Friends,

It is important to know about the federal decision on Hazleton's
anti-immigrant measure; we can use it as an example to deter others from
passing similar measures in other cities, counties or states. Please,
read the article below and an excerpt from the Judge's decision (further
down) which restores some of the lost faith in the system. 

Note: I have a copy of the whole decision but it is 206 pages long, if
anyone is interested, I will be glad to forward it to you.

Sandra.

**********************************************
Judge strikes down Hazleton's illegal immigrant law
7/26/2007, 3:01 p.m. ET 
By MICHAEL RUBINKAM 
The Associated Press             

HAZLETON, Pa. (AP) - A federal judge on Thursday struck down the city of
Hazleton's tough crackdown on illegal immigrants, ruling
unconstitutional a law that has been emulated by towns and cities around
the nation.
The Illegal Immigration Relief Act, pushed by the city's Republican
mayor last summer after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal
shooting, was voided by U.S. District Judge James Munley following a
nine-day trial in March.
"This decision should be a blaring red stoplight for local officials
thinking of copying Hazleton's misguided and unconstitutional law," said
Witold J. Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union
of Pennsylvania, which represented the plaintiffs.

The decision will almost certainly be appealed by the city. Mayor Lou
Barletta scheduled a news conference for 4 p.m. Hazleton had sought to
impose fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny
business permits to companies that give them jobs. A companion measure
would have required tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a
rental permit.
Barletta, chief proponent of the crackdown, contends illegal immigrants
have brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city of more than 30,000,
overwhelming police, schools and hospitals.

Hispanic groups and illegal immigrants sued in federal court to overturn
the measures, saying they usurp the federal government's exclusive power
to regulate immigration, deprive residents of their constitutional
rights to equal protection and due process, and violate state and
federal housing law.
In a 206-page opinion, Munley said the act was pre-empted by federal law
and violated the plaintiffs' due process rights.

"Whatever frustrations ... 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,"
Munley wrote.

"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," he added.

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. Munley's ruling does not affect those measures.

Hispanic immigrants began settling in large numbers in Hazleton several
years ago, lured from New York, Philadelphia and other cities by cheap
housing, low crime and the availability of work in nearby factories and
farms. The city, situated 80 miles northwest of Philadelphia, estimates
its population increased by more than 10,000 between 2000 and 2006.
Testimony during the trial pegged the city's illegal immigrant
population at between 1,500 and 3,400.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or
redistributed.
(c) 2007 PennLive.com All Rights Reserved.
***********************************************************

This language can restore any lost faith in the court system:  

"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. The genius
of
our Constitution is that it provides rights even to those who evoke the
least sympathy from the general public. In that way, all in this nation
can
be confident of equal justice under its laws. Hazleton, in its zeal to
control the presence of a group deemed undesirable, violated the rights
of
such people, as well as others within the community. Since the United
States
Constitution protects even the disfavored, the ordinances cannot be
enforced."