Immigration Ruling Could Have Broad Impact

Judge's Ruling Against Local Anti-Immigrant Law Could Affect Similar Laws Nationwide

(CBS/AP)  A federal judge's ruling that a Pennsylvania city may not enforce its tough anti-illegal immigration law could decide the fate of copycat measures adopted in other communities around the U.S.

U.S. District Judge James Munley found fault with just about every aspect of Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act, which he struck down Thursday in a 206-page opinion that declared states and municipalities have no business trying to stem illegal immigration.

Munley's decision applies only to Hazleton, but legal experts say it could lead to similar rulings elsewhere.

The decision is a road map for judges "inclined to find in favor of immigrant advocates," said Peter Spiro, who teaches immigration law at Temple University.

"This is a big victory for immigrants rights advocates ... in the first major case addressing one of these ordinances," he said. "They could hardly have asked for more."

Hazleton 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.

Hazleton's Republican mayor started pushing for the strict laws last summer after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting. Mayor Lou Barletta argued that illegal immigrants brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city of more than 30,000, overwhelming police and schools.

"When you start seeing serious crimes being committed, very violent crimes being committed and time and time again those involved are illegal aliens, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that you're experiencing a problem here that you've never had before, nor do you have the resources to deal with it," Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta told 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft in November.

More than 90 communities across the United States have considered or approved measures similar to Hazleton's. But Munley said such laws usurp the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration and deprive residents of their constitutional right to due process.

"Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton's measures, the city could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the Constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not," Munley wrote.

Munley also wrote that Hazleton's law was at odds with current federal immigration policy, which he said avoids "excessive enforcement" against illegal immigrants so as not to jeopardize foreign relations. Hazleton, he said, failed to consider "the implications of the ordinances on foreign policy."

Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta pushed for the strict laws last summer after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting. The Republican mayor argued that illegal immigrants brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city of more than 30,000, overwhelming police and schools.

Hispanic groups and illegal immigrants in Hazleton sued, denouncing the measures as racist and divisive.

Hazleton's act was copied by dozens of municipalities around the country that believe the federal government has not done enough to stop illegal immigration.

Because the Hazleton ordinance was the first to go to trial, Munley's opinion will almost certainly be studied by judges determining the validity of similar measures, experts said. A federal judge in Texas, for instance, is considering a legal challenge to a law in the Dallas suburb of Farmers Branch that prohibits apartment rentals to illegal immigrants.

"Any judge is going to have to look at what Judge Munley has written and take it into consideration in deciding how they want to rule," said Jan Ting, a former federal immigration official and Temple University law professor. "A judge would be negligent" not to, he added.

Hazleton plans to appeal Munley's decision to the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals within 30 days. The city's lawyer, Kris Kobach, has said Munley ignored Supreme Court precedent and existing federal law.

In defending the ordinance, Kobach relied heavily on a 1976 Supreme Court decision in which the high court upheld a California law prohibiting businesses from employing illegal immigrants.

But Munley said the Supreme Court's ruling in that case was no longer applicable, because a decade later Congress enacted sweeping legislation 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 an opponent of the Hazleton law, predicted that courts will use Munley's decision as a template. "He rebutted and threw down as wrongheaded every legal argument the city made," he said.

But Ting, who is critical of Munley's ruling, said its value to other judges would be diminished if an appeals court reverses it. "I don't think anyone can foresee with certainty what the ultimate outcome will be," Ting said. "I think we have miles to go before we sleep on this one."

Even Spiro, who opposes the Hazleton law, said Munley's decision is vulnerable because it is an unsettled area of the law. "The court ruled that localities such as Hazleton simply can't regulate immigration policy. It's not as clear as the district court made it out to be," he said.

[nottellin1]

Jameslouiky

Makes sense to me. Keep fighting the good fight!

[jameslouiky]

As far as the Black Plague go I figured it would be over your head. Think about a time where at least a third of the population disappeared gone out of there, yet the economy was going up. In this case we are only talking about 10% and they are just going home with the knowledge of how to build a country that we gave them. Their countries economies would boom, they would become trading partners with us. In a world economy there are no borders if we can%u2019t build it cheaper here it goes

Your one dimensional thinking if part of the problem not the cure. You need to be more of a visionary and less only seeing the end of your nose.

[jameslouiky]

RandalDS no Randal it's not Done with troops it's done slowly over time like I've already shown. You just have to make it uncomfortable for them, no jobs, no place to live cold shoulder wherever they go. In ten years no more problem. If you can think past last week you would see.

This tactic has been used successfully for centuries. Examples, You don't see the KKK having mass parades down every main street in the US anymore do you? You don't see Governors blocking schools anymore. You don't see water fountains with white only anymore. You don't see corporations dumping toxic chemicals into our rivers/streams anymore.

All of these things were accomplished with a information campaign and a few high profile arrests. They certainly didn%u2019t arrest EVERYONE as you suggest they would need to do. Like I said you%u2019re one dimensional thinker and general lack of history.

[njman4]

Blowhards arguing on blog sites accomplish nothing. Write your political reps, join numbersusa, do something to solve the problem of illegal immigration.

[knyghtwolf]

Remember the BIG "War on Drugs"? Administrative people were patting each other on the back about "victories" in stopping the big cartels & hurting them in their profits and such. In just ONE drug operation, the feds netted almost 5 million in drug operations including money, drugs and convictions, problem was the feds spent almost 30 million in total expenses. Hmmmm, spend 30 million to net 5 million in illegal drug trades, what's wrong with this picture? With all the issues going on in illegal immigration, who is REALLY listening to what's going on, and what is being done about it, why or why not, tell the truth here, and not speculate. REAL people want REAL answers. Civil and contiential wars are brewing in the horizon and somethings got to be done and soon because the alternative is not too pleasant at all as far as prospects go.

[randalds]

You can sure keep beating that old drum but the bottom line is there are 300,000,000 of us we can sure show a few people the door. make that 299,999,999 minus the one who's too sacred and is spending all his time hand wringing.

Posted by Jameslouiky at 11:42 PM : Jul 29, 2007

There are not "a few" people to be "shown the door" like some house guests you wish would leave. There are 12 to 20 million human beings, the vast majority of whom do not want to leave. So unless you're going to resort to calling the army back from Iraq and violently rounding them up (which would be moral and political suicide in a democracy like ours) you're pissing in the wind. they're not going to leave willingly and the vast majority of the American people would turn on you the second TV shows one dead undocumented worker's child killed by trying to force them out. Again, put down the joint and come back to reality.

[randalds]

"Example, during the black plague when workers were dying off wages went up for the average worker. They began to buy things only dreamed of before which made more work for others. More housing became available/affordable their standard of living rose."

OK...so kicking out all of the undocumented workers, which is impossible, would help us like the black plague helped the average worker because there were fewer of them. You do realize of course that this is a completely ignorant analogy, don't you? Even if I thought one dimensionally (which you have not shown) at least I still think within the realm of reality. The worldwide conditions are so different now(econonmically, health-wise, population distribution-wise, politically, etc) as compared to the early middle ages that the idea that you think there is any possible comparison makes me realize that you're stoned of your gourd. You're not thinking beyond one dimension, you're high.

[nottellin1]

You can sure keep beating that old drum but the bottom line is there are 300,000,000 of us we can sure show a few people the door. make that 299,999,999 minus the one who's too sacred and is spending all his time hand wringing.

Posted by Jameslouiky at 11:42 PM : Jul 29, 2007

You make good points and I agree with you.

[jameslouiky]

During the 19th century there was heated debate over hard money (gold standard) which only helps the rich. When we came off the gold standard is when our economy took off.

You can sure keep beating that old drum but the bottom line is there are 300,000,000 of us we can sure show a few people the door. make that 299,999,999 minus the one who's too sacred and is spending all his time hand wringing.

[jameslouiky]

RandalDS once again your lack of history/ one dimensional thinking shows.

What we are really setting ourselves up for is, on the next down turn of the economy, civil strife. On a level that will make the 60's look tame. They are already flexing their muscle with these protests and it's only going to get worse.

On the illegal immigration down turn it was just reported by the border patrol/ICE two weeks ago when they were so stop blabbing like you know something. What a bore! Get the blinders off!

As far as the economy goes, it's in history too. It's allot of fear tactics mixed with a few facts. Example, during the black plague when workers were dying off wages went up for the average worker. They began to buy things only dreamed of before which made more work for others. More housing became available/affordable their standard of living rose.

The ones really being hurt are those who can most afford it. When people default on over priced home loans, then buy back at realistic prices. Every time the minimum wage is raised the rich predict doom but the economy shoots up. Twenty years ago an American asked a Communist why he belied his press since it came from the party, he answered why do you believe yours it came from a capitalist.

[randalds]

It starts with shows on TV showing they are no longer welcome.

Then, a few raids on large employers (sound familiar) first to capture and deport. Then start arresting and convicting the employers who hire them with laws already on the books and make sure they serve jail time.
Employment would overnight disappear for them, no place to work they will begin a mass exit. A combination of peer pressure on congress and employers. Example, public prosecution of large employers who turned a blind eye.

Posted by Jameslouiky at 10:12 PM : Jul 29, 2007

And they ARE wanted! Every big business wants them. Every corporate farmer wants them. Every construction company wants them And you know who wants them the most? Every politician that gets campaign contributions from all of those businesses. So vote them all out and the next group you vote in will tell you the same da*mn thing. Ya can't deport that many people and it'd be a stupid thing to do if you could. You're not really naive enough to think those fines and punishments against big business are really going to happen are you? The undocumented workers are here to stay. Let's start dealing with this problem from that staring point because it's the only realistic way to do it.

[randalds]

The raids last year and earlier this year have slowed the influx by nearly half.
Posted by Jameslouiky at 10:11 PM : Jul 29, 2007

ROTFLMFAO!!!!! Do you REALLY believe that horse shi*t? LOLOLOLOL!!! Who told you that? Lou Dobbs? LOLOLOL

Yes we were able to go to the moon and yes we were able to cure polio, but neither of those have anything to do with the question of deport 12-20 million people who do not want to leave, most of whom have productive jobs contributing to America and many of whom own their own businesses. Not only can you NOT deport that many people who don't want to leave, you'd be hurting the American economy by far more then helping it. So not only is deportation impossible, it's ignorant

"And before you start blabing about how hard it would be to tell if they are illegal, a five minute conversation which is what they train border guards to do works very well."

And how long until they all start demanding their rightful court hearing? LOLOLOL!!! Give it up! Deportation or running them out of the country is a right wing wet dream and nothing more.

[jameslouiky]

Oh and by the way confiscation of property followed by deportaion was done sucessfully over sixty years ago. The only reason it's not being used now is because to many people are making billions of these people by keeping wages low.

Sending them back to their own country, would be the best thing we could do for their countries. They would demand change and kick out all those corrupt incompetent officials.

[jameslouiky]

RandalDS your absolutely wrong, it's not done through the court system. You're one of those guys who are always saying it can't be done. "Going to the moon can't be done". "Curing polio can't be done". "Man was not made to fly can't be done." Typical one dimensional thinker.

It starts with shows on TV showing they are no longer welcome.

Then, a few raids on large employers (sound familiar) first to capture and deport. Then start arresting and convicting the employers who hire them with laws already on the books and make sure they serve jail time.
Employment would overnight disappear for them, no place to work they will begin a mass exit. A combination of peer pressure on congress and employers. Example, public prosecution of large employers who turned a blind eye. More then half of them would be gone within 10 years. And before you start blabing about how hard it would be to tell if they are illegal, a five minute conversation which is what they train border guards to do works very well.
The raids last year and earlier this year have slowed the influx by nearly half.

[jameslouiky]

RandalDS your absolutely wrong, it's not done through the court system. You're one of those guys who are always saying it can't be done. "Going to the moon can't be done". "Curing polio can't be done". "Man was not made to fly can't be done." Typical one dimensional thinker.

It starts with shows on TV showing they are no longer welcome.

Then, a few raids on large employers (sound familiar) first to capture and deport. Then start arresting and convicting the employers who hire them with laws already on the books and make sure they serve jail time.
Employment would overnight disappear for them, no place to work they will begin a mass exit. A combination of peer pressure on congress and employers. Example, public prosecution of large employers who turned a blind eye. More then half of them would be gone within 10 years. And before you start blabing about how hard it would be to tell if they are illegal, a five minute conversation which is what they train border guards to do works very well.
The raids last year and earlier this year have slowed the influx by nearly half.

[randalds]

Just follow the immigration laws..PERIOD...and we won't have to have this discussion every 20 years!!!!
Posted by likeitis5050 at 08:01 PM : Jul 29, 2007

Hey you'll get no argument from me that Bush sucks when it comes to following the law. I think he needs to go to prison. However just because the chimp ignores the Constitution in some cases doesn't make it right for us to. Of course we shouldn't have to have this fight every 20 years and we wouldn't have to now if after the last amnesty they'd actually enforced the rest of the immigration laws then, but they didn't and now we're stuck with 12-20 million people that we can NOT deport. Just because they scre*wed it up last time doesn't mean the idea itself was wrong, just badly done. Besides there IS no other answer except the grant amnsety and this time do it right!

[likeitis5050]

RandalDS The Constitution works great when our leaders follow it. But lately we have leaders picking and choosing which parts they want to follow and which parts just don't suit them. When it comes to terrorists...nah...Bush and his buddies don't see why they should have benefit of Constitutional rights..doesn't suit them. Toss the Constitution...replace with executive privilege. When it comes to giving our country away to criminals who work for less money...yeah...that works...make sure they follow our Constitution on that one! We, the people, prefer to follow, to the letter, our Constitution...and the laws that have been created around it. That includes our immigration laws. Just follow the immigration laws..PERIOD...and we won't have to have this discussion every 20 years!!!!

[randalds]

Below is why they can not just be kicked out without due process of law. Any person and that means ANY person within the territory of the United States is entitled to due process of law and equal protection under that law. Mass deportations would take decades and fill the jails by 12 to 15 million. We have a little over a million in jail now and our system is about to split at the seams now. It would cost several trillion dollars to deport the ones that are here now, plus it would be a body blow to our economy that depends on them.



Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. 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 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.

[randalds]

Oh yeah, putting aside the racism would do us no harm, either. When will you ILLEGAL ALIEN LOVERS come to understand it is not racism; it is our desire to see the LAWS of OUR country enforced at the same level for ALL.
Posted by bhappy2-2 at 07:00 PM : Jul 29, 2007

Enforce our laws? Are you kidding? Your option one violates our constitution and many of our laws itself. You can not confiscate their property or money without a court hearing to determine exactly what it is each one of them owns. That ought to take, oh let's see....I'd say about two or three generations of court time...80 to 100 years. then each one of the ones you want to deport gets a day in court, if for no other reason then to determine legally if they are or are not citizens so we don't accidentally deport legal Americans. Now that ought to take...oh say another generation or two. Now as for your next come back that they're here illegally so they don't deserve a day in court, look at Amendment 14 of the Constitution and you'll see that every person, here legally or not is guaranteed due process of law. Of course I suppose you could change that...that ought to take...oh well...you get the idea.....

[randalds]

Constantly arguing and re-arguing these local laws is ridiculous. We need real, comprehensive immigration reform, including a real path to citizenship for those already here (and yes, call it amnesty if you want, but the idea of mass deportation is an excersise in ignorance and an assine fantasy that will not work), a real Guest Worker program for those who just want to come here to work and a complete rebuild of the immigration department so those who want to immigrate here don't have to wait 10 or 15 years to do it.