Thread: Hazelton update: Judge Extends Block on Immigrant Law

http://link.toolbot.com/latimes.com/22770

Judge Extends Block on Immigrant Law
By Associated Press
11:34 AM PST, November 6, 2006


SCRANTON, Pa. -- A federal judge's order temporarily blocking the city of Hazleton from enforcing a crackdown on illegal immigrants was extended Monday to give both sides time to prepare for a trial.

U.S. District Judge James Munley, whose temporary restraining order was due to expire Nov. 14, extended it for up to 120 days. He said he would prefer that the trial begin within 90 days.

A pair of measures approved by City Council last month would fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants, deny business permits to companies that hire them, and require tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.

Hispanic groups and the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit to overturn the crackdown, contending it tramples on the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration.

The city defends the law as necessary to protect legal residents from crime.

6 months??? Now that really sucks! Just enough time for the illegals to move back in and take over once again. Everytime we think we have taken one step forward, the illegal supporters come along and force us to take two steps back

I'd say we have to go through this. The federal government can fail in its' duty, but that doesn't allow illegal aliens to reside on my street. We must fight for our right to determine how we'll live under law and order. We need to start pushing the feds back to where they belong on foreign policy issues.

I guess if we see someone robbing a bank, we should just let it go because bank robbery is a federal offense? No need for any local law enforcement officer to respond to a bank robbery in progress because it is a federal matter.

How convenient for the pro-illegal side. They get to say that cities cannot enforce immigration laws, knowing full well that the federal government won't do it. That is de facto telling law abiding, tax paying citizens that they are FORCED to sit by and watch the crime rate rise, their schools and hospitals become overcrowded and their general quality of life decline. The ACLU is disgraceful. I hope they don't shop this case to some left-wing activist judge who will rule in their favor.

I like your first paragraph, noyoucannot. I think I should use it on the Police Chief of the City of Miami. He stated in the Miami Herald that his department will only allow police officers to ask if someone is illegal if they committed a crime. Thank God I am in the Miami-Dade jurisdiction. Here they turn them over to ICE and have no problems doing so. They had a juvenile and his family deported back to Guatamala. The kid was caught shop lifting at Wal Mart. The county and ICE worked together for 2 weeks and caught 390 illegals. I hope this continues.

U.S. District Judge James Munley, whose temporary restraining order was due to expire Nov. 14, extended it for up to 120 days. He said he would prefer that the trial begin within 90 days.

Hmmm......perhaps this is being done in anticipation of the Democrats taking control of the U.S. House. 120 days should provide ample time for an amnesty bill to be passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Bush!

This is complete B.S.

November 6, 2006

Hazleton law deserved to be blocked, illegal immigrants are a federal problem

Hazleton was supposed to start enforcing the two ordinances it passed to control illegal immigration in the borough last week. But a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order hours before the laws were to go into effect on Wednesday. The stay expires Nov. 14.

This hasn't deterred Hazleton Mayor Louis Barletta, who pushed the ordinances as a way of fighting the crime in his Luzerne County community that he says is caused by illegal immigrants. Earlier this year, two illegal aliens from the Dominican Republic had been arrested in a murder in the city. Mayor Barletta's campaign has gained national attention, and other municipalities adopted similar ordinances.

All of this has been happening with the unresolved national debate about illegal immigration as a back drop. Part of the reason communities like Hazleton decided to try to take matters into their own hands is because the federal government has failed to effectively control illegal immigration. Here in the Lehigh Valley, Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli has made prosecution of illegal aliens a priority. And Allentown City Councilman Lou Hershman tried to get the city to adopt a proposal of his to combat the perceived problem.

However, immigration — legal and illegal — is the responsibility of the federal government. So says the U.S. Constitution. A patchwork of local ordinances across the nation would result in national confusion in addition to violation of the Constitution.

So, when U.S. Judge James W. Munley heard preliminary arguments to prevent Hazleton from enforcing its ordinances — one aimed at renters, another aimed at businesses who might employ illegal aliens — he had to consider the Constitution. The plaintiffs, a group of Hazleton residents including citizens, resident aliens and illegal aliens, Casa Dominica of Hazleton Inc., Hazleton Hispanic Business Association and Pennsylvania Latino Coalition, had alleged that their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection were being violated.

Judge Munley also had to consider what was in the public's best interest — whether people were suffering irreparable harm, so here's where some irony comes in. Some of the plaintiffs are legal residents, members of the public that calls itself Hazleton. Some have suffered business losses. Children are having their educations threatened. Families face the prospect of losing their homes.

Yet Judge Munley said city officials had offered only ''vague complaints'' to justify the ordinances. Mayor Barletta has admitted he doesn't know how many illegal immigrants make up the borough's growing Hispanic population. That isn't enough to outweigh the potential public harm, said the judge. Mayor Barletta promises to fight all the way to the Supreme Court. His energy would be better spent if he pushed Congress to do something.

Note: There is a place to leave comments on the Morning Call website following this article.

Dixie

Added to Home Page
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=N ... e&sid=1671

http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?new ... 6271&rfi=8

Immigration bill delayed by judge

BY WADE MALCOLM
AND ANDREA T. TURANO
TIMES • shamrock writer
staff writer
aturano@republicanherald.com
11/02/2006


SCRANTON — Hazleton’s effort to expel illegal immigrants suffered another setback Tuesday when a federal judge granted an order temporarily stopping enforcement of two ordinances set to take effect this morning.

The court order bars the city from enforcing the ordinances — which would have punished landlords renting to illegal immigrants and businesses employing them — until Nov. 14.

In a 13-page ruling, federal Judge James M. Munley stated the attorneys representing several plaintiffs from Hazleton had sufficiently shown that irreparable harm would occur if the ordinances took effect.

The federal ruling has some Schuylkill County municipalities reconsidering their decision to adopt an ordinance.

Frackville Borough Council President Stephen H. Bobiak said that although the council decided to advertise the ordinance at its October meeting, they’re now at a standstill.

“Our solicitor put it on a wait-and-see situation ...” and tabled it for two months, he said. “It was on the agenda two to three meetings ago. We were going to adopt what Hazleton was going to do.”

Shenandoah Mayor Thomas F. O’Neill said Shenandoah Borough Council is also holding back to see what is going to happen with the Hazleton case.

Shenandoah council voted to advertise the Illegal Immigration Relief Act in September.

“We wanted the solicitor to review and recommend what we should do,” O’Neill said. “We were anticipating it would be approved at the next meeting.”

But plans will most likely change, he said.

“I know it is a very touchy situation. I believe it is a quality-of-life issue,” O’Neill said. “We want to preserve our community. We’re not looking to discriminate any people or group of people.”

On the other hand, he said, municipalities need to enforce what federal government has neglected to protect the citizens of the community.

“We just want to maintain the status of the community. We have people moving into a house and then 20 to 30 people move in. It just gets hard on the neighborhood,” he said.

Bobiak, however said, there have been some economic problems because immigrants have decided not to patronize Hazleton businesses and are leaving the area.

“We don’t have near the problem Hazleton has and not near the influx,” Bobiak said. “It’s not just a problem in Hazleton. It’s a national problem that has to be addressed.”

“We can’t afford it as taxpayers to take care of people who are here illegally,” he said.

“(Hazleton) Mayor Louis J. Barletta and myself feel that we want to protect and help the people we were elected by,” O’Neill said.

O’Neill said he believes it’s not the job of local officials to enforce immigration laws, but someone has to do it.

He said the borough doesn’t want to discourage people from coming into town, but employers shouldn’t be hiring illegal immigrants and landlords should be aware of who is renting from them.

During Tuesday’s federal hearing that lasted more than an hour at the William J. Nealon Federal Courthouse, attorney Thomas Wilkinson argued for the plaintiffs that some Hazleton residents would be unjustly forced from their homes and jobs if the ordinance took effect. Some of his clients named in the suit, he argued, are legally in the United States but may not have the proper documentation to prove it. He added the ordinance could deny free public education to U.S. citizens with illegal immigrant parents.

“Parents with legal children can be kicked out of their home and force to take their children out of school,” Wilkinson argued. “This is to be determined by the city and city employees who have no discernible training in these areas.”

In his decision, Munley agreed, stating, “A monetary price cannot be placed on such matters as plaintiffs’ housing, livelihood and education.”

Wednesday morning, Hazleton was to begin the process of registering every tenant living in more than 8,000 rental units throughout the city. To obtain the $10 permit, residents would have to verify their immigration or citizenship status.

Landlords would have to evict tenants whose documentation could not be verified, even if they are in the United States legally, or face heavy fines, he argued. Because the ordinance does not allow ample opportunity for appeal, he said, the ordinance is unconstitutional for violating rights of due process and equal protection.

“People found to be illegal have no way to challenge that finding,” he said.

Appointed by the city’s liability insurance company, attorney Andrew Adair conceded he was “not prepared” to address all of the issues argued by the plaintiffs.

“It was not until (Monday) at around 4:30 that (Hazleton) received the complaint and had a chance to review it,” he said, adding the plaintiffs strategically delayed filing for the order until the eve of enforcement.

Prior to the hearing, Adair asked the plaintiffs’ attorneys if they would agree to an order that would still allow the city to register tenants but not impose fines against landlords or license suspensions for businesses.

Witold Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union said even registering residents is unacceptable because it violates privacy rights.

“I think (registering tenants) is an important part of their efforts to identify immigrants in their community,” he said. “These (laws) work together and ... each has significant constitutional problems.”

The city sought that compromise because it already had advertised that residents would need to register, according to Mayor Lou Barletta, who first proposed the ordinance in June.

“Mainly, I feel that a local municipality has the right to collect information, which is what (registering tenants) would do,” he said. “I’m not discouraged. They have delayed enforcement, but this too shall pass.”

Attorneys for the plaintiffs also argued the city is attempting to complement federal immigration laws and, therefore, regulate immigration, something the courts have consistently ruled to be “exclusively a federal power.”

“It was not enacted to regulate immigration,” Adair responded, “but to protect the health and safety of (Hazleton’s) residents.”

Adair reiterated the city’s stance that illegal immigration has led to higher crime, struggling schools and a strain on social services.

Munley’s decision, however, did not look favorably at those assertions.

Although Hazleton attributes its social ills to an influx of illegal immigrants, those problems “could be ascribed to a number of factors beyond the presence of people without legal documents,” the decision stated. The city has not offered evidence or statistics to back claims that immigration damages the community, the decision also noted.

Another hearing will be held before Nov. 14 to decide whether to extend the ban on enforcing the ordinances. At that time, Munley could forbid Hazleton from enforcing the ordinance until a final ruling in the case is made, potentially delaying enforcement for several more months.



©The REPUBLICAN & Herald 2006