Federal Court Throws Out Hazleton Anti-Immigration Laws
In a potentially ground breaking ruling, a Federal Court negated Hazleton, Pennsylvania’s anti-immigration laws. The town made national headlines, in 2006, when it passed a series of laws aimed at discouraging illegal immigrants from finding their way to Hazleton. The Court reviewed the City’s “Tenant Registration Ordinance” and “Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance.”
The ordinances were thrown out primarily on the principle of preemption. The Congress may expressly forbid states and local governments from passing laws. A local law would be implicitly preempted if it interferes with or conflicts with already existing federal laws.
In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, providing for the removal of illegal aliens from the United States. The Act expressly preempted any state and local laws imposing penalties for hiring undocumented workers. The Court, relying on the Act’s preemption clause, threw out Hazleton’s ordinance penalizing employers who hire illegal workers.
Federal law also reserves to the federal government the right to remove a foreign national or to allow him to remain in the country. Hazleton’s laws forbidding renting property to illegal aliens conflict with the federal government’s right to allow an illegal alien to remain in the country. So, the Court ruled against Hazleton’s anti-rental laws.
August 13th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Thank you for posting this information.
October 30th, 2007 at 6:09 am
The Hazelton ordinance will likely be decided by the US Supreme Court. The first ruling was by activist Clinton-appointee Judge Munley whom the ACLU (Anti-American Civil Liberties Union) carefully choose.
In his 206 page ruling Munley stated;
“Whatever frustrations officials of 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. 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.”
Many would dispute that the federal scheme was carefully drawn in that the system has not functioned for 20+ years and was designed to fail.
Isn’t it amazing that illegal aliens are given more rights than citizens – mainly the right to violate laws with impunity?
The judiciary needs to keep up with the total anger of citizens on this issue or our legal system will become meaningless.
October 30th, 2007 at 6:36 am
Judge Munley ruled against Hazelton, PA on the basis of preemption of federal law.
Many believe that his ruling was incorrect because the local enforcement ordinance did not “regulate” but merely enforced federal law.
This “regulation” dispute leads to the hypocritical situations where local governmental entities contradict federal law or prohibit enforcement of federal law. Federal law is contradicted by the many local government sponsored illegal alien hiring halls plaguing our nation. Federal law enforcement is prohibited by Sanctuary Cities which expressly prohibit police from working with federal law enforcement agencies. Will the courts stike down these menaces to our society?
It is going to take concerted action by all Americans to ensure a government of the people, for the people and by the people to protect citizens from what many call invasion, not immigration.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Congress expressly intended for local law enforcement to act in cases in which officers have reason to believe that an individual is in the country illegally, even though immigration law enforcement is not their primary responsibility. In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed legislation that protects individual officers who act to enforce federal immigration laws, even if their departments have non-cooperation policies.
=================================================
jack
=================================================
New York Immigration Lawyer Marina Shepelsky, located in Brooklyn, assists clients from the New York metro area and across the
United States in all immigration and naturalization matters http://www.e-us-visa.com
April 30th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Why is it that Federal Law is against with the illegal alien renting a state property, well in fact, it is an extra income to the side of the state and and this aliens might be become an investor of the state. This conflict between the Federal law and the federal government is meaningless.
Dan
New York Immigration Lawyer Marina Shepelsky, located in Brooklyn, assists clients from the New York metro area and across the United States in all immigration and naturalization matters
http://www.e-us-visa.com
June 17th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
This law is so wrong
July 5th, 2008 at 3:27 am
I think this post is right on “target”.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Immigration law refers to national government policies which control the phenomenon of immigration to their country.Immigration law regarding the citizens of a country is regulated by international law.
============================================
Michael
http://www.shepelskylaw.com
January 18th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
These are not surprising my anymore, but thanks..
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
[...] Federal Court Throws Out Hazleton Anti-Immigration Laws [...]
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:12 pm
As much as I want to budle everyone up and hold them tight, there just isn’t enough for everyone, as horrible as that sounds.
March 5th, 2010 at 11:02 am
[...] government that included testimony from former Assemblyman Brian McLaughlin, who was convicted …Attorney Find Blog Blog Archive Federal Court Throws Out …In a potentially ground breaking ruling, a Federal Court negated Hazleton, Pennsylvania’s [...]
March 12th, 2010 at 3:27 am
It’s a very good post I have come across.I really like this post very much.It’s a very appreciated post.Thanks for sharing.Keep blogging.
DUI Attorney