Judge Tosses Hazleton Law Discriminating Against the Undocumented

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 02:11:25 AM EST
Tags: immigrants (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A Pennsylvania judge has declared unconstitutional the Hazleton law banning the undocumented from living or working within city limits.

The decision, by Judge James M. Munley of Federal District Court, presents a new roadblock to local officials who want to take action against illegal immigration after broad federal legislation to address the issue failed in the Senate last month.

Judge Munley ruled that ordinances first passed last July by the Hazleton City Council interfered with federal law, which regulates immigration, and violated the due process rights of employers, landlords and illegal immigrants.

Many cities since either adopted the Hazleton law or declared their intention to do if it was upheld.

The judge emphasized that illegal immigrants had the same civil rights as legal immigrants and citizens.

“Hazleton, in its zeal to control the presence of a group deemed undesirable, violated the rights of such people, as well as others within the community,” he wrote.

The ACLU weighs in here.

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

No to hazealotry! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by dutchfox on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:33:02 AM EST

Lack of Evidence was one issue (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:10:13 AM EST

Apparantly the law was overly broad as well

Without citing any evidence, Hazleton officials have blamed many of the town's ills, including crime and economic burdens, on undocumented immigrants. Supporters of the law have stated that their goal is to drive so-called "illegal aliens" out of town. Many Hispanics, including legal U.S. residents, have already left Hazleton and Hispanic-owned businesses have had to close down according to business association estimates because of the hostile environment that developed against them and their clientele

I rather like this quote as well...

"We cannot say clearly enough that persons who enter this country without legal authorization are not stripped immediately of all their rights because of this single act ... The United States Supreme has consistently interpreted [the 14th Amendment] to apply to all people present in the United States, whether they were born here, immigrated here through legal means, or violated federal law to enter the country."

MB (1.00 / 0) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:10:59 AM EST

Why should anyone have to give evidence of anything except the presence of illegal aliens?

Or does your mind close when you see the words "illegal aliens?"


Aside from the fact that the constitution clearly (5.00 / 0) (#27)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:23:34 PM EST

leaves regulation of aliens to the Feds and not the states, there is this little thing called = protection (not to mention the 4th amendment would require some evidence before you seize some one and haul them off to INS).

Why do conservatives hate our constitution?

BTW, I believe you are an illegal alien, and therefore you should be arrested and sent to INS where you can use your rights to explain your status. I understand there is a Sheriff in AZ with a toll free hotline I can call report people I suspect of being an illegal.

FN1: We will let you exercise those constitutional rights, even though you would deny them to others.

MB (1.00 / 0) (#28)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:41:58 PM EST

What protection are you protecting??

My point is simple. Once an illegal alien is found in the US the alien should be turned over to the INS where they can excercise all the rights afforded them.

To claim they deserve protection from being identified and arrested is just plan wrong.


BTW (1.00 / 0) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 04:43:55 PM EST

I have all the papers needed to establish who I am. The people in question do not.

So take your open borders defense on down the road. No sale today at the ROF's palatial retirement compound.


Rubbish! Clearly forgeries (1.00 / 1) (#31)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 05:33:22 PM EST

Molly Loves strawmen (1.00 / 0) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:47:11 AM EST

Why don't you just admit that you are for open borders and we can debate the real issue.


: I am for due process and just hope you can figure (5.00 / 0) (#36)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:24:05 PM EST

out why you should be too.

Reading comprehension please (none / 0) (#30)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 05:23:57 PM EST

: Molly Loves to dodge (1.00 / 0) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:48:20 AM EST

Based on your standards no illegal alien would ever be identified.

DA - And your point is? (1.00 / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:00:48 PM EST

The city shouldn't have to cite a reason to deny them anything. All they owe them is an arreast and delivery to the INS where they can then use all the rights in question to explain why they are in the US illegally.

Your little act of sophistry doesn't pass muster. Neither does the judge's.


DA (1.00 / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:36:13 PM EST

And I appreciate your thoughts, but I fail to find them applicable, and sadly must tell you that your analysis lacking. Oh well. Nothing new there.

The city has found that illegal aliens are a problem, so it is mustering citizens to support it to get rid of these problems.

Only people who believe in open borders would find that objectionable.


: DA (1.00 / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:53:02 PM EST

My goodness, you still don't understand that illegal means illegal.
Perhaps you have a wiki link on this??
You arguments fall on deaf ears. They were there. They were illegal..
Yet the judge let them sue the city without identifying them because they feared deportation.
Tell me again about not being for open borders.
I mean if you are not, why are you defending this judges outrageous actions and statements??

Would the ACLU (none / 0) (#17)
by Pancho on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 03:28:38 PM EST

and Judge Nunley allow Hazelton to begin asking for immigration status on all arrestees, so that the evidence can be gathered?

I live in a city that has unquestionably been hurt badly by an influx of needy illegal immigrants, but I could never show evidence, because they don't keep statistics on who is illegal.


Pancho (1.00 / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:38:28 PM EST

DA would argue over anything to distract from the simple truth.

The Feds aren't doing their jobs.
The illegal aliens don't belong here.

Landlords.... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by kdog on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:12:48 AM EST

being deputized as state informants...nice.

I'm not surprised governments, be they federal/state/local, want to turn us into a community full of informants and spies....I am surprised so many citizens want to live in a community full of informants and spies. Too unsavory for my taste, and no way to live imo.

RE: (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by mack on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:19:32 AM EST

I would like to have a cup of coffee with this judge and ask:
...

I've seen your "discussions" with other people on this blog; you would be a damned fool to try and argue a legal point with a Federal judge.

Mack (1.00 / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:41:00 PM EST

And you would be a damned fool if you think I would try to argue a "legal" point.

My comments are/would be based on comment sense and a belief that we don't owe illegal aliens a thing.

Something that you must not have a large supply of.


RE: Legal Point (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by mack on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 03:07:52 PM EST

Try and follow me here, Jim.

The judge issued a legal decision; your common sense comments (your term, not mine) directly challenge the legal decision the judge has issued.

You ultimately would be arguing legal points with a Federal judge and you would be a damned fool for doing so.

I personally would love to see you try and argue this subject with judge Munley; however, I think you are all talk and would probably cower and not rise to the occasion.


Nope. I said a cup of coffee (1.00 / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:45:08 PM EST

and asking a few questions. He can obviously answer them anyway he wants... in our mythical coffee klatch.

And yes, these questions/comments would be based on what I see as common sense.


Mack - BTW (1.00 / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 04:57:14 PM EST

BTW - My underlying point is that I think the laws are wrong. Not that the judge may have applied them incorrectly. So my questions would NOT be Illegal Alien v the US Citizen, but like..

Do you believe we should an open border policy?
Do you believe that we can solve any of our immigration problems unless we first shut off the influx of illegal aliens?
Do you think it is fair that the influx of illegal aliens are depressing the wage level of US citizens by taking the available jobs at much lower wages??
Do you agree that an illegal alien working for someone has zero rights and thus can be taken advantage of? And do you agree our immigration policies should NOT be complicit in creating this underclass of unprotected people?
You note that Hazletown's laws in some way harm the Federal laws. Since the Feds aren't enforcing the laws, isn't your attitude very close to "Let Hazletown eat cake??"

I could go on, but you get the drift.


RE: (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by mack on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 06:28:57 PM EST

I could go on, but you get the drift.

Yes, I get the drift; you want to draw me away from the legal decision this particular post is about and engage in an ideological discussion about immigration.

You don't understand (or are disingenuously ignoring) what role Judge Munley played in this legal challenge; therefore, I now understand why you would ask those questions.

Regarding point number 5 in your last post, I never noted or even hinted towards what you claim.

Since you obviously don't want to discuss the legal decision, but instead are trying to disingenuously engage me in an ideological discussion regarding immigration, I am going to use some of the common sense you claim I have a short supply of and bid you adieu.


: mack (1.00 / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 08:01:24 PM EST

I wrote:

...So my questions would NOT be Illegal Alien v the US Citizen, but like:

Regarding point number 5 in your last post, I never noted or even hinted towards what you claim.
So unless you are the judge in disguise, none of the questions were to you, but what I would ask the judge.
BTW - I understand that in his 200 page ruling he opined that the US government wants illegal aliens in the country.
I am sure that is a surprise to many people.
Engage you in a discussion about immigration? Some how I think that would be hard to do since I am all for immigration.
It is illegal aliens and open borders that give me heartburn. You??

et al (2.50 / 2) (#2)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:26:53 AM EST

Hazleton, in its zeal to control the presence of a group deemed undesirable, violated the rights of such people, as well as others within the community," he wrote.

I would like to have a cup of coffee with this judge and ask:

First, why does the judge think that it is bad for a city, or anyone for that matter, to deem people committing a crime as "undesirable."
Why does the judge think that anyone has the "right" to committ a crime.
If the Federal Government fails in its duty to enforce the law, why is it wrong for local governments to enact laws and enforce them.
And given that the law is passed, how does that interfere with with the Feds are doing? And has the Feds demonstrated this actually happening? And if they have, have they shown that the locals did not pull back when the Feds requested?

It is my guess that this judge could rattle on for hours about this and that, but at the end of the day this is just another judge ignoring common sense and the will of the vast majority of the people in favor of business owners who want cheap labor, Demo politicans who want votes and illegal aliens who want come here without the right to do so.

John Birch Would Agree (5.00 / 0) (#9)
by squeaky on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:54:31 AM EST

Do you also think that there is a conspiracy with the Mexican gov.?


Squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 11:56:14 AM EST

Are you sure John Birch would agree with my reasonable comments? I always found him a bit radical myself. But perhaps you think not.

As to a conspiracy, no. What you have is Bush as wrong headed over this as you think he is over the war.

Ox, gored, etc.


A Bit Radical????? (5.00 / 0) (#12)
by squeaky on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:02:11 PM EST

Just a wee bit, huh. Most of your screeds on immigration could have been written by a card carrying Bircher.

What's the "bit" that is too radical for you?


Squeaky - Is that true? (1.00 / 0) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:44:15 PM EST

Since I never studied the Birchers I don't really know if you are correct or not. All I know for sure is what you write:

Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

Never Studied Birch (5.00 / 0) (#32)
by squeaky on Sat Jul 28, 2007 at 06:28:00 PM EST

Well you are a natural

1. The abolition of the graduated income tax.

The repeal of social security legislation.

The impeachment of various high government officials,

4..The end to busing for the purpose of school integration.
5. The end to U.S. membership in the United Nations.
As you can see, these goals, which were, 40 years ago, the platform of an extremist group on the fringes of American politics, are the all but spoken platform of the Bush administration and the modern Republican party.
snip
But there is more, much more, to the Birchers than just this. At one point, the Birchers had "a minimum of 6,600 corporate-financed anticommunist broadcasts, carried by more than 1,300 radio and television stations at a total annual budget of about $20 million," which was an enormous sum in the early 60's.
Important Birch Society members were close to the Bush family and the close relationship between the families has continued to the present.

tristero


: You be funny, squeaky. (1.00 / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:55:18 AM EST

You sure are smart about the Birchers. Are you now or have you ever been a member??

But there is more, much more, to the Birchers than just this. At one point, the Birchers had "a minimum of 6,600 corporate-financed anticommunist broadcasts, carried by more than 1,300 radio and television stations at a total annual budget of about $20 million," which was an enormous sum in the early 60's.
Did you have a problem with them being anti-communists?? Then you would have hated my job, which was making sure they didn't attack the US.
Hmmmm. Now I understand your attacks.
Leave the UN? That is a very popular position out here in flyover land.

I'm wondering... (2.50 / 2) (#3)
by jarober on Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 07:49:56 AM EST

When a member of the bar will notice that "No somos criminales" isn't factually true.

The last time I looked, being an illegal immigrant was, well, illegal.