A federal judge has overturned their two city ordinances geared at saving the town from being swamped by illegal aliens. One ordinance fined landlords for renting to illegals, and the second removed the business license of a business which employed illegal aliens.
The judge who overturned these ordinances cited the fact that immigration is a federal issue, but Hazleton wasn’t setting immigration policy they were enacting local commerce policy. To say nothing of the fact that the ACLU, which sued Hazleton, was allowed by the judge to keep the plaintiffs anonymous, and they didn’t even have to appear in court. In other words, Hazleton was never able to face their accuser. Yet Mayor Lou Barletta says the fight is not over.
A federal judge struck down Hazleton’s illegal-immigration ordinance Thursday, calling it unconstitutional in a groundbreaking decision that will reverberate throughout the nation and affect more than 100 other communities considering similar laws…Mayor Lou Barletta, who gained national attention for his passionate support of the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, said the city will appeal the decision to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia and, if necessary, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
”We are not going to stop fighting for the quality of life that we value here in Hazleton,” Barletta said. ”I realize today that we’re not only fighting for Hazleton any longer, we’re fighting for cities all across the country.” […] The ordinance would have imposed heavy fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and businesses that hire them. Barletta introduced it in June 2006 after several violent crimes he attributed to illegal immigrants who followed thousands of Hispanics to Hazleton, which has more than 30,000 residents…
Foster Maer, an attorney with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, called the decision ”historical. Â… It delivered a body blow to the efforts by localities to legislate immigration.”
The town of Hazleton now can appeal to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and to the US Supreme Court, if necessary, but that takes money. They have set up a website where you can donate and I encourage you to do so. Nothing bothers the Elite more than Commoners and local towns taking control of their lives. Let’s help Hazleton defend itself. They have set up a website, “Small Town Defenders”, where you can donate to their defense fund. I have done so and encourage you to do the same. Thanks to this fund, Mayor Barletta hasn’t spent one dime of taxpayer money defending the lawsuit. Let’s keep it going.
The New York Times was especially tickled by the reversal. The American Thinker has plenty to say about their editorial, “Humanity vs. Hazleton.” It is one more example of how depraved the Elite have become, and how willing they are to make excuses for a group of people who believe their being here illegally entitles them to more rights than the average American, even at the expense of the survival of an entire American town.
Let’s show them how wrong they are.
As much as I do support the policy behind the ordinances, at first glance this decision is probably on fairly strong ground legally. When a state or local government does anything having to do even remotely with nationality it’s going to be subject to strict scrutiny.
As for allowing plaintiffs to remain anonymous, that’s a LOT more questionable. “Hazleton was never able to face their accuser” probably to an extent inaccurately couches this in the language of the Sixth Amendment: this isn’t a criminal case. But for a court to determine whether the plaintiffs really even have standing to sue–especially in federal court, where the existence of a live “case or controversy” is a jurisdictional question–and moreover for the defendant to be able to challenge the plaintiffs’ standing, they can’t be anonymous. I’d suggest there are serious Due Process problems with that.
The town of Hazelton isn’t doing a single thing to immigrants. It is addressing how criminals are treated. Its ordinances are congruent with the goals and purposes of federal immigration law. There is a doctrine in cases involving federal preemption of state and local action that when the goals and purposes of the federal and state or local laws mesh and seek the same goal, then the state and local laws are not preempted by federal law. In other words, Hazelton’s ordinances are proper.
Where state and local laws are directly in opposition to federal law in the area, then the state and local laws are preempted. For example, the weak-kneed, greedy morons running “sanctuary cities” are acting contrary to federal law and any ordinances they pass in support of their mendaciousness and cowardice should be thrown out by federal courts because the preemption doctrine applies to them.
The preemption doctrine shouldn’t be used as a tool to obtain a result 180 degrees away from its reason for existence. But that is exactly what happened in the Hazelton case. Federal Judges, as a whole, are not as smart as people give them credit for. Nor do they as a rule use the common sense they were born with.
I wonder if the anonymous plaintiffs in this case are, by any chance, acquainted with Harry Reid’s “little Tommy”??
Complicated legally, but sounds like there is a chance (thanks, DAVE J and ST.THOR). Too bad there isn’t a “common sense doctrine” that could be applied.
Thanks for posting the “Small Town Defenders” link, and for bringing this story to the forefront. As word continues to get out (which will be, thanks again, to the dreaded conservative talk radio), I have a feeling Hazelton will have no shortage of appeal funds at their disposal.
I don’t know if other major players for ’08 have commented on this particulor subject, but here is what Fred Thompson had to say:
Hazelton Immigration Decision
“Stand your ground; don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”
If the American people cannot act to protect the towns they live in against the harmful consequences of a deliberately negligent federal government, we have been fired upon. Is Hazleton the 21st century Lexington? I’m not talking about armed rebellion. I’m talking about making a stand and starting to push back.
The National Immigration Law Center, which is pro-immigrant, gives advice on how to combat locally enacted laws. It looks like the template followed in the Hazleton case. After reading this it looks to me like there is nothing directly in the Constitution limiting immigration issues to the federal government. This so-called supremacy over immigration laws is something the courts decreed over time.
Fred Thompson is right-on with his comments. I don’t see that Hazleton is making a determination as to who should or should not be admitted to the country. I don’t think anyone would disagree that the federal government should be the entity to control legal immigration. These community laws are expressly dealing with illegal immigrants within the community. Common sense tells you that isn’t the same as “regulating” legal immigration. The judicial sleight-of-hand, as was done with the Hazleton law, is to twist the local law to be somehow harmful to legal entrants thus enabling a judge to shoot it down.
There’s also something called “field preemption” which seems to mean if the federal government has managed to encroach on an area of law previously, it owns it forever. We now see the federal government can then selectively fail to enforce those laws to the detriment of communities once the communities have been rendered powerless to protect themselves by this preemption.
Morsel by morsel, sip by sip, the courts are starving this nation to death by depriving the citizens of their rights, the sustenance of a democracy.
National Immigration Law Center, facts about preemption
Hi Everybody, I am a new poster,and happy to be on board. I have just read several thoughtful & intelligent posts regarding the Hazelton, PA issue. I live nearby, in the People’s Republic of Maryland, and so far, no city or county here has gotten up the nerve to deal with the illegal immigrant problem. I think that the immigration problem in this state is most likely concentrated in Montgomery County (a DC suburb-very left-wing), but I don’t expect anyone there to deal with it, however, Prince William County, Virginia, has authorized their police to stop motorists, and ask for their Driver’s License & ask them if they are in the country legally or illegally. Their police have been empowered to make arrests, if the persons stopped are illegals.
They, like Hazelton, PA, are having serious problems with the illegals, including gang problems, which they never had in the past. I hope they are able to make their rules stick. Something has to be done about these illegals. As for the town of Hazelton, PA, don’t give up! Keep fighting the good fight! Someone well versed in the Law must find out how to beat the ACLU & the immigrant “rights” groups at their own game. Maybe I’m getting old, but I do remember when the Rule of Law and the Constitution meant something in this country. It’s more than past time to “bring back the good old days”. Also- I may have missed something along the way, but I thought you had to be a U.S. Citizen to have any Constitutional rights ?
“The town of Hazelton isn’t doing a single thing to immigrants. It is addressing how criminals are treated.”
Have you read the actual text of the ordinances in question? I haven’t, and I can only speculate how you could know this if you haven’t. As for lecturing me on preemption, I wrote part of a handbook on it when I was a staff attorney for a state legislature. What you’ve neglected to mention is that if the feds have “occupied the field,” then ANY local measure conflicts with federal law simply by its very existence. I’m not saying that that’s the case here, and nor am I saying the court got it right on any particular ground, but without looking at both the municipal ordinances and any federal statutes and federal administrative regs on the subject, neither of us could know that for sure.
“Federal Judges, as a whole, are not as smart as people give them credit for. Nor do they as a rule use the common sense they were born with.”
That’s true of ALL judges, though state judges tend to be even worse.
“…it looks to me like there is nothing directly in the Constitution limiting immigration issues to the federal government. This so-called supremacy over immigration laws is something the courts decreed over time.”
Er, the phrases “uniform law respecting naturalization” and “regulation of…foreign commerce” do come to mind. As do the express prohibitions on states entering into treaties, declaring war or granting letters of marque without congressional permission. The idea that federal supremacy over immigration law, like anything else relating to interactions with the outside world, was made up as judicial doctrine unrelated to the intent of the Framers is, with all due respect, both mistaken and absurd. The Framers wanted a limited federal government, yes, but within its legitimate sphere, they wanted that government to have the authority to act effectively.
“The Framers wanted a limited federal government, yes, but within its legitimate sphere, they wanted government to have the authority to act effectively.”
And that’s precisely the problem isn’t it? Not only doesn’t the federal government act effectively on illegal immigration, it is totally and completely incompetent. Our high and mighty Congresscritters, bureaucrats, and judges have made the government so institutionally corrupt that it can’t even protect this country’s sovereignty anymore.
For Dave J
ORDINANCE 2006-18 ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION RELIEF ACT ORDINANCE
amendment
Have at it.
Dave, my statement “…it looks to me like there is nothing directly in the Constitution limiting immigration issues to the federal government. This so-called supremacy over immigration laws is something the courts decreed over time” was based on the text of the National Immigration Law Center’s pdf, “For over a century, the U.S. Supreme Court consistently has ruled that the federal government has broad and exclusive power to regulate immigration. Although the power to regulate immigration is not expressly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, the federal government’s authority over immigration policy is supported by both enumerated and implied constitutional powers.”
If you are confirming that in fact the people of Hazleton and every other town in American are screwed, thank you for the benefit of your expertise. What a relief that it’s all fit and proper according to the lawyers. I’m not so sure this is something the authors of the Constitution would cheer about.
“I may have missed something along the way, but I thought you had to be a U.S. Citizen to have any Constitutional rights ?”
Generally, no. The Constitution does not “grant” rights: it grants powers to the federal government and then places limits on those powers. Those limits are generally not themselves applicable only to how the federal government interacts with US citizens. The language of the text, insofar as it refers those being acted upon by government, generally speaks about “persons” rather than citizens. Also keep in mind that “US citizenship” as a federal constitutional concept rather than a purely state and/or statutory one, did not exist until the 14th Amendment defined it.
“If you are confirming that in fact the people of Hazleton and every other town in American are screwed, thank you for the benefit of your expertise.”
I’m not necessarily saying that. And I’m probably much more on your side than you seem to realize.
Excellent posts, all. I would like to invite Dave J, Pat, St. Thor or anyone willing to take the time, who might clarify my confusion on this one point. I am no scholar of the law, and granted, it sounds as if the federal government may have the exclusive power to regulate immigration and naturalization. But what if they aren’t immigrants at all? Doesn’t that change everything? What if they are simply trespassers, illegal aliens, or international criminals. Whatever label fits, except for “immigrant”. Just because they call themselves immigrants doesn’t make it so. Wouldn’t immigrants be the correct term for those who have filed their immigration papers, then entered this country with our permission, legitimate documents in hand? Sneaking in during the night with the intent to take something that doesn’t belong to you (jobs, services, housing or healthcare), and having further obtained these things with fraudulent, or no documents at all, sounds like a common felony called burglary. The are getting off easy with just deportation when ICE catches them. IMHO, Hazelton went to extraordinary lengths in crafting their ordinances to avoid any constitutional or federal issues over immigration or naturalization. I wish them success on appeal.
Your question is right on, JEEBI. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states specifically:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
There is no mention that I can find in the Constitution of illegal aliens (immigrants to double-speaking morons in the MSM and leftists who are trying to confuse the issue)being citizens of either the US or any State.
Further, I am unaware of any naturalization rule passed by Congress that makes illegal aliens citizens–despite the efforts of idiots like George Bush, John McCain,Teddy Kennedy, and most members of the Democrat Party in the Senate.
Sorry for the sarcasm. It was more of a feeling of frustration at the situation. It ‘s like getting to an intersection where signs are posted for no left turn, no right turn, do not enter up ahead and the road you’re on turned into a one-way street going forward once you passed the last intersection. I see that Dave is pointing out just how boxed in the government has us on this. Common sense as expressed by so many commenters just doesn’t apply, only the law that’s turned into some kind of bizarre nightmare