Thread: Hazleton: Dismiss Lawsuit:

Hazleton: Dismiss Lawsuit: City Claims Those Challenging Immigration Laws Not Entitled to Constitutional Protections.
By Terrie Morgan-Besecker, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Times Leader

Feb. 3--HAZLETON -- Attorneys for the city are asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit that challenges the city's Illegal Immigration Relief Act.

In court papers filed last week, the city argues the plaintiffs in the case are seeking constitutional protections they are not entitled to either because they are in the United States illegally, or they have or may in the future illegally harbor or employ illegal immigrants -- both of which would violate federal immigration laws.

The ordinance, originally passed in July, makes it illegal for landlords to knowingly rent to illegal immigrants or for employers to hire them. It has undergone several revisions, but has not yet been implemented pending resolution of a lawsuit filed in August that seeks to have the law declared unconstitutional.

The suit, filed on behalf of 11 private citizens and three businesses and charitable organizations, alleges the ordinance violates numerous federal laws, including those that protect a person's right to free speech, due process and equal protection. The plaintiffs include several persons whose immigration status is in question.

The 102-page motion to dismiss, filed on Jan. 23, challenges each of the legal theories brought forth by the plaintiffs. The key argument focuses on whether they have legal standing to bring the suit.

Filed by Harry G. Mahoney of Philadelphia, the motion says the plaintiffs cite the federal Immigration and Naturalization Act. Mahoney maintains they are not entitled to protection under the act, however, because they either are currently in violation of it, or may violate it in the future.

For instance, several business owners have alleged they would be harmed if the ordinance was enforced against them, the motion says. To succeed on that allegation, the business people would have to prove they intend in the future to hire an unlawful worker -- an act that, by itself, would be illegal under current federal law.

"Plainly, employers who unlawfully employ illegal aliens and landlords who harbor illegal aliens were not entities that the INA was meant to protect," Mahoney wrote. "The same is true of an alien unlawfully present in the United States . . .They have no legal interest in remaining in Hazleton. Indeed, they have no legal interest

www.redorbit.com

Common Sense?

Dixie

challenges each of the legal theories brought forth by the plaintiffs

What could these be? I'll start. neils?

No human is illegal
The border crossed me
We are a nation of immigrants
The largest ethnicity of lawbreakers deserves exclusion

Originally Posted by Sovereign

The suit, filed on behalf of 11 private citizens and three businesses and charitable organizations, alleges the ordinance violates numerous federal laws, including those that protect a person's right to free speech, due process and equal protection.

"Plainly, employers who unlawfully employ illegal aliens and landlords who harbor illegal aliens were not entities that the INA was meant to protect," Mahoney wrote. "The same is true of an alien unlawfully present in the United States . . .They have no legal interest in remaining in Hazleton. Indeed, they have no legal interest

www.redorbit.com

The same principles should be applied on a National level for illegals: No legal interest in the USA therefore no legal interest (including free speech, due process and equal protection).

If I had to guess I would say the judge was appointed by slick willy

The same principles should be applied on a National level for illegals: No legal interest in the USA therefore no legal interest (including free speech, due process and equal protection).

You bet, the finding from this motion could affect any number of municipal immigration cases.

The legal eagles defending Hazelton seem to be really on the ball.
They seem to be presenting motions designed to set precedents that will defang organizations that are trying to bully anyone legislating against illegal migration.

Originally Posted by longcut

If I had to guess I would say the judge was appointed by slick willy

Longcut, what's even worse about this case is the judge denied a motion by the defense to reveal identities of those persons who are suing Hazleton because of their illegal status.
As I've said before, the right to have one's day in court should only belong to Americans and legal citizens.
It just makes me wonder how any judge can rule in favor of anything illegal.

are seeking constitutional protections they are not entitled to either because they are in the United States illegally, or they have or may in the future illegally harbor or employ illegal immigrants -- both of which would violate federal immigration laws.