Two civil rights groups filed suit in federal court Tuesday to block enforcement of a town ordinance passed in November by the Dallas suburb of Farmer's Branch requiring apartment renters to show proof of US residency and penalizing landlords who rent to illegal immigrants. The ACLU of Texas, in conjunction with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), sued to bar the city from implementing the act beginning January 12, alleging that federal immigration law preempts state and local ordinances aimed at regulating immigration, and that the law as drafted is impermissibly vague.

Some local landlords have also spoken against the ordinance, saying they are not trained to determine whether immigration papers produced by potential renters are forgeries. Two other recent lawsuits have challenged the ordinance, one filed last Friday on behalf of three apartment complexes, and one filed earlier in December alleging that the Mayor of Farmer's Branch broke the Texas Open Meetings Act during deliberations concerning the ordinance. AP has more.

Last November a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order against the town of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, preventing the town from promulgating a similar landlord-tenant ordinance designed to discourage illegal immigration.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel hailed the court decision, declaring it to be “an important milestone” in efforts “to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law”. In fact, the Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated its contempt for basic legal norms, riding roughshod over international and US law. It has pressed for the execution of Hussein as a means of demonstrating to the world that it is capable of killing its opponents with impunity.

The Appeal Court decision comes as no surprise. From start to finish, the trial of Hussein and senior figures in his Baathist regime has been a piece of political theatre with a preordained outcome. The Bush administration refused to place the former Iraqi strongman before an international tribunal, drew up the flawed rules for the Iraqi High Court and has overseen every aspect of the case via a large team of American lawyers based in the US embassy in Baghdad.

Washington’s Shiite-dominated puppet government in Baghdad has brazenly interferred in the trial, exploiting it to bolster support among its social base. Shortly after the verdict was handed down last month, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki preempted the outcome of the appeals process, telling the BBC that he expected Hussein to be hanged by the end of the year. Significantly, yesterday’s decision was first announced, not by the Appeal Court, but by a government minister—National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie.

International legal experts and human rights bodies have repeatedly criticised the legal process. In a statement issued yesterday, the US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) described the trial as “deeply flawed” and called on the Iraqi government not to carry out the execution. A detailed 97-page HRW report on the Dujail case issued last month highlighted numerous breaches of elementary legal process, pointing to government interference in the trial. The report concluded that the court’s conduct reflected “a basic lack of understanding of fundamental fair trial principles”.

The left leaning Democratic Party was highly critical of many major points of the right-wing Republican Party's proposals and bills introduced this year. Having secured a thin majority control of the Congress in the November elections, there is pressure for them to show progress on highly visible issues.

The committee, led by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Representatives Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ), expects to have a reconciled bill ready for the Senate to consider in March or April, followed by a House vote in the months following. The committee must reach compromise between a Senate bill passed in May that would set millions of illegal immigrants on a path to potential citizenship and would authorize a temporary worker program, with the more restrictive House version passed late last year which makes unlawful presence in the US a felony subject to deportation and could punish humanitarian groups aiding illegals.

The committee may also decide not to provide sufficient funding for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which provides for 700 miles of border fencing to be constructed between the US and Mexico. The border fence bill, signed into law by President Bush in October, was passed by the House and Senate after Republican leadership decided to leave comprehensive immigration reform proposals for the next session of congress.

What might reform look like?

With the new Democratic majority in Congress, Democratic lawmakers and some key center-leaning Republican allies are working on measures that could place millions of illegal immigrants on a more direct path to citizenship. In May, the Senate passed a bill that was much more centrist than the radically right-wing bill passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives at the end of 2005.

The new efforts in both houses of Congress are likely to look more like the Senate bill, and in many cases be much more humane and liberal-leaning.

This is in direct response to public support by Americans that felt some of the measures went too far in punishing immigrants, while giving a free pass to businesses that were in greater violation of existing laws.

Being a nation of immigrants, most Americans want to welcome newcomers to the United States. The trick is to balance between security of the country, stability of the economy and the society, and simple humanity toward other people.

Accordingly, lawmakers are considering abandoning a requirement in the Senate bill that would compel several million illegal immigrants to leave the United States before becoming eligible to apply for citizenship.

The lawmakers are also considering denying financing for 700 miles of fencing along the border with Mexico, a law championed by Republicans. The original $6 billion to $10 billion estimate has increased to a $36 billion estimate, and may take longer than a decade to complete.

Details of the bill, which would be introduced early next year, are being drafted. Key points include tougher border security and a guest worker plan. The lawmakers, who hope for bipartisan support, will almost certainly face pressure to compromise on the issues from some Republicans and conservative Democrats.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the new federal rules for smog reduction on Friday, stating that the Environmental Protection Agency "has failed to heed the restrictions on its discretion set forth in the Act."

The smog standards were introduced in 2004 and required roughly 470 counties designated as "non-attainment" areas to reduce the level of smog within a three to seventeen year period. The court said the time period did not align with the federal Clean Air Act and held that EPA enforcement was not strict enough in states where smog levels have increased.

According to EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood, the EPA has not yet determined if it will seek an en banc rehearing of the case, stating that the "EPA is committed to ensuring our nation's ozone air quality standards are implemented to protect public health and the environment." 

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the new federal rules for smog reduction on Friday, stating that the Environmental Protection Agency "has failed to heed the restrictions on its discretion set forth in the Clean Air Act."

The smog standards were introduced in 2004 and required roughly 470 counties designated as "non-attainment" areas to reduce the level of smog within a three to seventeen year period. The court said the time period did not align with the federal Clean Air Act and held that EPA enforcement was not strict enough in states where smog levels have increased.

According to EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood, the EPA has not yet determined if it will seek an en banc rehearing of the case, stating that the "EPA is committed to ensuring our nation's ozone air quality standards are implemented to protect public health and the environment."