Thread: WI: Illegal immigration ruling in Pennsylvania not expected

Comments are being left after this article at the source link.
~~~

Posted July 27, 2007

Illegal immigration ruling in Pennsylvania not expected to affect city ordinance

Federal court rejects Pennsylvania city's immigration law

Press-Gazette and The Associated Press


A federal ruling striking down an anti-illegal immigration law in Hazleton, Pa., should have no impact on Green Bay's ordinance, City Council President Chad Fradette said Thursday.


"We knew that one was going to get struck down," said Fradette, who pushed the ordinance that the Green Bay City Council passed last month. "I would've bet my whole life savings on it. They're going to lose on appeal, too. But I'm confident ours will survive."


Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act, struck down in federal court Thursday, sought to impose fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. Another measure would have required tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.


U.S. District Judge James Munley voided the law Thursday based on testimony from a nine-day trial held in March.


Fradette said Green Bay used a congressional review of Hazleton's law as a template on what to avoid in passing its own ordinance.


"After that, we took it to our attorneys who work on federal cases, and they tightened it up even more," Fradette said. "We'll be fine."


Hazleton's law involves levying fines, which Fradette said violates federal law. Hazleton's law also requires landlords to check their tenants' citizenship, which also is illegal, he said. And finally, Hazleton tried to prevent companies in the city from hiring illegal immigrants outside the city's jurisdiction, which also was a legal flaw, Fradette said.


Green Bay's ordinance doesn't deal with landlords at all but focuses on employers licensed through the city. Any business requiring a city license, such as a liquor license, must promise to adhere to federal immigration laws under Green Bay's ordinance.


Enforcement in Green Bay requires a federal determination of citizenship, which should mean it's legal, Fradette said.


"Federal court has already ruled that deportation rulings (which are done by federal immigration officers) can be used," he said.


Assistant City Attorney Jon Nitti said news accounts of the federal ruling in Hazleton haven't spelled out the specific reason that city's law was struck down. But without reading the actual case, Nitti said it's still likely the ruling won't affect Green Bay and its ordinance.


He agreed with Fradette that Hazleton's law differed widely from Green Bay's and had features that likely violated federal law.


In any case, the ruling in Pennsylvania was by a lower-level federal district court and therefore isn't binding in this district, Nitti said.


Matt Hollenbeck, director of the Hispanic Community Council of Northeastern Wisconsin, was less sure. The regional advocacy group, formerly known as the Green Bay Mayor's Hispanic Advisory Council, opposes Green Bay's ordinance.


"The decision is a 206-page document, and our attorneys are mulling it over," Hollenbeck said. "Any way you slice it, it's a good day for us."


If nothing else, the federal finding sets legal precedent, he said.


"It's too early to say, but it can't be bad news," he said.


Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta called the decision bizarre and said he intends to file an appeal.


"This was a case where a federal judge protected the rights of anonymous illegal aliens," he told The Associated Press. "This fight's far from over."


The Republican mayor had pushed for the strict laws last summer after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting. Barletta argued that illegal immigrants brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city of more than 30,000, overwhelming police and schools.


Immigrant groups sued, saying the laws usurp the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration, deprive residents of their constitutional rights to equal protection, and violate state and federal housing law.


In a 206-page opinion, Munley said the act was pre-empted by federal law and would violate due process rights.


"Whatever frustrations ... the city of Hazleton may feel about the current state of federal immigration enforcement, the nature of the political system in the United States prohibits the city from enacting ordinances that disrupt a carefully drawn federal statutory scheme," Munley wrote.


"Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton's measures, the city could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the Constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not," he added.


Hispanic immigrants began settling in Hazleton in large numbers several years ago, lured from New York, Philadelphia and other cities by cheap housing, low crime and the availability of work in nearby factories and farms.


Hazleton's act was copied by dozens of municipalities around the nation that believe the federal government hasn't done enough to stop illegal immigration. Munley's ruling does not affect those measures.


Witold Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which represented the plaintiffs, said other cities should take notice.


"This decision should be a blaring red stoplight for local officials thinking of copying Hazleton's misguided and unconstitutional law," Walczak said.



http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/app ... 07/GPGnews

How is Hazelton's ordinance UnConstitutional?


Does the Constitution say anywhere that illegal aliens are entitled to jobs and living arrangements in the US?

Or maybe, everything is unConstitutional where illegals are concerned because the Constitution doesn't apply to them to begin with?