AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2403 times:
When the duly elected representatives of Hazleton decided that enough was enough, and that they would pass a law barring the employment or renting of places of habitation to illegal aliens, one would be hard-pressed to dispute that local democracy had given effect to the desires of the people.
However, a federal court has issued a temporary restraining order saying that because the rights of all residents could be affected by such ordinance, the ordinance must be restrained.
By similar reasoning, the rights of nonspeeders as well as speeders could be negatively affected by restrictions against speeding, for how many of us theoretically could be pulled over despite going simply at the rate of traffic?
I wonder why the federal court did not believe that the rights of the majority of the people in Hazleton might be violated by barring the implementation of the ordinance against what, after all, is illegal under federal law?
Like the court, I would be concerned if the ordinance made arbitrary distinctions among citizens or those who are otherwise legally here. But, by contrast, the ordinance merely provides that if you're not in this country legally, the employers and landlords should not treat you as if you are, contrary to fact, legally here.
If citizens cannot make laws to distinguish between acts that are acceptable and those that are not based on the legality of residence, and if the federal government fails to enforce such laws already on the books despite citizen demand, then what, precisely, are citizens to do?
Is it any wonder that people are losing confidence in the courts?
JetsGo From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3059 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2385 times:
I read about this. That "Federal Judge" is a gutless joke. Seriously, what is so hard to grasp about the illegal part? With the current trend of our courts and what not, we may as well drop the illegal part since rarely is it enforced...
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2374 times:
Quoting JetsGo (Reply 1): I read about this. That "Federal Judge" is a gutless joke. Seriously, what is so hard to grasp about the illegal part? With the current trend of our courts and what not, we may as well drop the illegal part since rarely is it enforced...
I think that the court was interested in protecting the rights of every resident, regardless of legal or illegal residency. However, the intrusive nature of the order is apparent. The court's assertion of its power tends to give the impression that it is the federal courts that will be in charge of whether illegal aliens get to enjoy the benefits of being here, rather than localities. And, since neither the federal executive nor the federal judiciary seems amenable to local sentiment demanding that federal laws against illegal immigration be enforced, all this means is that the majority voters who support such distinctions will be frustrated -- not by any lack of majority belief, but by the reasonable suspicion that the beliefs of the majority simply don't matter to the federal government, which nonetheless will impose its own apathy on the citizenry.
I think that this frustration might eventually boil over as people decide that federal imposition of federal apathy is simply a form of tyranny.
I wish that more of those in power would realize that the anger of the people is already at a simmer, and that law means nothing if, eventually, it may lead to rebellion and disorder upon its complete and utter failure to respond to the people's needs.
Quote: "Defendant offers only vague generalizations about the crime allegedly caused by illegal immigrants but has nothing concrete to back up these claims," Munley wrote.
Hey judge, you just wrote the word illegal. Having trouble finding the crime, read your own finding.
Quote: In a 13-page opinion, Munley said immigrants risked "irreparable injury" by being evicted from their apartments if the law is enforced.
Quote: 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.
IFEMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2358 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 3): I think that the court was interested in protecting the rights of every resident, regardless of legal or illegal residency.
And that's where the problem lies. The court fails to recognize that illegal aliens don't and shouldn't have any rights of this nature. Give them the right to some water if they are dying of thirst, bread if they are dying of hunger, and some basic medical treatment if they are bleeding to death, but that's where the rights need to stop.
What about the right of US citizens to live without being invaded by illegals?
AirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2329 times:
Quoting MDorBust (Reply 9): Quoting AirCop (Reply 8):
Just one question: How can you or me tell just by looking at someone if they are an illegal resident? How about illegals from the Arab countries, Canada, Ireland, etc?
When the CHP hired you, how did they know you weren't an illegal resident?
It was called a background investigation, provided a copy of a birth certificate, passport etc. let them do the rest.
AirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2323 times:
Quoting FDXMECH (Reply 7): I think this lawsuit was brought on by that sh!tbag organization, the ACLU.
You thought wrong; the article in today's Arizona Republic states the lawsuit was put forth by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. Appears the targets are Puerto Rican (US Citizens by the way) and undocumented persons from the Dominican Republic.
Quote: The decision was welcomed by the coalition representing the Hazletonians challenging the ordinances: the American Civil Liberties Union, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Community Justice Project, the law firm of Cozen O'Connor and local attorneys George Barron, David Vaida and Barry Dyller.
57AZ From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2550 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2278 times:
Quoting MDorBust (Reply 12): I would have settled for a social security verification.
Most folks shy away from that due to the proliferation of identity theft. Incidentally, Social Security Verification is essentially worthless as proof of identification. You can't use it to get a passport for example.
As for the temporary restraining order, I imagine that whatever the result, the case will be sent on the the appellate courts on appeal. I should note that the federal law clearly states when immigration status may be used to permit or deny access to services by the states and local government bodies. An example that I see often here is people coming in to petition the superior court for a restraining order (known in the State of Arizona as either an Order of Protection or Injunction Against Harassment). Any person who petitions the court for such an order will be heard if the court is in session that same day. If the petition meets the criteria set forth by the Arizona Revised Statutes, the judge or hearing officer will issue the order and Orders of Protection will be served at no charge by the Sheriff of the county in which the defendant resides if they are in state. The court clerk will not take the person's immigration status into account when processing the petition as state and federal law prohibit that. By the same token, at present illegal migrants who are harmed by another and seek relief by filing a civil lawsuit are allowed under existing state law to seek relief under the same set of regulations as citizens. There is a Proposition seeking to close that avenue on the ballot this November.
Changing such a law takes time and a lot of it. Actually, rights of migrants is generally addressed by international treaties. If the US were to desire to change it's policy, it would still be obligated to observe the treaties to which it is a signatory unless it seeks to withdraw from them. I am certain that the able hand of the federal court will reach the proper conclusion under the law.
"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2263 times:
Thank you for your informative post. I would agree that the matter is not settled, but from what is known, the federal District Court's decision appears to presage a result that, in its effects on the ordinance or ordinances in question, temporary though it is, discourages civic participation. But it's almost certain, as you've noted, that the case will be appealed, regardless of the District Court's ultimate decision.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12837 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2263 times:
The Federal Judge in this case made the proper decision. Basically he made a temporary order upon the municipality of Hazelton that they cannot enforce this new law as the Federal Government, per the US Constitution, is the only government with the jurisdiction and policing power to enforce laws on people being in the USA illegally. There will be a full hearing with briefs from parties in a few weeks before this Judge as to a permanent order, to decide if the Hazelton ordinance is unconstitutional. There is no doubt that an appeal to the 3rd Cricuit of the US Court of Appeal in Philadelphia a few months thereafter. I would suspect the Circuit court would agree with the District Court Judge and the US Supreme Court wouldn't hear it and effectively uphold the Circuit court decision.
There is no doubt of the frustration of many citizens as to illegals. They see the recent immigrants, mostly from Mexico, Central American and the Caribbean, as stealing the limited jobs available, reducing the pay for many jobs, employers dumping health care and other benefits to remain competitive and otherwise hurting long time Americans and legal residents. The problem of illegals in the USA placing demands on their communities (schools, health care, police) and the USA government unwilling to spend the money or enforce laws upon employers who hire them is causing a huge demand for local laws to help their situation.
Better for localities is to have well written laws that can affect all, not just target illegals. Laws that limit the number of occupants in a building and that building and health laws are strongly enforced would help the housing side of the problem. Employers must be able to check out potential and current employees to make sure they are not hiring criminals, and if they cannot get enough confirming information, then they cannot employ them.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2237 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 16): ANY person within its jurisdiction. It doesn't say with or without papers.
First of all, as your quote says, the state cannot "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That means if you and I are both of equal legal status (we are both legal), we will be treated equally. At the same time if one of us has broken the law, the state no longer has to treat us equally.
Which brings us to the second point. "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." If the state wishes to deny us certain rights, it must do so with a legal process that is open to review and verification. That can mean a court, but can also mean any process whereby the authorities properly document the findings and resulting decision.
In all countries of the world that I know of, being in a country without the proper papers is a crime. What does Mexico do with illegal aliens? They boot them out rather vigorously. There is no question of equal rights when the subject has broken the law. Someone who breaks the law forfeits his rights. All the police have to do is properly log the offence, the attempt to verify the offence (calling INS, for example), and the sanction according to the law.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2230 times:
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 18): At the same time if one of us has broken the law, the state no longer has to treat us equally.
Indeed, the illegal immigration status of individuals should give basis for treating them differently when it comes to certain provisions of the law.
While everyone in this country is entitled to certain Constitutional rights, that, by way of example, certainly doesn't mean that they are not subject to the penalties of the law if they are in violation of it.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 69
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2222 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 16): "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
ANY person within its jurisdiction. It doesn't say with or without papers.
Well, like the judge ignoring his own use of the word "illegal" you ignored the "due process of law" part of it.
The citizens voting to enact a law requiring proof of citizenship as per the article is as good a definition of due process of law as I can think of.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.