Thread: Hazleton Mayor said: "This fight is far from over!!!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00318.html


This mayor is not giving up,neither are we!!!

what do we do in this situation where the Hispanic groups and ACLU are using our own laws AGAINST US???!! ?

change the law to fix the loop hole through legislature. Repeal the 14th amendment, and force the government to do mass deportations. Or threaten to quit paying your illegal income tax. You're not getting your monies worth anyway so why continue to pay it?

The first thing Barletta should do is apply for 287g.

Please post complete article with url and please post News articles in the news Section.

I haven't read the judges opinion, most people probably have not, it's so long.

The judges opion was certain to be appealed no matter how it was decided.

If it goes all the way to the US Supreme Court, and they agree to hear the case, the decision will be noted in future history books.

I would certainly argue that communities have a right to defend themselves from illegal foreign agents if the Federal government fails to perform its constitutional obligations.

The Federal government might argue that it is fulfilling its obligations, even if the standard of performance bar is set low.

Many of us would likely argue that the Federal Government has not even made it over a minimum standard.

It would be interesting to find out if the Federal Governments seeming increase in enforcement recently could be in part a desire to improve their record of enforcement.

Motivation? To satisfy a court, say the US Supreme Court, so a community like Hazelton won't be able to successfully argue that the Feds are failing in its duty to enforce immigration law. As long as the Feds are doing something, the Court is unlikey to rule for Hazelton, in that the city had no choice but to reluctantly enter the arena of federal immigration enforcement.

In the end, he said, "Hazleton, in its zeal to control the presence of a group deemed undesirable, violated the rights of [immigrants], as well as others in the community."

The above quote is from the judges ruling. This is where he showed his hand. You can just read his indignation and pro-illegal sentiments.

For instance: "Hazelton, in its zeal to control the presence of a group deemd undesirable..." EXCUSE ME??? We're speaking of illegal aliens here...CRIMINALS.

Also, the judge said: "...violated the rights of immigrants..."AGAIN, EXCUSE ME?? We're not speaking of immigrants here, we're speaking of ILLEGAL immigrants.

I would like this judge to tell me why he feels illegal aliens are having their rights violated when cities try to enforce the laws on them.

I hate the way judges do this. They twist things around...they leave out important facts (like referring to the illegals as simply "immigrants") and they REFUSE to acknowledge that there IS INDEED a difference between the rights of people in the U.S. legally, and the rights of people in the U.S. illegally. It's as if the judges just lump 'em all together and ignore the fact that these people are in this country illegally.

This judge did not look at this case in an unbiased manner. He is clearly pro-illegal immigration, and he clearly has a pro-illegal agenda.

Munley struck at Hazleton's efforts with plain language, writing that the city's ordinances "disrupt a well-established federal scheme for regulating the presence and employment of immigrants in the United States." The judge said the ordinances "penalize landlords, tenants, employers and employees without providing them the procedural protections required by law." In the end, he said, "Hazleton, in its zeal to control the presence of a group deemed undesirable, violated the rights of [immigrants], as well as others in the community."

(Insurance companies, to weed out undesirables, ask for medical documents. Surely this must be a violation of somebody's rights!? Maybe they should shut down all gang and drug investigations because they are "trying to control an undesirable group" and surely this violates SOMEBODY'S rights, how I don't know, but it MUST, according to this dimwit judge.)



What's the difference in having to show documentation you are a legal resident in order to rent an apartment than having to show documentation to cash a check, driver's license to get car insurance, etc. Does my proving I have to be 21 to buy booze violate my rights???? Where are my "procedural protections", whatever that is????? I know they had "protections" built into the ordinances that allowed people to appeal and as far as renting goes, I think they had to get a city permit. Just how many illegals would apply for a permit??? Probably none, knowing they would have to prove legality.

Originally Posted by NCByrd

The first thing Barletta should do is apply for 287g.

I would also recommend this course of action. As for the court's decision, it will be appealed.

I'll be sending the town another check to help fund their fight. IMO, it will go to the Supreme Court (if they have the funds to get it there.)

It's going to the Supreme Court....they knew this when they started. So none of this is unexpected.