Thread: Court tests await cities' laws on immigrants

Court tests await cities' laws on immigrants
Updated 10/9/2006 9:20 AM ET

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY
Cities and towns that have passed local laws aimed at driving out illegal immigrants are gearing up for court fights over whether they will be allowed to enforce them.

The key battles are being waged in Hazelton, Pa., Riverside, N.J. and Valley Park, Mo. Civil rights and business groups sued after each of those cities made it illegal to employ or rent housing to illegal immigrants. The lawsuits say the ordinances are discriminatory.

The court action has put the small communities at the forefront of a national debate over what to do about the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the USA at a time when Congress is considering a range of border security initiatives. If Hazelton, Riverside and Valley Park prevail in court, dozens of communities from Massachusetts to California are poised to follow their lead with similar ordinances.

More than 30 city councils have passed or are considering local measures aimed at curbing illegal immigrants' access to housing, voting and jobs. At the state level, lawmakers in 33 states have passed 78 bills, most of them imposing restrictions similar to the city measures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The laws challenge a principle established by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has long held that immigration policies fall under the authority of the federal government, not that of cities, counties or states. Local and state officials have pushed these measures because, they say, illegal immigrants are straining the budgets of local schools, hospitals and police.

"I am prepared to fight this to the highest court in the country if we have to," says Hazelton Mayor Lou Barletta. He says he gets calls every day from officials in other cities who want a copy of Hazleton's new law. "It's a good ordinance that other cities can model themselves after. The message is: Illegal aliens are not welcome here."

Barletta says he proposed Hazelton's new ordinance after a series of crimes allegedly involving illegal immigrants.

"Our police department is stretched beyond its limits. I've had enough," Barletta says.

The ordinance penalizes business owners and landlords — not the immigrants they employ or rent to — by revoking their licenses to do business.

To defend Hazleton's law, Barletta put together a legal team that includes a Philadelphia law firm and lawyers from conservative groups such as the Mountain States Legal Foundation and the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Michael Hethmon, a lawyer for the Immigration Reform Institute in Washington, D.C., helped Hazelton rewrite the ordinance that was passed in July to give it a better chance of surviving in court. Valley Park has since adopted the Hazelton model, and Riverside is considering whether to do so.

Hethmon says he thinks the revised ordinance will pass muster in court because it "respects the powers and authorities" of local and federal governments. The original law was vague about how a resident's immigration status would be determined. Under the revised law, the city would determine immigration status by submitting information to the federal government for verification. The revised ordinance also gives landlords and business owners three to five days to correct violations before fines and other penalties are imposed.

Some legal experts say the cities face an uphill fight.

"The line of cases stretches back 150 years in a range of situations that are analogous to what is happening now," says Michael Wishnie, a Yale Law School professor who specializes in immigration law. The Supreme Court "has made it very clear that the regulation of immigration is exclusively a federal function."


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... tion_x.htm

Posted 10/8/2006 10:37 PM ET
Updated 10/9/2006 9:20 AM ET

Added to home Page

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=N ... e&sid=1571

The Supreme Court "has made it very clear that the regulation of immigration is exclusively a federal function."

The Nationality Act of '96 gave provisions for state and local govts. I guess bank robbery and drug smuggling enforcement is strictly a federal function also, since they come under that juristition. Any police officer is sworn to uphold the law, irregardless of whose function. This "ain't my job" garbage has to go! States have the right to uphold federal statutes just as if they were written into their own laws. Tennessee has it's own set of immigration laws that worked very well up until 1986.

Now gofer, is it possible you have shamed a Yale Man?

Gopher's right. I say any federal law is a law that the local police should enforce. States should be able to define their own laws and have the police enforce them as well.