I'm surprised none of you ACLU loving moonbats have chimed in yet to praise them.

The ACLU is public enemy number one and must be targeted for destruction.

This case is just another example of their far left agenda. They side with ILLEGAL ALIENS over legal US citizens.

Fuck the ACLU and anyone that supports them!

Please, Bing,

The author of this article made some very good points about citizens protecting themselves when the federal government refuses to. Your comments don't help any.

There is a time to allow silence to rule...

ummm..the wording of the ordinance was changed yesterday to remove the bits that could be misconstrued...

the involved lawyers are looking at the new wording, but it hit the wires yesterday and after reading it, i do think all objections raised will be done with

the new wording removes any of the ambiguity that could be construed as discriminatory, and sets in plain language the ordinances against criminal behavior (ie: illegal immigrants)

the OP might want to check that out and amend accordingly once familiar with all the facts in the matter...not as much fun as firebombing, but more accurate....

The 10th Amendment doesn't apply, of course, since the feds regulate immigration.

Imagine the situation if each town in the US got to determine immigration policy.

The law will certainly, and rightly, be shot down. Thanks should then go to the ACLU, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Community Justice Project for protecting the rights of everyone and defending the Constitution.

Leslie,

The town of Hazleton is attempting to remove people who are there illegally by denying them the right to work. They are not attempting to "determine" immigration policy, they are attempting to enforce it.

Are the so called civil liberties groups protecting the rights of everyone? Or just the rights of criminals who are tresspassing in our Country. What about the rights of the residents of Hazelton who are unemployed because an illegal alien, who does not pay taxes, took his or her job away by agreeing to work for less money.

In reference to your statement about the 10th Amendment not applying, you say the Feds regulate immigration, which is true. However the federal government was not given absolute power over immigration by the US Constitution, it was Congress which delegated that authority.
The 10th says The powers not delegated to the United States by the CONSTITUTION are reserved to the people.

"The 10th Amendment doesn't apply, of course, since the feds regulate immigration. Imagine the situation if each town in the US got to determine immigration policy."

It is not as all clear cut as that. It is the 14th amendment that establishes the concept of U.S. citizenship. Otherwise, people residing in the United States are citizens of the constituent states they reside in. So there is a "blanket" of federal control covering a "sheet" of state and popular residual rights. Therefore, when the federal government allows the "blanket" of its rights to fray, the "sheet" of residual rights remains. It is this sheet of residual rights that has been asserted in the instant legislation, the ordinance of Hazelton, PA.

This broad concept has been asserted elsewhere. Some thirty years ago, a shopping mall that prevented a bunch of California kids from leafleting there arguing that its fifth amendment rights of property protection in the federal constitution overrode the first amendment right freedom of expression found in that same document. The federal supreme court recognized the supremacy of Article 1 of the California state constitution in recognizing the "liberty" rights of the respondent leafletters.

When I went to law school, the argument adopted by the court was the precise one I put forth in my paper on the subject for legal research. I had the pleasure of being right - only to fail because I did not properly cite cases and write what the professor considered legal logic.

I would also note that some American states have policies that are designed to discourage newcomers. Are they all illegal? That is a question worth looking at.

As for the ACLU, it is unfortunately, less and less of a blessing to Americans. The liberties it more and more protects, the right to illegally enter the United States, for example, damage the sovereignty of the country, or such little as remains.

Mr. Charles:
The enforcement of immigration policies is the responsibility of the federal government.

Your last two sentences reflect some misunderstanding of the US system of governance.

Ruvy:

I stand by my prediction that the suit will be quickly adjudicated in favor of the plaintiffs. Only an activist judge could possibly find anything in the Constitution that would allow a municipality to enforce immigration laws.

Of course, I may be underestimating the anger over the issue. I'm sure glad my grandparents didn't face this kind of legal atmosphere when they came here.

Leslie,

I suspect you may be right about this ordinance being overturned, but I stand by my analysis of the issues involved.

Unlike you, I do not live in the United States, and while one of my grand-nephews or grand-nieces may be ultimately involved, I do not have a dog in this race. My interest is purely academic. As a student of political science and as one involved in politics in America when I did live there, I always believed in strong state's rights and a strong local government.

Unfortunately, Israel does not have a strong system of local government, and we all suffer for this lack.

Ruvy,

In contradiction to your statement that only an activist judge "could possibly find anything in the Constitution that would allow a municipality to enforce immigration laws", the exact oppossite is true.

The Constitution does not give any branch of the Federal Government powers to regulate immigration with the exception of Article I Section 8 "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization". That rule is established by the Federal Government, and the local municipalities have every right to enforce federal laws (as far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned)

Charles,

I never said anything about activist judges - Leslie did (comment #8). You and I are singing from similar song sheets.

Mr. Charles:

You're still having some trouble understanding the US system. The 10th gives the powers not delegated to the US to the states. Article 1, Section 8 gives the power to regulate naturalization to the federal government, hence the 10th does not apply.

And your theory that localities have a right to enforce federal laws is incorrect according to the courts. Recall that this is precisely the reason Calif.'s prop 187 was overturned.

Leslie,

I do not mean to pick bones with you, but law is all about picking bones. The right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization is not the same thing as regulating entry or egress from the United States for the purpose of seeking permanent residence there.

To be precise, the right to regulate entry or egress from the United States for purposes of seeking peermanent residence comes under the preovision of Article II, section 8, clause 18, which reads:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Ruvy or Charles -

Please allow me to pick your brain(s), as you clearly have a solid legal understanding.
Where I live (a sanctuary city), the city government in association with a local college and the AARP put out an ad in the newspaper in Spanish, offering to help assist illegal immigrants with their taxes as far as three years back, in order to help them get a credit of $1000 per child.

OK, that doesn't sound to terrible, but it goes on to say specifically that they can receive this assistance even if they are using a false SSN! Isn't that a felony, and isn't it considered aiding and abetting the commission of a felony?

Ruvy, you mean Article ONE, section 8, right? And I wasn't aware that the court had interpreted it the way you say, but it makes sense. I don't think that it changes my point that the power is specifically assigned to the fedgov in the Constitution, so the 10th amendment doesn't apply.

"...but it goes on to say specifically that they can receive this assistance even if they are using a false SSN! Isn't that a felony, and isn't it considered aiding and abetting the commission of a felony?"

I'm no expert on tax law, but this ad might well be a sting...

This is not related directly to the article, but it is definitely related.

A woman I know, a resident of Ramallah who had a job cleaning houses of various Israelis in Jerusalem, was caught today with a false ID by border guards. Those who hired her could have all had NIS 50,000 ($11,905) fines levied against them under the law. Apparently all of her employers let her go immediately. Apparently, the employers all had accepted the false ID as true.

This woman is married to a man who is crippled, and hers is the only income for her, her husband and eight children. The issue of illegal immigration, economic migration, etc. is not as cut and dried as it looks, and when the issue cuts close to home, it definitely highlights the injustice of the economics system - particularly here.

Israel's unemployment system does not apply in the Palestinian Authority. She now must rely on the charity of her clan and neighbors in Ramallah.

And that is the hard issue with illegal immigration.

Many of these people are needy and desperate, and it is often tempting to ignore the law, but how far can we take that without serious deterioration of the Rule of Law which is the basis of sane civilization?

As for possibilty of a sting? No, not here where I live; never happening. We (local Gov't) are so pro-illegal immigration that the Sheriff attends rallies in favor of it.

#16 and all other comments

I applaud this small town to stepping up and cutting the politically correct red tape surrounding illegal immigration.

I guess the problem I have with this is the lack of understanding when it comes to people supporting illegal immigration.

If you want higher healthcare costs, increased crime rates and the associated costs of housing these illegal immigrants I guess you alone should be flipping the bill. There has been NO reasonable financial benefit for allowing illegal immigration to go as far as it has. It is outrageous and financially stupid to support such activities. Are the cost savings of hiring illegal immigrants being passed down to consumers? NO. Are we allowing a new slave generation to flourish? YES. Its not that Americans wont do the jobs,its the fact that they wont do them for $4/hr and live in a single bedroom apartment with 15 other people. Get your facts and look at the ugliness of it all.

It's so easy to blame the "big bad government" for everything isn't it? Are you going to pay for more INS agents? OR are you going to push off these responsibilities on others?

Like it or not, we have a HUGE issue in this country and it is only going to grow.

I hate to say this, but when people feel threatened and feel our government (in the people's mind) is not doing their job in protecting them, right or wrong, the law will be taken into the hands of the individuals. So we can debate the issues and who is responsible for immigration (legal vs. illegal), whether it is under federal jurisdiction, state, or local jurisdictions as much as we care to, however when it become violent, its too late.

My take on the situation is to just look at the status if the people involved (ILLEGAL), not their nationality. If any county has a problem with our policies, which are very liberal, then these countries should do the only right and legal thing...Apply or statehood and become a part of the United States of America.

happy PI today

IMO Charles started out to make a point that is perhaps more interesting than Hazeltons apparent xenophobia, namely, that the ACLU has degenerated politically into the tool of minority activists who seek more to advance the cause of their supporters than to uphold the Civil Liberties provisions of the US Constitution. One could argue that the ACLU, having recruited various minorities to their causes has come to be dominated by those minority partisans rather then by supporters of their original charter.

If one can carry this argument then one can argue that traditional supporters of the ACLU should consider removing their support and allying with a more suitable outfit, or throw off that spurious leadership.

This, then, would create a more interesting debate and struggle about usurpation of power similar to the arguments about the usurpation of the republican/conservative movement by various factions like the neocons, evangelists, warriors, etc., instead of anecdotal spitting and complaining about someone who did some bad thing sometime in the past.

Mr. Methuselah:

Perhaps you believe the racism in your argument ---- that those damn minorities have taken over the ACLU and ruined evrything ---- is somehow subtle. It's not.

#21

Get over yourself please.

Why is it when conservatives use common sense they are automatically called a racist, biggot, or worse? I have many friends of different ethnic backgrounds, but that doesnt stop me from using common sense when it comes to looking at the effect illegal immigration has had on this country or any other matter that happens to be ethnically specific. Common sense issues that escape people in the ACLU like officers stopping someone without a registered vehicle and checking their ID and verifying nationality. Its really simple if you think about it, its not race based, its common sense. The ACLU is once again using the same logic that allowed the first 9-11 to take place and will fail to stop the next attack. 2+2 always equals 4.

The world is not created on top a blanket of warm colorful flowers. Lets face it, the majority(no pun intended) of issues that the ACLU supports are not for the good of the country, but rather for the individual rights of people that in most cases don't contribute anything to the whole. This "politically correct", secular view is going to send this country into another civil war.

I will be the one on the battle field waving the American flag with a rifle at side, while these ACLU losers are hiding in closets.

Go ahead call me a racist.

I would simply call you confused. My understanding is that the ACLU does nothing more nor less than defend the US Constitution from attack coming from anywhere on the political spectrum...

...And does so impartially, it should be noted. It is completely non partisan.

Fuck me, Clavos! You and I are agreeing!! You know that makes you a raving socialist, right? rofl

Pleased? I should coco.

I never said I was incorruptible, Chris.

Well you are in only the 20th least corrupt nation.

Mr. Nichols and Mr. Methuselah:
I implore you to examine what the ACLU actually is and does. Please visit their website or do a little googling. I seriously and sincerely think you will agree with their aims and methods. Or just try this: At their website, randomly click on one of the cases they have gotten involved in.
I GUARANTEE you will agree with the ACLU's position.