ACLU vs. Hazleton ordinance - Merged Threads
- Thread starter Lambo
- Start date
How did you get THAT??
I didn't mean that at all.
I'm questioning that part of GS reply that
Am I to understand that no action can be taken at the local level against those that break federal laws, regardless of the consequences brought about by those laws being broken?
A town MUST let itself endure all the myriad evils of an unfettered influx of illegal aliens(rise in crime/illegal housing-overcrowding/ financial strain on schools, hospitals, infrastructure, etc) to the point of going bankrupt even, and do NOTHING because the laws being broken are federal laws???
That's like the math teacher seeing a student being beaten but doesn't do anything because it's happening in science class.
Or the cop that does nothing to stop a mugging because it's happening in another precinct.
I don't care what designation a law is given.
Is the local hospital, due to caring for so many nonpaying illegals, going out of business to any lesser degree because the illegals broke federal, not local, law?
If it's being broken, and people are being hurt because of it, local gov't should be allowed to enact laws to protect itself and its citizens.
No, I'm saying that the laws regarding our borders are within the Federal purview (they are, after all, *national* borders). As such, it is the Federal government's job to secure the borders, not municipal.
If somebody is an illegal, they're supposed to be arrested, tried, convicted, and punished in accordance with the law.
According to the ordnance, that wouldn't be adequate protection. Knowingly or unknowingly means that hiring an illegal even if he checks out would leave you in violation of the ordnance.
They did address this in the new draft by replacing that with "due dilligence", but I don't think that goes far enough since they never defined the term. Is the hot-dog vendor supposed to run a background check on everybody who walks up to his cart and tell his patrons "I'll sell you this hot-dog in 2 weeks when you clear the system?
Apples & oranges. In this case it's not a matter of knowing what the law is, but knowing whether you're complying with it.
"Doubt" being the operative word. You don't know that because it wasn't clearly outlined.
"Good faith attempt" wasn't the wording. If it was, I wouldn't have brought it up.
I'm certain it would. In fact, it would have made them too vigilant because they would have started punishing legal minorities by denying them food, shelter, and jobs on the grounds that they *might* be illegals.
I seriously doubt that any of us want that.
Because as I said, it would have been impossible to know for certain if you were breaking the law.
Passports, yes. Do you carry one on you? What about your birth certificate? How would you like to have to go home to get it because they won't serve you at Denny's?
Your SS number, absolutely not.
Your state-issued driver's license is supposed to be your proof of identity, but just because somebody has one doesn't mean he's a legal resident. And just because somebody showed it to you before you hired him doesn't mean you're innocent.
Who cares if you're convinced?
The judge wasn't convinced and that's what matters.Evidently, else it wouldn't have been shut down.
It's an impediment to an illegal and unconstitutional solution. If you want to fix the problem, fix it legally.
I'm not against it. Heck, secure both borders. If the ACLU is against the fence, sucks to be them. There's not a court in the land that's going to deny building it.
You're kidding, right!?
You think every single illegal should be given a trial!!!!
Do you have a vague idea of the financial mess THAT would create???
And a few more years for appeals I'm sure!
Arrested and deported if they can't prove citizenship.
Where were sales to illegals mentioned?
I didn't see that part.
This is designed to keep illegals from finding work,housing and using up social services.
Aren't we expected to comply with EVERY law?
And if you are an employer, it is incumbent upon you to utilize every means at your disposal to make sure, to the best of your ability, that who you hire IS a LEGAL resident.
If an employer utilizes all of the government sanctioned screening methods
and one, two or more still somehow manage to get through, then the problem lay with the system.
Granted, it's NOT perfect.
But you do the best you can.
The laws get tweaked here and there, until they get as good as we can make them.
What facts do you have to back that up with?
If that were the case, those same minorities wouldn't be hired now by every major corporation in the country.
These minorities are being hired by the thousands all over the country after passing the present forms of screening.
Doesn't "due process" mean the right to utilize the judicial system ie; a trial/hearing etc?
How is that being denied them.
Actually, I meant SS CARD, not just the number.
I know I've had to present my SS card for any job I interviewed for.
Isn't the number than checked against a name?
And that name better be the same as the person in posession of the card, right?
I've also had to show some utility bill with MY name on it to verify residency.
All these things add up to a firewall to help fight the problem.
I wasn't aware that it HAD been shot down!
Where did you see that?
And one judges' decision is not the final say on it.
I have no problem with that either.
But if a patient has multiple maladies, do you do NOTHING unless you can remedy ALL of them?
Or do you do what you can every step of the way and fix what you can, when you can?
It seems to me you guys go out of your way to make sure you find any and all reasons, no matter how minute, to foil any attempts to help/protect this country.
If there is ONE clause out of 30 that doesn't sit right with you, you would rather see the country suffer rather than bend for the general good.
Enlighten me, will you?
Give me a short list of recent/past cases where the ACLU has fought FOR something that would NOT be considered a "liberal" cause?
A case where the ACLU litigated IN FAVOR of something along the lines of national security.
Or for the right of an employer NOT to hire a "minority" because they had facial piercings or something.
Didn't the ACLU recently win an upstate NY case where moslem prayers could be sent blasted from speakers with the approval of the city council?
On the grounds that the prayers were the same as church bells?
I may have it wrong.
Anyway, I'm sure if we could read about all of the heretofore unheralded "conservative" court battles the ACLU has won, it just might get some new members.
I'm sure there are other readers that would love to hear about those cases also.
I've merged both threads, as they effectively deal with the same topic.
So immigration and border security, while not explicit, are implicit in those two clauses.
The only thing you've done is to state you don't like this law. You certainly haven't shown how it is unconstitutional or even unlawful under State law. Care to re-examine your arguments?
Article I Section 10 contains no prohibitions on a State enacting it's own laws when dealing with illegal aliens. Barring a state prohibition, the town may very well do what it wants in this instance. Do you know if the State prohibits a municipality from enacting anti-illegal aliens ordinances? (ordnances are munitions)GoSlash said:
Um, it is a city ordinance. Education comes from publication (usually in the city council minutes) of the ordinance.
As you know, this was changed to "Due Diligence." Due diligence is a little more involved than "Reasonable Man" standards, but not by much. When an employer hires an employee, he uses due diligence in examining the employees various ID as required under federal law in filling out form I-9. The prospective employee could still be an illegal alien, but the employer has met the law if the paperwork he's given is reasonably legitimate. It would be fairly easy for a landowner/manager to apply the same criteria to renting. This would meet the requirements.
Not specificly. However the Constitution does provide the Congress with the power to legislate an uniform Rule of Naturalization and Offenses against the Law of Nations (Article I Section 8 Clauses 4 and 10). Like it or not, protecting a nations borders are one of them pesky Offenses against the Law of Nations.
So immigration and border security, while not explicit, are implicit in those two clauses.
You are talking of the 14th amendment here. The terms you are looking for are Due Process and Equal Protection.
Where? I've already shown you that the due diligence criteria can be met. If the federal law requiring I-9's is constitutional, then so is this method.
The only thing you've done is to state you don't like this law. You certainly haven't shown how it is unconstitutional or even unlawful under State law. Care to re-examine your arguments?
#1 Isn't that generally what you do when people are doing things you deem...well....*illegal*? Because that's what the Constitution demands. Why? Read on...
#2 Everybody in the United States (including the illegals) is entitled to equal protection under the law. That means you don't treat them differently just because they're not citizens. You may punish them for violating the law, but the process can't be different.
#3 your idea sounds great...right up to the point where you arrest and deport your first American citizen. How much leeway do you give someone to prove they're an American? Do you just presume they're guilty until proven innocent and then hang them before giving them a fair trial first?
What country do you think this is?
If your creepy vision of America ever comes to pass and you're accidentally deported because of a transcription error in your file, first thing I'm gonna do is laugh at you.
Afterwards, I'll help get you back in. Not because I think the country's better off with people like you (I don't), but because that's not how we do things in this country.
Antipitas,
Thanks for the correcting the spelling errors.
Point #1 The Federal government has authority in matters of "Common Defense", not the States and certainly not Hazelton, PA.
Point #2, Not the existence of the ordinance, but how to comply with it.
Point #3, that's not what the ordinance said. Even if it did, you expect to apply it to "joe cabbie" and the girl at the Wendy's drive-thru?
I think you need to have another look at this thing.
Point #4 Not sure why you refer to border security as "pesky". As I said, I'm all for it. Maybe I misunderstand your point.
From you tone it appears you have doubts as to whether someone who sneaks into our country is illegal or not.
That figures!
And I won't need your help getting back into the USA because Your nihilistic/paranoid view of it is not going to happen.
Please go to other ACLU thread.
isn't that what people say about gun owners thinking our government is going to take our guns away so they can oppress us?
Let's say Mr Rodriguez, legal American resident born in Mexico City, loses his wallet and gets pulled over for a busted taillight. Lost his wallet so he can't show a license so off he goes to jail. Broken english, brown skin...hey this guy's Mexican and he can't prove he's not an illegal! Off he goes.
is that fair? not everyone has friends of family they can call to vouch for them. maybe he just moved to town and doesn't have an apartment or job yet. how is he supposed to prove he's here legally if he's not provided due process under the law?
There are exceptions to that, however.GoSlash said:
My point being that illegal aliens can be legislated at the State and/or local level, as it is not forbidden in the Constitution. It doesn't have to be a matter of "common defense" as you put it.
It is complied with like any other law. The only hard part about it is forgoing those easy $$$ by those who want to profit off the actions of those unlawfully in our country. The financial outlay that communities pay, shouldn't have to be born by the many for the profit of the few.
I've just re-read the ordinance. There is nothing there that applies to "joe cabbie" or the girl at Wendy's, unless they are illegal aliens, as defined under 2006-18 Section 3(D) or unlawful workers under 3(E).
Your constant reference to feeding illegal aliens is a misnomer, as the ordinance does not in any manner address that situation.
A simple point, really. Many of those opposed to tighter border security (and controlling the influx of illegal aliens at all) refuse to recognize this basic principle of the Law of Nations.
The city is empowered by the people of Hazleton to abate the nuisance of illegal immigration. It is doing this by the proposed ordinance, in combination with two other ordinances that aren't being discussed in this thread:
See Landlord Tenant Ordinance and the English as the Official Language Ordinance.
All in all, the ordinance(s) appears to be well crafted to withstand legal challenges and to abate the nuisance.
Go Slash27,
*[edited to add]
There are plenty of things that the federal gov’t does that you could argue are unconstitutional, and I’d probably agree with more than a few of them. However, in this case this is about as clear a violation of the constitution as you can get.
A city has the authority to enact and enforce any law it wants. A valid case could be made that they couldn’t enact (or enforce) a law that violates the US constitution (this being a post 1865 world, I’ve no interest in disagreeing with that point in this conversation). Clearly illegal immigration does violate the constitution (see comments below, or at least stipulate that it violates federal statues). States and municipalities have the inherent right to “...protect the lives, health, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the people…” Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 480 (1905). I know you’ve attempted to sidestep this point, but please respond to the actual case law that shows that local gov’t can enact and enforce their own laws along these lines.
Please find the federal, state or city law/ordinance that requires the gov’t educate individuals as to the law or interpretation of the law, or most effective manner in which to comply with the law
The cold hard fact of life is that the United States has a long standing legal tradition that ignorance of the laws is no excuse (particularly in light of the "reasonable man" or "due diligence"). If due diligence is not met, then "unknowingly" makes no difference.
Section 8 of the US constitution states that congress has the power to “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. It has long been held that the power to establish such rules imply the power to enforce those rules. Somebody that circumvents our “rules” of naturalization by illegally crossing the border has violated the constitution in about as clear a manner as it possible.*
*[edited to add]
There are plenty of things that the federal gov’t does that you could argue are unconstitutional, and I’d probably agree with more than a few of them. However, in this case this is about as clear a violation of the constitution as you can get.
Last edited:
Deportable because he lost his wallet?
Also it's not always easy to prove. Let's say he was just walking down the street as opposed to driving, he's got no friends or family in the area, it's Sunday afternoon and his boss is unreachable.
There are a million different scenarios in which a legal resident or even a legal citizen could be unable to prove legal status immediately. Thus the need for due process to give them a chance to prove it.
edit: oh, I see what you mean. driving without a license...so what would you do if you were fourty miles from home and your wallet was stolen? refuse to drive home?
Also it's not always easy to prove. Let's say he was just walking down the street as opposed to driving, he's got no friends or family in the area, it's Sunday afternoon and his boss is unreachable.
There are a million different scenarios in which a legal resident or even a legal citizen could be unable to prove legal status immediately. Thus the need for due process to give them a chance to prove it.
edit: oh, I see what you mean. driving without a license...so what would you do if you were fourty miles from home and your wallet was stolen? refuse to drive home?
Last edited:
During Labor Day weekend there was a illegal alien round-up in Stillmore, Ga.
The poultry plant is having to raise it's wages, such a shame.
Draw your own conclusion.
http://breakingnews.redstate.com/bl...eferences_to_the_gestapo_and_walmart_included
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...17,0,2618144.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-print
badbob
The poultry plant is having to raise it's wages, such a shame.
Draw your own conclusion.
http://breakingnews.redstate.com/bl...eferences_to_the_gestapo_and_walmart_included
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...17,0,2618144.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-print
badbob