ACLU calls them undocumented workers or immigrants, but they don't dare say they are illegal. In times of questionable security and renegades invading borders causing murder and mayhem, there will never be a thought in the communists' minds that invasion is illegal and illegals are killing American citizens by the thousands. There will never be a thought in the communists' minds or in their legal agenda that millions of illegal mexicans are stealing identities from American citizens. Of course not because it just doesn't fit into their agenda that invading illegal aliens, however ACLU wants to side-step the issue, don't have rights and don't have the right to invade our borders and don't have everything that an American citizen has. I like to know where in the U.S. Constitution or in the Bill of Rights that says that all rights will be given to illegals. But Ha! Here's the trick the ACLU uses: They don't classify illegals as illegals. They call them immigrants or undocumented workers (legal by standards they were hired by an American citizen). Immigrants do have rights in the U.S. as long as they go through the process of citizenship, including being hired by an American citizen employer. So therefore, in the ACLU attorney's minds they can give it a legal name and, POOF! they have the same rights as American citizens. Is this really logical? No, it isn't but that's how the crazy, idiotic, rights abusers communists think.

Futhermore, you will see no mention of an illegal alien who killed an American citizen, a Marine soldier whose last name is Heiss on their website. Of course not, because just maybe it has to do with a White person. And, we do know by now we don't have any rights according to the jewish communist manifestos, including the jewish organization ACLU whose president is Nadine Strossen.

I also notice on their website, and speaking of a non-biased nature as I don't have an interest in religion personally, that they state that they support a strict belief in the separation of church and state. That's why religious symbols and writings are being removed off of state and any government property. That's why prayers have been taken off of school property. However, that's not what the Constitution says. This is another pathological viewpoint the jews have on this issue that is just way off center and taken out of context. Isn't that what they are really good at? Taking things out of context? They really don't understand our U.S. Constitution, because why? Because they are not White and the U.S. Constriction was not written for them or by them. They act they understand it. So in their trying to understand the Constitution they take whatever is written and twist it to mold their world, creating nothing but chaos. The people who twist the meanings and mold it to their world are the communists or jew lawyers.

Jews don't belong anywhere where a White person lives or where any race exist other than their own. They have a different understanding and a different way of thinking that proves disastrous time and time again for many millennia.

By the way, since ACLU has such a great misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. These rights were not written for foreign enemies who invade the White people’s country or invade our American borders. They are not written for criminals, but are written to protect the people who abide by the laws and who are American citizens.

Escondido, CA Backs Down from Anti-Immigrant Ordinance (12/14/2006)

Civil Rights Groups Welcome Decision, Call Proposed Rental Ban "Unconstitutional and Discriminatory"
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

SAN DIEGO - In an unexpected but welcome reversal, the city of Escondido has agreed not to enforce a controversial city ordinance that bans renting apartments to undocumented immigrants, a coalition of civil rights organizations announced today.
The agreement is part of a settlement proposed by the city in response to a legal challenge brought by the coalition. A federal judge had already granted a temporary restraining order against the ordinance last month. Coalition attorneys said they believe that it is in the best interest of Escondido and its residents for the city to forego a costly and likely losing case.

"We made it clear before the ordinance was voted on that it would not stand up to legal scrutiny," said David Blair-Loy, Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties, a member of the coalition that fought the measure.

The Escondido residents and landlords who filed the lawsuit said they were thrilled by the turn of events. "I'm glad the city came to its senses and settled this case," said Roy Garrett, a landlord and plaintiff.

The lawsuit charged that the ordinance was illegal and unconstitutional on a number of grounds, including that it was preempted by federal law and violated due process and the property, fair housing and contract rights of both landlords and tenants.

Federal Judge John Houston said last month that the ordinance raised "serious questions" about a number of federal and state issues, and expressed concern about tenants being evicted without due process or a public hearing. Judge Houston must approve the settlement before it goes into effect. (Since when do illegals have the right of due process? Jews/communist attorneys and the way they make a mockery of our laws - shameful. Shameful that attorneys of this caliber are allowed to practice law at all. Isn't this what you call "Travesty of Justice?" Unfortunately, the law community doesn't care and they let this abuse of justice go on as if it is okay.)

The ACLU was joined in the lawsuit by the Fair Housing Council of San Diego, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), People for the American Way, and three private law firms - Brancart & Brancart, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, and Rosner & Mansfield, LLP.
"In light of the ordinance's significant constitutional shortcomings, an early resolution is to everyone's benefit," said Phillip Tencer of Cooley Godward Kronish, LLP.

"It is our hope that Escondido will now focus its efforts on bringing its people together, not driving wedges between them," said Alan Mansfield of Rosner & Mansfield, LLP. "It is also our hope that other cities will do the right thing, as Escondido has, and either suspend or repeal similar ordinances."
Omar Jadwat, an attorney with the national ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, added, "Other cities that have similar legislation should heed the lesson of this case. These ordinances will not withstand challenge, and must be repealed."

In response to today's announcement, MALDEF called upon the new Congress and President Bush to enact comprehensive immigration reform early in 2007.
"Local anti-immigrant ordinances are contrary to the Constitution and bad public policy. Many have been defeated across the country and have left communities divided," said MALDEF staff attorney Kristina Campbell. "While Congress failed to enact comprehensive immigration reform this year, at least the city of Escondido has taken a positive step by rejecting an unworkable and unlawful proposal that divided the community and would not have brought us closer to immigration reform."

For more information on the case, go to
http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/27296prs20061103.html