and or from using their resources. The tension is so high that men with guns (minutemen) are attacking citizens, just day camping, along our border that look illegitimate to them. Political commentators, community and elected leaders have taken to attacking one another rather than attempt to answer the basic fears on both sides of the issue let alone attempt to define the issue.

An ancient battle over scarce resources is brewing between groups and the outcome will be determined by either the law or by who is the weakest party. The scarce resources in this case are employment, government/state benefits or services and the protection of our constitution. The parties to this feud include citizens Vs. immigrants. Some citizens, groups and leaders, divide immigrants into two groups basically defined as the legitimate and the illegitimate immigrant. The latter is accused by one side of violating a federal law: crossing the border without permission, which is what makes them illegitimate in the first place. Each side insists that they are keeping in mind that we are talking about humans, people just trying to live. While sympathetic by the hardships of the illegitimate immigrant, citizens and groups (like the minutemen) do not feel that scarce resources should be used by illegitimate immigrants. Moreover, the fear left behind by the Shock and Awe of 911 keeps these citizens in fear that, as Lou Dobbs puts it, "broken borders" will ease the efforts of terrorists that want to hurt us again.

So the issues are A. Do communities, unsatisfied with federal agents protecting our borders, have a cause of action or do they have standing against the Federal government, illegitimate citizens or both? B. What is the remedy and who is entitled to any reparation or compensation? C. Are illegitimate immigrants the security risk that some citizens feel they are?

These communities, groups, citizens all accuse the illegitimate immigrants, illegal alien or undocumented workers of violating some unknown rule or statute that, apparently, must state the following:

Resources only belong to legitimate immigrants and citizens within the boundary of our/their community. Moreover, if federal authorities or government does not meet the expectations of their/our communities then federal authorities or government relinquishes their authority. The offended community is then responsible for the enforcement of federal authority and deserve compensation.

Where this rule comes from I am not sure of but city councils or community leaders are passing or attempting to pass ordinances and laws to mandate that landlords, within their boundaries, police current and future tenants by verifying their status as a citizen. The illegitimate immigrant is therefore persuaded to not use resources, understood by some community leaders, as reserved for the legitimate immigrants and citizens living within their communities or just visiting. This step is taken by community leadership because of their desire to preserve these city, state, and federal benefits, set aside for their communities, for legitimate immigrants and citizen use only.

The intent of these laws is then to both preserve scarce resources for one group and to punish illegitimate immigrants by placing this burden or penalty (the withdrawal of resources) on their shoulders for the fracturing of a Federal Law: crossing the border without permission. According to these communities and others defending such measures there is agreement that, but for, the illegal crossing and the resulting un-preferred immigration status, any immigrant or citizen could partake in their share of benefits from the state and benefit from the protections of our constitution.

While admitting that the original infraction, committed by the illegitimate immigrant, was against our federation they insist the injury was and is to them or their community locally and not to the entire union. That the original fracture to the law was to a federal statute is of no concern to these communities. The communities argue further that because the federal government is not meeting their responsibility (protecting the border) to the expectations of their members, they, by ordinance or law, are entitled to and seek remedy in the form of compensation by keeping and using all resources, slotted for their communities, for preferred immigrants and citizens. Therefore this, federal inadequacy, is what local authorities or communities passing these laws believe entitles them to narrow federal scope of authority. It matters little to proponents of such Laws that an effect is to deputize all landlords within their community as federal agents or police.

A landlord ordered to investigate whether a renter or a potential renter is a legitimate citizen or not is given both an increase in property rights and has the effect of deputizing them. These Citizen Preferred Laws hereunto referred to as (CPL) also function to deplete tenants rights; but more of that later. First, landlords are effectively asked to work as federal agents if ordered to by a CPL or ordinance to verify the legitimacy of a renter or a potential renter. This authority normally falls in the hands of the federal government and is executed by a federal agent such as those that work for the I.N.S. Without the proper training or person doing this job, the potential for harmful errors is staggering and is in effect a usurpation of federal authority.

This is an addition of property rights without precedent. Just-cause eviction measures have been recently passed in some communities to protect the tenant from eviction where the landlord did not have a just-cause. In other words a landlord could not arbitrarily evict a tenant. Non-payment of rent or some other contractual infraction is needed to evict a tenant. That logic was forged in contract, constitutional, and property (landlord/tenant) case law and used to defend just-cause eviction measures passed by communities in the courts. When a renters’ contract is signed, both parties are obligated to the terms they bargained for. An ordinance requiring a landlord to verify the legitimacy of current renters nullifies all contracts signed with renter prior to the ordinance or law being passed. What legal precedent is that based on?

That all citizens would be asked to surrender documents to a landlord, which indicates their citizenship status, does not explain why a community feels that it is entitled to a remedy for an infraction that occurred and falls within the federal scope of authority. To these communities it does not matter that the original infraction occurred within their boundaries or not. Federal Agents responsible for protecting the borders of our federation answer to our entire union through Congress and not to just a few communities that are not satisfied.

Current renters never obligated themselves to surrender citizenship status documents to their landlord, under their current contracts, they only agreed to surrender credit status documents. The ordinance, therefore, increases a landlords property rights by freeing them of obligations to any tenant that refuses to comply with the landlords demand. All tenants become vulnerable to eviction without violating a contractual obligation. The tenants’ rights are decreased because they are forced to surrender property that they did not obligate themselves to surrender within the contract.

A landlord also loses property rights in these situations. A landlord limited to doing business, only on the whim of the current peoples choice, is a subtraction of property rights. A landlord is burdened with a federal obligation without compensation and exposes them to lawsuits. This is why Linda Chavez when pressed for her opinion on such laws only stated to The O'Reilly Factor that such laws are an inconvenience to landlords. Ms. Chavez, the conservative commentator, understands the legal issues. Will the city pay for the policing of tenants or the eviction costs or refund the tenant their deposit? Does the refusal by the tenant to surrender property (the documents) justify a police intrusion? If the police raid is into the apartment of a legitimate, preferred citizen who refused to comply, who is liable?

If a landlord knows that a potential renter looks like an un-preferred citizen then why rent to a person that will cause them to work harder without compensation or expose them to unwanted costs and trouble? So if a person sounds or looks like an un-preferred citizen their chances of renting a unit in such communities is limited by the good will of the landlord and not by a persons credit or history of tenancy. Other un-preferred citizens include but is not limited to the disabled or homosexual or are an un-married couple that landlords often do not rent to because of their personal choice. History is filled with atrocities committed against un-preferred citizens. Each time the victims were first demonized, but later CPL’s were used to legitimize the demonic treatment they received.

Where is this all leading? In Edwards vs California (1941) the issue was if police could be ordered by the state to stop citizens from Oklahoma called "Okies" and other indigents from the dust bowl from crossing our, California's, state border. That was a hostile action taken by legitimate citizens against weaker, un-preferred, legitimate citizens made possible by local Citizen Preferred Laws. The point is one day a person is a preferred citizen and the next day that same person is being treated horribly.

Remember it was not illegitimate immigrants or the undocumented that attacked the United States on 911, they were legitimate immigrants that flew here on planes that landed at the airport. Moreover, immigrants from Mexico and other places are fighting and engaged in the hunt for those responsible for the 911 attack. Citizens should not confuse the tension they feel, as a result of out-sourcing and unbalanced free trade agreements, as emanating from undocumented immigrants Mexican or other than Mexican( OTM). The tension felt by the preferred citizen comes from fear of losing their quality of living. It is easier to attack an illegitimate immigrant than a legitimate one but when and if that day ever comes citizen preferred will turn to feed off of them. It is harder to attack a multimillion or billion dollar corporation that can transfer thousands of jobs out of our country in a day.

Think of all the customer service jobs credit card and computer companies promised would be the next generation work that citizens would benefit from but are currently being done overseas. What causes more damage Mexicans or OTMs picking fruit or thousands, millions of next generation jobs out sourced by U.S corporations with no sense of loyalty to the country defending their interest with the lives of her children?

Rafael Buelna March 5, 2007