See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Diggers Realm
2. Pajamas Media
3. Hot Air » Blog Archive » Federal judge strikes down Pennsylvania town’s anti-illegal immigrant laws
4. Bill's Bites
5. Keith D. Milby :: blog » Blog Archive » Stand By Hazleton PA
6. Target Rich Environment » Blog Archive » “John Doe” Legal Status and Hazleton Suit
7. House of Eratosthenes

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On July 26th, 2007 at 2:24 pm, see-dubya said:

   Interesting how that cuts both ways. “Sanctuary Cities” and illegal immigrant meccas like New Haven, CT feel free to ignore federal law and establish a contradictory policy.

   But should a local policy actually support the federal government’s goals? Why, that’s unconstitutional!

2. #2
   On July 26th, 2007 at 2:26 pm, gayle said:

   It is - according to traditional laws.

   We are up against Liberals running the sideshow.

   They do not believe in laws unless they create them for their own agenda.

3. #3
   On July 26th, 2007 at 2:36 pm, pickax411 said:

   The target of the law is property owners not the Illegal aliens. If there is any volitions of rights, it should be the property owners and their private property rights. But, that is what you get when you’re a none lawyer, todays law seem to be not about clear meanings that can be understood by citizens but convoluted logic that can only be resolved by those with black robs.

4. #4
   On July 26th, 2007 at 2:39 pm, Just Plain Bill said:

   So does this mean that “sanctuary” cities can be sued because they are pre-empted from passing laws/regulations that “disrupt a carefully drawn federal statutory scheme,”.

5. #5
   On July 26th, 2007 at 2:51 pm, OldGuy53 said:

   Common sense don’t seem to be so common.

6. #6
   On July 26th, 2007 at 2:53 pm, amerpun said:

   On July 26th, 2007 at 2:39 pm, Just Plain Bill said:

   Doubt it. I mean, the Sanctuary City policy benefits Liberals.

7. #7
   On July 26th, 2007 at 2:56 pm, The Raging Republican said:

   Activist judges are the greatest terroristic threat to the American way of life.

8. #8
   On July 26th, 2007 at 3:05 pm, calj123 said:

   The weakness of a judge’s findings and conclusions is directly proportionate to the number of pages it takes for him to explain them. 206?

9. #9
   On July 26th, 2007 at 3:06 pm, 3Steps said:

   …wow… just wow… that is such well.. b*llsh&t

10. #10
    On July 26th, 2007 at 3:12 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

    JustPlainBill #4:

    Interesting viewpoint….I would like to see someone challenge a Sanctuary policy based on this finding and see what happens.

11. #11
    On July 26th, 2007 at 3:14 pm, ScottyDog said:

    Another exmple of an activist Judge that is inventing law that does not exist.

    Did I miss this is my copy of the US Constitution?
    “that violates rights the Constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not”

    Did this Judge miss the part in the Constitution that guarantees state rights?

    Or maybe he forgot to read the law that the Congress passed; 8 USC Sec. 1325
    Section 1644, same title states,

    “8 USC Sec. 1644 (”No local ordinance, rule, or measure shall stop law enforcement officers [Including State and Local law enforcement officers] from enforcement of this section”)”

    “No local ordinance, rule, or measure shall stop law enforcement officers from enforcement of this section” [to include State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies] (affirmed in Southern District Court of NY, US vs Rudy Guiliani, 1996).

    This Judge should be impeached. The Congress has the right to impeach Judges like this but rarely have done so. They are failing to carry out their duties as our duly elected representatives.

12. #12
    On July 26th, 2007 at 3:35 pm, mrnewsguy said:

    I didn’t realize the Constitution granted rights to illegals. I’m so thankful to His (dis)Honor for enlightening me.

13. #13
    On July 26th, 2007 at 3:43 pm, walterc said:

    Maybe Hazelton should just negotiate a group rate with greyhound and ship them to New Haven whenever they catch one?

    That would eliminate the problem of trying to get ICE to take (and deport)them, and New Haven is actually inviting them.

14. #14
    On July 26th, 2007 at 3:43 pm, Speakup said:

    n a 206-page opinion, Munley said the act was pre-empted by federal law and would violate due process rights.

    I believe this is incorrect.
    Each City has as their right a separate jurisdiction and as such has the right to regulate.
    There is no exclusion of Federal law here, to imply that there is, is wrong.

    I sincerely hope this goes before the SCOTUS.

15. #15
    On July 26th, 2007 at 3:47 pm, Speakup said:

    They are failing to carry out their duties as our duly elected representatives.

    Really? I hadn’t noticed.

    Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

16. #16
    On July 26th, 2007 at 3:59 pm, bear1909 said:

    Clintonistas are globalistas. Bring on the transnational highway project. It will be Hillary’s Pork (Over A)Barrel Swan Song if she gets elected. These deviants laid a lotta pipe while Bill was running his Monica sideshow (and bombing the Bridges over The River Danube). To prison with them both.

17. #17
    On July 26th, 2007 at 4:02 pm, 24Klady said:

    If I lived in Hazleton, PA I’d suggest to my fellow residents to quietly boycott any business using illegals. After a while they won’t need a business license. Every landlord holding a lease on property where the tenant has exceeded the number of people living there should be evicted, and it can be done lawfully. There must be some kind of ordinances already on the books that would give a guestimation of how many people a property can legally house according to the square footage?

    Any person doing lawns, windows, babysitting, housecleaning, car washing, etc., should be checked for having permits or some type of business license. Ask for them and if it’s a contractor or business, ask for their liability insurance and worker’s comp certificates. When they fall off your roof, go on extended disability for years, you’ll be glad you did. If your neighbors won’t participate, (regardless of what this judge has ruled), you are in no way obligated, nor can be forced to do business with those people that employ them. And, if you’re the culprit learn to wash your own car, do your own lawns, wash your own windows. No jobs, they’ll leave.

18. #18
    On July 26th, 2007 at 4:05 pm, Trae said:

    It’s interesting that there’s alot of news surrounding this issue, but I haven’t heard much national buzz from Farmer’s Branch, TX which did this months ago and were also leveled by a Texas judge. I’m not sure what political affiliation this judge was though.

19. #19
    On July 26th, 2007 at 4:11 pm, Just Plain Bill said:

    There has to be, somewhere, a conservative public interest law group, that would take up the challenge of suing a “sanctuary” city, over there non-enforcement policies.

20. #20
    On July 26th, 2007 at 4:12 pm, Heartland Perspective said:

    They must appeal and we must support them financially. I just sent Barletta an appeal to appeal. Told him to go to Numbers USA and Grassfire and ask for financial assistance. We must support Hazelton. Citizen rights are at stake here. Urge Grassfire and Numbers to raise financial support for them

21. #21
    On July 26th, 2007 at 4:13 pm, Just Plain Bill said:

    Oops. there = their.

    That will learn me to preview, not just post.

22. #22
    On July 26th, 2007 at 4:21 pm, PokerGuy said:

    Just another a-hole posing as a judge…

23. #23
    On July 26th, 2007 at 4:30 pm, 24Klady said:

    “I have met the enemy, and it is us.”
    Walt Kelly 1970

    #19 &#20
    You’re right, there has to be someone willing to take on this monster as cities, counties and states are drowning in debt with no relief in sight. The number of contractors, service companies, restaurants that are making huge profits by paying slave wages and pushing their responsibilities off on small towns/cities is heinous. Some years ago I said that if a company wanted to hire an illegal, fine. Step up to the plate, reimburse the towns where they live with the money to cover every single service they require, be it healthcare, education, rent subsidy, or food stamps. But, if they did - there would be no need to hire an illegal.

24. #24
    On July 26th, 2007 at 4:31 pm, gayle said:

    Just Plain Bill;

    Not sure but Mark Levin’s group could investigate this issue.

25. #25
    On July 26th, 2007 at 6:00 pm, SirGregor said:

    I know this is long, but I believe it will interest most. Via an email from FAIR …

    July 26, 2007

    District Court Ruling is Not the End of the Road for Local
    Anti-Illegal Immigration Ordinances
    The Right of Local Governments to Protect Citizenry
    Will Ultimately be Decided by U.S. Supreme Court, Predicts FAIR
    Washington DC - Today’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge James Munley, striking down ordinances in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, aimed at curtailing illegal immigration in that community is a disappointing, but not unexpected development, said the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). “This is an issue that will ultimately have to be ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court, and we are confident that when the high court reviews the facts of this case, they will side with the right of local communities to take steps to protect themselves against the destructive impact of mass illegal immigration,” predicted Dan Stein, president of FAIR.

    FAIR and its legal affiliate, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), worked closely with Hazleton leaders to craft ordinances that comply with federal immigration laws and participated in defending the ordinances in court. In response to the district court ruling, FAIR and IRLI are joining with Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta in an appeal of the decision before the 3rd Circuit Court.

    “The challenge to the Hazleton ordinance was brought by well-financed outside interests that are fundamentally opposed to just about any enforcement of U.S. immigration laws,” said Stein. “They were able to select a judge who was politically inclined to side with them. But today’s ruling is not the end of the road for the Hazleton ordinances or the many similar ones instituted by cities and towns all across the United States. Rather it is a step in a legal process that will inevitably lead to the Supreme Court.

    “What is at stake, in addition to the right of local communities to protect themselves from the federal government’s malfeasance with regard to immigration enforcement, is also the right of local communities to govern how business and commerce are conducted within their jurisdictions,” said Stein. “Neither Hazleton, nor any of the other cities with similar policies, are regulating immigration, which is clearly an exclusive federal prerogative. Rather, they are setting rules for businesses and landlords who operate in Hazleton in a way that is entirely consistent with what local governments do every single day.”

    The longstanding failure of the federal government to effectively enforce its own immigration laws is imposing severe burdens on state and local government. These jurisdictions are forced to provide education, emergency health care and other services, as well as deal with crimes committed by people who are in the country illegally. “It is simply unreasonable for the courts to leave these local communities with no legal recourse to deal with a serious problem that affects public safety and imposes significant fiscal burdens on them,” argued Stein.

    “We are confident that when higher courts review this case they will conclude that Hazleton’s ordinances are a reasonable and lawful response to a real problem,” concluded Stein.

26. #26
    On July 26th, 2007 at 6:03 pm, SirGregor said:

    FAIR’s press release can be found online HERE.

27. #27
    On July 26th, 2007 at 10:00 pm, Alphonse said:

    Probably a sound legal decision from a bookish, technical viewpoint; but realistically the corruption and nonfeasance of the federal government on illegal infiltration put local governments and vigilance groups rebelling against federal corruption clearly on the right side of justice.

28. #28
    On July 26th, 2007 at 10:20 pm, puhiawa said:

    The ability of local jurisdictions to amplify on Federal Law is well established. There are laws regarding illegal and legal aliens in every State, regarding a myriad of issues, from home ownership, taxation, gun registration, drivers and professional licenses, etc. We shall see. I think that this shall be found legal, or the Supreme Court will make a blunder causing a crescendo of unintended consequences.

29. #29
    On July 26th, 2007 at 10:25 pm, puhiawa said:

    To a large extent the crises this nation is in has been brought about by Bush’s purposeful intent to destroy this nation’s identity as an English speaking nation. His Presidency may well be remembered as the one that destroyed this country or turned it into a cataclysmic hellhole.

30. #30
    On July 27th, 2007 at 12:15 am, almeehan said:

    How many tyrannical acts will it take to provoke the citizens of this nation to rise up and yes even consider the 2nd amendment?(perish the thought, tsk tsk for saying that) There is so much coming at the average citizen from so many liberal quarters it is hard to digest let alone stomach it. If it wasnt for people like MM we’d have gone down the tubes a long time ago.

31. #31
    On July 27th, 2007 at 12:10 pm, jbirish said:

    Another activist judge!!!

32. #32
    On July 27th, 2007 at 1:29 pm, JConrad999 said:

    Gee Daddy… Why is the left persecuted so much?

    Well Son, things like this.

33. #33
    On July 27th, 2007 at 3:23 pm, LaVentanita said:

    Michelle, if you think that is bad, check this out.

    I’m surprised you haven’t covered it here, don’t know if Bryan has it at HA.

34. #34
    On July 27th, 2007 at 6:22 pm, Leatherneck said:

    This is pure Marxism.