http://www.timesleader.com

Posted on Sun, Aug. 20, 2006

Illegal-immigration relief act
Public reaction to suit as varied as city’s population
Some area residents welcome the new city ordinance and say federal lawsuit is unwarranted.

By STEVE MOCARSKY smocarsky@leader.net

Out of a dozen people interviewed, seven said they think the law is needed, despite the lawsuit; three had mixed opinions; and two believe City Council should not have adopted it.


HAZLETON – - HAZLETON – There was a mix of reactions from people in Hazleton to the lawsuit filed against the city regarding the Illegal-Immigration Relief Act ordinance.

Out of a dozen people interviewed, seven said they think the law is needed, despite the lawsuit; three had mixed opinions; and two believe City Council should not have adopted it.

Emma Carmona, who was born in Puerto Rico but has lived on the U.S. mainland for 20 years, said the ordinance “is not fair to the Spanish people.” Her biggest complaint is with the English-only provision.

“I’m Puerto Rican. All my kids were born in the United States. They all speak perfect English, but their grandfather speaks Spanish. A lot of places, you need two languages,” Carmona said.

“It’s good that they were sued. … Puerto Rico is part of the United States and you talk in Spanish there. The more languages, the more good.”

But Kathleen Serafin, a lifelong Hazleton resident, said she supports Mayor Louis Barletta, who presented the ordinance to council, “2000 percent. The mayor is doing a commendable job with the ordinance,” despite the lawsuit.

“There should be no lawsuit,” Serafin said. “People are afraid to walk the streets downtown. Women are afraid to carry their purses. Hazleton has a high senior citizens population. How fast can they run? I’m in complete agreement with the ordinance.”

Citizens, businesses behind suit

Eleven private citizens joined three business and charitable organizations in filing the suit Tuesday in federal court in Scranton.

The ordinance, passed in July, makes English the official language in the city. It also makes it illegal for landlords to rent to illegal immigrants, employers to hire them and merchants to sell goods to them.

Landlords who violate it face fines up to $1,000 per day, and employers and merchants could lose their city business permits for five years.

Among the plaintiffs in the suit who released their names is Rosa Lechuga, the owner of a grocery store and restaurant that catered to Latinos.

Lechuga says she was forced to sell the restaurant because fear caused by the ordinance caused business to drop from 45 to 130 customers per day to six or seven customers per day. The grocery store remains open, but it too has suffered, dropping from 95 to 130 customers per day to 20 to 23 per day.

Edward, a Latino business owner who declined to give his last name, said he thinks there’s another reason business in town has dropped.

“I heard a lot of people don’t want to spend their money in Hazleton. They’ll go to McAdoo to buy gas. They’ll go to Wal-Mart in Wilkes-Barre or Scranton” in retaliation against an ordinance they believe is unjust, Edward said.

Edward said he thinks Barletta “got a little too carried away” when he proposed the ordinance to city council.

“The town of Hazleton is too small to have these types of laws. If the big cities could do what the mayor here did, it would be good. But all he’s doing is giving another mayor the headache,” Edward said, explaining that illegal immigrants will just move to another town that doesn’t have a similar ordinance.

Edward said that when he moved to Hazleton 16 years ago – before the Latino influx that boosted Hazleton’s population from 23,000 to 31,000 – “there were no job opportunities in this town.”

He said the influx boosted business and the real estate market in the city, but the ordinance has begun to cause another downward spiral.

Illegals ‘taking jobs from us’

Tom Dolan, however, said the ordinance is needed because illegal immigrants are flooding the Hazleton area job market.

“I’m going for a job right now. If they’re legal, let them stay. If they’re not, they’re taking jobs from the rest of us. And I’m paying for it. Right now, I’m a temp. Rents are going up. Everything’s going up,” said Dolan, a lifelong city resident.

Waiting downtown for a bus, Lena Zizzo, of McAdoo, said she supports the ordinance because illegal immigrants should “stay where they belong.”

“Why should they come and take everything away? You don’t see me going to Puerto Rico or Guam. Deport the whole lot of them. Chances are, they’re no good,” Zizzo said. Residents of Puerto Rico and Guam, which are both U.S. territories, are U.S. citizens.

Tiffany Mears of Hazleton blamed the difficult time she had getting her daughter accepted into a preschool on an influx of low-income illegal immigrants. Mears said her 3-year-old daughter almost wasn’t accepted to her preschool “supposedly because our income is too high. But there’s a ton of people in my (apartment) complex with the same income.”

Rose, an 81-year-old city resident who declined to give her last name, said those who sued the city “don’t know what they’re talking about. (Barletta and council are) only doing what they have to do. You have to look after your town.”

As for paying the cost to defend a lawsuit, Rose said, “we’ll find it somewhere, as long as it gets done. They should take donations. I’ll give a dollar or two.”

Lynette Valentin of Hazleton also supports the ordinance and disagrees with the lawsuit. “I don’t think (the city and council) deserve to be sued. (Barletta) is just doing his job.”

Compromise needed

Ricardo Medina of Hazleton said he agrees with the law “to a point. It’s good in one way, but it’s bad for small businesses.”

Medina said Barletta “did a lot for Spanish people in this town” when he first became mayor, but now, “he’s targeting the wrong people.”

“If he has a problem with people doing bad things in the city, target them, not the people who are working and trying to live the right way,” Medina said, adding that the ordinance “should have been written differently.”

He also said the ordinance has damaged the real estate market, prompting many people to move out of town.

“Within five blocks, I’ve seen 10 ‘For Sale’ signs (since the ordinance was passed). This town will go back to the way it was before, with empty storefronts and homes,” Medina said.

One of the other claims in the lawsuit is that the ordinance puts the burden of determining if a person is a legal resident on landlords, employers and merchants – a determination that is extremely complex and that neither they nor city officials are qualified to make.

Because of that, landlords, employers and merchants could be subject to sanctions under federal law should they deny services to a legal immigrant under the mistaken belief they are not legal.

That’s the fear of two of the other named plaintiffs, Pedro Lozano and Humberto Hernandez. Lozano owns multiple rental units in the city, and Hernandez owns a boarding house.

But Barletta has said employers need only continue checking identity documents that federal law already requires them to check. And landlords need only verify that their tenants have a city-issued occupancy permit, which they can only be issued by the city if they can prove resident status.

Gregoria Menyety said the ordinance makes it appear the city is targeting Latino people.

And despite Barletta’s assurances, Menyety also believes the ordinance will make it harder for landlords to find tenants.

Tom Nguyen, a Vietnamese business owner, said the law was needed because “people who come here should have papers.”

But, the city should find a way to work out a compromise with illegal aliens because “they come here for their future. Some are bad, but the ones who are good and work hard need help,” Nguyen said.

Times Leader staff writer Terrie Morgan-Besecker contributed to this report.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Mocarsky, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 459-2005.