Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Setback In Hazleton

By Greg L | 26 July 2007 | National Politics, Illegal Aliens | 67 Comments

Drudge is reporting that U.S. District Court Judge James Munley has overturned Hazleton, Pennsylvania’s ordinance which imposed local controls on those who shelter or employ illegal aliens. More as this develops…

UPDATE: From breitbart/AP:

ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) - A federal judge on Thursday struck down the city of Hazleton’s tough immigration law, which has been emulated by cities around the country.

The Illegal Immigration Relief Act sought to impose fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. Another measure would have required tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.

It was pushed by Hazleton’s Republican mayor last summer after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting.

Hispanic groups and illegal immigrants sued in federal court to overturn the measures, saying they usurp the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration, deprive residents of their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process, and violate state and federal housing law.

UPDATE 2: The full decision is available here.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.

67 Comments

  1. Anonymous said on 26 Jul 2007 at 2:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    I can see this being appealed.

  2. manassascityresident said on 26 Jul 2007 at 2:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    I hope so. This makes me sick to my stomach. Not good news.

  3. Greg L said on 26 Jul 2007 at 2:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    Absolutely. Mayor Lou Barletta has already said that he would appeal if Munley decided against the city.

    What is fascinating is that the briefs in the case definitely seemed to favor the city in regards to the law. The opposition gave the usual “blood in the streets” hyperbole in their briefs, but rarely substantiated their position with legal references. There should be plenty of ammo available in order to successfully appeal this decision.

    Had this ruling gone the other way, it would also have been appealed by the other side. This is a good opportunity to have this issue sorted out at the highest levels, which would provide clear guidance that localities can use. That will be a good thing, although it’s going to take some time to establish something definitive and broadly applicable.

  4. Legal2 said on 26 Jul 2007 at 2:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    What can we do to help Mayor Barletta?

  5. Dan Arnold said on 26 Jul 2007 at 2:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    Clinton appointee…nuff said?

  6. DLC said on 26 Jul 2007 at 3:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Can anyone remember ANY court decision favoring a get tough stance on illegal immigration??

    That’s what happens when courts get involved; HOWEVER — the fight MUST go on because as usual, courts are on the WRONG side of the issue….

  7. Anonymous said on 26 Jul 2007 at 4:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Term limits for Federal judges…we have them in Virginia

  8. anon said on 26 Jul 2007 at 4:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Whatever frustrations officials of the City of Hazleton 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. 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 genius of
    our Constitution is that it provides rights even to those who evoke the least
    sympathy from the general public. In that way, all in this nation can be
    confident of equal justice under its laws. Hazleton, in its zeal to control the
    presence of a group deemed undesirable, violated the rights of such
    people, as well as others within the community.”

    Beautiful….perhaps we should all take note.

  9. anon said on 26 Jul 2007 at 4:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    And while you’re at it, go read the appendix to the judges decision entitled:

    HISTORY OF IMMIGRATION REGULATION IN AMERICA

  10. Bridget said on 26 Jul 2007 at 5:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    Please send your support to Mayor Barletta here:

    http://www.hazeltoncity.org/public/contact-us/view.html

    http://www.smalltowndefenders.com/public/contact

  11. BornHere said on 26 Jul 2007 at 5:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Thanks Anon. It truly is beautiful, especially in its moving and accurate reference to the Constitution.

  12. Bridget said on 26 Jul 2007 at 5:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    Pardon. let me try the Hazleton link again:

    http://www.hazletoncity.org/public/contact-us/view.html

  13. Disgusted said on 26 Jul 2007 at 5:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    “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.”

    And that statement will be what makes it go all the way to the Supreme court since it is widely stated that constitutional protections are for U.S. citizens only. Should be interesting.

  14. OPDitch said on 26 Jul 2007 at 5:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, Fred Thompson thinks it should be appealed also:
    ———————————
    Hazleton Immigraton Decision
    Posted on July 26th, 2007
    By Fred in Statements, Immigration
    Most Americans want something to be done about the illegal immigration problem we have in this country. They’ve been expecting the federal government to enforce the immigration laws already on the books. The federal government hasn’t done that, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the governments closest to the people – municipal and state – are looking to take action. This is an entirely proper role for these governments.

    Back in 2006, the citizens of Hazleton, Penn., were noticing some troubling signs resulting from an influx of illegal immigrants. They were seeing an uptick in the number of murders, an increase in drug-related crimes and a school district bursting at its seams. In fact the English as a Second Language program reportedly went from $500 a year in 2001 to more than $1 million a year today. The citizens of Hazleton demanded that something be done, and the Illegal Immigration Relief Act was introduced by the mayor and supported by the city council by a vote of 4 to 1.

    Let’s be clear about what’s going on here. No matter what some groups may be trying to do to muddy the water and portray Hazleton’s law as something playing to an uglier agenda, this law is not about legal immigration. This law is about dealing with the illegal immigration problem in Hazleton. The town’s mayor and city officials made this clear from the beginning, and it seems like they took a common sense approach.

    Our constitutional system allows cities to take reasonable steps to protect their citizens. When the federal government is unwilling to enforce immigration laws effectively, then cities need to be able to act, and take reasonable steps to secure their citizens from the social, financial, and criminal costs of illegal immigration.

    No doubt, this ruling will be appealed. And it should be.
    ——————
    SOURCE: http://imwithfred.com

  15. BornHereButNotanAnchorBaby said on 26 Jul 2007 at 6:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Fred has my vote.

  16. The PubScout said on 26 Jul 2007 at 6:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    When your bathtub overflows, the first thing you do is stop the leak. Then you clean up the mess. Otherwise, you’re cleaning up the mess forever.

    Translation for Congress:

    Seal the borders; clear the backlogs, enforce existing laws. Then debate a “new” approach.”

  17. anon said on 26 Jul 2007 at 7:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Greg, Fred Thompson thinks it should be appealed also”

    That’s hysterical given that he just brought Spence Abraham on board to run his campaign.

    Anybody remember Spence Abraham’s “open border” days?

    If not, feel free to take a trip down memory lane:

    http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=MI&VIPID=401

    http://www.novatownhall.com/blog/2007/07/adios_fred.php

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/07/jihad_fred_fred.html

  18. CW said on 26 Jul 2007 at 7:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    I seem to remember that the amnesty bill in the Senate was at first a done deal too. This ruling may wake up the congress, unlikely but maybe. And the legislators will legislate something that may trump legislation from the bench. Another victory today for M13.

  19. Riley, Not O'Reilly said on 26 Jul 2007 at 8:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    I met Barletta about 3 years ago when he was running for Congress from PA. Great guy. He’ll get there yet!

  20. Joseph Heinzinger said on 26 Jul 2007 at 11:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    Let the lilly white rebublican strongholds of bush cheney country pay for eosl instead of the local tax base as it does now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  21. NoVA Scout said on 26 Jul 2007 at 11:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    Most high school civics students understand this stuff and then forget it two years out of high school. A good conservative, constitution-protecting decision. I’m sure Barletta knew this was out there. He got his political jollies and will no doubt go on up the ladder from here. Riley is probably correct. The country is full of people who will crawl over the Founders to advance themselves. We seem to be in a zone where local pols and aspiring pols can propose all sorts of radical deviations from the federal system and be politically rewarded. No matter how radical their outlook, they can slap on labels of liberal, conservative, progressive, populist, and enough folks will bite to get them elected to something. Being a conservative constitutionalist is getting to be hard duty. But the Constitution was designed to stand up to the hard knocks of faddish notions. We can all take comfort in that.

  22. OneTimeDeputy said on 27 Jul 2007 at 12:05 am:
    Flag comment

    Once it’s heard en banc I think we’ll see a reversal.

  23. Legal2 said on 27 Jul 2007 at 7:42 am:
    Flag comment

    www.newsanctuarymovement.org - See the “churches” who are behind this. These people should have their tax-exempt status removed for starters.

  24. Anon said on 27 Jul 2007 at 7:58 am:
    Flag comment

    MJM even cited the 1982 SCOTUS decision that stated that illegal aliens do not have equal protection rights under the 14th amendment. I have not read the opinion yet, but if that is the basis for the opinion (and I heard it was) then this will be a reversal on appeal at some level.

  25. redawn said on 27 Jul 2007 at 8:00 am:
    Flag comment

    Legal2 said on 27 Jul 2007 at 7:42 am:
    “www.newsanctuarymovement.org - See the “churches” who are behind this. These people should have their tax-exempt status removed for starters.”

    I AGREE!

  26. Manexico Resident said on 27 Jul 2007 at 8:03 am:
    Flag comment

    “…deprive residents of their constitutional rights..”

    That should have been laughed right out of court, imo.

  27. Harry said on 27 Jul 2007 at 10:14 am:
    Flag comment

    Anon: Why do you think there are term limits for judges in VA? As you must be aware judges are elected by the General Assembly for an initial term of 5 yrs (I think, been a while since I worked there), if reelected the election is for life.

  28. Legal citizen said on 27 Jul 2007 at 10:37 am:
    Flag comment

    Guys: Finally good news to all of us. Please read the attachment.

    http://www.freedom.org/news/200707/27/hr499.phtml

  29. anon said on 27 Jul 2007 at 10:56 am:
    Flag comment

    “MJM even cited the 1982 SCOTUS decision that stated that illegal aliens do not have equal protection rights under the 14th amendment. I have not read the opinion yet, but if that is the basis for the opinion (and I heard it was) then this will be a reversal on appeal at some level.”

    Um, first, the 1982 decision (Plyler v. Doe) that you are referencing states the exact opposite: “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment “jurisdiction” can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful”

    So that sort of kills your argument right there. But actually, the primary basis for the Hazleton decision was not the 14th amendment, but rather the violation of the Supremacy Clause; which rendered the ordinance unconstitutional regardless of the findings with respect to the 14th Amendment.

    Add to that the fact that according to the 1982 SCOTUS decision undocumented immigrants are found to be covered under the 14th Amendment and I think you’ll see there is little chance of this being overturned.

  30. anon said on 27 Jul 2007 at 11:03 am:
    Flag comment

    One more thing to add re the 14th Amendment that just kills this case for the City of Hazleton: The judge found the ordinance violates the 14th amendment rights not just of tenants and employees (who presumable could be/would be illegal), but also violates the rights of landlords and employers.

    That’s right folks, this law violates the rights of ACTUAL LEGAL CITZENS of the United States by denying them due process.

  31. Manexico Resident said on 27 Jul 2007 at 11:17 am:
    Flag comment

    anon said on 27 Jul 2007 at 10:56 am:

    “Add to that the fact that according to the 1982 SCOTUS decision undocumented immigrants are found to be covered under the 14th Amendment and I think you’ll see there is little chance of this being overturned.”

    Should that be true, and I am not knowledgable enough to debate you, it is trully sad. Additionally, “undocumented immigrants” = Illegal Aliens … granting constitutional protection to people who’re in this nation against the law seems quite backwards and illogical.

  32. TH said on 27 Jul 2007 at 11:41 am:
    Flag comment

    I like that you anon bring actual points to this discussion. Next people will start accussing you of something rather than debate you.
    Folks these are the facts. It is not that you have an activist judge. Read, educate yourselves, and don’t just react to your gut.
    That is what the government wants. You fighting for a bone and not for the real issues. We have lost a lot of power in the world and we are not doing anything to get it back by addressing real issues.
    Problems with Education, health, research, etc shouldn’t be an issue in this country. The immigrants are not forcing your kids not to go to college. They are not behind you living in a terrible neighborhood: it is you and your decisions. It is sad though that proud americans having to share a parking space with illiterate people who only have their hands to work. When you see aliens coming to your neighborhoods you react negatively because you are reminded of your poor choices in life. You are not racist but they remind you of that stupid american custome of having a “Loser”

  33. anon said on 27 Jul 2007 at 12:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Should that be true, and I am not knowledgable enough to debate you, it is trully sad. Additionally, “undocumented immigrants” = Illegal Aliens … granting constitutional protection to people who’re in this nation against the law seems quite backwards and illogical.”

    Well, I see your point, except that the Hazleton decision doesn’t grant constitutional protection to people who are in this nation against the law. It grants constitutional protection to people who are in this nation and have not yet been found guilty of being in this nation unlawfully. There’s a huge distinction between the two and it comes down to one of the founding premises of our entire legal system: innocent until proven guilty.

    Seriously people, lets not let our irrational fear of “the other” undermine everything we believe as a nation. Many of the concerns expressed about illegal immigration are valid, and should be dealt with. But we don’t get to violate the constiutional rights of fellow citizens (or non-citizens, as they may be), errode the basic protections afforded in our legal system, or otherwise generally treat other human beings like garbage, just becuase we have concerns about the negative economic/safety/cultural effects of illegal immigration.

    And for the record…”undocumented immigrant = illegal alien” is a completely false premise. They are not, in fact, the same. And the very laws that you are demanding to have enforced say they are not the same. I applaud the efforts to become involved in trying to solve problems in our communities, but you must do so with honest facts, real statistics and an actual knowledge of the law.

  34. redawn said on 27 Jul 2007 at 12:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    TH said on 27 Jul 2007 at 11:41 am:
    “They are not behind you living in a terrible neighborhood: it is you and your decisions. It is sad though that proud americans having to share a parking space with illiterate people who only have their hands to work. When you see aliens coming to your neighborhoods you react negatively because you are reminded of your poor choices in life. You are not racist but they remind you of that stupid american custome of having a “Loser””

    Tell that to life long residents , who also go back a couple of genrations and I am one of them ….”When you see aliens coming to your neighborhoods you react negatively because you are reminded of your poor choices in life.”
    They were not poor choices years upon years ago ,even 15yrs ago to live in our neighborhood that you say we are reacting negatively to when we see ALIENS! And it also does not just only come down to poor choices, it can even be circumstances, such as medical, etc.
    YES, WE DO NOT WANT ILLEGAL ALIENS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS~

  35. TH said on 27 Jul 2007 at 12:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    So redawn,
    I can tell that to long-term residents too. You see aliens that pay the same that you pay.You got used to have everything going your own way and din’t do anything to change it. Sure, there are medical and unexpected issues but I doubt that it is the only explanation.
    The problem is that you are sharing this negative environment without being able to leave (or willing).
    Three generations from now we will be complaining about how powerful the Chinese are.
    I see this issue coming and we better be ready to compete.

  36. redawn said on 27 Jul 2007 at 12:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    TH,
    “The problem is that you are sharing this negative environment without being able to leave (or willing).” Why should WE have to leave? THAT IS NOT THE ANSWER, willing or not.

  37. redawn said on 27 Jul 2007 at 12:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    TH,

    “You see aliens that pay the same that you pay.You got used to have everything going your own way and din’t do anything to change it.”
    Yes, I pay and no, ILLEGAL ALIENS do NOT pay the same as I do. (LEGAL citizen) I pay federal, state, persoal, real and sales tax. I also pay social security and medicade. And OUR FEDERSL GOVERMENT is the one not doing anything about it. THANK YOU LOCAL PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY GOVERMENT, MR.JOHN STIRRUP for doing what we can on a local basis, THAT , YES, needed to be done ALONG TIME AGO!

  38. redawn said on 27 Jul 2007 at 12:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    I am sorry,* government *federal *personal

  39. TH said on 27 Jul 2007 at 12:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    And you pay the same thing when a lot of your citizens enjoy the vacation provided by welfare but you don’t say anything because that is not politically correct and you could be perceived as racist

  40. redawn said on 27 Jul 2007 at 1:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    I do have a problem with ANYONE getting benefits that they are not entitled to. IT IS CALLED CHEATING.

  41. redawn said on 27 Jul 2007 at 1:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    TH,
    Please answer my quesiton, why should we have to leave?

  42. TH said on 27 Jul 2007 at 1:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    redawn,
    Don’t leave! You don’t have to but don’t complain when illegal alien pay for their houses the same money you pay for yours. It is eating in a McDonalds and not liking that the person seating next to you is too loud (and expect that the manager will fix it).
    At least you have a choice. Penalize people with roosters, enforce parking laws, overcrowding issues should be investigated, etc.
    You don’t have to face those issues without reacting. However how is that illegal vs Legal? Please respond my question. Economics have change and you have to deal with it. Sadly you are in a situation in which you have roots in the community and don’t want to leave or you cannot leave. There is a fact though, you as citizen of this country with access to the best education in the world have to share your space with uneducated people who can afford a house next to yours.
    The problem is not that you have to leave. The main issue is that you are remainded of your status in this society. Living next to illegal aliens let you know that you can talk all you want but you don’t have the luxury of a big farm like Lou Dobbs (plus the mexican wife. the best of the two worlds, right?)

  43. Mando said on 27 Jul 2007 at 2:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Um, first, the 1982 decision (Plyler v. Doe) that you are referencing states the exact opposite: “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment “jurisdiction” can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful””

    I’m no law hound, but my understanding of Plyler v. Doe is it’s specifically targetting a states right to deny illegals an education. This is a very important distinction from the decision:

    “The discrimination contained in the Texas statute cannot be considered rational unless it furthers some substantial goal of the State.”

    To everybody here, please read over the case before taking anyone’s word as law. There’s ALOT open for interpretation.

    When you have some free time, read over the case:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=457&page=202

  44. redawn said on 27 Jul 2007 at 2:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    “redawn,
    “Don’t leave! You don’t have to but don’t complain when illegal alien pay for their houses the same money you pay for yours.”

    THE ILLEGAL ALIENS DON’T PAY FOR THIER HOUSES THE SAME MONEY I PAY FOR MINE.( ALREADY EXPLAINED ABOVE)

    “You got used to have everything going your own way and din’t do anything to change it.”

    I ANSWERED THIS ABOVE AS TOO, AND NOW YOU ARE TELLING ME “don’t complain when illegal aliens” ….

    “However how is that illegal vs Legal? Please respond my question.”
    I WILL ANSWER THAT WITH YOUR STATMENT “At least you have a choice. THAT’S RIGHT, I HAVE A CHOICE AND CAN VOTE THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL AND ILLEGAL.

  45. redawn said on 27 Jul 2007 at 2:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    CORRECTION
    TH, THIS IS MY RESPONSE TO YOU
    redawn said on 27 Jul 2007 at 2:21 pm:
    “redawn….(

  46. Manexico Resident said on 27 Jul 2007 at 2:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    anon:

    Thanks for the reply and note that I do see your side and encourage those types of responces!

    Illegal Alien vs. Undocumented Immigrant… I’m disagreeing with you on that point based on no factual information regarding actual definitions of either. I don’t think its irrational for me think that “Undocumented Immigrant” is just a more PC way of saying “Illegal Alien”. Afterall, it is a person’s feelings that matter most.

    I do not (can’t speak for others) have an irrational fear of others. I, personally, feel that the use of such arguements serve only to further the assumption that racism is a motivating factor for supporting anti-illegal-immigration movements. If you’re Canadian and here illegally, I don’t want you here any less than an illegal from Bolivia.

    “It grants constitutional protection to people who are in this nation and have not yet been found guilty of being in this nation unlawfully.” With that, I can agree…I concede to you that point that in this nation we are innocent until proven guilty. If local laws (can’t speak for Allentown PA) prohibit enforcement from finding out…how do we prove guilt?

  47. redawn said on 27 Jul 2007 at 3:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    TO ALL,,
    HAPPY FRIDAY, I will be gone for a week or 2 so, I just wanted to let you know, that if someone wants to respond to me and I don’t answer back I AM NOT A COWARD or whatever else THANKS:) PEACE OUT~

  48. anon said on 27 Jul 2007 at 3:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    “I’m no law hound, but my understanding of Plyler v. Doe is it’s specifically targetting a states right to deny illegals an education. This is a very important distinction from the decision:”

    Actually, it isn’t a particularly important distinction legally. The decision by the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment is applicable to “people who reside” in this country (including illegal or undocumented immigrants) has nothing to do with whether the case was about education, housing or employment. In fact, I really do hope everyone does read the case because I think you’ll find that this exact question is supported by a long long history of case law that sets precedent on the issue at hand, Plyler v. Doe states the following:

    “Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not “persons within the jurisdiction” of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a “person” in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as “persons” guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessv v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976). [n9] [p211] ”

    Manexico Resident: I think you misunderstand my particular objection to the term “illegal alien.” Your response seems to indicate that you think my objection was to the use of the word “alien,” when in fact my objection was the the word “illegal.” Under the law, undocumented and illegal are not the same, and we should be careful not to confuse the two. “undocumented immigrant” is not a more PC way of saying “illegal alien,” they are in fact, not the same thing. It would be correct to say that “illegal immigrant” and “illegal alien” are the same thing. And it is also true that “illegal immigrant” is a much more PC version of “illegal alien” that some of us choose to use instead. You can of course say whatever you want, but I do think it’s important to keep in mind that “illegal” and “undocumented” are not the same thing. One can enter this country under very auspicious circumstances, not having any documents or legal right to be here, and yet never be found to be “illegal” but rather “undocumented.’ Cubans, for example, often fall into this category.

  49. Lafayette said on 27 Jul 2007 at 5:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    TH
    One more point that redawn wanted me to add for her was…
    Regarding redawn’s comments @12:24pm, about poor choices.
    She would like to add that it’s love, being proud of our hometown, and where we grew up with family and friends.
    TH
    I must agree with her completely. We come from hard working, Christian proud American parents, and we were raised to live the American dream.We still have lifelong friends and family here. We are simply proud PWC natives. I think we must stay for these very reasons. I still know of many freinds and classmates still living where they grew up here(PWC,MC & MP).

  50. TH said on 27 Jul 2007 at 7:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Lafayette,
    I respect that you come from a hard-working family with real values. Youi have to be proud of the place where you were born and it was not my intention to offend you but I guess it is late. Sorry anyway!
    I should have made my point differently. I was trying to say was that we need to be alert to see the changes and act accordingly. Usually when we react to things it is too late.
    Let me ask you this question. Would you feel different if this new illegal immigrants living next to you were well behaved? Or they can change and behave like americans but you don’t like the fact that they are here illegally?

  51. 2CENTS said on 27 Jul 2007 at 7:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    Layfayette, Redawn, TH,

    I agree with you and Redawn.
    I happen to be a neighbor of Redawn and a lifelong resident too. What you are both trying to say, is called HOMEPRIDE. We have choosen to stay here and are proud to live where we live.

    There are alot of us life long residents that have and are staying because we are proud of where we grew up and TH is wrong in saying that it is beacuse of bad choices that we are still here.

    There are alot of people ( friends and family ) that HAVE MOVED BECAUSE OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN OUR HOME TOWN.
    GUESS WHAT? THEY CAN RUN AND NOT HIDE, BECAUSE IT IS HAPPENING ALL OVER AMERICA. I have even heard that from the people that have moved. I have even heard from friends that have moved away and come back to visit family and friends and ASK IN HORROR, WHAT IS GOING?

    SO WE WILL STAY AND BE PROUD. WE WILL VOTE AND BE HEARD.

    I am also a PROUD member of HELP SAVE MANASSAS, thanks to Redawn.
    She has been a good advocator in spreading the word.

    Thank you Layfayette, for your fine efforts too.

    She keeps me informed and I see it with my own observations.

  52. 2CENTS said on 27 Jul 2007 at 8:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    TH,
    “Let me ask you this question. Would you feel different if this new illegal immigrants living next to you were well behaved? Or they can change and behave like americans but you don’t like the fact that they are here illegally?”

    This question is intended for Layfayette, but I would like to answer it too.

    We have lived thru so many changes in our hometown and welcome it.

    We are very caring people with morals and respect.

    It comes down to WE WILL NOT TOLERATE ANYONE who enters our country ILLEGALLY.
    IT IS A SLAP IN THE FACE of the people who have gone thru the process of being here LEGALLY.

    THERE IS NO GRAY AREA.

  53. Lafayette said on 28 Jul 2007 at 12:03 am:
    Flag comment

    TH
    I’ve lived my entire life next to legal immigrants, German and Guatamalen. I want immigrants be here legally, speak our language, and assimilate to our American culture. My point is legal vs illegal. Legal no problem, illegal alien got to go. The red carpet for illegal aliens must be rolled up. My street is very unique, the middle of the street looks like it did thirty years ago, the two ends look like some place South of the border.

  54. BornHere said on 28 Jul 2007 at 10:13 am:
    Flag comment

    From an NYT article (7/27) on the Hazleton ruling:

    “Mr. Barletta, the Hazleton mayor, has championed the city’s ordinances because he said illegal immigrants had unleashed a crime wave in Hazleton and had overburdened health and other public services.

    At the nine-day trial in March, A.C.L.U. lawyers worked as hard to debunk those claims as they did to undercut the city’s legal arguments. They showed that 4 of 428 violent crimes in Hazleton in the last six years could be attributed to illegal immigrants.”

    I only paste this because I remember reading, in another forum, not this one, charges that the Manassas Courthouse was overflowing with rapists, murderers, etc. and that this was a direct result of the illegal population. I remember thinking wow, Manassas, who would have thought. And then marveling again when the Post released regional crime statistics the other day that, well, ouch, seemed to contradict that impression of Manassas as the new 1930s Chicago. Rape, murder, etc can happen anywhere of course and are a tragedy everywhere, but people in this debate appear to swing wantonly from roosters to rape in the blink of an eye, and it’s not for alliteration purposes.

  55. Carson said on 28 Jul 2007 at 12:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m not so sure the overturning of the Hazleton ordinance has anything to do with being unconstitutional. I mean look at whom we are dealing with here. The Federal Government routinely violates the U.S. Constitution.

    It is all about taking what they want.

    When they seized control of California after the passing of Proposition 187, they claimed it was unconstitutional. Then they had someone park it on their desk to keep it from moving up through the courts.

    We have been dictated to ever since.

    I wish you all luck with your attempt to restore law and order. Be ready to act. You’ve seen recent history unfold before you. We have no excuse like that we forgot!

  56. saltmeadow said on 28 Jul 2007 at 4:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Noticed there is a link to Barack Obama on the Metrorail blog. He said yesterday that the Hazelton ruling was a “victory for all Americans” and he supports amnesty.

  57. Mary said on 28 Jul 2007 at 7:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    when the Post released regional crime statistics the other day that, well, ouch, seemed to contradict that impression of Manassas as the new 1930s Chicago. Rape, murder, etc can happen anywhere of course and are a tragedy everywhere, but people in this debate appear to swing wantonly from roosters to rape in the blink of an eye, and it’s not for alliteration purposes.

    ANY crime committed by an illegal is 100 percent avoidable and would not have happened if our government enforced our immigration laws. Even a single murder or rape is too much if it is done by an illegal — because it did not have to happen.

  58. Mary said on 28 Jul 2007 at 8:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    The fact is that the federal “government” (and many state and local governemnts too) has broken the social contract with the citizenry. They are paid to protect our citizenship rights and our property rights, and they are not doing their job. Worse, they are actively working to prevent the few honest local government officials left out there from fulfilling their duties to the citizenry.

    If the federal government does not do the job we are paying it to do, then we do not owe them taxes, any more than we owe a shoddy workman money for a poor job fixing our drains or cleaning our pool.

    If the government continues to put the “rights” of foreigners ahead of the rights of the citizenry that supports the government with their taxes, then a tax revolt is definitely indicated.

  59. Suzie said on 29 Jul 2007 at 2:04 am:
    Flag comment

    As my Grandmother alway’s said, their more way’s to skin a cat, then just one. How about the employers, being able to hire as many illegals as they want, but with the illegal’s hourly wage being set at 100.00 an hour. I don’t think many will be hired. The employers will be giving another look at the American workers. If there was a set rent for illegal’s, like no more then 25.00 a month, I don’t think any one would rent to them. I know what the U S Code Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II Part VIII 1324 and also 1324(a) say’s, but no one will inforce it. We sure don’t need a (D) runned Congress and also a (D) in the White House. There this Bill coming to the floor soon,H R 1999, it’s 5 million this year and then 10 million each year after, Where the group can build the illegal’s houses. Check it out. I don’t see Congress building the homeless people,a place to live.

  60. Mary said on 29 Jul 2007 at 8:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    Here’s the bill that Suzie is talking about, it gives 10 million dollars a year in “free” federal money to The National Council of The Race:

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55976

  61. Bridget said on 29 Jul 2007 at 9:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well said, Mary.

    The open borders lobby has plenty of blood on their hands. In the culture wars, the victims of illegal aliens are too often considered nothing more than collateral damage. Warning flares have been sent up for years by good folks from the great state of California.

    I do hope BornHere has some free time to read through the following links:

    http://www.predatoryaliens.com/

    http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/index.html

    http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/FamilyValuesLink.html

    http://www.outragedpatriots.com/

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1873155/posts

    http://www.immigrationinsanity.com/web/indepth.12

  62. TH said on 30 Jul 2007 at 1:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    In Maryland a White lady who might have killed four unborn kids was caught.
    We need to start cleaning our guns because all white people are bad….
    Serial killers… almost all are white..
    Employees going postal… almost all are white
    Pedophiles…almost all white
    Etc, etc, etc…. All white people need to taken somwhere else because theye are a lost cause.

  63. manassascityresident said on 30 Jul 2007 at 10:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    No, TH, as dispicable as they may be, they don’t need to be taken anywhere except to jail.

    HOWEVER, the illegals who shouldn’t be here in the first place and fall into those categories, can be removed from this country immediately and sent back to their own country pronto. I don’t even want them to do their time here, just more money out of my pocket. Make the home country pay to come here and get them, jail them, whatever they want to do with them … as long as they GO!

  64. Dolph said on 31 Jul 2007 at 9:38 am:
    Flag comment

    There has been much debate over the catch and release program. Criminals we deport show back up here a week later.

    Different people want the prison system to do different things to/for criminals: punish, rehabilitate, educate, etc.

    I want prisons to remove those who are dangerous from society to protect the rest of us.

    I don’t know the answer. I would like to see some unbiased statistics, if any are kept, on the return of violent criminals that we deport. If our current prisons are too overcrowded and our deportation efforts do not work, what options are left?

  65. Bridget said on 31 Jul 2007 at 4:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    To TH,

    We don’t pretend that whites are perfect. Far from it. Nor do we hold onto the false notion that all non-whites are bad.

    Nor do we buy the frantic propaganda that every alien that crosses our border is a hard working, law abiding, family oriented salt-of-the earth saint. The cat, as the saying goes, is well out of the bag on that scam.

    When it comes to consequences for actions, accountability and justice for all; those who get angry and offended at the “injustice”of racial/ethnic profiling are just as fond of promoting the notion that racial/ethnic profiling is a rock solid virtue -just so long as the agenda remains one of accommodation, protectionism and pardons.

    They do not want equality under the law. They want exeptions made, excuses made and amnesties granted. In fact, they want to be judged by the color of their skin, and NOT the content of their character. They want their racial/ethnic/cultural/country of origin profile to provide a pass granting them the right to act with impunity. They want whites profiled as having no rights, needs, liberties or justice … only obligations. How’s that for racism … to assume that we should be parenting other adults.

    We are sick of reading about those who bring chaos and pain. Of having to compete with illegal aliens for the attention, time and resources of our police, courts, public schools, healthcare facilities and elected officials.

    Please read the article link below and ask yourself; what the heck was this guys excuse for being on our soil? Was this his idea of “Seeking the American Dream”, of “Social Justice”, of “Doing the jobs that Americans won’t do”?

    What excused him, time and time again, from being removed and if the race or ethnicity of his victims would be, in any way, shape or form, relevant to the outcome of his case.

    http://www.charlotte.com/171/story/218076.html

  66. TH said on 31 Jul 2007 at 4:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    Bridget,
    I agree with you. I think that the bad apples should be sent back. What do you do with the rest? The reason why they are in North Carolina is because the are cheap labor in the tobacco fields.
    I am not saying that that they are doing something that americans won’t do or that all of them are hard workers.
    I am saying that this system rewards their employers and nothing gets done about it.
    Although I disagree with Navarrete most of the times, he brings to the discussion table good points about what some towns do to bring this problems to their communities.

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/31/navarrette/index.html

  67. Bridget said on 1 Aug 2007 at 11:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    TH,

    What do you do with the rest ? That’s easy. Deport them. Yesterday. Adios. Farewell. Go home. And when you get there, tell your nation she wants you.

    Anyone here illegally is a bad apple and the only US goverment service they should expect is deportation. Illegal aliens are criminal thieves. No matter what else they do … murder, rape, , scuba, birth babies, blog, walk on water or turn water into wine … they should be sent home. This nation is not a public park.

    Build the border fence. Call in the Marines. Cut off tax funded services . Overturn Plyler v Doe. Let businesses that depend on illegal labor fold if need be. Hire an American.

    As for Rubin Navarette, the best I can do is to offer my condolences. The man is a basket case of contradictions. A quixotic tool who does nothing better than alert us to subversive anti-American and pro-Mexican apologist antics.

    Claims that congress “chickened out”… because congress did not have the courage to betray the will of the citizenry! Congress attempted an end run around the citizenry by trying to declare crime legal!
    Immigration law is already written and “reform” was simply code for “abolish the current immigration laws before someone SANE enforces them!”

    Blames America …while at the same time castigating Americans who are attempting to take back their country!

    Blames Hazleton for providing jobs to illegals … but will cry racism and discriminaton if Hazelton turns them away! Not to mention that Navarrete will never mention the numerous laws broken by illegals. That identity theft as well as counterfiet document manufacture, sales and use create strife for employers who are tied by labor laws.

    Nor will he ever mention the role Mexico plays. Its culpability is enormous. Nor will he mention the Millions of Mexicans who abondoned their homeland. Let them protest, march, riot and do all the rest of their demading at home.

    Nor will he ever mention US Constitution Article 4 Section 4:

    “The United States Shall Guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government and Shall Protect each of them against invasion.”

    Nor will he ever mention the blatent twisting and wilfull misinturpratation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    The 14th was never intended to provide equality for individuals, or classes ( The claim made in order to prohibit government entities from discriminating between citizens and non-citizens.)

    What the 14th did was provide “the equal APPLICATION of the law”, that laws applyto everyone, no one is exempt and everyone has due proccess under the law.

    In other words, under our current albeit unapplied immigration laws: Illegal aliens are subject to deportation at any time and their very presence violates federal law.

    Hazleton has the right to bring their concerns to the Supreme Court.

    Things are bound to get mighty interesting. And I say it’s about time.

Comments are closed.


Views: 2236