Hazleton: Dismiss Lawsuit: City Claims Those Challenging Immigration Laws Not Entitled to Constitutional Protections.
By Terrie Morgan-Besecker, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Times Leader
Feb. 3–HAZLETON — Attorneys for the city are asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit that challenges the city’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act.
In court papers filed last week, the city argues the plaintiffs in the case are seeking constitutional protections they are not entitled to either because they are in the United States illegally, or they have or may in the future illegally harbor or employ illegal immigrants — both of which would violate federal immigration laws.
The ordinance, originally passed in July, makes it illegal for landlords to knowingly rent to illegal immigrants or for employers to hire them. It has undergone several revisions, but has not yet been implemented pending resolution of a lawsuit filed in August that seeks to have the law declared unconstitutional.
The suit, filed on behalf of 11 private citizens and three businesses and charitable organizations, alleges the ordinance violates numerous federal laws, including those that protect a person’s right to free speech, due process and equal protection. The plaintiffs include several persons whose immigration status is in question.
The 102-page motion to dismiss, filed on Jan. 23, challenges each of the legal theories brought forth by the plaintiffs. The key argument focuses on whether they have legal standing to bring the suit.
Filed by Harry G. Mahoney of Philadelphia, the motion says the plaintiffs cite the federal Immigration and Naturalization Act. Mahoney maintains they are not entitled to protection under the act, however, because they either are currently in violation of it, or may violate it in the future.
For instance, several business owners have alleged they would be harmed if the ordinance was enforced against them, the motion says. To succeed on that allegation, the business people would have to prove they intend in the future to hire an unlawful worker — an act that, by itself, would be illegal under current federal law.
“Plainly, employers who unlawfully employ illegal aliens and landlords who harbor illegal aliens were not entities that the INA was meant to protect,” Mahoney wrote. “The same is true of an alien unlawfully present in the United States . . .They have no legal interest in remaining in Hazleton. Indeed, they have no legal interest in remaining anywhere in the United States.”
For those plaintiffs who are legally in the United States, Mahoney argues they have no standing because the ordinance would cause them no harm.
“An alien lawfully present in the United States can have no reasonable expectation that the federal government would regard him as unlawfully present. Accordingly, his claim to possess standing is based on pure speculation . . .,” Mahoney wrote.
Mahoney’s motion also challenges the suit’s allegation that the ordinance would violate federal law because it seeks to regulate immigration.
Mahoney maintains that the regulation of immigration refers to determinations of who may enter the country. The Hazleton ordinance does not address that issue whatsoever, therefore it is not “regulating” immigration, he said. Rather, it deals with determinations of the status of persons already in the country. The ordinance calls for that decision to be made by immigration officials, not city officials, he said.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs will have an opportunity to respond to the motion. A judge will rule on the matter at a later date.
On the Web
——
To read the city’s motion to dismiss, go to www.timesleader.com [http://www.timesleader.com] .
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 570-829-7179
—–
Copyright (c) 2007, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Times Leader
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News.
For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.