Now, I’m no lawyer, but this has to be one of the single most egregious examples of an out-of-control judiciary that I’ve seen in a long time.
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.
Oh jeez. Where to start? Illegal immigrants sued in federal court? Bwa…? Huh? That sounds almost like one of those “World’s Dumbest Criminals” segments, where somebody calls the cops to report that their drug stash has been stolen.
They usurp the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration
The fu…? Lemme check the map fer a sec, here. Pennsylvania. Hmmm. Kinda far north to be worried about hispanic illegal immigrants. So, one must assume that the statute in question is dealing with people who are ALREADY THERE. So how exactly is this infringing on federal immigration policy? Where does the statute deny citizenship, or entry into the US? It solely denies USE of city facilities to those who are in the country illegally.
deprive residents of their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process…
How about deprives LEGAL residents? Illegal residents HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Now, before anyone goes all twittery on me, let me state my case. If you enter the country legally, through an authorized port of entry, you display your passport, and receive the appropriate entry visa, in effect telling this country that you are here, then YES, you DO enjoy the protection of our laws and rights. If you sneak in, and hide your presence from the government, how do you then turn around and claim the protections of said government? If you flout the laws, actively avoid “due process,” how then do you (with a straight face) claim that you are in turn being deprived of due process? Think I’m wrong? Let’s quickly review the 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
The lying, festering suck-weasles behind this case have consciously and premeditatively used ONLY SELECTIVE PORTIONS of this amendment to make their case. It clearly delineates that the States cannot make any law abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Let’s continue:
…and violate state and federal housing law
You cannot deny housing based on race, gender or physical disability. Show me ANYWHERE where it places the same restriction on “immigration status.” I dare you.
“This decision should be a blaring red stoplight for local officials thinking of copying Hazleton’s misguided and unconstitutional law,” said Witold Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which represented the plaintiffs
Of courssssse. The “Atheist Communist’s Love Unit.” Color me suprised. And unConstitutional? How?! You know what’s unConstitional? The very foundation of this lawsuit. Shall we review the Tenth Amendment to said Constitution? We shall!
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
That said, I do not see how a FEDERAL circuit court has the juridiction or authority to summarily set aside a LOCAL township law attempting to restrict access to its buildings, facilities, and LOCAL or STATE services to a specific set of people; i.e. – Legal residents and citizens. Additionally, nowhere in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does it place any specific restrictions on the States regarding their handling or dealing with illegal aliens. At its core, this is ultimately a states’ rights issue.
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.
Ah ha. I see. So, no matter WHAT federal laws say, my “feeling” is that the “intent” here is that the Constitution covers anyone on U.S. soil, regardless of their legal status. Hmmm. Maybe. But I doubt it. Let’s see what the actual preamble to the Constitution has to say about it:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union
If you are not a legal immigrant, or one here on a federally approved and issued visa/green card, then you are not a “people OF the United States.” If you are not a citizen, I’m sorry, but legally, You. Are. Not. Yet. An. American!!
If you (actually) read the text of the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, it states:
That United States Code Title 8, subsection 1324(a)(1)(A) prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens. The provision of housing to illegal aliens is a fundamental component of harboring
This ordinance seeks to secure to those lawfully present in the United States and this City, whether or not they are citizens of the United States,
This alone negates one of the core tenets of the lawsuit. It states specifically that legal residents, regardless of citizenship ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS. It deals only with those in the country illegally. This proposed law agrees very clearly with both State and Federal statutes that it is a crime to harbor a fugitive. An illegal alien is by definition a fugitive. By voluntarily harboring a person you know to be in the country illegally, you are in fact committing a federal crime. So this “Relief Act” is clearly IN COMPLIANCE with federal law.
And yet, this single judge has invalidated it on completely spurious and indefensible grounds. Oh, and surprise, surprise. This isn’t the first time. In a vivid case of Deja Vu, Good ol’ Judge Munley struck down a similar measure back in late 2006.
Judge Munley also ruled in December, 2006, that plaintiffs in the case did not have to disclose either their names or their immigration status. And I quote:
Judge James Munley of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania held that, “plaintiffs may legitimately fear removal from the country and separation from their families
Well NO SHIT! They are here ILLEGALLY! They SHOULD be removed from the country: it’s called deportation!
Is it significant that he’s also a Clinton appointee? No, but I don’t imagine it’s much of a surprise. Although, truth be told, given the current administration’s policy on illegal immigration, I can’t say as it probably really matters much.
That’s why I call this a clear-cut case of judicial activism. The foundation of the suit is completely nonsensical, brought by wanted criminals who want to achieve their goals through fiat by a sympathetic judge, rather than by abiding by the actual laws of this country.
This “gentlemen” should be impeached for willful malfeasance and failure to uphold his Oath of Office:
“I, ____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”