Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Supreme Court Orders Review of Pennsylvania City's Immigrati

    Supreme Court Orders Review of Pennsylvania City's Immigration Reforms

    By Lee Ross

    Published June 06, 2011 |

    Two weeks after issuing a major ruling affirming a state's right to pass legislation cracking down on employers who knowingly hire illegal workers, the Supreme Court has voided a lower court ruling blocking a city ordinance that does the same and also targets landlords who willfully house illegals.

    Monday's decision will undoubtedly please those who've been critical of the federal government's enforcement efforts.

    The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals stopped city leaders in Hazleton, Pa. from enforcing local laws prohibiting employers from knowingly hiring illegal aliens. The city also sought to prevent landlords from harboring illegals through apartment rentals. It was the city's attempt to stop a population explosion attributed to an influx of illegal workers who do not pay local income taxes.

    The case will now be sent back to the Third Circuit with instructions to review the matter given the court's ruling in a nearly identical case that a closely divided court resolved in May. That decision said Arizona could pass laws revoking the business licenses of employers who willfully hired illegals.

    Both cases focused on the compulsory use of the federal E-Verify database, which tracks the immigration status of millions of people. The high court, in a 5-3 ruling, said state governments can force the use of the system even though Congress has never mandated its use.

    The city's lawyers argued the ordinances work in concert with federal laws.

    "Hazleton's ordinances match the terms and classifications of federal immigration law and require officials to defer to federal determinations of aliens' immigration statuses," Kris Kobach of the Immigration Reform Law Institute told the court. "In drafting the ordinances, the city made every effort to avoid any conflict with federal immigration laws."

    It's the same argument Arizona's lawyers made when their case went before the court and is one that Chief Justice John Roberts and four of his colleagues agreed with.

    "(Federal law) expressly reserves to the states the authority to impose sanctions on employers hiring unauthorized workers, through licensing and similar laws. In exercising that authority, Arizona has taken the route least likely to cause tension with federal law," Roberts wrote last month.

    URL ... n-reforms/

  2. #2
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Court orders new look at PA city immigration law
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

  3. #3
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005

    Good Job Supremes!
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

  4. #4
    Senior Member stevetheroofer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    somewhere near Mexico I reckon!

    Supreme Court Tells Court to Reconsider Hazleton Immigration Regulations

    Published June 06, 2011

    A storefront with a Peruvian flag in the window is shown for rent Thursday, Oct. 26, 2006 in Hazleton, Pa. This small hillside city in northeastern Pennsylvania has yet to enforce a tough, first-of-its-kind law targeting undocumented immigrants, but evidence suggests that many Hispanics, illegal immigrants or otherwise, have already left. That has hobbled the city's Hispanic business district, where shops that once flourished have either closed or are struggling to stay open.

    In another nod to local and state officials who want to take immigration matters into their own hands, the U.S. Supreme Court, on Monday, rejected a lower court ruling that blocked Hazleton, Pa.’s efforts to crack down on undocumented immigrants.

    The Supreme Court ordered the 3d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to take another look at Hazleton’s regulations that would deny permits to business that hire undocumented immigrants and fine landlords who rent to them.

    The high court’s move comes on the heels of another ruling that upheld Arizona’s law imposing sanctions on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.

    Years before Arizona’s headline-grabbing laws taking a hard-line on illegal immigration, Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act sparked debates nationwide and inspired similar laws around the country, including the one in Arizona that deals only with penalties for employers.

    "Hazleton has paved the way for other cities and states across the country to enact similar laws, so this is a great day for all of those cities and states, and for the people of Hazleton who had to endure criticism from those who opposed what we were trying to do because the federal government didn't want do its job," said U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta, Hazleton's former mayor, who pushed through the measures in 2006.

    Hazleton, a northeastern Pennsylvania city of about 25,000, wants to fine landlords who rent to undocumented immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. A companion measure requires prospective tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.

    Barletta advocated for the measures after two undocumented immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting. Barletta, now a freshman congressman, argued that the undocumented brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city and overwhelmed police, schools and hospitals.

    The laws have never been enforced. Hispanic groups and undocumented immigrants sued to overturn the measures, and a federal judge struck them down following a trial in 2007.

    Monday's order does not automatically mean that Hazleton will get to enforce the measures.

    The Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit ruled in September that Hazleton's laws usurped the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration. But the appeals court did not consider two other arguments raised by opponents of the Hazleton crackdown, and will now be free to do so, said Witold Walczack, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania.

    "Any celebration by the Hazleton officials would be premature," he said Monday.

    "We're certainly not putting up the white flag. There's much battle left to be done in this case."

    The Supreme Court typically order lower courts to re-examine cases in light of a high court decision in a similar case.

    This is based on a story by The Associated Press.

    Read more: ... z1OXVNSa4n
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts