Thread: Hazleton law expected to change again

http://www.citizensvoice.com/site/news. ... 5154&rfi=6 -

Hazleton law expected to change again

BY WADE MALCOLM
STAFF WRITER

12/27/2006

Since June, Hazleton has tried, unsuccessfully, to enforce an ordinance targeting illegal immigrants.



Now the city will have to put those plans on hold even longer.

Hoping to improve its chances in court, Hazleton City Council will vote Thursday on a new landlord-tenant registration act and yet another amendment to the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, in a move that would alter the scope of the ordinance and delay a federal lawsuit against the city.

Among the changes, the city no longer seeks to register every tenant in the city, Mayor Lou Barletta said Tuesday. It eliminates one key measure opposed by civil rights groups that brought the suit on behalf of more than a dozen Hazleton residents.

Council also plans to amend an entire section to the ordinance to “clarify” the implementation of the ordinance, Barletta added.

With the nature of the case now changed, the two sides agreed to set a tentative trial date of Aug. 6, more than a year after Barletta proposed the ordinance in June. The trial for the lawsuit brought by civil rights groups against the ordinance had been scheduled for late January. In the meantime, the agreement stipulates Hazleton cannot enforce the new immigration ordinance until the case is resolved. The agreement is pending the approval of U.S. District Judge James M. Munley.

The amendment states the ordinance would not be retroactive, meaning only landlords leasing to or businesses hiring illegal immigrants after the ordinance takes effect would be subject to fines.

Since Barletta first proposed the ordinance that would punish landlords who rent to and businesses who hire illegal immigrants, it has undergone numerous revisions. This latest version is an improvement with some added due process protections, said American Civil Liberties Union attorney Witold J. Walczak. But the plaintiffs plan to continue challenging the new law.

With the case now expected to drag on for several more months, legal fees on both sides will continue to mount. If it loses the case, Hazleton would be responsible for the plaintiffs’ legal fees, which would now easily exceed $1 million. Hazleton’s annual budget is only about $7.5 million.

The city’s insurance policies, however, will cover the cost of legal fees, Barletta said Tuesday. Asked if he was worried about saddling taxpayers with the expense, Barletta, without offering further specifics, vowed he would find a way to finance the legal fight.

“We may be one small city with a small budget, but it’s a small city with a big heart,” Barletta said. “And we’re fighting this fight for cities and towns across the country (more than 30 of whom have considered or enacted similar ordinance). We’ll find a way to keep fighting.”

Barletta has said for months the city would appeal the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.

“I think they’re in it for the long haul,” Walczak said. “Barletta doesn’t apparently care that he could cost taxpayers millions of dollars.”

The entire case could end up being a moot point, however, if a report in Tuesday’s New York Times is correct. The new incoming Democratic majority on Capitol Hill plans to propose an immigrant reform bill next month that would provide amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, the newspaper reported.

wmalcolm@citizensvoice.com

if a report in Tuesday’s New York Times is correct. The new incoming Democratic majority on Capitol Hill plans to propose an immigrant reform bill next month that would provide amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, the newspaper reported

Not if We the People" have anything to say about it.

A trial date of August? Sounds like it is being timed perfectly to fall after they think amnesty would be granted, making a trial moot.

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/16338767.htm

Posted on Thu, Dec. 28, 2006email thisprint thisreprint or license this
Hazleton council OKs relief act amendment
By STEVE MOCARSKY smocarsky@timesleader.com
HAZLETON – City Council at its regular Thursday meeting voted to amend the Illegal Immigration Relief Act with language that provides a loophole enabling illegal immigrants to rent dwellings in the city without repercussions.

The amendment says that the city would not be able to penalize illegal immigrants and landlords who enter into automatically renewing leases before the law goes into effect.

A Times Leader reporter pointed out the loophole to Mayor Louis Barletta on Wednesday, but the mayor said he didn’t see a need to change the language of the amendment.

Barletta had said he thought most landlords want to obey the city’s laws, and he found it “possible but unlikely” that landlords would conspire to devise an agreement with illegal aliens to get around the illegal immigration ordinance.

The ordinance, which a federal judge blocked pending a trial to determine its constitutionality, would punish landlords and employers who knowingly rent to or employ illegal aliens.

Read more on the council meeting in Friday’s Times Leader.

This article has more details:

http://www.standardspeaker.com/index.ph ... 6&Itemid=2

City formalizes changes to IIRA
Friday, 29 December 2006
By L.A. TARONE
Hazleton City Council formalized changes to the controversial Illegal Immigration Relief Act (IIRA) and the Landlords Registration Ordinance Thursday night.
Revisions to both were second and third readings – first reading was passed two weeks ago.
Both revisions passed unanimously Thursday night.
Both proposals are in response to the restraining order issued by federal Judge James M. Munley of U.S. District Court in Scranton.
While the list of IIRA changes is called the Illegal Immigration Relief Act Implementation Amendment, the provisions themselves are more elucidations than alterations. They were compiled by attorney Kris Kobach – part of the city’s legal team defending IIRA against the suit filed against it by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union and others – with input from Solicitor Chris Slusser.
Kobach attended the meeting in which the revisions were passed on first reading two weeks ago. He said the IIRAIA “is intended to clarify a few issues, which perhaps can be read in two ways, and which have been misread by attorneys involved in the suit.”
The first clause states IIRA is prospective, not retroactive. The second notes that under federal law, those entering into lease agreements must have legal residence.
The third lists three conditions under which penalties would not be imposed on employers found hiring illegals: if the employer fires the illegal; if an employer is trying to verify a person’s resident status; and if a business tried to fire an illegal, but was the subject of legal action from the illegal.
The fourth does the same regarding landlords renting to illegals: if the landlord asks the city to get additional verification of immigration status; and if a tenant files legal action against the landlord.
The fifth clause states that if the federal government takes time to determine an immigrant’s legal status, the city would wait until the determination is formally made before beginning enforcement proceedings.
The sixth states that any legal challenge to any action the city takes under IIRA would begin at the district judge level, but could be appealed to Luzerne County Common Pleas Court, and through the state’s court system, as with all legal action. The seventh clause states the city will rely on the federal government’s determination of a person’s legal status – it will not try to make its own determination.
IIRAIA passed with no discussion.
There is a line in the first clause that exempts anyone renting a dwelling without a formal written lease: “The renewal of a month-to-month lease or another type of tenancy which automatically renews absent notice by either party will not be considered as entering into a new contract to let, lease or rent a dwelling unit.”
That exempts tenancies carried out through informal agreements.
Also, since the ordinance is prospective, not retroactive, formal leases between legal landlords and illegal alien renters are exempt, but only until the lease is renewed. After that, it becomes a new lease and would be covered by IIRA.
The revision to the landlord ordinance is a significant change.
Initially, council adopted a version of it in 2004. But it made changes to it in September. Those changes were designed to make it, in effect, IIRA’s enabling legislation. But Munley’s restraining order also prohibited the city from enforcing the new landlord’s ordinance.
So, the changes formalized Thursday night basically repeal the changes made in September. The most significant impact of that is tenants do not have to register with City Hall.
The ordinance had required landlords to register rental properties with the city, provide City Hall with information and get an annual license for each unit (at $5 each). It also required “new occupants” to register with the city, and upon the law’s adoption, every tenant was a new occupant.
However, Thursday night’s revision removed the new occupants registration. It also removed most of the exemptions.
The version adopted in September applied to most residential rental properties, but exempted hotels, motels, dorms, units owned by public authorities (such as the Hazleton Housing Authority), elderly apartments and double homes, if the owner lived in one half.
The version adopted Thursday exempts only hotels and motels. All other rental units are covered.
< Prev Next >