printHeroic Hazelton goes up against the ACLU and Federal occupiers. I gave you my take on the town’s plight in “Aliens in the Own Hometown.” Read it for background. I’ll quote one paragraph:
“Reasonable people can debate the constitutionality of [Mayor Louis] Barletta’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act and other Ordinances; only sophists would depict these as a usurpation of federal authority. What next? Banning the neighborhood watch for busying itself with crime? Doesn’t that overlap with state police activities?”
Here’s an update on the case. Transcripts are courtesy of CNN’s Lou Dobbs:
Hazleton, Pennsylvania, is one town that knows firsthand the impact of illegal immigration and what’s required to fight back. The city’s Illegal Immigration Reform Act was struck down by a federal judge more than a year ago. The case is now before an appellate court. At issue? Hazleton’s right to hold employers and landlords responsible for doing business with illegal aliens. Bill Tucker has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Just 200 yards from the birthplace of Liberty, Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, lawyers came and judges convened to hear arguments over a town’s limits on governing itself. The courtroom was packed.
The city of Hazleton arguing that its ordinances punishing employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and landlords who rent to illegal aliens are proper and necessary. Lawyers for the ACLU and other groups contend the local ordinances are unconstitutional.
The city appealed to a federal appeals panel after losing its case in the lower district court. But much has changed since those initial arguments. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the state of Arizona, which has similar statutes and a federal district court ruled that Valley Park, Missouri’s local ordinances modeled after Hazleton’s, are legal.
KRIS KOBACH, ATTORNEY FOR HAZLETON: We urge the 3rd Circuit to remain consistent with what the 9th Circuit did out in California and uphold the abilities of cities and states to take limited steps to encourage the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
TUCKER: The ACLU argued the original court order should be allowed to stand. Otherwise, they argued, there will be a patchwork of immigration laws.
WITOLD WALCZAK, ATTORNEY, ACLU: If the court allows laws like Hazleton to go forward, what you’re going to have is immigrant- friendly and immigrant-hostile enclaves in this country.
TUCKER: He rejects the argument that all Hazleton is trying to do is draft laws that are in compliance with federal law. And he argues that the notion of determining a person’s legal status is more complicated than just knowing if they’re unlawfully present in the country. The mayor of Hazleton stands by his law, which has never been enforced.
MAYOR LOU BARLETTA, HAZLETON, PA: I’ll fight this all the way to the Supreme Court. I believe what we’re doing is right and that we have the right to do this.
TUCKER: He may get that chance.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: Now just when that day might be, Lou, we don’t know. According to the lawyers, it could take anywhere from four months to a year before the court issues its ruling. Lou?