Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Dissenters of Tom Tancredo's immigration policies beg us to dislodge him from the momentum for governor's seat. This is really the only social claim they can maintain against him since he has a proven record of solid business success, years of political experience and solid ethical and moral records. But, has anyone stopped to analyze what the Constitution and statutes deem "illegal" immigration?

I wouldn't have believed it, until I read the case law myself, but the theory of equal rights is based upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Equal rights is based on a standard access to rights under the law. What is that standard, you ask? It is the standard of the european pilgrims to America, it is the white man's standard for freedom, for work, for possession of land and practice of religion.

This fact was hard to swallow because it appeared to be discriminatory and non politically correct in itself. It seemed to give the Ku Klux Klan, and right wing selfishness import.

But the more I wrestled with the concept, the more I realized that what the Klan attempts to do is to dislodge the justice maintained in the Fourteenth Amendment, and thereby dislodge equal rights.

The value of the Fourteenth Amendment is that it assured women, aliens, and minorities in America the right to access the courts for redress of their grievances, the same as the white immigrant men who may have only been thinking of themselves when they penned the Declaration of Independence.

So, if aliens, women and minorities have constitutional protection under the present Constitution and Declaration of Independence, how can they be deemed "illegal aliens" within Tom Tancredo's analysis?

Crimes are founded on intentionality. Aliens are only acting illegally if the prosecution can show they intentionally acted against the law. The law itself must contain definitions of the elements of the crime and statutes must contain firm terms defining what is legal or illegal.

Short of being found "illegal" under these terms, the only other redress we have against aliens is a tort. The threshold for accidental aliens, or tortuous aliens taking healthcare services and jobs from Americans must include the fingers pointing back at the American political climate for having allowed the aliens' encroachment all of these years on our soil. After all, we elected the officials who allowed the newcomers, and we elected the mayors, judges and sheriffs that refused to hold and prosecute them. We are all culpable unless we can show that we have defended our boarders by all means possible.

Certainly, children born to aliens have no culpability as to being illegal. No one can prove children intentionally violated immigration laws. Therefore, under the Constitution, and Tom Tancredo's policies there are many perfectly legal aliens in this State and Country.

It is the illegal aliens that Tom Tancredo firmly opposes and intends to take in hand should he become governor. It is the ones who traffic refugees into human slavery. It is the ones who deal drugs. It is the ones who take jobs without application for green cards and citizenship. It is the ones who have been guilty of violent crimes, driving without a license and causing accidents, and those whose religion promotes overtaking our civilization by strategy and terrorism, or they engage in piracy, looting, assault or the taking of their neighbor's property.

What is so harsh about this, Tancredo's core value? It is difficult in some cases where the hierarchy of rights overlap, yes, but that is what the courts are there for. All we need are Supreme Court Justices who uphold the Constitution, and District Court Judges who have read the law and show up for hearings in their jurisdiction.

Tancredo's polices are lawful policies. He seeks the greatest good for everyone, regardless of their opinions of him. Yes, some weirdos support him, but look at the vast support of the rest of the State, wealthy business people as well as rural folk, and many middle classes.

Minorities and aliens need to know that a Governor who reads the Constitution can be persuaded by it as well.

Link: http://EyeOnEnglewood.com

Why should Englewood prohibit the City from prosecuting any definition of household?

Moral issues are taken care of in the criminal codes of the State and City. Being unrelated and sharing a house, is not in itself worthy of prosecution, but in Englewood, the violation of the City's definition of Household is prima facie evidence of a crime.

Rick Gillit, running for District 4 in the November election, says he believes the term, "'Single Family Residence' is purely a real estate term, and means there is one residence per address. It does not extend to the definition that Englewood currently attaches to 'single family residence' meaning that not more than one unrelated person can live under the same roof."

Since his wife was raised in a home that took in families of patients of Craig Hospital, Gillit may be sensitive to the humanitarian side that some boarding houses offer. But, Englewood has ungrandfathered all pre-existing residences that house more than 1 unrelated person under the same roof.

It is clear that Community Development and Planning and Zoning both have limitations as to implementing codes against existing or grandfathered codes, and are relegated in their duties to forecasting development, plan for the future, and not criminalize the pre-existing.

The Department of Regulatory Agencies (D.O.R.A.) agrees. Their jurisdiction is limited to agencies of the State, not residences. Yet, these departments are the ones prosecuting residents for their choice of who shares their home. Isn't this a privacy issue?

In Gillit's opinion, these departments should not interfere inside a home with whether people are closely related enough to share the residence.

Last July, Planning and Zoning Commission members were asked to amend the code so that City could prosecute a single family in the City Manager's neighborhood. Commission Chair Bleile opposed the tactic as devious. Two other Commission members sided with him, but they ended up the minority and the City Manager Sears achieved his end. The case is scheduled for Court, June 4 and 5, 2009.

In the past five years, the City's habit has been to threaten people reported as violating the definition of household with 7-day or 14-day Notices to Comply. But, when it comes down to the prosecution of such a household, the City staff find themselves asking strange questions of City Manager Sears and Attorneys Brotzman and Reid, "How do we figure the unrelated number 2 again?"

Notice, it is not an issue of knowing how to count 1,2,3,4, or asking the City's accountant. It is rather a question of personal relationships. Does the City have the right to determine your relationships?

Says a widowed father in law who wants to move in with his daughter, "Can they kick me outa' here just because my daughter happens to have a spouse with a son she has not officially adopted? I mean, add me into the mix...ya know? Maybe I shouldn't have sold my place."

Good question. In Alaska, the town actually began to prosecute a family such as this, except the ACLU stepped in. In 2008 Englewood's City Council members McCaslin and Penn promoted not only Englewood's narrow definition of household, but also got personally involved promoting the prosecution and intimidation of moral households who happen to share a home unrelated.

Englewood isn't so afraid of the ACLU, because it has your tax money to fight extended court battles totally in the millions of dollars. Their salaries get paid for looking busy, so why not?

But after all the litigation Englewood has engaged in during the past year, a severe budget cut is occurring of up to 15% to parks and salaries.

But, what if a child has had a name change to resemble that of her family's surname, yet, in fact she has not been adopted. What about x-spouses not quite out of the home? Any why should foster children have more legal rights than your own father-in-law and step child?

This election could stop the intrusion of government into private relationships by voting new blood like Broker Rick Gillit to City Council. Keep Council out of your homes.