ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Hazleton, Pa., may not enforce its crackdown on illegal immigrants, dealing another blow to 4-year-old regulations that inspired similar measures around the country, including Arizona.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said that Hazleton‘s Illegal Immigration Relief Act usurped the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration.
“It is … not our job to sit in judgment of whether state and local frustration about federal immigration policy is warranted. We are, however, required to intervene when states and localities directly undermine the federal objectives embodied in statutes enacted by Congress,” wrote Chief Judge Theodore McKee.
The northeastern Pennsylvania city had sought to fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. A companion measure required prospective tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.
Mayor Lou Barletta had pushed the measures in 2006 after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting. The Republican mayor, now mounting his third try for Congress, argued that illegal immigrants brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city of more than 30,000 and overwhelmed police, schools and hospitals.
Hispanic groups and illegal immigrants sued to overturn the measures, and a federal judge struck them down following a trial in 2007. The laws have never been enforced.
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. The crux of the debate has now shifted to Arizona and its strict new law, provisions of which include requiring officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws.
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (67)
FlaGordon
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 2:54pmprevious accidental premature post.
My point is the federal objectives as written into law is to apprehend and deport illegals.
Anything different can be implemented via congress writing new law.
Until then, it is the job of the court to uphold Law.
It really isn’t that difficult to understand…
Unless .gov admits we are now a lawless society!
Report Post »FlaGordon
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 2:50pmI do believe it is time for each and all states to Sue the Federal Government.
““It is … not our job to sit in judgment of whether state and local frustration about federal immigration policy is warranted. We are, however, required to intervene when states and localities directly undermine the federal objectives embodied in statutes enacted by Congress,” wrote Chief Judge Theodore McKee.”
Report Post »RoAdFiXeR
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 12:50pmIt seems to me the feds are only interested in enforcing laws they agree with so hence we should only follow laws that we agree with, the feds forget without “we the people” you don’t exist….
Report Post »RoAdFiXeR
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 2:42pmIts come time to ignore what the feds say or do. If the town backs the law then enforce it and to hell with the feds, If the feds take the town to court who cares don’t show up, the feds can sit in judgment all they want they wont back it up….whats the worse thing that could happen some feds show up and arrest someone for running off some illegals, that will play well on TV besides the feds cant do much of anything well they will probably get lost trying to get there….
Report Post »ProgressivesLoveAmerica
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 2:38pmIllegal immigration is really an economic issue.
Report Post »UnderTheLibertyTree
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 2:30pmIt seems to me that the town did not usurp any federal laws – what they were doing was actually in support of them. I wonder if states themselves have requirements to become citizens of their states? It would be an interesting test case to see if a state passed a law limiting welfare, education, hospital services, etc. to people who could prove they were citizens of one of the states. Any use of state funds ought to require proof of citizenship of the STATE. You wouldn’t be requiring proof of citizenship – or lack of it – of the United States . . . . I imagine the Feds would try to attack this idea on the basis of mis-reading the 14th Amendment.
Report Post »lastmanstandin
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 2:21pmTERM LIMITS FOR ALL POLITICIANS !!!!
Report Post »lastmanstandin
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 2:19pmwhen the demon-crats got power. and gave it to them . TERM LIMITS NOW!!!!!!!
Report Post »bookofwisdom
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 2:10pmI must be the dumbest person on the planet….when did illegal aliens get rights?
Report Post »kspatriot
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 3:39pmIt seems like they are better protected than we are. I’m telling you America, if we don’t put a quick end to the era of “political correctness” the country may never recover.
Report Post »PostProgressiveAmerican
Posted on September 13, 2010 at 5:32amI was wondering that, too. If they are not here legally, why would they have the same rights as a US citizen? How about the right to contact their embassy instead of a free lawyer. Maybe a right to petition for reconsideration after deportation. Other than that…
Report Post »Hydejustice
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 2:05pmAll this is going to be an issue untill Americans swallow the idea that they can not enslave a demographic so pay for peograms like SS, untill we all realize that the gravy train is over and the only way out is to elect people with principles and integrity.
Report Post »littlebin518
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 2:00pmCheck this out….
What did Hoover, Truman, and Eisenhower have in common?
Here is something that should be of great interest for you to pass around.
I didn’t know of this until it was pointed out to me.
Back during The Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover ordered the
deportation of ALL illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American
citizens that desperately needed work..
Harry Truman deported over two million Illegal’s after WWII to create jobs
for returning veterans.
And then again in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower deported 13 million
Mexican Nationals! The program was called ‘Operation *******’. It was
done so WWII and Korean Veterans would have a better chance at jobs.
It took 2 Years, but they deported them!
Now… if they could deport the illegal’s back then – they could sure do it today.
lf you have doubts about the veracity of this information, enter Operation
******* into your favorite search engine and confirm it for yourself.
Reminder:
Don’t forget to pay your taxes…
Report Post »12 million Illegal Aliens are depending on you!
We need a strong leader like these past presidents!
The Bees
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 10:56pmHear Here!
Report Post »anOpinion
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 1:57pmThe only effective way to solve border problems and illegal immigration is:
1) Go After the employers of illegal immigrants
Report Post »2) No automatic citizenship to those born in the country
3) Crackdown on the border, specifically targeting the drug trade
Corinthian in TN
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 1:56pmInstead of telling us that “states can’t undermine the Federal Government”, he should be forced to explain HOW the Law Undermines the Federal Government, and HOW this Undermining is Un-Constitutional. Otherwise, he should just shut-up and retire….. I get sick and tired of these Judges Bastardizing the Legal Process, and Interpreting the law based on Case Law instead of Constitutional Law.
Report Post »klsitton
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 1:55pmThese illogical court rulings are simply unacceptable. What they are in effect saying is that states cannot legally enforce federal law. Even further, states cannot HAVE coincident or even COMPLIMENTARY laws on their books with respect to federal law.
Absolute balderdash! Sheer idiocy! Obviously, these judges are not looking at the law. They are looking at the political implications of the law.
Besides, if you look at immigration law, one does not immigrate into the Unite States, but into a specific STATE. I believe the states have more say in their own immigration policy than the “Fedrawl Gubmint” should.
It‘s too bad that for the next decade or so we’ll have to keep sending everything up to the Supremes to get these progressive rulings reversed, but if that’s what it takes, then that’s what it takes. (Hey Yogi… Who loves ya’ baby?)
Report Post »Joseph
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 1:52pmWell they tried to sue Gino’s in West Philly because they have a sign saying,” When you order your Hoggies here, Speak English!” Hazelton is a nice town, it’s a shame it has to become a sesspool because other people bully their way in and turn it into another slum.
Report Post »w4jle
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 1:49pmWhat we need is a large dose of common sense injected into the judiciary.
Report Post »dressseller
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 2:01pmAmen.
Report Post »Bunnie
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 1:45pmReplace any Rebub. that is a RHINO in 2010 , 2012 and beyond!
Report Post »warriorcop
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 1:44pmSeems the illegals have learned more about the American way. Don’t like something….SUE SUE SUE
Report Post »Beckofile
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 1:42pmThis says more about the judicial system than illegal issues. Elections have given us a judicial system that legislates from the bench. We need to be real to ourselves and vote out all politicians that don’t speak about limited government and level playing fields…not to mention the Constitution. We have every right to protect not only our national boarders but also our state and local borders from folks that are in violation of the law. Keep fighting the good fight.
Report Post »Pericles
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 1:09amYou are absolutely correct! Those pesky elections, we should ban those, and the Supreme Court is a 5-4 conservative leaning court hey your right again they do legislate from the bench. I am pretty sure that the Constitution does not mention that “WE THE PEOPLE” can vote out politicians, I think we vote in politicians. Oh and yes border security. Illegal immigration just popped out of nowhere, I mean it has become an epidemic, oh but wait the annual inflow of illegal immigrants has been on the decline. We should also ban those pesky statistics. We should all live blissfully in the Glenn Beck doomsday world. After all it does pay well.
Report Post »Marks1956f100
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 1:39pmHow can a sitting judge not understand what illegal means.
Report Post »jessieH
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 1:37pmI’m not shure about a town, but Arizona‘s law can’t be overturned by any old judge. Only the Supreme Court has that resposability.
Report Post »BleedsBlu
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 1:36pmKeeping fighting the good fight
Pierce
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 1:36pmThere is only one way to stop illegal immigration.
Clean house from Congress to the Whitehouse. Vote in only people who will truly uphold the Constitution and hold them to it. The second they do anything to undermine the Constitution have them tried for Treason.
States and small towns out here in America can not be over run by these illegals who bring all forms of crime with them and then over burden our health care, education, and welfare systems.
This isn’t difficult – Fed’s – enforce the law!
Report Post »mrmikejohnson
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 1:32pmThis has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court. This appeals court screwed up. They should go by the law rather than their personel opinions. Arizona passed a law in 2006 that called for business licenses to be revoked for any business that knowingly hires illegal immigrants. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arizona. This appeals court should have used that case as the basis for making a decision rather than their own political opinions.
The issue of whether or not anyone besides the federal government can enforce immigration laws has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court. People other than the federal government CAN enforce their own immigration law.
Report Post »Hokiedad
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 1:57pmHow about since we’ve now come to the point where whichever party is in power they get to pick and choose which federal laws will be enforced, we decide to not enforce the Federal Income Tax laws and refuse to send them our tax money. I’ll bet that would go over well.
Report Post »DanB
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 3:57pmThis reads to me as setting up legal precedent for the Arizona case. Nothing more or less. Sadly. I hope I am only being paranoid. But with the Arizona law going before the courts, I have to believe that there are those that want precedent in the law cases to support federal takeover and assertion of federal power over states. I mean, I do understand the interpretation somewhat. But with so much at stake for the federal government right now, I think there is a conflict of interest boiling over here. I am more afraid that a judge may have made this ruling in the hopes of raise/promotion than actual justice. Things are getting dicey it seems. Stakes are high. And that means the desperate will take extreme measures (profits to be made by compliance….), but the more I learn the more I believe we have been teaching our judges to be lawmakers and let them legislate from the bench. Only now when the scales seem to be against freedom do we begin to realize the danger we’ve let fester.
Report Post »carol m
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 4:31pmI like that Idea
Report Post »1stmarines1990
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 6:40pmthe courts are wrong and judges should be fired,along with the supreme court judges who don’t follow the constitution. illegal immigrants should be held as crimminals and should be held as invaders of our country.
Report Post »dressseller
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 1:29pmJust not a surprise at all. Seems they win at every turn. November.. ..where are you?
Report Post »bhelmet
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 1:28pm“…illegal immigrants sued” – How is that possible? How does this usurp power when the Feds are not using it themselves?
Report Post »br549
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 5:59pmI have a radical idea – I know how we can resolve the issue with Mexico. Why don’t we offer the ultimate hand of freedom to them, “Offer to allow them to join the Union”. We have room on the stars and stripes for another star.
This would be a plan that true Americans can get behind, and one that Mexico should be able to get behind to. If they truly want what America has to offer, we take it to them, instead of them having to come to us.
Instead of wasting billions of dollars on a fence, we use it to improve our newest state. The border at the southern end of Mexico is a lot smaller than the one we are trying to secure now.
Were throwing billions of dollars at them anyway.
Report Post »sodun
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 6:46pmi wish i was president…
Report Post »drattastic
Posted on September 9, 2010 at 7:26pm“BR549” you can’t possibly be serious ,no one ,not even a liberal could be that naive
Report Post »dlloftin
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 4:07amBR549, you’re stupid. nuff said.
Report Post »Jim814
Posted on September 10, 2010 at 10:30amBR549,
The reason is because Mexico doesn’t want to become part of the US. If they did then they (Mexican government) would lose all their power. The corruption would end, and they, the leader, wouldn’t gain a thing for it.
The populace wouldn’t gain a thing either. Poverty would still run rampant because there still wouldn’t be any jobs.
We wouldn‘t want that because Mexico isn’t self reliant. They don’t have much in the way of infrastructure. Their roads are crap, their water treatment is crap. their electrical grid is crap. Police and fire are crap. Police in particular. If we moved fully trained law enforcement personnel in there, the drug lords would eat them alive. Your worried about Billions spent so your solution is to spend trillions AND start a civil war?
Have you thought it through? Exactly what it would take to bring all areas of Mexico up to the standards of your favorite state. By areas I don’t just mean geographic areas but also in terms of economy, civil service, infrastructure, all of it. Have you thought about who might reject such a plan on in the south? Have you thought about why some people might reject such a plan?
Whew, Glad your not king of the world.
Report Post »Midwest Belle
Posted on September 12, 2010 at 10:47amTo Jim814:
The corruption would end? Have you looked at OUR political system recently? Ripe with corruption. If Mexico became a state, it would be business as usual.
Report Post »