The large scale apathy demonstrated by citizens of this nation has emboldened elected representatives to all but ignore the needs of the average American citizen in a quest for massive campaign funds and the promises of votes to be ostensibly delivered by special interest groups. There is much that we cannot do but there is one thing that We the People absolutely must do- we must stop sitting on the sidelines!
If this situation concerns you or especially if it angers you, I ask you to call your Senators and Congressional “Representative. This is not only your right- it is your obligation!
All I ask is that you make it clear to our politicians that we are not as dumb as they hope we are!
We live in a perilous world and in a perilous era. The survival of our nation and the lives of our citizens hang in the balance.
This is neither a Conservative issue, nor is it a Liberal issue- simply stated, this is most certainly an AMERICAN issue!
You are either part of the solution or you are a part of the problem!
Democracy is not a spectator sport!
Lead, follow or get out of the way!
The tide is turning in the battle over illegal immigration.
It appears that last month’s Supreme Court ruling upholding
Arizona’s E-Verify law will precipitate a potent counteroffensive
against the illegal immigration judicial defense industry.
In light of the Court’s 5-3 decision validating the right of state
and local governments to impose penalties on employers who hire illegal
aliens, the high court vitiated a ruling against a similar ordinance passed by government officials in Hazleton, Pennsylvania.
In 2006, following a sharp spike in violent crime perpetrated by
illegal aliens, Mayor Lou Barletta (now a Republican congressman)
signed an ordinance prohibiting landlords from renting to illegals and
employers from hiring them. Under the Hazleton Immigration Relief Act,
renters and employers who failed to verify the immigration status of
renters and employees would face fines or suspension of business and
rental licenses. This law was the impetus for dozens of subsequent
efforts by states and municipalities to curb their growing illegal
immigration problem.
Hazleton was challenged with well funded legal action by an unholy
alliance of the ACLU, special interest legal defense groups, and the
Chamber of Commerce. In 2007, the law was struck down by a federal
district judge on the premise that the law was preempted by federal
immigration law (Hazleton v. Lozano (10-772)). Last September, the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s preemption
argument against Hazleton. Today, the Supreme Court voided the
Appellate Court’s ruling and remanded the case to the
Philadelphia-based court for further review. This from Fox News:
The case will now be sent back to the Third Circuit with
instructions to review the matter given the court’s ruling in a nearly
identical case that a closely divided court resolved in May. That
decision said Arizona could pass laws revoking the business licenses of
employers who willfully hired illegals.Both cases focused on the compulsory use of the federal E-Verify
database, which tracks the immigration status of millions of people.
The high court, in a 5-3 ruling, said state governments can force the
use of the system even though Congress has never mandated its use.
Today’s ruling is a very salient victory for supporters of our
sovereignty and the rule of law. Hazleton was one of the earlier
battlegrounds in the fight against illegal immigration and has inspired
many other local governments to complete the job that the federal
government refuses to do.
Unfortunately, fifth columnists in this country, led by the ACLU,
employed a strategy to deter other states and municipalities from
enforcing immigration laws. Beginning with Hazleton, these affluent
and belligerent public interest law groups, funded by the unlimited
resources of radical philanthropists, filed lawsuits against every
municipality which sought to protect its residents from the vices of
illegal immigration.
Most local governments lack the sufficient funds to fend off costly
and lengthy lawsuits from those with unlimited resources and nothing to
lose. Additionally, due to the inevitable injunctions that were
issued against the enforcement laws during the judicial process, they
have been forced to wait 4-5 years just for their laws to take effect.
This served as a deterrent for other localities that desired to enact
similar legislation.
We are now seeing a turning point in the battle for our right to
self determination against foreign invaders. The Supreme Court’s
unequivocal endorsement of state enforcement of immigration law will
now provide inviolable case law for lower courts to use in upholding
local E-Verify ordinances. The latest rulings from the Supreme Court
will pave the road for future ACLU lawsuits to be tossed out early and
often and condemned as frivolous lawsuits.
These virtuous rulings from the highest court in the land could not
come at a better time. Following historic victories during last year’s
midterm elections, newly bolstered Republican majorities in state
legislatures across the country are seeking to crack down on illegal
immigration. They are passing laws which mirror the employer
enforcement law of Hazleton as well Arizona’s SB 1070, authorizing
local law enforcement to combat illegal immigration. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, in recent years, well over 1,000 immigration related bills have been introduced in state legislatures each year. Georgia and Alabama are the latest battlegrounds in the fight for state enforcement of immigration law.
The lawsuits against E-verify laws are all but dead now, while the
success of lawsuits against SB 1070-style legislation is pending review
from the Supreme Court. Judging from the Court’s categorical
rejection of the preemption argument in the E-verify case, the
prognosis for SB 1070 seems quite promising.
The tide is clearly turning in the battle over illegal immigration,
and the ACLU is on the wrong side. Those who seek full-time employment
subverting our immigration laws, might want to search for a different
line of work; possibly a job that most normal patriotic Americans would
do. Their defense of the indefensible will stop at the Supreme Court
this year.
The Republican presidential candidates must reject the naysayers in
the party establishment and run strongly and intrepidly on the illegal
immigration issue. It is clearly a winning issue with the broad
electorate.
As we continue to succeed in taking control of our immigration
system from unaccountable and officious lawyers, we should borrow the
rallying cry of Sam Houston during the incipient years of our border
wars: “remember Hazleton!”
Supreme Court Tells Court to Reconsider Hazleton Immigration Regulations
Politics
Supreme Court Tells Court to Reconsider Hazleton Immigration Regulations
Published June 06, 2011
| Fox News Latino
AP
A storefront with a Peruvian flag in the window is
shown for rent Thursday, Oct. 26, 2006 in Hazleton, Pa. This small
hillside city in northeastern Pennsylvania has yet to enforce a tough,
first-of-its-kind law targeting undocumented immigrants, but evidence
suggests that many Hispanics, illegal immigrants or otherwise, have
already left. That has hobbled the city’s Hispanic business district,
where shops that once flourished have either closed or are struggling to
stay open.
In another nod to local and state officials who want to take immigration matters into their own hands, the U.S. Supreme Court, on Monday, rejected a lower court ruling that blocked Hazleton, Pa.’s efforts to crack down on undocumented immigrants.
The Supreme Court ordered the 3d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to
take another look at Hazleton’s regulations that would deny permits to
business that hire undocumented immigrants and fine landlords who rent
to them.
The high court’s move comes on the heels of another ruling that
upheld Arizona’s law imposing sanctions on employers who hire
undocumented immigrants.
Years before Arizona’s headline-grabbing laws taking a hard-line on
illegal immigration, Hazleton’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act sparked
debates nationwide and inspired similar laws around the country,
including the one in Arizona that deals only with penalties for
employers.
“Hazleton has paved the way for other cities and states across the
country to enact similar laws, so this is a great day for all of those
cities and states, and for the people of Hazleton who had to endure
criticism from those who opposed what we were trying to do because the
federal government didn’t want do its job,” said U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta,
Hazleton’s former mayor, who pushed through the measures in 2006.
Hazleton, a northeastern Pennsylvania city of about 25,000, wants to
fine landlords who rent to undocumented immigrants and deny business
permits to companies that give them jobs. A companion measure requires
prospective tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental
permit.
Barletta advocated for the measures after two undocumented immigrants
were charged in a fatal shooting. Barletta, now a freshman congressman,
argued that the undocumented brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city
and overwhelmed police, schools and hospitals.
The laws have never been enforced. Hispanic groups and undocumented
immigrants sued to overturn the measures, and a federal judge struck
them down following a trial in 2007.
Monday’s order does not automatically mean that Hazleton will get to enforce the measures.
The Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit ruled in September that Hazleton’s
laws usurped the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate
immigration. But the appeals court did not consider two other arguments
raised by opponents of the Hazleton crackdown, and will now be free to
do so, said Witold Walczack, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania.
“Any celebration by the Hazleton officials would be premature,” he said Monday.
“We’re certainly not putting up the white flag. There’s much battle left to be done in this case.”
The Supreme Court typically order lower courts to re-examine cases in light of a high court decision in a similar case.
This is based on a story by The Associated Press.