Thread: Hazleton agrees to delay immigrant crackdown law

noyoucannot wrote:

This might not be a bad thing if Hazleton uses this delay to really make sure the ordinance is crafted in a way that will really stand up in court. It's better to take a little more time and make sure everything is well done.

I agree.

http://www.nytimes.com

September 2, 2006
Pennsylvania Town Delays Enforcing Tough Immigration Law
By JULIA PRESTON


“I’m not backing down,” said
Louis J. Barletta, Hazleton’s
mayor.

A Pennsylvania town has agreed to hold off temporarily from enforcing an ordinance that fines landlords who rent to illegal immigrants, denies business permits to employers who hire them and requires that all city business be conducted only in English.

A federal district judge, James M. Munley, issued an order yesterday confirming an agreement between the town, Hazleton, and civil liberties groups that challenged the ordinance in a lawsuit filed Aug. 15. Hazleton said it would not immediately enforce the measure, passed July 13, and its opponents agreed not to seek a formal injunction for the time being.

The Hazleton law was the first in a series of initiatives across the country in which local townships, citing what they described as negligence by federal authorities, moved on their own to crack down on illegal immigrants. Mayor Louis J. Barletta said he wanted the ordinance to make Hazleton “one of the most difficult places in the United States for illegal immigrants.”

Under the ordinance, which had been set take effect on Sept. 11, landlords faced a fine of $1,000 for each day they rented to immigrants lacking papers. The measure also barred employers who hired illegal immigrants from renewing business permits or receiving city contracts for five years.

The suit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, charged that the ordinance was “riddled with constitutional flaws,” overstepped the bounds of municipal authority and would discriminate against any residents who appeared to be foreigners. Several plaintiffs are Hazleton landlords who are legal Hispanic immigrants.

In a telephone interview yesterday, Mayor Barletta said the town had agreed to the delay in order to write a new ordinance, based on advice from lawyers, that would be easier to defend in court.

“I’m not backing down,” the mayor said. The new measure, he said, will clarify that it is not intended to punish local retailers for selling to illegal immigrants, after ambiguities in the current law raised an outcry from storekeepers. He said he might submit the new proposal for a vote by the City Council as early as Sept. 12.

According to a tally on Monday by the Puerto Rican legal group, six other towns nationwide have adopted similarly tough ordinances: four in Pennsylvania, plus Riverside, N.J., and Valley Park, Mo. Such measures have passed preliminary votes in four additional towns, and at least 26 towns are considering them. Four towns, including Avon Park, Fla., have rejected similar ordinances.

The order by Judge Munley, who sits in Scranton, Pa., gives the civil liberties groups 20 days to renew their challenge to any immigration ordinance Hazleton adopts. Omar C. Jadwat, an immigration lawyer for the A.C.L.U., said he hoped that the town would eventually drop the ordinance and that “other cities will similarly take these ordinances off the table and rethink.”

New Round of Marches

CHICAGO, Sept 1 (Reuters) — Immigration advocates took to the streets of Chicago on Friday in the first of a week of marches around the country to step up pressure on Congress for a broad immigration overhaul.

Dozens of marchers set off from Chinatown, at the start of a four-day trek to the Batavia, Ill., district offices of Speaker J. Dennis Hastert. Organizers said they hoped to pressure Mr. Hastert to push a bill favorable to immigrants through Congress after it returns from recess on Sept. 5.

Advocates plan further rallies across the country over the Labor Day weekend and next week.

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/15424373.htm

Posted on Sat, Sep. 02, 2006

Truce reached over illegal-immigrant law
Hazleton won’t enforce ordinance and opponents won’t seek injunction.

By JOHN DAVIDSON jdavidson@leader.net

HAZLETON – Opponents of Mayor Lou Barletta’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act agreed Friday not to seek an injunction against the city in exchange for a written guarantee from the city not to enforce the ordinance as it is currently written.

But even as a consortium of attorneys led by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund trumpeted the city’s withdrawal as a victory, Hazleton Solicitor Chris Slusser said the city agreed to the truce only in order to tweak the law’s language.

“The previous ordinance was defensible but this makes it bulletproof,” he said. “We’ve always had a ship that floats but now we’re putting an iron cladding on it.”

The ordinance has been revised three times since it was passed in July amid fierce controversy; the latest version will go before city council for a vote next week.

In a court conference Friday, attorneys for the city and Puerto Rican fund struck a deal before U.S. District Court Judge James M. Munley in Scranton. The agreement states the city won’t enforce the current ordinance, which punishes landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and employers who hire them, and also penalizes merchants who sell goods to illegals. The law also makes English the official language in the city. It was supposed to take effect Sept. 11.

Specifically, Friday’s signed court order mandates a 20-day waiting period to enforce the revised version after it passes in order to give opponents time to review it and, if they choose, file another lawsuit or seek an injunction to stop enforcement.

Slusser said the new version of the Illegal Immigration Relief Act simply will change some language but retain key provisions of the original. In a statement Friday, Barletta said he “won’t back down” from challengers and that Friday’s hearing will “have no affect on what the City of Hazleton will do.”

Foster Maer, a spokesman for the Puerto Rican fund, called Friday’s agreement “a great step forward” for opponents of the act but declined to comment in detail about future litigation, saying only if the city seeks to enact an immigration law similar to the one it passed in July, his group would file a federal suit.

“Obviously we think any law that a locality passes that attempts to create its own immigration policy is a violation of federal law and violates the constitution,” Maer said. “We would seek to stop it going into effect as we did before.”

Last month, 11 private citizens and three business and charitable organizations joined in filing a federal lawsuit in federal court in Scranton. They are backed by 24 attorneys from three civil-rights organizations and five private law firms who are seeking to get the ordinance declared unconstitutional.

Since it passed in July, Hazleton’s illegal-immigration ordinance has drawn national attention and prompted a host of municipalities across the country to look into enacting their own illegal-immigration laws.

Slusser said the reason for the multiple revisions of the ordinance is due to mounting anticipation that the case will wind up in the United States Supreme Court.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Davidson, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 829-7210.




http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?news ... 5154&rfi=6

09/02/2006
Both sides take a step back in Hazleton debate City will not enforce illegal immigration law; plaintiffs will not file for an injunction
BY WADE MALCOLM
STAFF WRITER


Hazleton will not enforce its existing illegal immigration ordinance after signing an agreement with attorneys filing a lawsuit against the city.

However, the agreement, signed by lawyers from both sides and filed in federal court Friday afternoon, allows Hazleton to move forward with passing and enforcing a revised version of the controversial ordinance, a step city council is expected to take this month.

The latest development in the legal fight over Hazleton’s nationally known ordinance — which attempts to punish businesses employing and landlords renting to illegal immigrants and makes English the official language — came after several days of negotiation between attorneys for the city and a group of legal advocates accusing the ordinance of promoting discrimination and violating the constitution.

The plaintiffs had planned to file an injunction against the ordinance this week until the city’s attorneys told The Citizens’ Voice on Monday that another revision was forthcoming.

“We read that and decided there was no reason to spend time and money in litigation against an ordinance when it would be changed,” said one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, Witold J. Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The development leaves the legal debate in a temporary state of limbo. The agreement orders that the city not enforce matters relating to immigration unless a new ordinance is passed, while the plaintiffs agreed not to file for further injunctions until that time.

Walczak said that if the city did not agree to halt enforcement of the ordinance, an injunction would have been filed. He added the city was initially “resistant” to such an agreement and that federal Judge James M. Munley “brought the two sides together.”

“That’s spin,” Hazleton City Solicitor Christopher Slusser said. “We both recognized that taking any action on the old ordinance with the impending passage of the new ordinance was a waste of the court’s time.”

Lawyers for the plaintiffs characterized the agreement as a “small victory.” Advocacy groups involved in the suit, such as the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund and the ACLU, have called the periodic changes proof of the ordinance’s flawed premise.

The city, meanwhile, maintains that it is only perfecting the ordinance and making it less vulnerable to legal challenges.

“I suspect that (the plaintiffs) are put off by that,” Slusser said, “because it’s going to make it much more difficult to challenge the ordinance.”

The original ordinance identified in the suit was considered less defensible by many. Prior to its passage in July, a nonpartisan congressional review found the ordinance to be overly broad and, most likely, unconstitutional.

Michael Hethmon, an attorney from the Federation for American Immigration Reform who is helping the city redraft its ordinance, also said portions of the ordinance were “improperly worded.”

“The revised ordinance which we will implement in Hazleton does not reflect a change in the commitment of the city’s leadership to halt the influx of illegal immigrants,” said Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, repeating his “We won’t back down” creed in a press release Friday. “Rather, the revisions reflect our commitment to protect the legal residents of this city within the framework of the law.”

The city is likely to hold a second, special council meeting this month, according to Slusser, to “shorten up the time frame for passage of the new ordinance.” Once the new ordinance is passed, lawyers for the plaintiffs said they would either amend their lawsuit or file a new complaint.

Lawyers on both sides agreed that Friday’s development is far from the end of what they say will develop into a landmark legal battle.

“It certainly isn’t over,” Slusser said. “This isn’t even the meat of the argument.”

wmalcolm@citizensvoice.com




http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_ ... 4639.story


From The Morning Call
September 2, 2006
Hazleton backs down -- for now
By Daniel Patrick Sheehan Of The Morning Call
Hispanic advocates declared a qualified victory Friday in their quest to stop Hazleton from enforcing its controversial law targeting illegal immigrants.

Under an agreement reached in federal court in Scranton, the Luzerne County city told U.S. District Judge James Munley it would delay enforcing the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, which was adopted in July and scheduled to take effect later this month. The city said it is crafting a new version of the ordinance that it believes will better withstand legal challenge.

Mayor Louis Barletta said he won't back down from his efforts to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into the coal region city of 30,000. ''We have put together one of the best legal defense teams in the country, and we are making this ordinance even stronger and more defensible,'' he said in a news release.

The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union, which had been seeking an injunction from Munley to stop the law from taking effect, said they were pleased by Friday's agreement, signed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. It calls for the city to give 20 days' notice before enacting the existing law or any revised version — time enough for the challengers to go back to court to stop it.

The law, drafted by Barletta, would have temporarily revoked business licenses of employers who hire illegal immigrants, levied $1,000-a-day fines against landlords who rent to them, and established English as the official language. It is considered one of the toughest ordinances of its kind in the country.

Critics attacked the law as divisive and even racist, because most of the illegal immigrants in question are part of the city's burgeoning Hispanic population.

The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund and other groups filed suit Aug. 15 on behalf of 11 plaintiffs who claimed they had already been harmed by the law, including a Mexican restaurateur who said she had to close her business after losing half her customers.

''As we have said from the beginning, the ordinance was flawed in its premise and its language,'' Cesar Perales, president and general counsel of the defense fund, said in a statement. ''Hazleton has no business regulating immigration.''

Jack Mundie, vice president of City Council, said he has suggested from the beginning that Hazleton eliminate all references to illegal immigrants in the rental provision of the ordinance and require renters to provide driver licenses and other documentation. That way, he said, the law could not be challenged on the premise that it trespasses on federal territory.

It is not clear how many illegal immigrants live in Hazleton, about 50 miles northwest of Allentown, but the city's Hispanic population has soared in recent years. Barletta proposed the ordinance after two illegal immigrants were charged with shooting and killing a man. He has said the new law has already spurred many illegal immigrants to leave the city.

''The people behind this [legal] challenge thought this small city would be an easy target. On the contrary, we won't back down,'' Barletta said in the statement.

Several other Pennsylvania municipalities, including neighboring Hazle Township, Mount Pocono in Monroe County and Mahanoy City and Shenandoah in Schuylkill County, have approved or are considering similar legislation.

Other communities across the country, including Valley Park, Mo.; Riverside, N.J.; and Escondido, Calif., have passed or proposed similar measures.

daniel.sheehan@mcall.com

610-820-6598