You may have heard about the law passed in Hazleton, PA that levies large fines on businesses that hire illegal immigrants and landlords who rent to illegal immigrants.
Mayor Lou Barletta and the city council passed this law, but lawyers for the ACLU have suspended the enforcement of this law pending a case to see if it is constitutional.
What do you think? Is the Hazleton law that punishes Americans who illegally hire and rent property to illegal aliens legal, or is it unconstitutional? Give reasons for your answer.
2006-11-02 08:01:43 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
Good question. The amnesty bill that was passed in the 80's was supposed to put an end to illegal immigration. It imposed strict employer sanctions for hiring, aiding, or abetting illegal aliens. The Hazelton bill then is in concert with the amnesty bill that passed over 20 years ago. If the Hazelton bill is deemed unconstitutional then the amnesty bill is unconstitutional and therefore anyone granted amnesty would again be illegal. (or should be)
The ACLU is a joke. It is anti-American. No where in the Constitution does it address illegal aliens. The ACLU and the liberal courts have been reading into the Constitution things that are just not there. Meanwhile they will try to drag this through the courts for YEARS.
If cities across America can stand up and declare themselves sanctuary in defiance Of Federal Law then the City of Hazelton should stand up in defiance of the ACLU and declare themselves non-sanctuary. They should stand up and tell the ACLU and the courts that they WILL enforce their law until the court makes a decision which, of course, will be YEARS.
2006-11-02 08:25:01 · answer #1 · answered by Bob G 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
We have always accepted the premise that law should be enacted and managed at the lowest possible level. When cities fail to control crime the states pass laws to do it. When the states fail to control crime the federal government does it. In this case the federal government has neglected their own law and the states are being forced to do the job suffering the monetary cost and loss of quality of life. Every state should pass a law similar to the Arizona law. We can not afford the economical or social impact the illegal aliens are having on our country. What Arizona has done is not unconstitutional as far as I can see. They have a right and an obligation to protect their citizens and the industry within their state. Passing the immigration law only reinforces their desire to see the people of their state protected and I applaud their candor and courage to do so! States that do not follow the Arizona example lack the leadership the citizens of the state deserve!
2016-05-23 19:27:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the business license part for employment is, but I am not sure about the residential part. Not so much as applied to illegal immigrants, but inevitably as applied to someone who is legitimate but can't prove it. I'd say not giving education is better, because a kid can stay home a week while paperwork is worked out, however, not having a home to stay in while paperwork is worked out does kind of bother me.
I will learn if it is constitutional when the Court rules on it, and I am not referring to the lower court. However, parts of it are a tad icky, and I say that as an anti-illegal immigration opinion holder. I think it should be considered constitutional to deny education, if not emergency health care, but housing.....
On the other hand I do sympathize that they are trying the only way they can to keep the children of illegals out of their schools and keep them from draining education funds that should be spent on children legally there. I think the Court was in error in its decision that children of illegals, if here, should be educated, to be honest. The cost of illegal immigration is immense, and it hits our most vulnerable populations.
2006-11-02 08:14:36 · answer #3 · answered by DAR 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
if the immigrants are there illegally and the companies are hiring illegals then THEY are breaking the law...where's the aclu when it comes to protecting the rights of the legal, tax paying citizens of hazelton? absolutely the law passed in hazelton is and should be legal because they are trying to protect themselves against illegal people and actions. i wish the entire nation would not only adopt this type law but enforce it.
2006-11-02 08:11:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I celebrate it!
It's not unconstitutional...The constitution does not provide us with rights to rent to anyone we want. If there were a rental tenant rights or landlord rights amendment, then the argument might be valid.
Meanwhile, this is simply a new method for upholding our existing immigration laws. We have said that we will be the ones in control of who may or may not move to our country. When we disregard our own laws and act with such lack of sincerity, we make ourselves look weak and hypocritical to the rest of the world.
2006-11-02 08:17:57 · answer #5 · answered by abfabmom1 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
More power to Hazelton for having the grit to 'do the job that the government won't do'...
If cities like Chicago, Phoenix, San Francisco and Los Angeles can become 'sanctuary cities', then it's fully legal for other cities to NOT be 'sanctuary cities' and seek to assist in enforcement of immigration laws.
Support the US Border Patrol!
2006-11-02 08:39:33 · answer #6 · answered by gokart121 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Since the federal government isnt upholding the illegal immigrant laws, they are pretty much ignoring them, local towns have to solve the problem themselves. They have a right to make these laws and enforce them.
2006-11-02 08:07:03 · answer #7 · answered by Dovahkiin 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I think its fair because Illegal Immigrants come because they know they can find work here. They should be punished for coming illegally, but the employers providing the jobs should be punished for aiding and abetting dont you think??!!
2006-11-02 08:07:21 · answer #8 · answered by SittinPretty! 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think it's an awesome example for the rest of the country and it's only on hold for 14 days, it will be back
2006-11-02 08:24:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Unconstitutional? Since when are illegal aliens protected by our constitution...I mean, being that they are ILLEGAL ALIENS and not citizens.
2006-11-02 09:17:05 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋