Illegal Immigration: Hazelton v ACLU

Now, I always thought that the "A" in ACLU stood for American. And, illegal immigrants are not American, nor entitled to Constitutional protection

SCRANTON, Pa. (AP) – Nearly a year after the city of Hazleton began a high-profile campaign to rid itself of illegal immigrants, opponents of the crackdown are getting their day in court.

A trial opening Monday pits Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, who says illegal immigrants are destroying the quality of life in his small northeastern Pennsylvania city, against the ACLU and Hispanic groups who contend that the laws are unconstitutional.

It will be the first federal trial in the nation to explore whether local governments may act on their own to curb illegal immigration.

Dozens of cities and towns around the country have followed Hazleton's lead, approving laws ranging from penalizing companies that employ illegal immigrants to making English the official language of local government.

Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act would impose fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that employ them. A companion measure requires tenants to register with City Hall.

We see yet again that the ACLU cares more about protecting the non existant rights of people who break our laws, people who are not even citizens nor looking for citizenship, much like with terrorists, over the legal, law abiding citizens of the United States. I just have to ask, whose side are they on?

Apparently, they are truly on the side of lawlessness

The Hazleton laws were prompted by a number of high-profile crimes involving illegal immigrants. Two illegal immigrants from the Dominican Republic were charged in May 2006 with shooting and killing a 29-year-old man, and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for firing a gun at a playground.

In court papers, Hazleton said illegal immigrants have committed at least 47 crimes since last spring, consuming much of the city's police overtime budget. Illegal immigrants were the subject of one-third of all drug arrests in 2005, and they have driven up the costs of health care and education, the city said.

So, the city took measures. Most of the residents do not seem to mind, But, the ACLU has decided to stick their pink noses into Hazelton's business and forced the city to give the illegal's rights and the freedom to break the law.

The article points out that many immigrants are Puerto Ricans, are there legally, and feel harrassed. Well, if they are there legally, then they have no reason to worry. If more towns, and counties, states, and the federal government, would get off the snide, and pass harsh laws against illegals, then those that appear hispanic wouldn't have to worry about being "reported." Because there would be few illegals in the country. We couldn't stop them all, but we could make it difficult to get work, to get healthcare, to get a place to live, by slapping high fines on companies and businesses that support illegals. And we have every right to do so. The Constitution in no way states that we have to coddle illegals and those who provide support. Apparently the ACLU has read a different Constitution then I have.

In a companion piece, CNS News reports on illegals being more likely to commit crimes. Other then coming to America illegally, of course.

Trackposted to, Perri Nelson's Website, Mark My Words, third world county, Faultline USA, stikNstein… has no mercy, basil's blog, The World According to Carl, DragonLady's World, Overtaken by Events, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and Conservative Thoughts, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

3 Responses to “Illegal Immigration: Hazelton v ACLU”

  1. joated says:

    I would think the Puerto Rican members of the community (who ARE citizens of the US of A and should NOT be considered immigrants any more than someone movig from NJ to PA) would want the laws against ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (which the Puerto Ricans are not) enforced. It would mean many more opportunities for them in terms of housing and jobs.

  2. It is my understanding that anyone in the United States is eligible for certain protections under the law whether they are legal or illegal. Much in the same way as any defendant is to be offered a meaningful defense on their own behalf.
    Where I have been trying to clear up some confusion is reports by some that on various legalities. For example, there have been posts in the blogosphere claiming illegal entry to this country is not a felony. After reviewing the appropriate USC I found that the first illegal entry by a person is considered a misdemeanor and any subsequent illegal entry is a felony.
    Whether non-citizens are eligible for protections under the constitution I am certainly not qualified to answer. But I am qualified to express my opinion as an American citizen who is drop dead tired of being told this is a nation of immigrants and therefore all those opposed to unrestricted immigration have something wrong with them.
    I am also qualified as an American to criticize those currently in charge of operating our government for pandering to special interest groups with open border agendas. The arguments presented for this activity is a thinly veiled excuse for certain portions of the population to further their own greedy self-gratification at the expense of America’s future. Equally disgusting is the dominant stance of the ACLU to support misguided causes that are anything but American. Please excuse the rant, or not.

  3. Yes, even illegals have standing under the law, however, they are not entitled to the full measure of US Constitutional rights, especially since they are breaking existing laws.

    i will not disagree with you regarding the current admin. Neither Bush, most of the republicans in congress, and most of the democrats are doing anything. Had Bush’s real stances been apparent in 2004, we would be calling Kerry president. It is a disaster.

Pirate's Cove