Friday, March 21, 2014
Obama Judge: Mexican Border Fence May
Have "Disparate Impact" On Minorities
Have "Disparate Impact" On Minorities
Judicial Watch -- A Homeland Security initiative to put fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border could discriminate against minorities, according to an Obama-appointed federal judge who’s ruled that the congressionally-approved project may have a “disparate impact on lower-income minority communities.”
This of course means that protecting the porous—and increasingly violent—southern border is politically incorrect. At least that’s what the public college professor at the center of the case is working to prove and this month she got help from a sympathetic federal judge. Denise Gilman, a clinical professor at the taxpayer-funded University of Texas-Austin, is researching the “human rights impact” of erecting a barrier to protect the U.S. from terrorists, illegal immigrants, drug traffickers and other serious threats.[...]
The professor sued in federal court arguing that the public interest in how the fence will impact landowners outweighed any privacy concerns. The data will allow the public to analyze whether the government is treating property owners equally and fairly or whether the wall is being built in such a way that it disadvantages “minority property owners,” according to the professor. It will also help the public understand the actual dimensions of the wall and decisions related to where it’s placed.[...]
Judge Beryl Howell, appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by President Obama in 2010, agreed that the public interest is significant. Her 37-page ruling also seems to indicate that she bought the discrimination argument.[...]
Last summer Mexican officials expressed public outrage over U.S. efforts to secure the southern border, calling it a human rights violation and an “unfriendly act.” The fact is, a number of government reports have confirmed that it’s not just Mexicans crossing into the U.S. seeking a better life. In 2010 DHS warned Texas law enforcement agencies that a renowned Al Qaeda terrorist was planning to sneak into the U.S. through Mexico. That same year a veteran federal agent accused the government of covering up the growing threat created by Middle Eastern terrorists entering the country through the vulnerable Mexican border.
Violent crime in the region has been well documented with heavily armed Mexican drug cartels taking over chunks of land that serve as routes to move cargo north. In fact, a few years ago a State Department report exposed a “dramatic increase in violence” along the Mexican border and warned of “violent attacks and persistent security concerns” in the area. The document also lists tens of thousands of narcotics-related murders attributed to sophisticated and heavily armed drug cartels competing with each other for trafficking routes into the U.S.
Entire column > >
Blog author's comments - I don't know who is more liberal, the professor that came up with the argument or the judge who agreed with it. Both the professor and the judge want to legalize crime. Obama appointed the judge, doesn't everything he does have negative consequences on our country? Would not putting up a fence have 'disparate impact' on U.S. citizens in a number of ways? U.S. Citizens no longer count, apparently.
We need to stop giving these illegal invaders taxpayer money in all its forms and stop allowing companies to hire them. Build the fence and put armed guards on it. Making this a priority should have been done decades ago. When does the Federal Government get serious about protecting us?
As long as Obama or another Democrat president are in power and the Democrats control the Senate nothing will be done to stop the flow of illegals into our country. Obama counts them all as future Democratic Party voters which is why he is pushing for amnesty.