News from the Pennsylvania ACLU (watch the right wing blogs explode, especially in Texas when they figure out the Farmers Branch ordinance is based on Hazleton’s ordinance, and that the judge in Pennsylvania used language similar to the TRO language used by the judge in Texas looking at the Farmers Branch ordinance) (text of press release and background from Pennsylvania ACLU):
Judge’s Decision Upholds Fair Treatment for All
“The genius of our Constitution is that it provides rights even to those who evoke the least sympathy from the general public. In that way, all in this nation can be confident of equal justice under its laws.” – Judge Munley’s Lozano v. Hazleton decision, pp. 188-189
In the first trial decision of its kind, a federal court has declared unconstitutional a local ordinance that sought to punish landlords and employers for doing business with undocumented immigrants. The landmark decision in the closely-watched challenge to Hazleton’s anti-immigrant ordinance held that the ordinance cannot be enforced.
“We are grateful the court recognized that municipal laws like those in Hazleton are unconstitutional. The trial record showed that these ordinances are based on propaganda and deception,” said Vic Walczak, Legal Director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania and a lead attorney in the case. “Hazleton-type laws are designed to make life miserable for millions of immigrants. They promote distrust of all foreigners, including those here legally, and fuel xenophobia and discrimination, especially against Latinos.”
The ACLU and co-counsel successfully argued that anti-immigrant laws like Hazleton’s are unconstitutional because they usurp federal immigration policy, fail to provide procedural protection to people before they are fired or evicted, and violate federal civil rights law.
In today’s decision, Judge James M. Munley wrote, “We cannot say clearly enough that persons who enter this country without legal authorization are not stripped immediately of all their rights because of this single act … The United States Supreme has consistently interpreted [the 14th Amendment] to apply to all people present in the United States, whether they were born here, immigrated here through legal means, or violated federal law to enter the country.”
During the two-week trial, Hazleton officials claimed that undocumented immigrants are responsible for an increase in local crime. But evidence at trial rejected that claim and showed that over the last 30 years undocumented immigrants have had the lowest incarceration rate of young men of every ethnic group. A 2002 study shows that the rate of incarceration among native-born men was five times higher than that of foreign-born men.
“Today’s decision sends an unmistakable message to local officials across the nation that these types of ordinances are a waste of taxpayer money, anathema to American values and a violation of the Constitution,” said Omar Jadwat of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project.
More information on Lozano v. Hazleton
In October 2006, a federal judge issued a restraining order preventing the town of Hazleton, Pa., from enforcing anti-immigrant legislation that it had enacted in the summer of that year. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Pennsylvania, the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Cozen O’Connor, the Community Justice Project, and several local attorneys.
Under the Hazleton legislation, businesses that refuse to comply with the laws and investigate the immigration status of employees and tenants would be fined or denied business permits. The law lacks any provision enabling targets of these investigations to effectively challenge determinations as to their status. The ordinances were slated to go into effect November 1, 2006. The city of Hazleton subsequently passed several new ordinances meant to replace the first set of ordinances, which the court also prevented from going into effect pending a full determination of their validity.
Without citing any evidence, Hazleton officials have blamed many of the town’s ills, including crime and economic burdens, on undocumented immigrants. Supporters of the law have stated that their goal is to drive so-called “illegal aliens” out of town. Many Hispanics, including legal U.S. residents, have already left Hazleton and Hispanic-owned businesses have had to close down according to business association estimates because of the hostile environment that developed against them and their clientele.
At a two-week trial in March, 2007, the plaintiffs presented evidence showing that Hazleton’s attempt to scapegoat immigrants is based on distorted facts and propaganda, not reality. In truth, Hazleton’s finances have improved since the latest wave of immigration began, and undocumented immigrants are involved in crime at a lower rate than other groups.
In papers filed with the court, the plaintiffs also argue that the ordinances violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, overriding federal law and the exclusive federal power over immigration, in addition to violating due process and equal protection rights.
On July 26, 2007, District Court Judge James M. Munley ruled the Hazleton ordinances unconstitutional, and prohibited the town of Hazleton from enforcing them.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 