Court throws out city's illegal immigration law

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

[urlhttp://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/id ... 22&sp=true][/url]

Court throws out city's illegal immigration law
Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:46PM EDT
By Jon Hurdle

HAZLETON, Pa (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Thursday struck down as unconstitutional a local law designed to crack down on illegal immigration, dealing a blow to similar laws passed by dozens of towns and cities across the country.

U.S. District Judge James Munley said the city of Hazleton, 100 miles north of Philadelphia, was not allowed to implement a law that would fine businesses that hire illegal immigrants and penalize landlords who rent rooms to them.

"Federal law prohibits Hazleton from enforcing any of the provisions of its ordinances," Munley wrote in a 206-page opinion following a federal trial in which Hazleton's law was challenged by civil rights groups.

The city of 30,000 blames a recent rise in illegal immigration for boosting crime and overburdening social services. The law was passed in July 2006 but was not implemented because of a court injunction won by opponents.

About a third of the city's residents are immigrants from Central America and around a quarter of the immigrant population is believed to be undocumented, according to civil rights campaigners.

Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta said the city would likely appeal the decision.

"I believe both sides realized this wasn't going to be the last day. This small city isn't ready to stop fighting yet," Barletta told CNN.

Dozens of towns and cities have modeled their own immigration laws on Hazleton in a bid to deal with an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.


© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

What the hell? God forbid landlords and companies should be held liable for hiring an illegal alien. This is insane.

[Braxter]

There is a good reason the law was struck down. If small municipalities could do whatever the fuck they pleased without federal injunction, there'd be lynchings open to the public all over the south.

The immigration problem can't be fixed by passing unconstitutional laws. If that happens, the U.S. will be pretty much the same as Mexico.

[Boogahz]

Just curious, but what is unconstitutional about the law?

[Braxter]

The claims in the suit were that the law infringes upon the federal government's ability to regulate immigration, and deprive residents of their rights to equal protection and due process. Though I haven't read the 206 pages, I agree wholeheartedly with the judge

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

The claims in the suit were that the law infringes upon the federal government's ability to regulate immigration, and deprive residents of their rights to equal protection and due process.

The ILLEGAL immigrants in question don't qualify as residents.

[Braxter]

Our constitutional rights protect everyone in this country, even people who are here unlawfully.

But that's irrelevant. The residents in question are the ones who do business with illegals, and they certainly qualify.

[Zaelath]

As do everyone else that would have to provide proof of residence to rent or get a job...

Just another case of the right eroding your rights while you applaud.

[Kelshara]

- Illegals should be rounded up and sent packing back to Mexico.
- People who help or employ illegals should be sent with them.

/thread

[Boogahz]

The claims in the suit were that the law infringes upon the federal government's ability to regulate immigration, and deprive residents of their rights to equal protection and due process. Though I haven't read the 206 pages, I agree wholeheartedly with the judge

I agree with that in theory, but that does not make it unconstitutional.

[Braxter]

Zaelath, which of my rights is being eroded by this decision?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges 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.

Con Law 101: a law punishing people differently for the same crime is unconstitutional.

Say you operate a hotel in this podunk town. You let a bunch of hispanics stay at your place because they show you a drivers license, so you think hey... the state says they're okay.

What you don't know (how could you...) is that a 6 month work visa is pretty easy to get...just file some paperwork during your deportation proceedings saying that you gotta work while the shit is handled in the courts. Once the guy gets his temporary work visa, he has to get a temporary social security card, not through fraud, but by law. So here is a *not-yet-illegal* who now has a work visa and a ssn. He takes these up to the DMV and gets a FOUR YEAR drivers license. In some states, the drivers license is only supposed to last as long as the duration of the work permit, but try teaching a bunch of people at the DMV anything outside of their rote skillset and your brain might explode. Now this guy has a valid work permit, a valid ssn, and a valid DL.

Six months go by and maybe his case ends and the court orders his deportation. Then he goes into hiding. He moves to your podunk town and comes to your podunk motel. He shows you a VALID drivers license (according to the state), and perhaps even VALID credit cards, because even my fucking cat can get one of those. What are you supposed to do? Say sorry, you're a mexican bye.

Then a few days later some immigration officials and local fuzz bust down your door and start hauling off some dudes. You're slapped with a fine. Meanwhile other illegals are roaming around the same town, going into Wal-Mart and Dollar General and making all sorts of purchases. You're thinking gee those stores should probably be fined too. Is it fair for me to have to stop doing business with all these guys while NO OTHER BUSINESS has to? I mean if there was some way of knowing who was illegal and who was not, then that would be one thing. But why should I be forced to pay a fine when 1.) I didn't know he was illegal and 2.) I'm being selectively punished?

This is why local governments cannot be allowed to handle federal issues. If within one municipality, one region, or one state, the laws can apply differently to different people, that is a blatant violation of the 14th amendment. Fortunately for us, there are judges on the bench who are willing to fight for our rights, even if our collective conscience says let's shit out all the mexicans and wipe our asses with the constitution.

[Sueven]

The claims in the suit were that the law infringes upon the federal government's ability to regulate immigration, and deprive residents of their rights to equal protection and due process. Though I haven't read the 206 pages, I agree wholeheartedly with the judge

I agree with that in theory, but that does not make it unconstitutional.

Maybe I'm confused. It looks to me like you're saying that you agree that this law infringes on the federal government's ability to regulate immigration, and you agree that it deprives residents of their rights to equal protection and due process. Yet you think that the law is not therefore unconstitutional. All three of those things (federal supremacy, equal protection, due process) are constitutionaly mandated, and a statute which violates them is straightforwardly unconstitutional. Am I misreading you?

[Boogahz]

Okay, I was looking at the 10th Amendment alone based on the comments about enforcement. I see where it was covered under the 5th, but I couldn't see where the 10th could apply specifically based on the fact that it would prevent the Federal Government from enforcing the laws. Now that I re-read the original article, I can see where it would be unconstitutional.

[Zaelath]

Zaelath, which of my rights is being eroded by this decision?

The law, not the decision to overturn it...