Federal judge strikes down Pennsylvania town’s anti-illegal immigrant laws
posted at 3:47 pm on July 26, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
A model law for local governments around the country, up in smoke thanks to a Clinton appointee.
A federal judge on Thursday struck down the city of Hazleton’s tough crackdown on illegal immigrants, ruling unconstitutional a law that has been emulated by towns and cities around the nation.
The Illegal Immigration Relief Act 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.
It was pushed by Hazleton’s Republican mayor last summer after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting…
More than 90 communities across the U.S., frustrated by the Congressional impasse on dealing with illegal immigrants, have considered or approved measures similar to Hazleton’s. U.S. District Judge James Munley’s ruling does not affect those measures.
The behemoth, 206-page opinion is here. I’m going to flip through it even though I can guess what the oh so ironic reasoning was: preemption, a doctrine stemming from the Supremacy Clause which holds that certain subjects are the exclusive domain of the federal government and beyond the purview of the states to legislate, federalism concerns notwithstanding. Which, in the case of immigration, would mean that state governments that are willing and able to do something must stand by and defer to a federal government that’s willing and able to do nothing. The plaintiffs made equal protection and due process claims too, though; I can’t wait to see how far those extend to non-citizens. Pretty far, at least, in the case of EP.
Update: The illegals won on the preemption and due process claims but lost on equal protection because, interestingly, the court found they couldn’t prove a discriminatory purpose. The DP claim should be easy but expensive to cure by giving them hearings or notice. The question on appeal will be whether the state can do that itself or whether, per the preemption reasoning, only a federal immigration judge can do so.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
appeal, appeal, appeal.
C’mon Roberts court!
Speakup on July 26, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Hmmm… may have a work around for them..
As you all know it was historicly accurate to be a citizen of a State, which made you a citizen of the United States…
Our forefathers talked about being Citizens of the Great State of Virginia and such…
Now… you cannot, under the Constitution stop an American Citizen from moving to your state, BUT, you can check STATE Citizenship for things like business licenses and such… and to become a STATE Citizen, you can check their FEDERAL Citizenship… ie their docs…
Basic Federalism here…. your not denying them Ferderal rights, but you are denying them priveleges granted to STATE Citizens (much like instate tuition and such… precedent there)…
What ya think? Possible workaround?
Romeo13 on July 26, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Its been a few years since I’ve been to Hazleton. I wonder if they’ll ignore the ruling or work around it and try a new rule. Barletta won handily last year because people are so sick of the illegal situation there. I wonder if they’ll try and appeal to the Supreme Court…
Bad Candy on July 26, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Suicide, thy name is Court.
(And I don’t mean Bud.)
This has to go to the Supreme Court.
If the Feds are derelect in their duty, why should this prevent the States from doing their’s?
profitsbeard on July 26, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Romeo13-
Sounds like a good start, since it is only legalistic minutae, not reality, that matters to these cloaked clowns.
Viva Hazelton!
profitsbeard on July 26, 2007 at 4:03 PM
nice
jambus59 on July 26, 2007 at 4:09 PM
“The court has made it’s decision - now let’s see them enforce it.”
– Andrew Jackson
mojo on July 26, 2007 at 4:13 PM
It seems to me that, if the Federal government abdicates its responsibilty for controlling our national borders - thereby forcing the States to have to deal with issues created solely by said abdication - then the States should be able to deal with same, as each State deems necessary.
But, hell, when did common sense and the Federal government ever see eye to eye? Federalism is just a word.
OhEssYouCowboys on July 26, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Send it to the Supremes!
JustTruth101 on July 26, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Constitution itself states that there are STATE Citizens… interesting…
Now you cannot stop them form priveleges or immunities… but it sure seems to me you could control who is a citizen of YOUR state… and force them to give you proof of citizenship… either of your state, or the state they are a citizen of…. and if they are NOT a citizen, then you DON’T have to give them citizenship rights…
This is the attack I’d use to this problem… straight Federalist arguement…. Ya listeing Newt/Fred?
Romeo13 on July 26, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Oh, forget my earlier post, I forgot that the States are only dealing with “undocumented Americans” … right Harriet Reid? ‘Nuff said.
OhEssYouCowboys on July 26, 2007 at 4:19 PM
“More than 90 communities across the U.S., frustrated by the Congressional impasse on dealing with illegal immigrants….”
No, we aren’t frustrated by Congress. We are frustrated by Bush. He’s the chief executive, he runs the executive branch. Illegals should be running scared, but they’re not. Bush is not doing his job, and it is not because he is incompetent. He doesn’t care, and his lack of caring borders on treachery.
archon2001 on July 26, 2007 at 4:20 PM
And Hmmmm…. just struck me… you can’t vote unless you are a Citizen under the Constitution… but each State then runs its own Election rules… so you are in effect having to check US Citizenship at the State level to see if they can vote…
EXACT same thing as this city was trying to do… check citizenship to see if they would get priveleges the City/state allows them….
Romeo13 on July 26, 2007 at 4:20 PM
How about public shaming of landlords renting to illegals? Videotape the slum dwellings then talk about what sort of neighborhoods the landlords themselves live in. “Citizens of Hazleton, you are now forced to live with this [show day laborers leering at women walking down the street, trash around the residences, public urination, etc.] while these selfish, greedy landlords live high off the rent they’re getting”. The landlords shouldn’t get off for the problems they cause.
TK on July 26, 2007 at 4:22 PM
I graduated from Penn State in the late 90’s. My best friend did his first two years at the Hazleton campus. Suprisingly, I did not know central PA had an illegal immigrant problem.
BadBrad on July 26, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Relax. They’re just striking down the laws that ordinary Americans are too lazy to strike down for themselves.
/sarcasm off
CyberCipher on July 26, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Only after INS raids Hazleton
Wade on July 26, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Damned landlords, they should be shamed for going over the border and forcing people into the USA to rent their property. Get a grip!
Wade on July 26, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Just another liberal judge attempting to legislate liberal policies. There is no “legal system” in this country, there’s only robed social manipulators.
rplat on July 26, 2007 at 4:45 PM
It didn’t. Neither did a lot of places.
JiangxiDad on July 26, 2007 at 4:48 PM
This is the crux of the whole matter, IMO. Things are going to be handled locally from now on. As Robert Kaplan says, ‘Things that can be handled locally will be.’ Why should the courts be heeded? Because you would have anarchy? How is that different than the situation now?
This is the exact thing the courts did with Prop 187 in CA.
PRCalDude on July 26, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Normally I would start hollering about states rights and how we lost rights as states about 140 years ago.
But this is a law that was passed by a city. We could argue that the limited powers specified in the constitution that the federal government has in these issues prevents the court from being able to make a decision. That the sole authority resides with the state courts….Oh there I go thinking I am living in 1860 again.
conservnut on July 26, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Sorry folks. Aricle 1 Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” So it’s an enumerated federal power that clearly is exclusive.
radjah shelduck on July 26, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Nothing to worry about at this point. This is just the lower-level federal court speaking. The local government can appeal, and they should have expected a challenge.
Maxx on July 26, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Let’s get that mayor for President.
Hening on July 26, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Landlords can not legally discriminate. It is just a matter of time before the illegals get formally lumped in with the other protected minorities. There will be lawsuits left and right for refusing to rent to them.
jman on July 26, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Nice try. The city was not trying to change any naturalization laws and I can not find in the Constitution anything about renting to and or employment of illegal aliens.
Wade on July 26, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Might be a good time for good Federalist like oh, say, Fred Dalton Thompson, to offer to represent Hazleton pro bono. Just while he’s deciding whether to run, of course.
bdfaith on July 26, 2007 at 5:29 PM
As a real estate investor, I have been to these slums you speak about. I assure you that it is not the landlords punching holes in the walls, smashing windows, letting their dogs urinate on the carpets, putting graffiti on the houses and spewing the streets with trash 2 inches deep.
A lot of the profit you mention goes into having to spend thousands of dollars making the house livable again after the tenant is evicted for not paying the rent for months on end. The landlord eats all of the unpaid rent.
I can also tell you that you would have to be nuts to rent to a person with no documentation or payment history. Pretty soon, at this rate, landlords won’t have a choice.
jman on July 26, 2007 at 5:33 PM
And according to that Rule (however uniform it may be), illegal immigrants have immigrated illegally, so I wonder what you imagine your point is. In any case, you toss off a snippet of Constitutional text without attempting to show the text’s relation to the American regime, the good, or justice. (Yes, I chose the expression “toss off” with care.) I wonder how you expect to persuade reasonable human beings with such a tactical nullity. More importantly, I wonder how you expect to uphold the American Constitution, by which I mean its regime, by treating the written Constitution in such a superficial, clumsy way.
Kralizec on July 26, 2007 at 5:34 PM
The Fereral govt. is the biggest employer of illegals that exists.
Mojave Mark on July 26, 2007 at 5:48 PM
IMHO;
Where I think this particular Clinton attack dog went wrong is, none of the Hazelton ordinances excludes Federal law.
Also, any recognized American City has it’s own jurisdiction inside of which municipal regulation is a separate right.
The ordinance also employs the verbiage ‘knowingly’ which should separate the ‘individual’ from burden of proof and place it on the City.
So long as the Hazelton actions do not usurp or displace Federal jurisdiction, the City has every right to regulate, business and tenancy, within the City limits.
Congress should review every single Clinton activist Jurist.
Oh wait, Republicans don’t have a majority anymore and they didn’t have the stones to do it before.
Who the hell’s fault is/was that? Republican lawmakers that who.
Speakup on July 26, 2007 at 5:53 PM
I’m probably just too stupid to ever understand.
Why is it bad when state or local governments try to enforce immigration laws, but good when they want to enforce drug laws or anti-Second Amendment gun laws?
Diane C. Russell on July 26, 2007 at 5:57 PM
Wade is correct. This has nothing to do with the rule of naturalization.
conservnut on July 26, 2007 at 5:57 PM
BTW, you are right here too. These are not rights as defined by the constitution. Of course these folks are not entitled to constitutional rights anyway.
conservnut on July 26, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Send it to the Supremes!
JustTruth101 on July 26, 2007 at 4:15 PM
GWB lackey’s, don’t waste your time.
Legions on July 26, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Via email from FAIR:
Gregor on July 26, 2007 at 6:01 PM
FAIR’s press release can be found online HERE.
Gregor on July 26, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Hmmm… interesting question… those who opposed this law… how did they have standing to do so?
It sounds like they were outside interests!
Romeo13 on July 26, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Those at the federal level -who are not doing the job that the people of Hazelton are trying to do in their stead- should be dragged into court for derelection of duty, malfeasance in office, the taking of a false oath (to uphold and defend the Constitution), rank corruption and complete incompetence.
They are the problem.
And their failure to enforce the laws and protect the borders forces lower level law enforcement jurisdictions to carry their abandoned duties.
Countersue the feds.
profitsbeard on July 26, 2007 at 6:26 PM
So does this ruling also strike down ‘Sanctuary Cities’ laws?
It basically says that local governments cannot make laws regarding immigration status since its in the exclusive domain of the Federal Government? So city clowncils should not be able to forbid a police officer from checking and reporing immigation status….
CrazyFool on July 26, 2007 at 6:40 PM
South Carolina seceded from the Union based on a state’s right to have slaves (among other rights). Clearly, SC was right for seceding even if for the wrong over-arcing reason.
SouthernGent on July 26, 2007 at 6:58 PM
F- that.
aengus on July 26, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Eh my last comment was a little crude so let me try again:
“You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!!”
aengus on July 26, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Irony so rich you can thicken your soup with it. We’re off to see the Wizards, the Wonderful Wizards of SCOTUS…
Jaibones on July 26, 2007 at 7:08 PM
The Mayor tonight on Lou Dobbs says, he’s taking it to a higher court..His fight is our fight. Any way for HotAir to raise a website and send them some badly needed funds for OUR fight. I’m sure LaRaza is using our tax dollars to fund their legal expenses.
Legions on July 26, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Good day to sir. I said Good Day!
Jaibones on July 26, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Pennsylvania has been run over with illegals recently. We had a triple murder in Altoona committed by an illegal 3 years ago He is sitting on death row now..althought the Mexican government wanted him back as soon as he was charged. They picked up 15 illegals in State College recently and 7 illegal morrocans last week in Altoona! This is an outrage and I hope this liberal judge is overturned!
becki51758 on July 26, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Once a federal court was able to get away with striking down California’s Prop 187, they feel certain that they can dictate any form of immigration NON-enforcement they wish to the states.
Tick tock…time to read that Declaration again.
Freelancer on July 26, 2007 at 7:59 PM
Clinton appointed judge~~~~~~~~>Yet another reason to NEVER vote Democrat!
ericire12 on July 26, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Legions-
Here’s the link for the Hazelton Legal defense fund.
It would be nice if HA put their page link as a little sidebar.
This is a VITAL fight, and the mayor, Lou Barletta, is a well-spoken and reasonable guy.
If he wins, WE win.
If he loses, we’re screwed.
profitsbeard on July 26, 2007 at 9:40 PM
Lib judges stink. Rotting this country from the inside out.
BadgerHawk on July 26, 2007 at 10:26 PM
That was the final nail in the coffin (although it wasn’t clearly evident at the time) of the great state of California. Ever since then Americans in CA have been in a slow state of retreat.
infidel4life on July 26, 2007 at 11:52 PM
profitsbeard, Thanks for the link. Don’t have a whole lot of money these days, got enough to send some to the Mayor and Tom Tancredo (even if he doesn’t win it just makes me feel good)
Legions on July 27, 2007 at 6:10 AM
I thought the documents put together by the Founding Fathers (no PC allowed here) pertained to the legal citizens of this Country? I don’t remember a “Juan” supplying a signature at the bottom.
stanfil2 on July 27, 2007 at 6:23 AM
So here we sit,,,,, the American people make another law to protect themselves against criminals from other countries,, a liberal communist group whose members live in far away power communities, sues the American people for messing with the criminals from the other countries. A rich liberal Marxist judge living safely away from the communities and homes affected, agrees with the criminals from the other countries and decides against the American people who just want to protect themselves. Yep,, all makes sense to me.
JellyToast on July 27, 2007 at 8:39 AM
I swear that I have never been a “conspiracy” person but of late I feel that there is some major unseen “force” behind this government pressure to legalize those who have not just broken our laws but in many ways are hurting our nation more than helping it by remaining here.
Our president and way too many senators seem to see amnesty as some sort of Holy Grail. Is there that much of a disconnect between our elite legislators and those of us who must wait at the back of long lines in the Emergency Rooms that used to serve us well…. those of us who struggle to understand whether the person taking our order at Mc Donalds has understood what we just said?
Am I right believing that these multi-term elitests live in such a different reality from us that it’s impossible for them to say they represent us? They hardly know about our lives and our dailey worries. Are they approaching retirement with just Social Security to rely on?
If not “disconnect”, then WHAT force is it that pushes these men toward somthing that the majority of citizens have made clear we don’t want?
I would like to hear some discussion on this by persons who’s oppinions I value much higher than the oppinions of most of our Senators.
Ernest on July 27, 2007 at 9:46 AM