- ISIL creates all-female brigade to terrorize women into following Sharia law
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama to Latin leaders: Help with border
- Military bans troops from Baptist church event honoring ‘God’s Rescue Squad’
- ‘Pocket drones’: U.S. Army developing tiny surveillance tools for the next big war
- Belgian cafe posts sign: Dogs allowed, but Jews stay out
- Gen. Dempsey: Pentagon studying Russian readiness plans not viewed ‘for 20 years’
- John McCain: Botched, two-hour execution of murderer is ‘torture’
- House GOP ready to move border bill
- Bomb squad called after live WWII artillery washes on Cape Cod beach
Pa. town’s immigration law falls in court
Federal role infringed, judges rule
Question of the Day
A federal appeals court on Thursday struck down a Pennsylvania town’s immigration ordinances as infringing on the federal government’s right to control immigration rules, adding more fuel to the heated battle over how far states and localities can go in trying to push out illegal immigrants.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Hazleton, in northeastern Pennsylvania, cannot require landlords to check renters’ immigration status, nor can it require businesses to use an electronic database to check whether potential employees are authorized to work.
“Hazleton has placed a priority on deterring employment of unauthorized aliens, but failed to concern itself with the costs its ordinance imposes on employers and on work-authorized aliens,” the three-judge panel wrote.
The decision conflicts with a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld an Arizona law requiring businesses to use the electronic database, called E-Verify. The federal government considers E-Verify voluntary for most businesses, though it does require the system’s use for federal contractors and subcontractors.
Having conflicting decisions from appeals courts increases the chances that the Supreme Court eventually will decide the cases.
State and local immigration rules have become a major battle point in immigration, with Arizona’s law to require police to perform immigration checks being the latest, and most heated, flash point. The Obama administration sued to block that law, and a district judge in Phoenix has issued an injunction on many of the key provisions.
But for some time, states and localities have been trying to write regulations attempting to discourage the hiring of illegal immigrants. Hazleton, which adopted its ordinances four years ago, was one of the first.
“I’m not disillusioned by this ruling. We knew this would not be the last stop on this journey,” said Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, who is the Republican nominee for a seat in Congress.
Over the past 10 years, Hazleton saw an influx of Hispanic residents, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which joined in suing Hazleton, said the new rules were designed to push them back out of the town.
“Hazleton’s discriminatory law decimated a town that used to be bustling with life and commerce,” said Vic Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania.
Hazleton tried to go further than just cracking down on employers by requiring landlords to check to see if their renters were in the country legally.
But the court on Thursday said that infringes on the federal government’s constitutional power to determine who can reside in the country.
“It appears plain that the purpose of these housing provisions is to ensure that aliens lacking legal immigration status reside somewhere other than Hazleton,” the panel said. “It is this power to effectively prohibit residency based on immigration status that is so clearly within the exclusive domain of the federal government.”
The judges said federal law makes provisions for a long legal process for removing illegal immigrants and allows immigration judges and federal authorities the leeway to let them stay. None of those safeguards are present in the Hazleton rules.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Stephen Dinan can be reached at email@example.com.
- Lois Lerner emails reveal gaping open-records loophole
- Two-thirds of illegal immigrant children approved for asylum: report
- Top Justice official denies conspiring with IRS on tea party targeting
- Boehner: No bill on border surge
- Taking Obama to court a long shot but lawsuit not folly, Congress is told
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
By Mark Davis
The nation founders, the Lone Star State thrives
- 'Pocket drones': U.S. Army developing tiny spies for the next big war
- Rahm Emanuel: Send illegal immigrant shelter kids to Chicago
- Tactical advantage: Russian military shows off impressive new gear
- CURL: Obama, staffers not even pretending any more
- HUSAIN: Fleeing Iraqi Christians find safe haven at the Shrine of Imam Ali
- DCCC raising money on suggestion Obama impeachment is imminent
- Washington Times strikes content and marketing partnership with Redskins
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- Family of Marine killed in Afghanistan pushes back against cover-up
- Pentagon running out of time to find mass of missing weapons in Afghanistan
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq