July 30, 2007
It stands to reason that on the same day the Dow Jones Industrial Average nose-dived 311 points (July 26), a long-winded Pennsylvania judge would rule, essentially, that cities and towns don’t have the right to crack down on illegal immigration in the absence new federal laws.
In a 206-page opinion debunking a series of ordinances in Hazelton, PA, the judge said federal law trumps enforcing state and local laws designed to make illegal immigration less attractive in that specific area. It’s a blow, but it ain’t over ‘til it’s over.
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution does, indeed, make federal law and the Constitution itself “the supreme law of the land.” What allows room for hope is the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which is the basis for the states’ “police powers.”
When one part of the Constitution clashes with another, it’s not that difficult to find lower-level court decisions upholding both sides of the issue. Eventually, the people who write the language of state and local laws get it right.
Frankly, in the absence of any illegal immigration measures coming out of the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives, the states and cities, towns and counties can be counted on to come up with their own solutions, which can be quite ingenious.
Already, dozens of municipalities across the nation have modeled new anti-illegal immigration measures on the model of Hazelton. And for what it’s worth, Hazelton’s mayor promises an appeal of the July 26th decision. It’s probably going to go to the Supreme Court.
What’s at issue is how cities and towns can get a handle on problems like the overburdening of public services caused by the flood of undocumented aliens, eventually driving up taxes on personal property to pay for more, more, more.
The judge seems to have overlooked this fact—as a rule, the federal and state governments face much less burden for these services than do the local governments. Either way, all taxes come out of the same pocket the last time I checked.
Hazelton’s law attempted to fine landlords for renting to illegals, which attracted the attention of civil rights groups. Sometimes, I think we’re eventually going to “civil rights” ourselves right down the toilet. Illegal simply means unlawful, but the judge must have missed that.
Personally, I don’t care about the color of a person’s skin, or how long he or his ancestors have lived in this country. All of our ancestors, even my Cherokee forefathers, came to America from somewhere else.
I do care, however, that the burdens of keeping our country going should be shared equitably. That means anyone here from another country either needs to become a citizen, or visit for a while and go home.
They should pay taxes, rather than send their money to another country while they enjoy free services here, and learn to speak English, rather than expecting everything interpreted for them in another language.
States have the right to determine their laws and punishments under the 10th Amendment. That’s why some states have the death penalty for murder, while others don’t. A few states sanction gay unions, but most do not. Gambling laws, likewise, are vastly different.
People who don’t care for the laws of one state have every right to move to another where the laws are more to their liking. The Founders recognized what’s called “voting with the feet.” Such is still the case, although the Pennsylvania judge missed that, too.
I’m not sure landlords are as good a target as Hazelton thought, although lessors do have the right to specify a maximum number of people allowed on premises overnight.
A better approach is to require city and county police forces not to look away when they see obvious immigrant employees on the job. Employers should be required to provide proper documentation when asked.
Otherwise, fines can be assessed to the employers or, better yet, the cities which issue various privilege licenses for businesses can just as easily revoke those licenses, especially after repeated or multiple violations of the law.
The beauty is that local opinions on illegal immigration would rule local laws, just as they do on other subjects.
Agricultural regions, if they choose, can “look the other way” and allow illegals to pick the crops. Wealthy communities which need maids, nannies and gardeners could do the same.
Poor areas with high unemployment rates could, essentially, prohibit illegal immigrants, who take jobs that local residents might be able to hold, thus taking a “double load” of burdens off the social services system—and reducing the pressure to raise local taxes.
.jpg)
Posts
