Judge blocks town's illegal immigration law

IminWonderland · 11-01-2006, 02:39 AM

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (Reuters) -- A federal judge Tuesday temporarily barred Hazleton, Pennsylvania, from implementing a law designed to prevent illegal immigrants from living in the town.

Judge James Munley of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued a temporary restraining order against Hazleton City Council, preventing it from enforcing its Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance.

The measure has become a model for other U.S. towns that blame illegal immigrants for a range of social problems.

The law, which had been scheduled to take effect Wednesday, would fine landlords found to be renting space to illegal aliens, close down businesses that hire them, and allow legal employees to sue the businesses for employment lost during such a shutdown. A related law also establishes English as the town's official language.

The restraining order is valid until November 14.

In a 13-page opinion, Munley said immigrants risked "irreparable injury" by being evicted from their apartments if the law is enforced. He also said he was not convinced by the city council's argument that illegal immigration increases crime and overburdens social services.

"Defendant offers only vague generalizations about the crime allegedly caused by illegal immigrants but has nothing concrete to back up these claims," Munley wrote.

He added that since the plaintiffs -- representing the town's Hispanic community -- claim the law affects constitutionally protected rights, it is in the public interest to delay enforcement of the ordinance until a court can consider its constitutional implications.

About a third of Hazleton's 31,000 residents are immigrants from Central America. According to local civil rights activists, about a quarter of the town's immigrant population is in the United States illegally.

The law, passed by the city council in July and revised in September, is seen as a template for similar laws passed by 10 other towns around the country, according to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, one of the groups that has joined in a lawsuit challenging the measure.

Thirty-two towns are considering similar measures.

Judge blocks* town's illegal immigration law - CNN.com

I think this judge needs to come and live in Santa Ana or live in East LA. And then he should get something wrong with him and try to find a hospital without a 8 hour wait. And then his kids should go to a public school in the area. And then maybe he can REALLY decide if this issue is a problem, and who he'll care about more, his American Family, or 20 illegals in a 2 bedroom apartment.

Scrum · 11-01-2006, 09:50 AM

I had the feeling this was going to be blocked.

I see his point about the crime aspect of this, but if they want to pass these laws, more power to them.
What they should do is produce a list of people who hire the illegals and people can boycott those companies, at least for now.

WickedLou9 · 11-01-2006, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I think this judge needs to come and live in Santa Ana or live in East LA. And then he should get something wrong with him and try to find a hospital without a 8 hour wait. And then his kids should go to a public school in the area. And then maybe he can REALLY decide if this issue is a problem, and who he'll care about more, his American Family, or 20 illegals in a 2 bedroom apartment.

There was a story on NPR this morning about another town, Riverside, NJ. They passed laws saying that if any business is found to be employing illegal aliens that they will be fined. If any Landlord rents to an illegal, he will be fined. The fines are hefty.

What is happening? Immigrants are leaving. BUsinesses are packing up shop and leaving town. The ones that are staying have noticed significant drops in business. If they leave this policy in place, it will eventually economicaly decimate the town. The town is working class poor to begin with. They are really shooting themselves in the foot. If these illegeals own a house, they are paying property taxes which support local schools and other public works. If they rent they are also paying into the sytem. The money they earn gets spent in the community.
I used to live in the town next to Riverside, and believe me, they shouldn't be doing anything like this. They should be encouraging businesses to come in and setup shop. It's an old town that used to be industrial but all of the factories have long since closed. There are alot of them along the river that have been closed for years and years.

IminWonderland · 11-01-2006, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

There was a story on NPR this morning about another town, Riverside, NJ. They passed laws saying that if any business is found to be employing illegal aliens that they will be fined. If any Landlord rents to an illegal, he will be fined. The fines are hefty.

What is happening? Immigrants are leaving. BUsinesses are packing up shop and leaving town. The ones that are staying have noticed significant drops in business. If they leave this policy in place, it will eventually economicaly decimate the town. The town is working class poor to begin with. They are really shooting themselves in the foot. If these illegeals own a house, they are paying property taxes which support local schools and other public works. If they rent they are also paying into the sytem. The money they earn gets spent in the community.
I used to live in the town next to Riverside, and believe me, they shouldn't be doing anything like this. They should be encouraging businesses to come in and setup shop. It's an old town that used to be industrial but all of the factories have long since closed. There are alot of them along the river that have been closed for years and years.

I live in an area where illegals are not only embraced but they are given special rights over citizens. Are businesses booming? I'm sure they are. But the social cost to us is far greater than a couple of small businesses loosing their business, considering they have been breaking the law. They are still breaking the law.

Americans will do the work that illegals do. They just need to be paid a fair wage. I don't know how to justify paying an illegal a substandard wage just because they'll take it all the while breaking the laws of entering this country and employing in this country.

JaJae · 11-01-2006, 12:19 PM

Citizens should appeal and he should be disbarred.

WickedLou9 · 11-01-2006, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Citizens should appeal and he should be disbarred.

Why? Judges can't legislate from the bench right? He is following the law. Immigration policy is a federal issue. The judge made the right decision.

Phantom · 11-01-2006, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Why? Judges can't legislate from the bench right? He is following the law. Immigration policy is a federal issue. The judge made the right decision.

This is only a TRO that prevents the state (through the city) from implementing a law that's likely at odds with Congress' plenary power in immigration law. There hasn't bee a full hearing on the merits yet...

I agree the decision was the right one

Kytro · 11-01-2006, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Citizens should appeal and he should be disbarred.

It is only an injunction. This often happens when a law will have a significant effect and a challenge is mounted to it.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 11-01-2006, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Citizens should appeal and he should be disbarred.

Why? Can you point to any rule of professional conduct that the judge has violated? Can you even point to a specific thing in his opinion that you disagree with? Do you have any grounds in mind for appeal? Have you even read the opinion, or are you just going on the abridged, sensationalist, simplistic version you read in the article?

RMNIXON · 11-01-2006, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I had the feeling this was going to be blocked.

I see his point about the crime aspect of this, but if they want to pass these laws, more power to them.
What they should do is produce a list of people who hire the illegals and people can boycott those companies, at least for now.

They are trying to pass something like this in Escondido Ca. which is not far from San Diego. So this may end up in many more courts?

JaJae · 11-01-2006, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Why? Judges can't legislate from the bench right? He is following the law. Immigration policy is a federal issue. The judge made the right decision.

There is no reason that I'm aware of that a state can't make their own punishments regarding criminality of illegal immigration. Immigration is a federal issue. Yet, nothing is stopping a state from passing a law to make surrounding issues of illegal immigration a state issue.

Abortion is a federal issue. But states have made their own laws regarding it. Marriage is a federal issue, but states have made their own laws surrounding it.

I have the right to bear arms. But in NJ I can't get a carry permit... I can go on and on forever about federal law, the states are allowed to make their own laws that are attached to the fundamental federal laws.

Kytro · 11-01-2006, 08:51 PM

The law isn't stopped it is on hold pending a challenge. There is nothing unreasonable about that

SpicyMcVoodoo · 11-01-2006, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

The law isn't stopped it is on hold pending a challenge. There is nothing unreasonable about that

Reason number 124315415 that legal reporting in the media is misleading...they never emphasize the important procedural bits. Like you said, no decision at all has been made. The judge simply froze everything until it's decided for sure.

KatKanPlay · 11-01-2006, 10:25 PM

When this country makes a decision for handling illegal immigration, it better have a good system in place to handle what a sudden change in policy will need. Starting a witch hunt for 10's of millions will throw too many communities across this country into total chaos. I dont this country needs the distraction this will cause in light of global conditions.

Whatever the policy turns our to be, it is going to be expensive..

I think we missed our window of opportunity when we didnt secure that borger right after 9/11. A good leader would have seen to it the homeland WAS secure before taking on distractions overseas after 9/11. The world would have helped us build a NICE fence. And we would have gladly paid to super tweek INS to get a whole identification system in place. It would have been easy,,,then.

With all we have to handle in the ME, Im not sure this country has the resources to purge itself of illegals while fighting the war on terror like you fought at Normandy. Securing our country would have made sense then, now its as if we want to declare war on poor mexicans. Im not defending illegals here, I just do not think a sweeping change will be healthy for the country in the long run.

Stylerod · 11-02-2006, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

When this country makes a decision for handling illegal immigration, it better have a good system in place to handle what a sudden change in policy will need. Starting a witch hunt for 10's of millions will throw too many communities across this country into total chaos. I dont this country needs the distraction this will cause in light of global conditions.

Whatever the policy turns our to be, it is going to be expensive..

I think we missed our window of opportunity when we didnt secure that borger right after 9/11. A good leader would have seen to it the homeland WAS secure before taking on distractions overseas after 9/11. The world would have helped us build a NICE fence. And we would have gladly paid to super tweek INS to get a whole identification system in place. It would have been easy,,,then.

With all we have to handle in the ME, Im not sure this country has the resources to purge itself of illegals while fighting the war on terror like you fought at Normandy. Securing our country would have made sense then, now its as if we want to declare war on poor mexicans. Im not defending illegals here, I just do not think a sweeping change will be healthy for the country in the long run.

So since Bush didn't send the National Guard and build a fence on the boarder the day after 9/11, we should just ignore the problem of illegal aliens. Nice plan. I hear a lot of

but no ideas or answers. As usual.

KatKanPlay · 11-02-2006, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

So since Bush didn't send the National Guard and build a fence the day after 9/11, we should just ignore the problem of illegal aliens. Nice plan.

That isnt what I said. I spoke in reference of the first thread post and feel that we will be making a mistake by just implementing sweeping change that the country doesnt have the infrastructure to handle. Intentionally invoking chaos just so Congress can say "look we did something" is not in the country's best interest.

Stylerod · 11-02-2006, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

That isnt what I said. I spoke in reference of the first thread post and feel that we will be making a mistake by just implementing sweeping change that the country doesnt have the infrastructure to handle. Intentionally invoking chaos just so Congress can say "look we did something" is not in the country's best interest.

What sweeping change? I see a few small towns and small cities are making changes. Make it so illegals can't get a job or place to live and hopefully they will go home and try to come in legally.

IminWonderland · 11-02-2006, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

What sweeping change? I see a few small towns and small cities are making changes. Make it so illegals can't get a job or place to live and hopefully they will go home and try to come in legally.

And that's the thing, it's not like it's Los Angeles trying to make these changes, it's a minor town in PA! If they are going to fight it there, they are going to fight it when it's trying to be done to larger towns.

As Americans we can't be just "OK" with this happening to our country. The fact that a city in PA feels the need to implement this just shows that the illegal immigraton problem that has plagued the South West for 20 years or so, it's going to keep moving. And it'll move near you. And when it does and you still don't want to do something about it, it is going to change the America you know as well, only then it will REALLY be too late.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 11-02-2006, 03:34 AM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

The fact that a city in PA feels the need to implement this just shows that the illegal immigraton problem that has plagued the South West for 20 years or so, it's going to keep moving.

Or it just shows there are some opportunistic and/or paranoid politicans in PA. It seems one of the reasons the judge granted the TRO was because the city could not substantiate any damage that the immigrants were supposedly doing, only vague references to crime. You have to wonder why the city couldn't clearly lay out exactly what harm the illegals were doing...either they don't have any evidence of harm or their lawyers are too lazy to do their research, which I doubt.