“…We note that the descendants of non-Asian immigrants who entered this country before the immigration restrictions of the 1920s who condemn present-day illegal immigrants by pointing out that “when my relatives came to this country, they followed the law” ignore one very crucial fact: virtually no law existed to prevent anyone from entering the country prior to that period.  No federal crime for unauthorized entry existed until 1929.  See Mae M. Ngai, IMPOSSIBLE SUBJECTS: ILLEGAL ALIENS AND THE MAKING OF AMERICA, 60 (2004).  For a broader reading on United States immigration history please see the appendix….”  Judge James Munley

First, I discovered which feline sounds like an entire herd of marauding elephants.  I can’t believe dainty, fragile, shy Little Joe Cartwright is so darn loud!  This morning she was playing in the bedroom.  She saw me, jumped a good three feet into the air and literally sailed a good 10 feet to the stairs where she flew up them then dove off the top to slam back down and run past me.  Believe it or not.

MY RANT FOR THE DAY
Today I am concentrating on the ruling by Judge James Munley
 against the town of Hazleton, PA.  It is fascinating.  I am only concentrating on the actual ruling today.  I will be working on Munley’s rather fascinating history of immigration in the US at a later time.  There are a number of things I find rather interesting.  First, Judge Munley basis his ruling on the 14th Amendment. He considers a number of things including the fact that until the SCOTUS rules otherwise, illegal aliens are to be considered “PERSONS” with all the rights there-of.  He also notes that fact many anti-immigration advocates argue otherwise.  He then lists the fallacy of their argument, using the 14th Amendment.

Secondly, Judge Munley recognizes the interference of the National Socialist movement in promoting anti-immigration fervor and harassing of Hispanic leaders in the community.  This is extremely important because CONTRARY to what anti-immigration conservative pundits might say otherwise, white supremacists in the form of neo-Nazis are involved in the movement.

Perhaps the most glaring aspect of this law, cherished and defended by anti-immigration conservatives is the gross over-reaching of government into every aspect of local business and housing.  These are conservatives who live and die by demands that local, state, and federal government leave them alone – get out of their lives. Yet these racist hypocrites constantly belly-ache and cry because government – local, state, and federal – isn’t doing enough to get those horrid and evil illegal aliens out of their lives.

You can’t have it both ways and maintain intellectual integrity.  Either you want government to be involved in every aspect of your lives or you don’t.  If conservatives aren’t careful they are going to completely marginalize themselves to the point where they are nothing but laughable.  

Funny how it took a Clinton appointee to bring up the fact that conservatives were not recognizing illegals as actual viable PERSONS.  It took a Democrat appointee to recognize the fact that all people have rights under the Constitution.  Once upon a time conservatives cherished individuals.  They cherished individual rights.  What happened? Was it this tacit alignment with very sleazy white supremacists and anti-immigration forces that has sucked all the goodness from the movement.

This is not my idea of “CONSERVATIVE”   My vision of conservative was perfectly echoed in this simple statement, “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” And “A troubled and afflicted mankind looks to us, pleading for us to keep our rendezvous with destiny; that we will uphold the principles of self-reliance, self-discipline, morality, and, above all, responsible liberty for every individual that we will become that shining city on a hill.”  If you do not know who said this, then you are not the conservative you thought you were.

Today’s anti-immigration, pro government regulation conservative knows nothing about Ronald Reagan and has no right what-so-ever to even mention his name.  You have betrayed Reagan.  You have betrayed the freedom for which we all once stood.  Those of you who profess to be “born again” have betrayed the teachings of Christ by associating, wittingly or un with the forces of pure evil and darkness.

I trust you are proud of yourselves. You have betrayed all that is good and holy, not by demanding strong laws to protect our borders, but by associating with white supremacists, the KKK, and neo-Nazis to achieve that goal.  The end does not justify the means.

“I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still.”  Ronald Reagan

I am not an attorney.  But, I am also capable of reading and comprehending what I read.  I am left with the understanding that the town of Hazleton, PA decided to usurp the role of Federal Immigration Judges by the determination that they were capable of deciding who was here legally and who wasn't.  According to this ruling, only FEDERAL immigration judges can do this.  This one thing alone would render the Hazleton laws unconstitutional, no matter how you look at it.  (Unless you are one of those irrational conservatives who cannot comprehend that there are other versions of immigration other than your own).  The implementation of these laws caused the businesses of LEGAL Hispanic immigrations to suffer or fail.  Hispanic Immigrants who are now AMERICAN CITIZENS have been harassed and deprived of their constitutional right of assembly, freedom of the press, and have been forced to close their businesses due to police intimidation.

Do you really think this is Truth, Justice and the American Way?

AJ Strata has an interesting take on the Hazleton ruling. I agree.

As usual Malkin attacks the judge (as being a Clinton appointee) rather than deal with the ruling.  She also fails to note the implication of RACIST harassment by members of the National Socialist movement.  Oh, I forget.  There are no racists in the anti-immigration movement.  Only pure, lily white souls who want to preserve the integrity of the nation.

You will want to read Mark Kirkorian’s usual anti immigration Tanton inspired bile from NRO.

From Business Week
“…But on July 26, U.S. District Judge James Munley handed down a clear and sharp rebuke to Barletta and other local officials. Munley said that towns such as Hazleton don't have the right to implement their own laws on immigration, because the issue is one that should be handled at the federal level. In addition, he said Hazleton's measure was so harsh that it would have deprived businesses of their right to due process. Under Hazleton's law, any business accused of employing an illegal immigrant would have had three days to produce proper documentation for the worker. Otherwise, their license to operate could be suspended.
"The genius of our Constitution," Munley wrote (link to decision), "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. Hazleton, in its zeal to control the presence of a group deemed undesirable, violated the rights of such people, as well as others within the community."…”

It also caused additional racism.  
“…Local critics say that, although the legislation had not been officially implemented, it had already made police officers and others more aggressive toward Hispanics. "This ordinance had brought an incredible amount of division," says Rodolfo Espinal, president of the Hazleton Hispanic Business Assn. "It turned this town upside down." Espinal says the local Hispanic community is very happy with the court's ruling—and hopeful that the town's divisions will begin to mend. "Hopefully, everything is going to come back to normal," he says.’

THE RULING
POLICE HARASSMENT OF BUSINESS
“…21 Lechuga opened another business, a restaurant called Langria. Lechuga, in February 2006.  (Id. at 132).  Lechuga’s wife Rosa operated that business, doing the cooking.  (Id.).  When he found the time, Lechuga helped by serving, taking orders, washing dishes and cleaning.  (Id.).  This business was no more successful than the Lechugas’ store.  (Id. at 133). Lechuga blamed his lack of business on the City’s activities.   (Id.).  A police car was often parked across the street from the restaurant, and after a police officer paid a visit, “people began to comment that the police [were] there to take the clients away when they came to eat.”  (Id. at 133). This made potential customers feel “intimidated, and that is the reason why we lost our business.”   (Id.).  In neither of these businesses did Lechuga employ anyone; he testified that he had never had any plans to employ anyone at either store.  (Id. at 150-51)…..
JUDGES COMMENT
“…The Lechuga’s injury was caused at least in part by the defendant’s ordinances.  While other factors apparently contributed to the decline of the Lechuga’s businesses, we find that they have presented evidence that Hazleton’s approval of the ordinances contributed at least in part to the decline of customers for Lechuga’s store and restaraunt, and therefore, the injury they suffered is at least fairly traceable to the defendant. Our decision on the constitutionality of the ordinances would not, however, allow the Lechugas redress from their injuries.  Their businesses, unfortunately, have now closed.  They did not testify that they planned to reopen their businesses pending resolution of this lawsuit, and the plaintiffs do not seek monetary damages from the defendant.   Accordingly, no action by this court would provide relief to the Lechugas, and they lack standing to sue.  The Lechuga’s lack of standing, however, does not mean that other business-owner plaintiffs, who will be forced to comply with the terms of the ordinances in order to operate their business in Hazleton, lack
standing to sue, as we explain below….”
LOSS OF BUSINESS
“…Espinal testified that “Royal Prestige had to close and move out of the City.  Isabella’s Gift Shop had complained about losing revenue, and  basically I would say all of my members have complained.  People are talking about that they have lost sales maybe between 15 or 50 percent of what they used to have before.”  (N.T. 3/13/07 at 82)….”
PAPERWORK DAMAGES BUSINESSES
Funny how conservatives DEMAND less intrusion from government, as long as it has nothing to do with immigration.  But, if it is dealing with immigration and Hispanic businesses, they find nothing wrong with onerous paperwork that can actually damage a business.  THIS IS NOT CONSERVATIVE!
“…We reject this argument.  The business-owner plaintiffs do not  complain that the ordinances limit their ability to sell products to and hire  illegal aliens.  They complain that the City’s ordinances damage them by hindering the operation of their businesses and by requiring them to seek  immigration information from employees in a way that violates federal law. Their injury comes in the operation and requirements of the ordinances, not in their inability to sell, hire or rent to undocumented persons….”
HARASSMENT OF LOCALS
“…Molina described the feelings of residents: “They had people that7 were in fear because the police were stopping them on the sidewalks or stopping them on the driveway and asking for documentation just because of their looks.  We have businessowners saying, we have bricks through our [windows], and we can’t identify who [threw the brick], but obviously it was because of the environment where we are living, where people think that it is okay to show that Latinos are not welcome here.  There was all kind of fear, and what is going to happen with our sons.  Should we still send them to school?  What is going to happen to our church?  Should we still go to our church?”  (N.T. 3/13/07 at 28)….”
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
“…This argument appears to be a species of argument often heard in recent discussions of the national immigration issue:  because illegal aliens broke the law to enter this country, they should not have any legal recourse when rights due them under the federal constitution or federal law are violated.  We cannot say clearly enough that persons who enter this country without legal authorization are not stripped immediately of all theirrights because of this single illegal act.   The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no State may “deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  U.S. CONST. amend. XIV § 1. (emphasis added).  The United States Supreme Court has consistently interpreted this provision 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.  See Plyler, 457 U.S. at 210 (holding that “[w]hatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term.  Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as ‘persons’ guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”).  The anonymous plaintiffs are persons, and they seek to vindicate rights guaranteed them under the federal constitution.  They have standing to sue in this court…’
Evidently the good people in Hazleton have opened a can of worms.  If I am reading this correctly, and I am not an attorney and must admit to being a kindergarten drop-out as a disclaimer – wow – are you seeing this?  In other words, ICE cannot legally strip illegals of their possessions.  It is not legal.  
NO ONE CAN BE DEPRIVED OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
“…Implied in this argument is again the claim that people who break the laws to enter, work or reside in this country should not have access to the courts because they are “criminals” undeserving of the rights those courts seek to protect.  “Illegal means illegal,” after all. Such argument, however, flies in the face of long-established principles of constitutional law, not to mention the concept of justice.  All persons in the United States have rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, whether they are citizens or not.  See Plyler, 457 U.S. at 210 (holding that “[w]hatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term.  Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as ‘persons’ guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886) (holding that “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens.  It says: ‘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.’  These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.”)….”
FEAR OF RACIST HARASSMENT
“…The manner in which public interest has manifested itself in this case demonstrates why anonymity is necessary for plaintiffs who lack a legal immigration status.  Trial testimony indicated the intense public interest in the ordinances led at times to harassment and intimidation that created fear even among those with a more secure social and legal status than the anonymous plaintiffs.  Dr. Agapito Lopez, a Hazleton resident who became a leader in the attempt to have the ordinances overturned, testified that he organized a candlelight vigil to be held on the steps of the building where the city council met the night before the ordinances had their second reading.  (N.T. 3/12/07 at 73).   Attendees at the meeting were very afraid of the consequences of their participation, particularly of the city officials who at Lopez’s request videotaped the crowd in an attempt to gather evidence in case of a potential disturbance.   The fear of those in hisgroup came “because there was another group that was intimidating us atthat time by showing their presence, shouting slogans, and a lot of tension in the area.”  (Id. at 75).  At the ordinance’s second reading the City’s supporters were “very, very tense with stares at the small group of Latinos that were there.”  (Id.).  While the City Council was conducting its business that evening a fight had broke out in the street between opponents and supporters of the ordinances.  (Id. at 76-77).  Lopez rushed back out to the street in front of the City Council building to find “[f]ederal justice agents, department of justice agents and policemen in the street dividing two groups.”  (Id. 77).  The two groups, consisting of recent immigrants and another group of those supporting the ordinances had faced off, “and there was shouting from one side to the other side.”  (Id.).   The day before the vigil organized by opponents of the ordinances, Lopez received what he described as “hate mail” underneath the door of his office.  (Id. at 73).  The letter Lopez received purported to describe the effects of illegal immigration, contending that “European Americans are being dispossessed of their own nation.  We are under invasion by millions of unskilled Mexicans who threaten to bankrupt us.”  (N. T. 3/13/07 at 5).  The letter further warned that “coloreds” would eventually take control of state governments, Congress and the presidency, and that “[w]hites will quickly be stripped of their rights with our wealth confiscated for redistribution to non-whites as is taking place in South Africa.”  (Id. at 6)…”
INCREASED RACIAL TENSIONS
“…We note, too, that the ordinances apparently had the effect of increasing racial tension in the City.  Jose Luis Lechuga, who first arrived in the United States from Mexico in 1982, had lived in Hazleton since 1991. (N.T. 3/12/07 at 118, 122).  When he first came to the City, he felt “like a part of the community.  People no longer looked at me like a stranger, because they knew that my wife and I were working people, and so I was accepted in the community.”  (Id. at 123).  After the passage of the ordinances, however, Lechuga discovered that “apparently the racial hatred and the racism has awoken.  We notice and see that people no longer look at us–they look at us like their enemies now, not our friends.” (Id. at 124).  That Lechuga, a legal resident of the United States, felt such discomfort as a result of the controversy over the ordinances demonstrates the public controversy created by the ordinances and helps to justify the fears expressed by the anonymous plaintiffs, who do not possess the same legal status as Lechuga….”
NAZI HATE MAIL
Conservatives claim there is no connection between the National Socialist movement (Nazi) and anti-immigration supporters.  This time a Federal judge weighs in on it and documents the Nazi origin of the hate mail.“…This piece of mail listed a website,  www.nsm88.com, which Hazleton’s attorney discovered was attached to the “nationalist socialist movement.”  (N.T. 3/13/07 at 12).  After an introductory page that highlights Nazi imagery and declares the organization to be “Fighting for Race and Nation” the website declares itself “the Official Home Page of the National Socialist Movement, an organization dedicated to the preservation of our Proud Aryan Heritage, and the creation of a National Socialist Society in America and around the world.” http://www.nsm88.com/index2.html.  
HARASSMENT OF HISPANICS
“…Public expressions of support for Hazleton’s ordinances have  continued to lead to controversy and confrontations, as well as anger at those who challenge the City’s position.  On June 3, 2007, several hundred ordinance supporters held a rally in Hazleton to express support for the city’s attempts to control illegal immigration.  Nichole Dobo, Barletta Backers Harass Writer, SCRANTON TIMES-TRIBUNE, June 5, 2007, at A1. Amilcar Arroyo, publisher of EL MENSAJERO, a Hazleton-based Spanish- language newspaper, attempted to cover the event for his publication. Id. Arroyo, an American citizen, is not involved in the lawsuit against the City. Id.  Several members of the crowd at the rally began to shout at Arroyo after a rumor circulated that he was one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the ordinances.  Id.  Confronting Arroyo, a few rally participants shouted at him to “‘get out of the country’” while others chanted “‘traitor.’” Id.  Police escorted Arroyo from the rally for his own protection.  Id.  We find that this record of hostility to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and the climate of fear and hostility surrounding the debate over the ordinances creates a justified fear about revealing the anonymous plaintiffs’ identities. Dr. Lopez and Mr. Arroyo faced public condemnation and confrontation based on their real or perceived participation in the lawsuit, and they are United States citizens….”
THREATS OF DEPORTATION FOR PLANTIFFS
“…After the court issued this order, plaintiffs informed us that a local newspaper had quoted defendant’s attorney, who claimed that the order violated 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c) by preventing the city from turning over to the federal government information on the plaintiff’s immigration status.  See Munley’s IIRA Order Violates Federal Law, Attorney Says, STANDARD SPEAKER, December 13, 2006 (attached to Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. 64)).  The federal law “says no government entity, federal, state or local, may in any way restrict the transfer of information concerning an alien’s legal status to the federal government,” Hazleton’s attorney asserted.  (Id.).  The attorney expressed “surprise” at the order, which he claimed “violates federal law.”  (Id.).  Plaintiffs informed us of these statements as part of their motion seeking a protective order preventing disclosure of their identities and immigration status.  Given these public statements and court filings, plaintiffs could legitimately fear that defendant was determined to expose their legal status to federal authorities.  Such fears could cause plaintiffs to abandon their attempt to secure rights guaranteed them under federal law.  We conclude, therefore, that plaintiffs have offered good and compelling reasons for not revealing their identities. The second factor, then, weighs heavily in favor of anonymity….’
In other words, the anonymous illegals who are the plaintiffs in this suit were threatened by city officials using intimidation tactics to get them to drop the suit against Hazleton.      
FEDERAL LAW SUPERCEEDS STATE
“…Accordingly, “[t]he Supremacy clause of the United States Constitution invalidates state laws that ‘interfere with or are contrary to’ federal law.”  New Jersey Payphone Ass’n, Inc. v. Town of West New York, 299 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 211 (1824)).  This invalidation is termed federal pre-emption.   Federal pre-emption can be either express or implied.  Olde Discount Corp. v. Tupman, 1 F.3d 202, 216 (3d Cir. 1993).   We will discuss each in turn.   As the ordinances at issue have two distinct provisions, one directed to employment issues and one aimed at landlord/tenant issues, we will discuss each topic separately with regard to pre-emption beginning with the employment provisions…”

“…The presumption is inapplicable “when the State regulates in an area where there has been a history of significant federal presence.”  United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 108 (2000).  Immigration is an area of the law where there is a history of significant federal presence and where the States have not traditionally occupied the field.  In fact, as set forth more fully below, immigration is a federal concern not a state or local matter.   Therefore, we do not apply the presumption against pre-emption.  If, however, we were to apply the presumption, our ultimate conclusion would not change as Congress has made it sufficiently clear and manifest that federal law pre-empts state law in the area covered by Hazleton’s ordinances….”
TRADITION OF HARASSMENT OF ALIENS
“…Defendant seems to argue that the law is constitutional because it is aimed at illegal aliens who have no right to be in the United States. Defendant’s position fails to acknowledge that the law will affect more than illegal aliens.  It will affect every employer, every employee who is challenged as an illegal alien and every prospective employee especially those who look or act as if they are foreign.   As noted above, the Ordinance, unlike its superior federal counterpart, contains no anti- discrimination provisions.   The United States Supreme Court has noted:   “Opposition to laws permitting invasion of the personal liberties of law-abiding individuals, or singling out aliens as particularly dangerous and undesirable groups, is deep-seated in this country.  Hostility to such legislation in America stems back to our colonial history[.]”  Id. at 70.  The Court further noted: “As early as 1641, in the Massachusetts ‘Body of Liberties’ ,we find the statement that “Every person within this Jurisdiction, whether Inhabitant or forreiner, shall enjoy the same justice and law that is generall for the plantation ***.’” Id. at 71 n.27….”    
LAW WOULD PROHIBIT THOSE WAITING FOR LEGAL STATUS
“…For example, during the trial testimony indicated that during the1990s Congress enacted an adjustment of immigration status referred to as “245(I).”  This statute allowed certain persons in the United States illegally to pay a $1,000.00 penalty and then their status would be adjusted and they would receive a green card.   Hundreds of thousands of individuals applied for relief under this enactment before it expired on April 30, 2001, but they have not yet all received their green cards.   Technically, these people are removable from the country although once their applications are processed they will have a green card.  N.T. 3/19/07 116- 117.  Immigration officials use their discretion not to remove these individuals with green card applications pending.  N.T. 3/19/07 at 117.  These individuals would not be allowed to live in Hazleton under its ordinances….’
IGNORES FEDERAL LAW
“…Hazleton’s ordinances burden aliens more than federal law by prohibiting them from residing in the city although they may be permitted to remain in the United States.   The ordinances are thus in conflict with federal law and pre-empted.    RO is additionally in conflict with federal law because it calls upon the employees of the Hazleton Code Enforcement Office to examine the paperwork of those seeking permits and determine if they are properly in the country.   This procedure is in direct conflict with federal law. Immigration status can only be determined by an immigration judge….”
ENDANGERS BUSINESSES
Conservatives base one of their most important reasons for being conservatives on the fact that businesses have a right not to be harassed and over-regulated by government to the point where they cannot exist.  This law does just that, but yet conservatives have embraced the law.
“…The employer plaintiffs, including the members of the  Hazleton Hispanic Business Association, possess Fourteenth Amendment property and liberty interests in running their businesses. “[A] business is an established property right entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.”  College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 131 F.3d 353, 361 (3d Cir. 1997).   Additionally, the individual plaintiffs have an interest in their employment.  The United States Supreme Court has explained that “the significance of the private interest in retaining employment cannot be gainsaid.  We have frequently recognized the severity of depriving a person of the means of livelihood.” Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 543 (1985).   The Court further noted: “While a fired worker may find employment elsewhere, doing so will take some time and is likely to be burdened by the questionable circumstances under which he left his previous job.”  Id.  In a case dealing with an Arizona state statute that discriminated against aliens, the Court further noted: “It requires no argument to show that the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the [Fourteenth] Amendment to secure.”  Truax  v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 41 (1915).  These rights are both ‘liberty’ and ‘property’ rights.  Green v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 492 (1959) cited in Piecknick v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 36 F.3d 1250, 1259 (3d Cir. 1994).      Defendant argues that employers have no right to enter into employee contracts with unauthorized workers; therefore, no protected interests are at stake.   Defendant’s argument is unconvincing.   The argument presupposes that the Ordinance will affect only unauthorized  workers.  Actually, however, the IIRA affects all who are challenged under the law and all employers who have employees challenged….”
ONLY IMMIGRATION JUDGES CAN DECIDE – NOT LOCAL AUTHORITIES
“…As set forth above, notice is the cornerstone of due process.  IIRA fails to require that anyone provide notice to an employee when a  complaint is filed or at any time during the proceedings.  In fact, when a complaint is filed, the employer could merely fire the employee and avoid  the hassle of determining the employees immigration status.  Nothing in IIRA  provides protection to the employee from such action.   Thus, it violates the fundamental principle of due process and is unconstitutional.     
Additionally, when a complaint is filed, the Code Enforcement Office requires the employer to provide "identity information."   IIRA does not specify the nature of this information.  Therefore, the employers are left not knowing what documents they need for the "hearing."  The employer can request a second or additional verification, however, no such right is provided to the affected employee.  Such notice, therefore, is inadequate.  The final level of "hearing" that both the employer and employee may use according to IIRA is resort to the Pennsylvania court system.  The Pennsylvania courts, however, do not have the authority to determine an alien’s immigration status.   Federal law makes no provision for a state court to make a decision regarding immigration status.  Such status can only be determined by an immigration judge.  8 U.S.C.  § 1229a(a)(1) (“An immigration judge shall conduct proceedings for deciding the inadmissibility or deportability of an alien.”).  Furthermore, the proceeding before the immigration judge is the “sole and exclusive procedure for determining whether an alien may be admitted to the United States or, if the alien has been so admitted, removed from the United States.”  8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(3).61…”
CITY LIED ABOUT IMPACT OF ILLEGALS
“..Testimony at trial indicated that funding for hospitals and schools inHazleton did not come from the budget of the City of Hazleton.  This evidence indicates that Hazleton has overstated the direct cost to the city of the presence of undocumented aliens in town.  Nevertheless, we find that many costs for both the City and City residents can be associated with the increased population, particularly when those residents are
undocumented workers who present special problems of communication and government-resident interaction. Certain testimony at trial concerned violated crimes committed by illegal aliens in Hazleton.  The City cited these crimes as the reason for passing its ordinances.  The plaintiffs disputed the connection between
illegal immigration and crime in Hazleton, arguing that the crime rate had actually decreased during the years when increasing numbers of immigrants moved to the City.  Our disposition of this matter focuses on legal issues that do not require us to resolve this dispute.  For our analysis on the issue of equal protection, it is sufficient for us to find that the City identified serious crimes committed by illegal aliens as a problem….”
CITY DOES NOT SPECIFY WHICH DOCUMENTS ARE NEEDED
“…We note that none of these documents are mentioned in the ordinances.  Since we must judge the ordinances on their face, and not how defendant claims the ordinances will be implemented, we cannot accept defendant’s version of the meaning of “proper identification showing proof of legal citizenship and/or residency.”  We are also unsure what constitutes other “relevant document[s] issued by the federal government” to establish a legal right to reside in the United States….”
ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE “PERSONS”
“…Generally, an alien is a “person” as that term is used under section 1981.  Takahashi v.Fish and Game Comm’n, 334 U.S. 410, 419 (1948), see also  Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 377 (1971) (“The protection of this statute has been held to extend to aliens as well as to citizens.”).    The Supreme Court, however, has not yet addressed whether the protections of section 1981 extend to undocumented aliens, i.e.
whether an undocumented alien is a “person” under section 1981.  The Court has, in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that “[w]hatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term.  Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as‘persons’ guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments.”  Plyler, 457 U.S. at 210.   This reasoning applies equally to a section 1981 analysis as to the Fourteenth Amendment analysis, especially because the language used in section 1981 is based in part on the language of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Takahashi, 334 U.S. at 420.  Accordingly, we find that aliens, regardless of their status under the immigration laws, are persons under section 1981…”
HAZLETON VIOLATED STATE LAW
“…The powers a city has in Pennsylvania are limited, and are defined largely by the plan of government that locality adopts.  Under Pennsylvania law, “[m]unicipalities are not sovereigns; they have no original or fundamental power of legislation; they have the right and power to enact only those ordinances which are authorized by an act of the legislature.”  Genkinger v. City of New Castle, 84 A.2d 303, 304 (Pa. 1951); see also Cleaver v. Board of Adjustment of Tredyffrin Twp., 200 A.2d 408, 412 (Pa. 1964); Devlin v. City of Philadelphia, 862 A.2d 1234, 1242 (Pa. 2004); Deebow v. Borough of Leetsdale, 729 A.2d 1113,1118 (Pa. 1999) (holding that “[m]unicipal corporations have no inherent powers and may do only those things which the Legislature has expressly or by necessary implication placed within their power to do.”).  “‘Any fair, reasonable doubt as to the existence of power is resolved by the courts against its existence in the corporation, and therefore denied.’”  Kline v. City of Harrisburg, 68 A.2d 182, 185 (Pa. 1949) (quoting DILLON ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, § 89)….”
CANNOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ILLEGAL WORKER
“…We note that this cause of action appears to impose strict liabilityon the employer, as it defines as an “unfair business practice” “the discharge of any employee who is not an unlawful worker by a business entity in the City” and provides the “discharged worker” with a private right of action against the employer for this unfair practice.  IIRA § 4.E(1-2). Presumably, an employee who brought that cause of action would not have
to prove any mens rea on the employer’s part, but need only show that the employer had employed an unauthorized worker to prevail in that private claim.  Such a private cause of action would thus appear to serve as a positive enforcement mechanism, requiring an employer to take positive steps to insure that no “unlawful workers” remained on the payroll to avoid an expensive lawsuit.
An employer who is sued after terminating an employee on the basis of “race, color family status, religious creed, ancestry, handicap or disability, age, sex, national origin, the use of a guide or support animal because of blindness, deafness or physical handicap of the user or because the user is a handler or trainer of support or guide animals” cannot resort to the defense that Pennsylvania is an “at-will” employment
state because such an employee has a clear legal right to dispute such Firing.  43 PENN. STAT. § 953; see also, Cisco v. United Parcel Services, Inc., 476 A.2d 1340, 1343 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984) (holding that “‘[t]he sources of public policy [which may limit the employer’s right of discharge] include legislation; administrative rules, regulation, or decision; and judicial decision.  In certain instances, a professional code of ethics may contain an expression of public policy . . . Absent legislation, the judiciary must define the cause of action in case-by case determinations.’”) (quoting Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 417 A.2d 505, 512 (N.J. 1980)).  We note here that this statute gives no cause of action to a worker discriminated against because of legal immigration status….”