Federal Judge Blocks Illegal Immigration Laws in Hazleton Pennsylvania

Lou Dobbs Tonight
Frosty Wooldridge Comments [a], [b]

LOU DOBBS: A federal court today ruled that Hazleton, Pennsylvania’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act is unconstitutional.

That law aimed to hold landlords and employers responsible if they did business with illegal aliens. More than 120 communities across the country have passed similar legislation and local laws in the fight against the impact of illegal immigration, a crisis caused by the federal government’s unwillingness to and enforce border security and existing U.S. immigration law.

A federal court ruled that Hazleton’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act is unconstitutional.

Bill Tucker has our story.

BILL TUCKER: Lou, Judge Munley wrote a carefully worded and carefully argued 200-page plus ruling. But it really came down to just one word — unconstitutional.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

TUCKER: The mayor of Hazleton was clearly disappointed.

MAYOR LOU BARLETTA: I’m very disappointed in Judge — that Judge Munley has ruled against all legal residents of the City of Hazleton. This fight is far from over. I have said it many times before, that Hazleton is not going to back down.

TUCKER: The court ruled that the City of Hazleton has no right to enact any ordinances dealing with illegal immigration because they conflict with the supremacy clause of the United States constitution, a clause which says that a state cannot pass laws which interfere with or violate federal law.

Federal District Court Judge Munley wrote: “Whatever frustrations the City of Hazleton, Pennsylvania may feel about the current state of federal immigration enforcement, the nature of the political system in the United States prohibits the city from enacting ordinances that disrupt a carefully drawn federal statutory scheme.”

He went on to add: “Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton’s measures, the city could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not.”

The ruling cheered the plaintiffs, who immediately claimed it sends a clear message to other communities across the country.

DR. AGAPITO LOPEZ, HAZLETON LATINO ASSOCIATION: From farmers’ rights in Texas to Florida, there’s about 120 cities that have been waiting to see if they can enact their own immigration laws. This is something that pertains to the Congress.

GEORGE BARRON, PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: We hope other municipalities who have enacted similar ordinances will take this as — will heed this warning and will eliminate those ordinances as soon as possible.

TUCKER: But the City of Hazleton is not done yet.

KRIS KOBACH, ATTORNEY FOR HAZLETON: With all due respect to Judge Munley, this 204-page opinion begs for an appeal. This decision is extraordinary. This decision is activist and it is a decision that will not stand up on appeal, nor is it entirely unexpected.

TUCKER: The lawyers pointing out that, among other things, that the judge declares “no one is illegal until an immigration judge finds them illegal.”

(END VIDEO TAPE)

TUCKER: Lou, the case will now go to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Attorneys for both sides estimate that it will probably be at least eight to nine months before the case is heard — Lou.

DOBBS: Well, to my knowledge, Bill Tucker, that’s the first time I’ve ever heard any judge say that no — no one is in this country illegally until an immigration determines that.

TUCKER: Well, he spent seven pages of his 206-page ruling explaining why he feels that way.

DOBBS: Well, this is — it is, as the other attorney pointed out, quite a remarkable document.

Thank you very much.

TUCKER: You’re welcome.

DOBBS: Bill Tucker in Hazleton, Pennsylvania.

And the mayor of Hazleton, Lou Barletta, joins me now. Good to have you with us, Mr. Mayor.

BARLETTA: Hi, Lou.

Nice to be here.

DOBBS: You’re disappointed at this decision.

Are you surprised?

BARLETTA: No, I’m not surprised, Lou.

We are, obviously, disappointed, but not surprised. The judge has really shown throughout the course of this trial that he was not in favor of what the City of Hazleton was doing. And I say that just by the fact that some of the illegal aliens who were suing the City of Hazleton who have gone by the name of John and Jane Doe, their identities were protected by the judge. They did not have to show up for the trial. I never saw the people who were suing us. And, obviously, I feel that this was an injustice not only to the city, but to those around the country.

DOBBS: Right. It’s — that is sort of remarkable but it also — is the situation what you’ve said all along, you’re going to appeal.

What’s your next legal step?

BARLETTA: Well, we’re going to appeal to the 3rd Circuit Court of Philadelphia, where we feel that this will be overturned. And from there, Lou, I’m prepared to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court.

Today was a slip and not a fall, and this battle is far from over.

DOBBS: There was this — we last reported from Hazleton — there was a general belief expressed to us, as we were there in the community, that this district court judge, that there was way in the world, given his political — his perceived political viewpoints and ideology — that he could possibly rule in the favor of the city.

The idea that this would be politically based, do you reject that, even though you’re disappointed with the decision?

BARLETTA: Well, you know, I would hope that that wouldn’t be the case, Lou. But it’s — it’s almost amusing to me that the judge would say we can’t do what the federal government should be doing when, in fact, the federal government is not doing it. And if they were doing their job, obviously, I wouldn’t have to take this stand.

But I’m going to continue to fight for the people of this community and other cities around the country.

DOBBS: Mayor Lou Barletta, we thank you very much.

BARLETTA: Thank you. DOBBS: And, of course, we’ll be following the progress of the next legal development, as you pursue your course.

BARLETTA: Thanks, Lou.

DOBBS: Up next here, I’ll be talking with one of the heads of the ACLU that sued Hazleton.

Also, pro-business senators who are trying to weaken a program that would help American workers and their families.

And Senator Clinton responds to Senator Obama’s charge. That’s after Senator Obama responded to her charge. The latest charge was Obama’s. We’ll tell you all about it and tell you how this little feud is going here next. It’s getting to be quite something.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The American Civil Liberties Union one of the groups suing the City of Hazleton and today winning a legal victory.

The legal director of the Pennsylvania ACLU joins is Vic Walczak.

He joins us tonight from Pittsburgh.

Good to have you with us.

VIC WALCZAK, ACLU: Good to be here.

Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: We’ll begin with a congratulations.

And at this point, what do you think the impact of this decision will be?

WALCZAK: Well, we hope that this decision sends a blaring red light to any local elected officials around the country who may be thinking of passing a similar law. You know, I found it curious both Mayor Barletta and his lawyer were so soundly attacking not just Judge Munley’s opinion, but also Judge Munley himself, and suggesting there was politics involved.

You know, this is the first court to rule on one of these ordinances after having had a full trial. We had a two week trial back in March…

DOBBS: Right. Nationwide. Nationwide, we should point out.

WALCZAK: Right, nationwide.

But there have been six or seven other decisions by judges around the country, on a preliminary basis…

DOBBS: Yes.

WALCZAK: …and they — every single one of them has ruled the same…

DOBBS: Right.

WALCZAK: …and has rejected the arguments…

DOBBS: Rt.

WALCZAK: …that, you know, the mayor thinks are so strong for them.

DOBBS: Well, in fairness, not each of those ordinances is the same. There are now some very similar to that and — as Hazleton’s.

But you say not political. Mayor Barletta saying that this judge managed, in a 207-page opinion, to include concerns about whether the government of Mexico would get mad and would have an influence on U.S. foreign policy.

I mean help me out there.

WALCZAK: Yes…

DOBBS: Why he would he do that?

WALCZAK: Well, you know, with — again, with all due respect to Mayor Barletta, that is testimony that was in the record. And, in fact, it came in to show that immigration requires a careful calibration between lots of interests, including foreign policy, the national economy, individual rights.

DOBBS: Well, Vic, if I may say…

WALCZAK: And those are considerations…

DOBBS: If I may say, balderdash. U.S. immigration law and the U.S. constitution should not be swamped by that sort of absolute balderdash.

WALCZAK: Well, it…

DOBBS: I mean that’s absurd.

WALCZAK: No, I’m…

DOBBS: Are you saying that there has to be reciprocity and mutuality…

WALCZAK: No…

DOBBS: …in immigration law before it can be enforced?

You know better than that.

WALCZAK: No, I’m sorry, Lou. I — I mean you asked me to come on this show.

DOBBS: Sure.

WALCZAK: You asked me a question and I thought you wanted to hear the answer. So…

DOBBS: Well, I want to hear the answer.

WALCZAK: …it…

DOBBS: I just want to hear you make some sense on the thing.

WALCZAK: Well, if you’d let me finish…

DOBBS: OK, then please.

WALCZAK: …and not distort what I’m saying…

DOBBS: Please, please.

WALCZAK: Right.

DOBBS: Please.

WALCZAK: And I’m sorry, you know…

DOBBS: No, no. Please.

WALCZAK: I know I’m a guest…

DOBBS: Hey.

WALCZAK: I’m a guest on your show.

Look, the point is…

DOBBS: Go for it, partner.

WALCZAK: The point is, the reason that it is so important for the federal government to be making decisions about immigration is that it affects a lot of national interests like foreign policy, like how are you going to affect the national economy?

How are you going to deal with individual rights?

And Congress has to calibrate those things. And, in fact, it is those considerations that have prevented Congress from coming up with any kind of legislation.

The point the judge is making, which was reflecting…

DOBBS: Whoa, whoa, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait…

WALCZAK: …which is reflecting argu…

DOBBS: now you’re putting forward a political opinion and I’m asking you for a — a few legal — a legal analysis.

WALCZAK: Well, the legal opinion…

DOBBS: So let’s go back to your political point now.

The ACLU would recommend to those communities — and I know that the ACLU is every bit as concerned about the impact of illegal immigration, just as concerned as any American in this country about the fact our borders are not secure, that a million illegal aliens, as many as a million illegal aliens are entering this country illegally.

What would be the ACLU’s advice and counsel — legal advice and counsel — to mayors and city councils and small towns all over the country who, as you say, might be contemplating an ordinance like this, what would you have them do?

What’s your best counsel to them to deal with the impact of a government that will not enforce existing U.S. immigration laws, the impact of a government and an administration that will not secure the borders, even though we’re in a global war on terror?

WALCZAK: Right.

First of all, Lou, I’m a — I’m a trial lawyer. I’m a constitutional lawyer. I’m probably not the kind of immigration expert that you are. And I’m going to talk about a position on the borders. The ACLU has not taken a position on that.

In terms of what…

DOBBS: You could have fooled me.

WALCZAK: Well — no, I mean I think that’s — that’s accurate, that we have not taken a position on what to do with the borders.

DOBBS: I understand.

WALCZAK: You know, my job in this case was to look at this local ordinance…

DOBBS: Sure.

WALCZAK: …and try to help the judge determine whether or not it’s constitutional or not.

DOBBS: Right.

WALCZAK: We think it’s very difficult for municipalities to…

DOBBS: Well, let me ask you this, then, if you want to defer on that.

What counsel would you give to Americans…

WALCZAK: Oh, I can’t answer it.

(LAUGHTER)

DOBBS: I’m sorry?

WALCZAK: I thought I was trying to answer that.

DOBBS: Well, I thought you had. If you hadn’t, please, go ahead.

WALCZAK: What local municipalities need to do is first put pressure on their Congressional representatives to try to come up with some kind of solution. And I know that’s partly a dodge.

The second point that’s really important is that I think if we’re going to have a discussion about immigration in this country, it’s very important…

DOBBS: All right…

WALCZAK: …that we deal with facts and not myths and propaganda.

DOBBS: Oh, partner, I couldn’t agree with you more.

So let’s term the question just a little differently…

WALCZAK: OK.

DOBBS: …since you have only partially dodged the — the question. And this I know you won’t want to dodge.

Is there any legal recourse to the American people, U.S. citizens, against a government and an administration, executive departments, particularly at Homeland Security, the Justice Department, when they refuse to enforce existing U.S. law, when they refuse to enforce the border?

On this very day we’re watching the National Guard be withdrawn by half from our borders, even though illegal immigration is unabated.

WALCZAK: Right. I mean, ultimately, I’m — I’m sorry, I don’t know whether there is a legal cause of action. The bottom line is that accountability for the president, for members of Congress, lies at the ballot box and, you know…

DOBBS: Well, that’s certainly one of them.

WALCZAK: Right.

DOBBS: But we — we don’t want to keep you lawyers out of work. We wouldn’t want that to…

WALCZAK: Oh, I…

DOBBS: …you to be idle.

WALCZAK: I wouldn’t worry too much about that.

DOBBS: How about this? How about this — you’re a volunteer organization. You’re worried about — the American Civil Liberties Union.

WALCZAK: Right.

DOBBS: Are our civil liberties being violated by a government that will not enforce border security, that will not enforce existing law, that will not protect local communities and their citizens from the impact of those who have violated the law and from the very need to do so because it is, fundamentally, a failure, a dereliction of duty on the part of the federal government?

WALCZAK: Well, I think, you know, the problem with a legal cause of action there comes from your conservative colleagues on the Supreme Court who have said…

DOBBS: My conservative colleagues?

I’m neither a conservative nor — nor a justice.

WALCZAK: Well, they are — well there are — the conservative folks in this country have helped the Supreme Court and other courts rule that the government is not a guarantor of people’s safety. So, you know, I think, frankly…

DOBBS: I’m sorry.

Say that again.

(CROSSTALK)

WALCZAK: The government cannot be held accountable as a guarantor of people’s safety.

DOBBS: Yes.

WALCZAK: So in terms of the legal (INAUDIBLE)…

DOBBS: I don’t think there are many people in this country looking for a guarantee on either the issue of homeland security, border security or illegal immigration.

But you know what they would like if they can’t get a guarantee or a warranty?

They sure would like a best effort.

Do you think we’re getting that?

WALCZAK: You know, it — it does not appear that the federal government is — I mean I — you know, I think it’s a difficult political situation, Lou.

DOBBS: Yes…

WALCZAK: …and what’s ironic is that some of the… DOBBS: Well, there should be.

Look, can we agree on this as we end?

WALCZAK: Yes?

DOBBS: there should be nothing political about a president and a department head’s responsibility to enforce the law. There should be nothing political about a Congress and a president preserving the safety and the security of the American people and enforcing immigration laws.

Can we agree on that?

WALCZAK: Amen, Lou.

DOBBS: Amen, brother.

WALCZAK: How’s that?

Yes.

DOBBS: Thank you, sir.

WALCZAK: Good.

Thank you.

DOBBS: Good to have you with us.

WALCZAK: Thank you.

DOBBS: A reminder now to vote in our poll.

Do you believe U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should just simply resign?

Yes or no?

Cast your vote at loudobbs.com.

We’ll have the results for you in just a few moments.

That’s, by the way, Mr. Walczak, our conservative question of the day.

And if you want to call the White House and check out my independent populist credentials, I’m sure they’d be glad to give you an answer.

Coming up next, pro-business senators and Congressmen.

Source: Lou Dobbs Tonight, July 26th 2007