Illegal Immigration Laws Being Written All Over The Country, And Upheld In Court After Court

Posted by on 2/10/2008

After a decision in July by a federal judge in Pennsylvania who struck down ordinances adopted by the City of Hazleton barring local employers from hiring illegal immigrants and local landlords from renting to them, many cities and states feared that their immigration enforcement laws would be successfully challenged in court. It now appears that Hazeleton was an anomaly:

On Thursday, a federal judge in Arizona ruled against a lawsuit by construction contractors and immigrant organizations who sought to halt a state law that went into effect on Jan. 1 imposing severe penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. The judge, Neil V. Wake of Federal District Court, methodically rejected all of the contractors’ arguments that the Arizona law invaded legal territory belonging exclusively to the federal government.

On Jan. 31, a federal judge in Missouri, E. Richard Webber, issued a similarly broad and even more forcefully worded decision in favor of an ordinance aimed at employers of illegal immigrants adopted by Valley Park, Mo., a city on the outskirts of St. Louis.

And, in an even more sweeping ruling in December, a judge in Oklahoma, James H. Payne, threw out a lawsuit against a state statute enacted last year requiring state contractors to verify new employees’ immigration status. Judge Payne said the immigrants should not be able to bring their claims to court because they were living in the country in violation of the law.

These decisions are a sign of hope. Take away the jobs, and what is the point of an illegal alien sneaking into the country? Sound harsh? Not when you stop to think about the fact that the illegals from Mexico are sending home close to $20 billion. Mexico ranks those funds as its’ second highest source of revenue behind oil profits. $20 billion would sure help defray the medical costs that this country incurs on behalf of the illegals.

Lawyers fighting the local statutes said these were creating a nationwide checkerboard of conflicting laws, and have generated discrimination against Hispanics who are not illegal immigrants. As of November, 1,562 bills dealing with immigration were introduced in state legislatures in 2007 and 244 became law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

“What certain states and communities are doing is taking matters into their own hands that should be dealt with on a national level in a consistent manner,” said Ricardo Meza, a lawyer in Chicago for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which brought the Valley Park case. “Where we see the big danger with these laws is that they put a bulls-eye on every Hispanic’s forehead.”

The illegals and those that tried to assist them in breaking the law put that bulls-eye on them.

Michael A. Olivas, a University of Houston law professor, said the recent litigation showed the need for Congress to clarify the situation of illegal immigrants. “We lost the big enchilada, which was federal immigration reform that would have trumped all these matters,” he said.

Hey professor, the laws are clear.

H/T to memeorandum

Democrats, Global Warming, Illegal immigration, National News, Presidential Election '08

7 Comments.

  1. Robert 2/10/2008 at February 10, 2008 - 03:49 PM

    This is a very good trend. Since Washington won’t do anything, individual States and cities are stepping up and getting it done. They are gradually turning off the magnet.

    Anyone but a moron could figure out the following formula for success with the illegal immigration problem:

    Turn off the magnet: Make the penalties for hiring illegals so severe few would risk it.
    Cut off the welfare, freebies, bennies.
    No healthcare except in emergencies.
    No anchor babies.
    No SSI.

    If those were implemented rigorously, the problem would eventually solve itself.

  2. Pam 2/10/2008 at February 10, 2008 - 08:20 PM

    Now read this to get your blood boiling Robert:

    Barack Obama, speaking in El Dorado Tuesday, said that America was suffering an “empathy deficit.” He was talking about our divisive politics, and what he has called “an inability to recognize ourselves in one another.”

    But he might as well have been talking about our immigration impasse.

    The phrase came to mind this week as I heard about Kansas lawmakers’ various bills designed to crack down on Hispanic immigrants living here illegally by denying them jobs, housing and social services.

    Some of it sounds reasonable. After all, we need secure borders and workplace rules, right?

    Agreed.

    But this election-year effort, as usual, feeds on an ugly undercurrent of public fear, ignorance and, yes, racism.

    We’re suffering an empathy deficit in the immigration debate. And it’s blinding us to some realities about the people who are coming here.

    We’re not seeing them. Or what they face. Or how their dreams are very much like ours.

    Bishop Michael Jackels of the Catholic Diocese of Wichita visited The Eagle editorial board Wednesday to share his concerns about the “misinformation” and “fear” he sees driving the immigration debate.

    He hears the stock objections, and the end-of-discussion refrain: “What part of illegal don’t you understand?”

    But he says there is much about these “illegals” that Americans don’t understand.

    Most of them, he pointed out, didn’t come here to start a gang or sell drugs or undermine our voting system.

    “They’re coming here because of abject poverty” in their homelands. They’re hardworking, tight-knit families trying to better their lives, not destroy ours.

    He wants Kansas lawmakers to step back and take a hard look at the human impact of the laws they want to pass. Some of the proposals “lack a fundamental respect for human decency.”

    Oklahoma last year passed a get-tough immigration law — billed as the nation’s toughest — that made it a crime to transport, house or hire illegals.

    It’s sparked an exodus of Hispanics, legal and illegal alike, creating widespead labor shortages and unforeseen economic fallout.

    And it created unexpected victims — among them a 2-month-old baby, Edgar Castorena.

    Edgar was suffering severe diarrhea. But his parents, fearing the new Oklahoma law and the relentless dragnet climate it created, were scared to take their child to a hospital.

    The baby died of a ruptured intestine.

    Edgar, by the way, was born on U.S. soil. He was an American.

    Do we understand who is being hurt by these new laws?

    Janet Valente Pape, executive director of Catholic Charities, told the editorial board that her agency is seeing “tremendous fear” in the immigrant community. People afraid to go to the grocery store.

    “It’s very detrimental to families,” she said.

    The bishop granted that it’s reasonable and necessary to fix our broken immigration system.

    He doesn’t know the solution. But he is asking for some balance, reason and, yes, compassion in the debate.

    In Catholic teaching, he said, laws aren’t absolute; they must be informed by spiritual and ethical values.

    Catholic doctrine supports a country’s right to control its borders and immigration. But there’s also a competing right: “Everyone has a right to live in human dignity.”

    To have access to food and shelter. Health care. Safety.

    If those basics of life can’t be found in one’s homeland, he said, then a person has the right to immigrate to another country to find them.

    Imagine that: What if you faced those desperate conditions? What would you do?

    Are we able to empathize?

    Public policy, the bishop said, should be based on factual information, not fearmongering. “There are so many myths out there” about immigrants.

    It was good to hear that state Rep. Nile Dillmore, D-Wichita — an advocate of tougher sanctions for employers who hire illegals — has asked the Legislative Division of Post Audit to study the impact of illegal immigrants on the state’s economy and public services, saying that any bills passed should be “based on factual, objective information.”

    That’s the right approach. We need less heat and more light in this debate.

    But beyond facts and numbers, we shouldn’t lose sight of the human side of this equation.

    These are people we’re talking about, not cartoon figures or election year punching bags.

    How do we study or measure an empathy deficit?

    Although this is not related to that article, it sure seems fitting as the reply:

    A s a Catholic who struggles to reconcile the U.S./Mexican illegal immigration crisis with Christian principles, I was grateful to see and eager to read Bishops Gregory and Boland’s pastoral letter on immigration reform. However, after studying the document I was disappointed and dismayed”not by what was said but by what was left unsaid.

    Expecting a comprehensive exploration of the moral responsibilities of all parties involved, I found the overwhelming focus of the letter to be, in essence, the failure of U.S. taxpayers to be sufficiently generous to those who reside here illegally. While I appreciated our bishops’ insistence on the protection of the human rights of all immigrants, legal status or no, it is only one part of the moral equation.

    Entirely ignored was the question of the extent to which immigrants are morally obligated to observe a country’s laws governing entrance and residence. And if one’s moral obligation to abide by the law is mitigated by one’s difficult financial circumstances, how are we to discern to which situations this moral leniency does and does not apply? If 1 am in dire financial straits through no fault of my own, may I, with moral impunity, choose to cheat on my taxes (say, by forging Social Security numbers to obtain tax credits for nonexistent offspring) rather than attempt the lengthy process of going through the proper IRS channels for possible relief? Consistent pastoral guidance for individuals in such situations is essential.

    Moreover, unlawful activity begets more of the same. Because they have chosen to enter the U.S. by other than legitimate means, illegal immigrants must choose between having their illegal status discovered or the breaking of additional laws”e.g., driving without a license or driving with a forged license. Paradoxically, the thing that gives the U.S. its stability”its rule of law”is the very thing being undermined by those who seek the stability offered by this country. To what degree can the escalating unlawfulness be morally justified? At what point does Jesus’ injunction to “render unto Caesar” become applicable?

    Referenced only in passing within the pastoral letter is the moral obligation of Mexico (a developed country with natural resources) to rise to its potential and provide adequate opportunities for its own citizens. As jointly stated by U.S. and Mexican bishops, its failure to do so is the root problem of illegal immigration. What pressure are Mexican bishops exerting to make their government more accountable to its people? Do not measures (by both the U.S. and Mexico) that embolden and encourage illegal immigrants ultimately serve to enable Mexico to persist in its dysfunctional state? If so, are our good intentions perhaps misguided compassion? If a person is not seeking asylum due to starvation, persecution, etc., is he ever morally bound not to simply abandon his troubled country but to work toward, fight for its improvement?

    The purpose of my letter is not to argue but to beseech our bishops to shepherd us to a comprehensive understanding of the morality involved in all the various components of this dilemma.

    Lisa Olwine Lawrenceville

  3. snowy egret 2/11/2008 at February 11, 2008 - 02:33 PM

    The whole USA pass laws like arizonas and send all those illegal aleins packing back to mexico<):)

  4. San Francisco Liberal 2/11/2008 at February 11, 2008 - 07:40 PM

    “an inability to recognize ourselves in one another.”

    ———————

    Man, Obama is 100% right on with that one.

    (!)

  5. TedintheShed 2/11/2008 at February 11, 2008 - 10:29 PM

    “an inability to recognize ourselves in one another.”

    It’s not an inability it is a fact. People are not the same.

  6. FrmrArtyOffcr 2/12/2008 at February 12, 2008 - 02:02 AM

    What does Mexico do with foreign nationals that enter its country illegally? Take a look at the Mexican laws dealing with illegally entering the country. They sure as hell do not give you free health care, welfare etc etc. The corrupt police steal your money, beat you senseless and then throw you into a third world jail until they decide to deport you. There is no discussion about compassion. Why do the liberals start quoting Christianity and Catholic Bishops when it comes to illegal aliens, but want to crucify anyone who says that any of their social immoralities are in violation of the Bible? Why do they seem to think that they get to decide when church and state need to be separated? It shows their inconsistencies and hypocracies. How else do you describe pushing a lawsuit to remove a cross shaped war memorial from public land (which doesn’t really have any impact to anyone because they can always look the other direction) versus demanding that a Catholic bishop be allowed to dictate government immigration policy? (Which would impact the livelihood of everyone.)

  7. PCD 2/12/2008 at February 12, 2008 - 07:09 AM

    6, FAO, it is SFL and his ilk taking things out of context to support their disjointed view of the world.