A federal udge threw out Hazleton's law against illegal immigrants. Let me emphasize one words there. Illegal.
federal judge has struck down the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, ruling Hazleton's proposed crackdown on landlords and employers doing business with illegal immigrants is unconstitutional.
In a 206-page opinion, U.S. District Judge James M. Munley stated, "Federal law prohibits Hazleton from enforcing any of the provisions of its ordinance" aimed at expelling illegal immigrants."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.
The people targeted by Hazleton's law were illegal immigrants. Not you or I, or immigrants here legally. These people were here in direct violation of our immigration laws. Unfortunately, it was thrown out by an activist judge.
I'm sure that the ACLU and countless lawbreakers in Hazleton are happy.
Based on what the judge said, I want to know what would happen if there was a similar law against child predators, rapists, and murderers? What would happen if we had a federal government that refused to enforce laws against rape, child molestaion, and murder?
Under Munley's belief that "United States law prohibits the city from enacting ordinances that disrupt a carefully drawn federal statutory scheme.." then even if that federal government refused to enforce those laws then states would be powerless to do anything about it.
Rubbish.
Furthermore I believe that any federal laws enacted on immigration themselves are Unconstitutional on the 10th and 14th amendments.
The 14th Amendment, Section 1
Section 1. 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.Emphasis mine
The 10th Amendment
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.
Another thing to consider is that nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about immigration.
The US government has been tinkering with immigration law for decades now. Surveying the wreckage – heartbroken families, an underclass of exploited workers, and ruined lives – makes it clear why the Founding Fathers refused to trust the national government with power over immigrants.That's right: The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to control immigration. Nor does it say anything about illegal aliens. We looked for a clause with directions for ranking immigrants on a points system – another feature of the Senate's reform bill – but we couldn't find one.
All in all this ruling stunk. It is awful. It sets the groundwork and lays a foundation for eliminating even the sacred federal statutes Judge Munley mentioned in his opinion.
Are there parts of the law that should be changed or are too rough? Probably. I'm not especially happy with the elimination of due process for business owners.
Since the federal government seems content on not doing a damned thing about immigration or border security, should we sit on our laurels and do nothing? No!
Should supposed civil liberty groups be allowed to stand up for the "rights" of lawbreakers? No!
It's about time we stood up for the Rule of Law and for the principles of Federalism.
Posted by psugrad98 at July 26, 2007 06:13 PM | TrackBack
