[Congressman Billybob]

Wrote this as a proposed Op-Ed piece in an (unnamed) national newspaper. Not picked up. Still relevant. Therefore, published here since Freepers are interested in this subject.

John / Billybob

[CertainInalienableRights]

Great article, John.

Might want to fix this sentence at the end of the 3rd paragraph: "Laws directed at illegal aliens don’t application to them"

[EdReform]

Bump & Ping

[roaddog727]

Excellent article.

Go Hazleton!

[HarleyLady27]

I think this is so great!!! WTG Hazleton....I hope this lawyer shuts down the ACLU with a BANG!!!

[junta]

ACLU ought to brought up on racketeering charges.

[CottonBall]

I finally felt some hope again after reading this, Billybob.

I am not doubting you - I am just being careful not to be too hopeful about the outcome of this case. Are there precedents about the 3 issues in this case that make you say Hazelton will win them?

[MHGinTN]

Excellent, sir!

[xzins]

It does seem that a city should have the authority to enforce law within its own city limits.

I'm betting that you are right and the ACLU is wrong.

[4Freedom]

"Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund"

Puerto Rico has been using our own tax dollars to pollute our 50 states with their Liberal/Socialist/Marxist political beliefs and now in support of illegal immigration.

They have the nerve to oppose an English-only ordinance stateside when their local Puerto Rico state government is Spanish-only?

What the hypocrites won't tell you is that an English-only speaking American citizen will have to pay $75.00 per hour for a Spanish language translator, if they're unfortunate enough to wind up in a state court in Puerto Rico.

Anyone that believes that Liberal/Socialist/Marxist island full of ingrates would make a good 51st state needs their head examined.

[Obie Wan]

Me and Forrest Gump aren't very bright so I gotta ask, how do you “unconstitutionally” seek “to enforce immigration laws.” ???

[gubamyster]

ping

[Dante3]

BUMP

[Carry_Okie]

What the cities wating for Hazleton should do is to kick in a few bucks to by which to help fund a legal juggernaut.

[El Gato]

Doesn't the second paragraph of Article VI of the Constitution have some applicability to the "unconstitutionally enforcing immigration laws" argument?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[JZelle]

Just read your piece in the Washington Times. I was going to post it here when I found this. Well done!

[neverdem]

Wrote this as a proposed Op-Ed piece in an (unnamed) national newspaper. Not picked up. Still relevant. Therefore, published here since Freepers are interested in this subject.

BTTT, but why didn't you check the box so it would hang in the editorial sidebar? 8^)

Joining the ACLU in filing the case was the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. This is an odd partner because legal residents of Puerto Rico are American citizens. Laws directed at illegal aliens don’t application to them.

Maybe that relates to their cousins from the Dominican Republic who take a boat ride, pay for phony papers, become instant Puerto Ricans and then take a trip to NY City? Next time your in Manhattan, check out Washington Heights and Inwood at its northern end. While there, you ought to check out the Cloisters Museum in Fort Tryon Park. It has a collection of medieval art that's hard to match.

[stevio]

This being said, will the taxpayers wind up paying the ACLU's legal fees or their damages?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Nice post!

[Clintonfatigued]

I applaud Louis Barletta's action. We need a few more Mayors like him.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Good, tightly written, concise analysis.

...

Different topic: How can judges use such convoluted, inane "illogic" in throwing out voter ID requirements when the attackers make completely invalid claims of "preventing people (who supposedly can't afford id's) from voting" without evidence that there actually are any such people?