Immigration Ruling Could Have Broad Impact

(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!

[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.

[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.

[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!!!!