Town's immigration law in judge's hands (Hazleton, PA)

AP on Yahoo ^ | 3/24/07 | Michael Rubinkam - ap

[NormsRevenge]

SCRANTON, Pa. - During a nine-day trial, a federal judge has learned a lot about Hazleton, a working-class former coal town that few outside Pennsylvania had heard of until the mayor declared war on illegal immigrants.

Mayor Lou Barletta and his administration told U.S. District Judge James Munley that illegal immigrants have ruined the town's quality of life and drained the municipal treasury.

However, the landlords and business owners who joined the American Civil Liberties Union and others in suing to overturn the ordinance targeting those immigrants said the crackdown was hurting them, emptying apartments and closing stores.

Ultimately, the fate of Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act will turn almost entirely on questions of constitutional law and interpretation of federal and state statutes, not on the situation on the ground — making the testimony in the trial that ended Thursday almost beside the point.

The judge himself said as much. "Issues of fact will not be the predominant features in the case," Munley said.

"So much of the factual testimony was interesting but not ultimately relevant to deciding this case," agreed the city's lawyer, Kris Kobach.

The law, approved last summer and emulated by towns and cities around the nation, penalizes landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and businesses that hire them. A companion measure requires tenants to register with City Hall in the town about 80 miles northwest of Philadelphia.

Enforcement was barred pending the outcome of the trial. Munley will likely take months to decide whether the crackdown is reasonable.

The lawsuit claims the laws usurp the federal government's power to regulate immigration, deprive residents of their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process, and violate state and federal housing law.

The town of 30,000 calls the crackdown a reasonable response to a growing violent crime problem.

From 2000 to 2006, Hazleton's population swelled by as many as 10,000 people — most of them Hispanic immigrants looking for work and cheap housing.

The influx helped revitalize Hazleton's moribund economy, but it imposed new demands on city services. The mayor argues that some of the new arrivals were illegal immigrants who joined gangs and dealt drugs.

Hazleton's lawyers relied heavily on a 1976 Supreme Court decision to bolster their defense. The court upheld a California law prohibiting businesses from employing illegal immigrants.

The Supreme Court justices said that while immigration is the exclusive domain of the federal government, the California law was constitutional because it was not a "regulation of immigration," defined as "a determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country, and the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain."

Hazleton's critics say the 1976 ruling is no longer applicable. A decade later, Congress enacted a sweeping immigration bill that made it unlawful for businesses to employ illegal immigrants — and expressly pre-empted states and localities from imposing their own civil or criminal penalties.

Angelo Paparelli, president of the Academy of Business Immigration Lawyers and a critic of the Hazleton law, noted a federal judge struck down a 1994 California ballot measure that sought to deny public services to illegal immigrants because it conflicted with federal immigration law.

In his closing argument Thursday, ACLU attorney Witold "Vic" Walczak laid out a narrative in which a politically opportunistic mayor made illegal immigrants a scapegoat for all the city's ills.

But in an interview, Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, agreed that much of what was said at the trial was not likely to figure in the judge's ruling.

"I think there was a lot of stuff that was probably superfluous," he said.

[NormsRevenge]

Vince Gonzalez, from left, of Scranton, Pa.; Kevin Gonzalez, 9, of Scranton, Pa.; Jeanne Brolan from United Neighborhood Centers; Estrella Gonzalez, 6, of Scranton, Pa.; Charlotte Lewis of Scranton, Pa., and Chris Walters of Brooklyn, N.Y., participate in a rally organized by the Pennsylvania Immigration and Citizenship Coalition in Scranton, Pa., Monday, March 12, 2007. The rally was held directly across from the William J. Nealon Federal Building and United States Courthouse during opening day of the first federal trial in the nation to address whether local government can enact ordinances that punish employers and landlords that do business with illegal immigrants. (AP Photo/The Citizen's Voice, Kristen Mullen)

[NormsRevenge]

Joe Pettimato holds a sign supporting Hazelton Mayor Lou Barletta as he attends a rally in support of immigrant issues in Scranton, Pennsylvania, March 12, 2007. A Pennsylvania town's anti-illegal immigration law created a climate of fear in which businesses failed and people moved out, a lawyer argued on Monday as a trial seen as a test of U.S. immigration policy began. The result of the case, the first federal trial over whether local jurisdictions can make their own laws on illegal immigration, is expected to affect cities and towns across the United States as the country debates what to do with the 12 million illegal aliens estimated to be inside its borders. REUTERS/Bradley C Bower (UNITED STATES)

[NormsRevenge]

http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/judges_frm

Munley, James Martin
Born 1936 in Scranton, PA

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
Nominated by William J. Clinton on June 4, 1998, to a seat vacated by William W. Caldwell; Confirmed by the Senate on October 21, 1998, and received commission on October 22, 1998.

[I see my hands]

Populating the small towns that Americans won't.

[WTSand]

Nominated by William J. Clinton on June 4, 1998, to a seat vacated by William W. Caldwell; Confirmed by the Senate on October 21, 1998, and received commission on October 22, 1998.

The outcome of this is a "no-brainer".

[vox humana]

However, the landlords and business owners...said the crackdown was hurting them, emptying apartments and closing stores.

Greed trumps the rule of law. Follow the money trail. From Bush to local businessmen, the motivation is the same.

[jim35]

"Greed trumps the rule of law."

Or it doesn't. You certainly can't tell from this thoroughly biased article, which starts out saying that the mayor has "declared war" on illegal immigrants (I'm somewhat surprised that AP used the term "illegal"), and asserting that these illegals had "revitalized the town's moribund economy."

If the AP says the sun rose in the east, better look out the window and check for yourself.

[WTSand]

From the link.
Max Almonte, 17, of Hazleton, said the judge was correct. “(Illegal) immigrants are paying income taxes and not getting any benefits out of it. So what’s the point?” Almonte said.

Would someone explain this?

[freekitty]

What a crazy statement. They are not America.

[ndt]

"Would someone explain this?"

I would assume that he is referring to illegal immigrants that work with a fake or stolen SSN#. The employer would withhold payroll taxes like anyone else with a valid SS#.

[WTSand]

That's the greatest fallacy of the argument. Illegal immigrants (wetbacks for the politically incorrect) do not pay income tax. They can't.

[IIntense]

Max Almontae, 17, of Hazelton...

You're asking for an explanation of what a child said? C'mon. We can't even fathom the mindsets of many adults. What the great majority of kids think about local, national and international issues should be seen as irrevalant.

[sumthinelse]

>>A decade later, Congress enacted a sweeping immigration bill that made it unlawful for businesses to employ illegal immigrants — and expressly pre-empted states and localities from imposing their own civil or criminal penalties.<<

Unless the judge sees that the feds are not doing their jobs (unlikely, that would probably be "judicial legislation"), it would probably take a federal law that allows states and municipalities to make laws like this. Difficult with a Rep. majority, "slim to none" with a Dem. majority.

[ndt]

"That's the greatest fallacy of the argument."

Then what is the point of stealing SS#? You can't have it both ways, either some do or do not work with a stolen SS#. The ones who do are in fact paying taxes because their employers are withholding them.

[sumthinelse]

>>You can't have it both ways, either some do or do not work with a stolen SS#. The ones who do are in fact paying taxes because their employers are withholding them.<<

Did you notice that there are options on the W-4 form so that you can claim 12 dependents, so that no money will be withheld for income tax? If you steal a SS# every year (or use a new bogus one) you will not pay any withholding for income tax.

I don't know if there is a way for a wage earner to prevent employers from withholding SS and Medicare, but unless they expect to collect Social Security and Medicare some day, they do not have to pay income tax.

Suppose you were a general contractor and you hired a subcontractor, say for home or building construction. Do you have to verify that all employees of the subcontractor have a SS#?

[stevio]

Well I guess there is always the appeal.

[ndt]

"I don't know if there is a way for a wage earner to prevent employers from withholding SS and Medicare..."

You could have just said I was right and left it at that.

[WTSand]

When I was growing up in West Texas it was roughly 25% Meskins,10% (or less)blacks (or African-Americans,Negroes whatever's the "soup de jour"). Today it's over 65% meskin. The homeplace (where my mom lives) now has a "pit" for fighting dogs or chickens and a flourishing cocaine trade next door. I feel for the people of Hazleton but as we've known in Texas for a long time "it's a done deal".

[sumthinelse]

>>You could have just said I was right and left it at that.<<

No, you what you stated was misleading, which is hardly the same as being "right." I have to pay income tax. Illegal aliens who have stolen a SS# are required by law to pay tax, I suppose, but since they have already broken the law at least twice, why shouldn't they claim 12 dependents?

So I assume that what you are claiming is that some illegals pay some taxes. I agree with that, but some also pay zero taxes (because their employer does not withhold anything at all), and others (whose employers actually do use W-4s and W-2s), do not have income tax withheld and do not pay income tax. And do you know for a fact that they don't have a way to prevent all withholding from wages?

The question is: Does amount withheld from illegals' wages, when it is withheld and never refunded or paid in the form of benefits, compensate for the tax revenue lost for those illegals who do not pay their fair share? This is a difficult question, because "benefits" covers a lot of things (medical care, incarceration, etc.)