Trial starts on Penn. town's anti-immigrant rules

Lozano v. Hazleton, No. 3:06:v1586, before Judge James M. Munley, U.S. District Court, M. Dist. Pa.
A federal bench trial in Scranton, Pennsylvania, began today that will test a municipality's authority to enact and enforce ordinances aimed at allegedly-illegal immigrants. It is a case of first impression in any jurisdiction, and its outcome will bear on rules in up to 80 localities.
The trial will also focus attention on questions of racism and trends toward a surveillance-snitch society.

After opening statements today, the court heard plaintiffs' first witness, Dr. Agapito Lopez, a retired ophthalmologist, who testified that "a wave a hate" swept Hazleton, PA, last summer, after the town drafted and enacted ordinances that would suspend licenses and impose fines upon businesses doing business with residents who could not prove their citizenship or legal residency status.
Judge Munley in October granted plaintiffs a temporary restraining order enjoining Hazleton from enforcing the ordinances, one of which also required would-be renters to obtain permits from the city in order to sign a lease and live in town.
Representing plaintiffs are the ACLU, the Community Justice Project, and the corporate firm Cozen O'Connor.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief on plaintiffs' behalf.
Defendants' main lawyer is Kris W. Kobach, widely-admired for his large teeth, ever-present American flag, vocal defense of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping, and close relationship with former attorney-general John Ashcroft.
The small city south of Scranton passed the ordinances following an incitement campaign by the mayor, Lou Barletta, that featured emotional appeals about a supposedly-idyllic past swept away by hordes of undocumented Latinos from New York taking over Hazleton and causing a violent crime wave.
ACLU lawyer Witold J. "Vic" Walczak denied that defendants had any evidence for such claims in opening statements today.
He also laid out plaintiffs' Supremacy Clause argument:
"Even if illegal immigrants really are wreaking havoc on Hazleton, that doesn't change the legal analysis," the AP quoted Walczak telling Judge Munley.
Article VI, clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution provides in part that federal statutes passed by Congress "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." Plaintiffs argue that granting local jurisdictions new authority, beyond the original text of the Constitution, to pass their own immigration rules will cause legal chaos.
Anti-immigrant groups deny this likelihood, argue that local ordinances are permissible as long as they are "consistent with" federal law, and accuse the ACLU a politically-motivated effort to block enforcement of immigration laws.
Although Hazleton's enjoined ordinances contain language ostensibly forbidding racial targeting of individuals, plaintiffs expect to show evidence of discrimination and harm done to Hazleton's Latino/a community. Their Second Amended Complaint alleges in part:
*Plaintiff landlords Pedro Lozano and Humberto Hernandez lost contracted or prospective tenants whose immigration status is unknown;
*Plaintiffs Rosa and Jose Luis Lechuga, grocery store owners, lost customers and workers whose immigration status is unknown;
*John and Jane Doe plaintiffs, including married people who are not citizens or lawful residents, but whose children are citizens, fear eviction from their homes;
*A community-based non-governmental organization, also a plaintiff, has lost members and constituents, whose fear of discrimination has kept them from attending public activities.
The "wave of hate" that Dr. Lopez told Judge Munley about today arguably began during Mayor Barletta's incitement campaign, and, equally arguably, continues on-line today: In astonishingly, nakedly racist skreeds published here (as a reader's letter to the editor), and here (in what actually appears to be an editorial).
The number of local jurisdictions with similar rules on their books or pending is reported to be between 26 (per NPR) and "more than 80" (per the ACLU).
"These laws encourage racial profiling," Anthony D. Romero, national executive director of the ACLU, said in the same press release linked above.
Because the ordinances would compel landlords and employers to act as police, enforcement of the rules would cement a relationship between the local private sector and the local government. Dragooning citizens into reporting suspected rules-violators to the authorities is one hallmark of a police state.

Tags: politics, law, policy, federal practice, immigration, immigration law, immigration policy, ACLU, Lozano, Hazleton, Lozano v. Hazleton, Judge James M. Munley, racism.

Comments

[eric]

I've been to Hazleton quite a few times. I sort of like it up there -- good fishing in the region, and a pretty interesting labor/political history attributable to the (now defunct) coal industry. But it is definitely not an immigrant-friendly region. I also recall having at least one case before Judge Munley, but I don't remember anything about him. In any event, this is a very scary and dangerous case.

[redbecca]

This reminds me of South Africas "pass laws." blech. It's also another example of how "states' rights" arguments are often about the state's right to trample on the individual. thanks for the report, Stein.

[TallSkinny]

Grrr. . . .

The hypocrisy is infuriating. These xenophobes are themselves descended from immigrants. And their ancestors were subjected to the same pernicious nonsense they now employ against these immigrants.

I got new for you chumps. Sodom was not destroyed for the particulars of its sexual proclivites. No, Sodom was destroyed because its people abused travelers.

Fire and brimstone for Hazelton. Fire and brimstone. . . .

[Stein]

Whoa, TallSkinny. You're reading of Scripture is correct of course & so-called "literalists" are really just cherry-picking the verses they want to confirm their prejudices. On the other hand, you-n-yer fire-n-brimstone rhetoric! Wasn't it another PA town that Pat Robertson said was to be destroyed?

[TallSkinny]

Robertson has his very own olympic-sized pool waiting for him in the Lake of Flames.

Karl Marx is much more worthy of redemption than Pat Robertson.

And, hey, pervasive blood-curdling imagery is one of the really cool things about being religious. You poor materialists are limited to insults like jagoff, asshole, etc. -- such invective doesn't hold a candle to fire, brimstone, or the Lake of Flames.