(Federal) Judge Strikes Down Hazleton's Illegal Immigrant Law

Yahoo! News ^ | 7/26/2007 | Michael Rubinkam

[Pyro7480]

ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) -- A federal judge on Thursday struck down the city of Hazleton's tough immigration law, which has been emulated by cities around the country. The Illegal Immigration Relief Act sought to impose fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. Another measure would have required tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.

It was pushed by Hazleton's Republican mayor last summer after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting.

Hispanic groups and illegal immigrants sued in federal court to overturn the measures, saying they usurp the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration, deprive residents of their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process, and violate state and federal housing law.

[flaglady47]

I received this e-mail today:

July 26, 2007

District Court Ruling is Not the End of the Road for Local
Anti-Illegal Immigration Ordinances
The Right of Local Governments to Protect Citizenry
Will Ultimately be Decided by U.S. Supreme Court, Predicts FAIR

Washington DC - Today’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge James Munley, striking down ordinances in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, aimed at curtailing illegal immigration in that community is a disappointing, but not unexpected development, said the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). “This is an issue that will ultimately have to be ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court, and we are confident that when the high court reviews the facts of this case, they will side with the right of local communities to take steps to protect themselves against the destructive impact of mass illegal immigration,” predicted Dan Stein, president of FAIR.

FAIR and its legal affiliate, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), worked closely with Hazleton leaders to craft ordinances that comply with federal immigration laws and participated in defending the ordinances in court. In response to the district court ruling, FAIR and IRLI are joining with Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta in an appeal of the decision before the 3rd Circuit Court.

“The challenge to the Hazleton ordinance was brought by well-financed outside interests that are fundamentally opposed to just about any enforcement of U.S. immigration laws,” said Stein. “They were able to select a judge who was politically inclined to side with them. But today’s ruling is not the end of the road for the Hazleton ordinances or the many similar ones instituted by cities and towns all across the United States. Rather it is a step in a legal process that will inevitably lead to the Supreme Court.

“What is at stake, in addition to the right of local communities to protect themselves from the federal government’s malfeasance with regard to immigration enforcement, is also the right of local communities to govern how business and commerce are conducted within their jurisdictions,” said Stein. “Neither Hazleton, nor any of the other cities with similar policies, are regulating immigration, which is clearly an exclusive federal prerogative. Rather, they are setting rules for businesses and landlords who operate in Hazleton in a way that is entirely consistent with what local governments do every single day.”

The longstanding failure of the federal government to effectively enforce its own immigration laws is imposing severe burdens on state and local government. These jurisdictions are forced to provide education, emergency health care and other services, as well as deal with crimes committed by people who are in the country illegally. “It is simply unreasonable for the courts to leave these local communities with no legal recourse to deal with a serious problem that affects public safety and imposes significant fiscal burdens on them,” argued Stein.

“We are confident that when higher courts review this case they will conclude that Hazleton’s ordinances are a reasonable and lawful response to a real problem,” concluded Stein.”

[Travis McGee]

Amen!

[dragnet2]

Ping me if he/she ever replies to that most excellent response.

[flaglady47]

“Ping me if he/she ever replies to that most excellent response.”

thanks. Can do.

[ought-six]

It’s disgraceful, but our courts crack down on municipalities that try to save themselves from destruction by illegals, yet those same courts do nothing about the self-proclaimed “sanctuary cities” that clearly are breaking the law by aiding and abetting criminal acts, namely, illegal immigration.

Our courts are soooooo f****d up!

[ought-six]

“Mexico is a great source of just such people, as they are bitter and vengeful towards Americans, taught from birth that their situation is all the fault of the gringos.”

That is so true. Mexicans hate America and Americans with a passion. But they love to sponge off America and Americans. And, before anyone starts yelling “Racist!”, Mexican is a NATIONALITY, not a RACE. For instance, Mexico’s former president, Vicente Fox, is white, as is Casteneda, the foreign minister (I think he was the foreign minister; anyway, he held some top position), just to name a couple. Same goes for idiots who have any criticism of moslems: i.e., they cry “Racism” at the drop of a hat. Just what RACE is a moslem? Or a Catholic, for that matter? Just what race is an American? A Brit? A Cuban? You get the picture.

[ought-six]

“Same goes for idiots who have any criticism of moslems....”

Er, should read “Same goes for idiots who ATTACK THOSE who have any criticism of moslems.”

Hey, it’s very late (or early), and my eyes are drooping.

[goldstategop]

The judge is a Clinton appointee. 'Nuff said.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[meyer]

Too many more decisions like this and I am very fearful this will start to boil over and, God forbid, will start being settled in the streets.

Unfortunately, that's what it's probably going to take. I'm hopeful that it doesn't, but prepared if it does.

[Dante3]

Judges in this country are running amok. As to this Judge James M. Munley, I wish an investigative reporter would do a story on him. I bet he has quite a few skeletons in his closet, perhaps also sudden increases in his bank accounts.

Is Judge James M. Munley corrupt, mentally ill, or has he some other agenda? An investigation of his personal life might provide part of the answers.

[Jazzman1]

let me guess, this POS judge was appointed by KLIN-TON!

[Regulator]

Casteneda, the foreign minister

He was indeed the foreign minister, and the author of the famous statement "we want the whole enchilada" in reference to an absolute amnesty. He said that in Phoenix in 2005, I believe (someone else can google it!).

He's also a doctrinaire Latin American Marxist, one of the most prominent. Guess what he plans for the Kulaks of the North ( ummm, "us" ). Tax slavery would be far too polite of a word for what this Mexican Stalinist has in mind.

And you can't emphasize enough the point about nationality. Castaneda, for instance, looks like he's from Stockholm:

Nice looking guy, right? PS - that picture is from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

But there's no conspiracy to merge our countries and put us under the thumb of a left wing, transnational elite, is there?

Nahh. Tinfoil hat stuff, right?

[Frank_2001]

But of course, we know the mayor of Hazleton is a Repunlican. No bias here/s

[Frank_2001]

Republican!;)

[BlackElk]

NFA: The following post is, I think, in support of your position and not meant as a criticism of you. To this point in the discussion, there has been all the usual fussing and fuming about how badly the court behaved simply because many posters REALLY want those "illegals" out of here and the details be darned.

Pyro7480: check FReepmail tonight or later.

Read the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any PERSON of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. (emphases supplied)

Citizens vs. persons: Note that the framers of the 14th Amendment took the trouble to reference each of these terms in the amendment. Courts find such distinctions meaningful and rule accordingly. "Citizen" is a subgroup of "persons." Mere persons (as well as all citizens) are protected from state deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law and also are entitled to equal protection of state laws. To so rule is NOT judicial lawmaking but faithfulness to the text of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment may well be unwise but it says what it says.

Hazelton, PA, is not a state: What a state may not do may also not be done by its subsidiary local (such as municipal or county) governments. What Pennsylvania is prohibited from doing by the 14th Amendment, the municipal government of Hazelton is prohibited from dong as well. Whether the judge was appointed by Clinton or by Reagan, the ruling would have to be the same. Anchor babies: If a baby is born here, no matter who the parents may be and no matter their nationality, that baby is an American citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment (which is, to say the very least, not likely to be repealed or modified).

Equal Protection of the Laws: is imposed upon the states by the 14th Amendment. Again, not in our lifetimes and not in God's lifetime (i.e. infinity) is there going to be repeal or modification of the 14th Amendment (enacted as a liberal treasure chest after the War Between the States). To the best of my knowledge, no provision of the US constitution explicitly restrains the federal (national) government from refusing equal protection of the laws to "illegal" aliens. The 14th Amendment does not allow the federal government to delegate the right to deny equal protection to the states.

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof: Some of the more creative resisters of the "illegal" immigration have tried to theorize that aliens are not citizens and not subject to the jurisdiction of the states. Those same posters would not claim that an "illegal" alien who robs at gunpoint yolks bankwouldnot be subject to arrest and prosecution for bank robbery. Likewise, rape, murder, DWI, speeding and stop sign violations. "Illegal" aliens are subject to civil jurisdiction for purposes of divorce, child support, debt collection, tax collection and any other matter for which citizens may be hauled into our courts. "Illegal" aliens, whatever some here may think, are also legally able to invoke the jurisdiction of our courts. If Jones (an American citizen) is firing his .38 carelessly in his backyard to celebrate 4th of July and negligently shoots Garcia (who is an "illegal"), Garcia is nonetheless a "person" and entitled to seek redress in our courts against Negligent Jones. Likewise, if Jones negligently injures Garcia with his automobile or does not repay a loan from Garcia, Garcia has the right to go to court.

Relevantly, if some local municipal poohbahs purport to enact ordinances treating Garcia differently as to housing or employment (property and liberty respectively) than other persons would be treated, the federal courts will strike down such illegal ordinances every time.

[tumblindice]

See no. 12

FIREARMS & LIBERTY REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. “Free” men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don’t know your rights you don’t have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.

11. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control — it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the “gun control laws” we ALREADY have, don’t make more.

24. When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

[dragnet2]

Thanks.

Again, outstanding response.

[hunter112]

“We are confident that when higher courts review this case they will conclude that Hazleton’s ordinances are a reasonable and lawful response to a real problem,” concluded Stein.”

Even if this idiot judge had not declared it unconstitutional, some appeals court would have done so. Get this question to the Supremes, I like the mix we have now.

[gondramB]

I’m not sure what your are saying.

If you are being supportive of self defense and gun rights, I’m on your side.

If you are saying that citizens have the right or even the responsibility to oppose a tyrannical government, I’d say that was the principle this country was founded on and any American should support that.

My objections in this thread have been against suggestions that we are in any way justified is using force against the American government at this time. We have a democratic process where if the people stick together they get any change they want.

To use force against the government in this situation, particularly while we are at war, is utterly wrong and highly unlawful. The people who are debating these actions in this thread are, in my opinion, doing the country (and also the web site) a serious disservice. That should not even be on the table while there are democratic means.

[gondramB]

Me: “Since I would like this web site to continue to exist I hope they stay the heck off Freep. Armed rebellion in the United States should not even be a topic of debate here.”

Flaglady: Go tell that to our Founding Fathers. Go tell Tom Paine that there should be no debate.

---

We can debate whether there are democratic means for change available but as long as we clearly have such means then armed rebellion against the United States, correctly punishable by death.

I hope this site does not degenerate into a debate about whether we should commit treason. Killing the site would be the least of the fallout.