Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member steelerbabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Bethel Park, Pa.
    Posts
    1,470

    ACLU Right for Wrong Reasons on Hazelton, Pa.

    http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4208941

    ACLU right for wrong reasons on Hazelton, Pa., illegal immigration law
    By Conor Friedersdorf, Staff Writer



    (This is a twice weekly column written by Conor Friedersdorf, who is managing the Daily Bulletin's blog, or special Web site, on immigration issues. The blog is designed to provide a forum for opinions and information on immigration. The blog is at www.beyondbordersblog.com.)
    In a few weeks Hazelton, Pa., plans to begin fining landlords who rent to illegal immigrants, deny business permits to those who employ illegal immigrants, and otherwise attempt to drive illegal immigrants from the municipality.

    The law, mimicked by other cities around the United States, now faces a legal challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.

    "If the Ordinance is allowed to stand, anyone who looks or sounds ‘foreign' - regardless of their actual immigration status - will not be able to participate meaningfully in life in Hazleton, returning to the days when discriminatory laws forbade certain classes of people from owning land, running businesses or living in certain places," the ACLU's complaint says.

    I find that rhetoric overblown. The Hazelton ordinance shouldn't be equated with feudalism or the Jim Crow South. Anyone here legally is unaffected by the law's terms regardless of their race or class. Nor do I necessarily find the law unconstitutional, as the ACLU argues.

    Even so, the law is an affront to our freedom. It seems to me that an ordinance fining landlords might work one of two ways.

    Method one requires landlords to verify the legal status of anyone who rents from them. I think the ACLU argues persuasively against this approach. It places landlords "in the intractable position of having, on the one hand, to demand proof of status from every suspected ‘illegal alien' to avoid the risk of incurring fines and losing municipal operating permits and licenses or, on the other hand, denying service to lawful residents as a precaution against violating the Ordinance, thereby risking liability for violating Federal and state anti-discrimination laws." In other words, landlords are darned if they do, darned if they don't.

    Another approach is possible.

    The city could require all prospective tenants to march down to city hall, show proof of legal residency and obtain a permit to rent. That approach wouldn't discriminate against anyone, nor would it require landlords to do any guesswork.

    But do we really want to live in a country where law-abiding citizens are required to march down to city hall with their birth certificate just to rent an apartment? Do you think the government should be able to force you to prove your legal status to continue living in your home? How would you react if a police officer knocked on your door tomorrow, demanding to see your birth certificate? It sounds like a police state.

    The ACLU should stick to those arguments. Unfortunately, the group offers a couple other bizarre arguments against the Hazelton law, discrediting its sometimes useful work, per its usual habit. "The Ordinance impinges upon the First Amendment free speech rights of limited English proficiency residents by requiring that all written municipal government communications be in English," the ACLU writes. In other words, they're asserting a First Amendment right to government forms in your native tongue, an interpretation that tempts one to think that they need a copy of the Constitution in a language that they can understand. The ACLU also argues that immigration laws are exclusively under the jurisdiction of the federal government. In fact, localities often legislate on federal matters and are usually free to do so as long as local law doesn't conflict with the federal law. It's a federal hate crime to beat up someone because they are black. Surely the ACLU doesn't object to local legislators criminalizing such assaults, or arresting the perpetrator of a hate crime rather than waiting around for the nearest FBI agent to arrive.

    Finally, a consistent stance would require the ACLU to oppose local attempts to legislate on the topic of immigration even when the result helps illegal immigrants. Cambridge, Mass., surely weighed in on the immigration debate when it declared itself a sanctuary city.

    Somehow, however, immigrant advocates haven't agitated about that municipality making law related to immigration.

    It's sometimes hard to look past the intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy of some who oppose the Hazelton ordinance, particularly when they attempt to impose their will through contrived judicial arguments.

  2. #2
    Senior Member ronny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    173
    Kind of off base in several ways. "But do we really want to live in a country where law-abiding citizens are required to march down to city hall with their birth certificate just to rent an apartment?" Well, I recently went to DMV to renew my license and they needed my SS#. I have it memorized, but that wasn't good enough, I had to have an actual legal statement or card. So I then had to drive across town to "March down to city hall with my birth certificate just to" get my SS card, "just to" get my license. All of us have to "March down to city hall with our birth certificate" for several things; passport, social sservices, anything we need government related. This is just one more thing. Besides when the REAL ID comes to fruition, won't that take care of all the marching??

  3. #3
    Senior Member steelerbabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Bethel Park, Pa.
    Posts
    1,470
    We had to jump through hoops to get a Pa. drivers license after we moved from Va. I needed original birth certificate and my marriage license along with other documentations to be legal. ALso here in Pa., you cannot register your car or get inspection with current proof of insurance.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •