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.

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

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.

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.

Tick tock…time to read that Declaration again.

aengus on July 26, 2007 at 7:06 PM

Good day to sir. I said Good Day!

“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!!”

The thing about just out and out perjuring yourself in front of Congress is your chance of success is higher in the absence of, say, documents and witnesses that confirm that you’re a big fat liar. [Think Progress, Capitol……

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….

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.

It sounds like they were outside interests!

July 26, 2007

District Court Ruling is Not the End of the Road for Local
Anti-Illegal Immigration Ordinances

The Right of Local Governments to Protect Citizenry
Will Ultimately be Decided by U.S. Supreme Court, Predicts FAIR

Washington DC – Today’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge James Munley, striking down ordinances in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, aimed at curtailing illegal immigration in that community is a disappointing, but not unexpected development, said the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). “This is an issue that will ultimately have to be ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court, and we are confident that when the high court reviews the facts of this case, they will side with the right of local communities to take steps to protect themselves against the destructive impact of mass illegal immigration,” predicted Dan Stein, president of FAIR.

FAIR and its legal affiliate, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), worked closely with Hazleton leaders to craft ordinances that comply with federal immigration laws and participated in defending the ordinances in court. In response to the district court ruling, FAIR and IRLI are joining with Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta in an appeal of the decision before the 3rd Circuit Court.

“The challenge to the Hazleton ordinance was brought by well-financed outside interests that are fundamentally opposed to just about any enforcement of U.S. immigration laws,” said Stein. “They were able to select a judge who was politically inclined to side with them. But today’s ruling is not the end of the road for the Hazleton ordinances or the many similar ones instituted by cities and towns all across the United States. Rather it is a step in a legal process that will inevitably lead to the Supreme Court.

“What is at stake, in addition to the right of local communities to protect themselves from the federal government’s malfeasance with regard to immigration enforcement, is also the right of local communities to govern how business and commerce are conducted within their jurisdictions,” said Stein. “Neither Hazleton, nor any of the other cities with similar policies, are regulating immigration, which is clearly an exclusive federal prerogative. Rather, they are setting rules for businesses and landlords who operate in Hazleton in a way that is entirely consistent with what local governments do every single day.”

The longstanding failure of the federal government to effectively enforce its own immigration laws is imposing severe burdens on state and local government. These jurisdictions are forced to provide education, emergency health care and other services, as well as deal with crimes committed by people who are in the country illegally. “It is simply unreasonable for the courts to leave these local communities with no legal recourse to deal with a serious problem that affects public safety and imposes significant fiscal burdens on them,” argued Stein.

“We are confident that when higher courts review this case they will conclude that Hazleton’s ordinances are a reasonable and lawful response to a real problem,” concluded Stein.

JustTruth101 on July 26, 2007 at 4:15 PM

GWB lackey’s, don’t waste your time.

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

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.

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

Wade is correct. This has nothing to do with the rule of naturalization.