If Hazelton's immigration law is unconstitutional than why are sanctuary cities allowed? In my classes in criminal justice we were taught that all federal laws had to be followed but states had the right to make those laws stricter. They did not have the option of not following them or making them more lenient. I think we need to remind the government about this.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... azelton_pa

Pennsylvania Town's Anti-Immigrant Laws Struck Down by Judge

By Julianna Goldman

July 27 (Bloomberg) -- A federal judge overturned laws a Pennsylvania town passed last year in an effort to crack down on illegal immigration, saying they were unconstitutional.

Hazleton, Pennsylvania, required that English be the official language, suspended business permits of employers who hired illegal workers and required renters to obtain occupancy permits. The permits were available only if the renters were citizens or lawful residents.

Hazleton's city council passed the laws in response to an influx of immigrants. The town's population of about 23,000 people in 2000 increased by almost 10,000 in six years as Hispanics moved from New York and New Jersey after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to documents filed in the case. Immigrant groups sued to overturn the law.

``The genius of our Constitution is that it provides rights even to those who evoke the least sympathy from the general public,'' U.S. District Judge James M. Munley wrote in a decision yesterday. ``Whatever frustrations officials of the City of Hazleton may feel about the current state of federal immigration enforcement, the nature of the political system in the United States prohibits the city from enacting ordinances that disrupt a carefully drawn federal statutory scheme.''

The debate over immigration policies in Hazleton reflects the broader debate at the local, state and federal levels. The failure of Congress to overhaul the nation's immigration laws has prompted cities like Hazleton to adopt their own approaches.

Legislation that would have provided temporary work permits and a path to citizenship for an estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. collapsed in the Senate in June after 53 senators, mostly Republicans, opposed efforts to advance the bill.

Thompson, Obama

Reaction to the decision largely fell along party lines, with Republicans opposing the judge's ruling and Democrats hailing it. Former Senator Fred Thompson, a likely Republican presidential candidate, said local governments should enact their own policies instead of waiting for action from the federal government.

``It shouldn't come as a surprise that the governments closest to the people -- municipal and state -- are looking to take action. This is an entirely proper role for these governments,'' Thompson said in a statement. ``No doubt, this ruling will be appealed. And it should be.''

In a statement, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a Democrat running for president, said the ``ruling by Judge James Munley is a victory for all Americans'' and called the city's law ``unconstitutional and unworkable.''

The ruling ``underscores the need for comprehensive immigration reform so local communities do not continue to take matters into their own hands,'' Obama said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Julianna Goldman in Washington at jgoldman6@bloomberg.net