July 28, 2007
ACLU and Fed judge agree: Enforcing immigration laws is unconstitutional
The citizens of Hazleton, Penn., fed up with the costs and crime associated with illegal immigration -- and the failure of the federal government to do anything about it -- decided to do something about the influx of illegals into their town. So they passed an ordinance fining businesses who hire illegals and landlords who rent to them.
Are ya shocked that the town has lost its first legal battle to the illegal aliens' best friends: the ACLU and a federal judge?
The Corner's Mark Krikorian passes on an interesting observation from a reader, responding to news that a federal judge has bought (and apparelntly smoked) whatever it is the ACLU was selling.
A reader makes a good point:
It is amazing how Hazleton could pass a "sanctuary city" law if it wished, without apparently running afoul of the constitution.
It could even do what New Haven did, and offer ID cards and services specifically to illegals.
The only local laws which ever get struck down as "unconstitutional" are the ones which would actually reinforce what is the formal Federal law.
Local laws which *contradict* Federal law never seem to draw the attention of the judges.
Nor, I would add, do they draw the attention of the ACLU, which I believe has sued every single jurisdiction which has had the temerity to reinforce federal law. A look at the different paths taken by Hazleton and New Haven is here.
It is, as the Business Week article says, the perfect Catch-22 situation: the feds fail to fix the problem; when the local town tries, they're slapped down and told that only the feds can fix the problem.
Hazleton officials plan to appeal the judge's ruling.
Posted by Mike Lief at July 28, 2007 08:20 AM
| TrackBack