Something to ponder about with ACLU

[dmosh42]

I know the ACLU has been looked upon favorably by many Dems, myself included, for many of their past challenges of injustice in our society. With that said, and their organization carries the "American" in their name, why are they challenging these municipalities like Hazelton, Pa and others who have enacted laws making employment of illegal aliens a crime? Why are they not challenging the Fedaral Gov't about not enforcing the immigration laws? Maybe someone can enlighten me.

[eallen]

1. The L stands for "liberties." They have a legitimate concern.

The ACLU has a legitimate concern that these local ordinances will result in restrictions on or discrimination against legal residents.

[charles22]

17. Explain.

The little I've learned about it, don't see why illegal aliens have right to work if law says so.

[mondo joe]

22. The case isn't based on a right of illegals to work.

From the ACLU press release:


The groups said in legal papers that the ordinance violates the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause because it seeks to override federal law and the exclusive federal power over immigration. The ordinance also violates business and property owners' due process rights under the Constitution because it is nearly impossible for them ensure compliance. In addition, the ordinance's "English only" provision violates city residents' First Amendment rights to free speech.

[charles22]

25. Supremacy Clause?

Local gov't independent of federal law? Don't think so--still don't get it.

[mondo joe]

28. In other words: local government can't legally override federal law. NT

[charles22]

29. Federal law allows employment of illegal aliens?

[Warren Stupidity]

2. 'cause it ain't the only natives got liberties union.

Hey you know one reason why we one last month? Yeah that's right, it was because the hispanic voters decided that we Democrats were less hateful than the Republicans on the immigration issue.

More walls and fences! Let's make it one big prison planet! Brilliant.

That reminds me, it is December, time to re-up my ACLU membership.

[dsc]

3. Should you have to show your id to the city

to be able to rent an apartment? That is what Hazelton is demanding, not just of illegal aliens but any potential renter.

[Trajan]

4. L is for LIBERTIES ....

Not for LAW ....

I was a union brother, and while I sympathize with your concerns about workers who get low wages and no benefits, perhaps the best strategy would be to ORGANIZE those workers, and lift their wages ?

Maybe their home countries can STOP conspiring with wealthy corporations and extremely rich families that exploit their own citizens ? ....

Let the police enforce the laws .... Let the ACLU defend your Liberties ....

How can ANYONE have a problem with that ?

[dmosh42]

5. My problem is all the busted unions..

My other big problem is this puts them on the side of Bush and his super rich international corporations and their ultimate goals of 'open borders'.

[mondo joe]

6. How exactly does the ACLU fulfilling its mission put it "on the side of Bush"?

It has a specific mission - protecting civil liberties.

Why do you think they're supposed to be some catch-all for any cause?

[dmosh42]

7. whose liberties?

Does that include Al Quaida, and other people who are not citizens, and don't come under our constitution? These are not citizens of the USA.

[mondo joe]

9. Only to the degree that the Constitution addresses them.

And if you want to know the ACLU's mission:


The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

* Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
* Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

[unblock]

10. the aclu is a philosophically oriented organization

not a partisan political one. they are on the side of civil liberties, even though that often sometimes puts them on the distasteful side of a number of issues. defending the neo-nazis' right to march in a predominantly jewish neighborhood (skokie, il) is one of the classics.

there are very few people even within the aclu organization who agree with EVERY position they take.

[Quantess]

24. Very true. ACLU supports some causes on principle, alone.

I think they occasionally hold their own noses. I don't agree with everything they do, but I believe in their goals, and I even donated money last year.

[charles22]

19. Appears that way.

We need to attack the federal gov't for allowing the exploitation in the first place, not prevent local gov't from enforcing the law.

[mondo joe]

20. If the local government is violating the Constitution they indeed need to be prevented

from doing so.

[charles22]

27. Maybe I'm dense, but still don't see how.

[mondo joe]

35. Here are examples for you:

The ordinances violate the due process rights of plaintiffs by not affording any process for determining illegal status, or challenging this determination.

The ordinances violate the Federal Fair Housing Act and the privacy of plaintiffs.

The ordinances further violate Pennsylvania state laws law governing landlord-tenant relationships.

[charles22]

38. Ok, due process.

But jobs I apply for, require me to show ID like SS and others proving my citizenship. I am citizen, but don't see why they would ask if someone could not provide it and demand to be hired.

[mondo joe]

39. No one can demand to be hired.

That's not relevant to this.

These ordinances do not allow for due process once one has been designated an illegal, whether that person is legally here or not.

[charles22]

42. If you have no SS or green card,

and do not claim to be a legal resident, what due process is being denied? (again, just asking, you seem better informed than I)

[mondo joe]

45. There is no due process accomodation in these ordinances at all.

What about that do you not get?

[charles22]

47. seems vague.

What do you mean by saying an illegal alien is denied due process if they admit to being here illegally--they have right to break the law?

[mondo joe]

49. Who says an illegal is denied due process? These ordinances deny due

process to everyone - legal or not. They can be deemed an illegal through these ordinances alone without recourse.

Furthermore, EVERYONE in the United States has the right to due process.

[charles22]

50. Then their law should be rewritten.

If a technical issue, I'm sure they can find legal way to do it properly.

[mondo joe]

53. Local government is not empowered to create immigration law.

Only the federal government is.

So now you know - they fucked up on the language requirement, on due process, on having to show ID to the city.

The whole thing is fucked.

[charles22]

56. Well, we disagree on some points,

but think we've examined it well enough. Thanks

[mondo joe]

58. You are welcome to disagree with the Constitution.

But you won't get far.

[charles22]

59. I disagree with your interpretation, not the Constitution.

But like I said, I am not able(willing) to examine the law further; you made a very good argument, thanks.

[yewberry]

55. It's not a technical issue.

The city council of a small town cannot create laws that trump federal law.

[charles22]

57. Yes, I do not see it that way,

but not going to examine the law further. Thanks.

[yewberry]

60. Well, good luck with that. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. More about Hazelton.

English only provisions? Gosh, you think there might be a little racism mixed in with the "patriotism"?

http://www.wangnews.net/page3.html

Hazleton City Ordinance Against Immigrants Draws Pledge to Sue. On 07/13/2006, the City of
Hazleton in Lucerne County, Pennsylvania enacted the “Illegal Immigration Relief Act” which denies
any business its operating license for hiring undocumented workers, fines any landlord $1000 for
renting to undocumented residents, and declares English as the official language of the city.
Hazelton has a population of 31,000 and once was a key coal mining town which during the end of
19th century drew its labor from Eastern Europe. Ironically, Hazleton was the hub of the Lattimer
Mine which provided coal to the Bethlehem steel mills. On 9/10/1897, a sheriff's posse fired on
unarmed labor strikers comprised of Polish, Slovak, Lithuanian, Italian and Hungarian anthracite
miners, killing 19 and wounding 3 dozen more, some whom later died. This bloody incident is
remembered as a turning point in the American labor movement as reports of the shooting drew
nationwide sympathy for the plight of Slavic immigrants and added 15,000 to the membership of the
United Mine Workers. During recent years, the Latino population in Hazleton had risen from 5% to
30%. The Hazelton ordinance appears to have severe constitutional defects as it contravenes the
Congressional preemption of immigration policy and has drawn a pledge from civil rights groups to
have the legislation reviewed in court.

[dmosh42]

11. the 'racism' card isn't there

My next door neighbors have their house and just recently renewed their 'green' cards. I have no problem, as they all work pretty hard, and do everthing quite legal. And last time I was stopped for speeding I had to ID myself, because I was getting a ticket for doing something 'illegal'. So if I have to show ID, why wouldn't someone who is not here legally do the same? And you wouldn't think letting the corporations have their way isn't what Bush wants?

[mondo joe]

12. Well there's the problem of it being unconstitutional.

Enforcement of the ordinance, approved on July 13, is expected to begin on September 11. The ordinance defines certain persons as "illegal aliens" using a definition so broad that it actually includes many lawful residents and naturalized citizens. Under the ordinance, property owners are subject to fines of more than $1,000 a day for renting to individuals classified as "illegal aliens," and business owners could be fined and have their licenses suspended for hiring "illegal aliens" either knowingly or unknowingly. In addition, businesses would be barred from selling merchandise to "illegal aliens," including basic necessities such as food.

The ordinance would also turn Hazleton into an "English-only" community in which city documents and other written communications would not be available in any language but English unless specifically required by federal or state law. Also, documents from residents to city officials would have to be written in English.

From the ACLU press release:


The groups said in legal papers that the ordinance violates the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause because it seeks to override federal law and the exclusive federal power over immigration. The ordinance also violates business and property owners' due process rights under the Constitution because it is nearly impossible for them ensure compliance. In addition, the ordinance's "English only" provision violates city residents' First Amendment rights to free speech.

[dmosh42]

13. Ok, thanks

Ok, Joe, good explanation. I'm satisfied with the idea of defending the 'legal' citizens who would have their rights infringed. And to the person who mentioned about their defending those neo-nazis, I did understand that, because they were 'legal citizens'.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. hello? everyone has rights.

You need to re-read your constitution. The document clearly states that people have rights. People, not just citizens, and when it discusses rights that are specific to citizens it does so explicitly. Primarily the distinction between citizen and non-citizen is restricted to voting and holding office.

The rightwing nonsense floating around is that only citizens have rights, and it is just that: nonsense. Please don't buy into this bullshit.

[Odin2005]

16. That doesn't change the fact that illegal immigrants are not supposed to be here.

[mondo joe]

18. No, they're not. But that's irrelevant to the ACLU's case which is about the

constitutionality of the case.

The ACLU is not advocating breaking the law.

[dmosh42]

26. Upon reading my constitution.....

I see there's a preamble talking of 'We the people", and the paragraph ends with 'this constitution for the United States of America". And I see the fourteenth amendment saying no state shall abridge the privileges of citizens, nor deny to any person within its jusrisdiction the equal protection of law. I don't see anything covering those citizens from other countries residing here illegally. So we don't want to spread misinformation, which would make us Republicans. Please inform me as to where it is written.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. "nor deny to any person within its jusrisdiction the equal protection of law"

Seems pretty plain to me. As I said, the document clearly states that people have rights, except where it states an explicit requirement of citizenship.

Of course the document does not say anything about people residing here illegally, as that was not even a concept when it was written. There are plenty of things that the constitution doesn't say anything about, however when it comes to rights it must explicitly restrict them or they are assumed to exist.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That would be the 10th amendment, and I note once again the use of the term 'people', not 'citizen'.

But if your thesis is that illegal residents have no rights then I ask you why it would not be legal for me to take their stuff, enslave them, or otherwise deprive them of rights that they do not, according to you, have? If they instead have some rights, but not others, which are the ones they have and please provide a link to the documents that detail the restricted rights of illegal residents?

[dmosh42]

37. You may be right, but....

the case hasn't been decided yet, as far as I know. And when I read that amendment, you might be just taking part of it, instead of the whole paragraph which is about citizens. As far as what bad things we can do to them, I think they're protected by treaties or agreements with the global community.

[mondo joe]

41. You might be better served by looking at the actual law rather than just going

with your hunches.

[Warren Stupidity]

61. What? That is the entire text.!

"U.S. Constitution: Tenth Amendment
Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers


Amendment Text | Annotations
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/

"As far as what bad things we can do to them, I think they're protected by treaties or agreements with the global community."

Just go ahead and continue to make stuff up. The constitution is quite clear: 'the people' means just that. Once again, when the document wants to define the superior rights of citizens, it (oddly enough) uses the term 'citizen'.

[charles22]

23. Don't follow.

And mind you, I am not following this as closely as you, but--Why doesn't local gov't have right to enforce immigration law?

[Thorandmjolnir]

30. Because its an area reserved for Congress under

the US Constitution.

Dealings with foreign nations is exclusively reserved for the federal government. Just like a state cannot impose trade sanctions on another country or disregard federally imposed sanctions on another country, a county has no authority to enact any legislations involving immigration.

Remember, all power in the US flows from the US constitution.

foresaw that troublous times would arise, when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper; and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril, unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority. , Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 120-21 (1866):

[charles22]

32. I don't see new laws, these seem consistent with federal law.

Just the employment, not English thing.

[yewberry]

36. Of course it's new law.

The "Illegal Immigration Relief Act" was passed by the mayor and city council of Hazleton.

"The act imposes a $1,000-per-day fine on any landlord who rents to an illegal immigrant, and it revokes for five years the business license of any employer who hires one.

The act also declares English to be the city's official language. Employees are forbidden to translate documents into another language without official authorization."
(from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082101484.html)

Those restrictions and penalties certainly go beyond what federal law states.

[charles22]

40. Federal law makes it legal to rent to an illegal alien?

Would not think so, but not informed enough to challeng it.

[mondo joe]

43. These ordinances create new laws which they are not empowered to create.

And which violate federal and state rights of privacy.

[charles22]

44. So federal law makes it illegal to deny rental to illegal alien?

[mondo joe]

46. It's illegal to require potential renters to show ID to the city.

And that's what these ordinances require.

[charles22]

48. Ok, if that's the case, then see your point.

But I think this local PA gov't should just rewrite the ordinance; I still think they have right to deny rights to people here illegally.

[mondo joe]

33. Hazleton's ordinances are at odds with federal immigration law.

The coalition of plaintiffs charges that the new ordinances infringe on the constitutional rights of all Hazletonians, not just those who are in the United States illegally.

The ordinances burden business owners and landlords to investigate the immigration status of their employees and tenants, and fail to provide a way for immigrants to challenge the determination before they are forced from their homes or jobs.

The ordinances violate the EXCLUSIVE power of the federal government over immigration.

The groups also assert that the ordinances conflict with Pennsylvania law governing the authorities granted to municipalities under the Home Rule Charter Law and the Landlord and Tenant Act, and violate the federal Fair Housing Act.

[charles22]

21. Don't agree with the "English" thing,

but what is wrong with the rest?

[Marie26]

15. Cause they finally supported something you oppose. nt

[madmusic]

34. They do stuff for good reasons.... and you may have to ask them to get the truth.

The coalition, comprised of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Fair Housing Council of San Diego, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and People For the American Way (PFAW), is challenging the anti-immigration ordinance passed by the Escondido City Council on October 18, which bans renting an apartment to undocumented residents. The coalition also includes the private law firms of Rosner & Mansfield LLP and Cooley Godward Kronish LLP.

"Under federal law, immigration issues belong only to the federal government," said David Blair-Loy, Legal Director of the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties. "Under state law, non-citizens have the same property rights as citizens. Either way, Escondido has no business legislating in this area."

The coalition said that the ordinance is in direct violation of federal immigration law, since the federal government exclusively is charged with enforcing immigration laws, and it puts landlords in the untenable situation of serving as federal law enforcement agents. It also violates the property and contract rights of both landlords and tenants, as well as federal fair housing and privacy laws, and disproportionately discriminates against Latino families.

"Irrespective of your position on the merits of the issue, you cannot comply with the Escondido ordinance and comply with California law," said Rosner & Mansfield attorney Alan Mansfield.

Other states and municipalities across the country have unsuccessfully attempted to adopt similarly divisive, unnecessary and illegal measures.
"Just as in Valley Park, Missouri and Hazelton, Pennsylvania, Escondido residents will be wrongly evicted from their apartments and discriminatorily denied access to their homes. And just as in Valley Park and Hazelton, the city will be stopped from enforcing such a flawed and misguided ordinance," said Kristina Campbell, a MALDEF staff attorney.

more: http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/27296prs20061103.html


SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court has ruled unanimously that immigration officials must ensure that a responsible adult is notified when the agency attempts to deport 14-to-18-year-old children who have been arrested and taken into custody on immigration charges, the American Civil Liberties Union announced today.

As a result of this ruling, thousands of minors will now be entitled to proper notice, according to Lucas Guttentag, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, who was appointed by the court to argue the case last June.

"This important decision protects the rights of thousands of children and prohibits the government from ignoring or exploiting the special vulnerability of unaccompanied minors," he said, noting that immigration officials have not confirmed the exact number of 14-to-18-year-olds currently in custody.

"As the court has affirmed," Guttentag added, "teenagers, particularly those who may not speak fluent English, cannot be expected to understand the complexities of our immigration system or get themselves to an immigration hearing that may be far in the future and in a distant location."

The case, Jose Flores-Chavez v. INS, 01-70748, arose from a 1993 incident in which the Immigration and Naturalization Service began deportation proceedings against 14-year-old Jose Flores-Chavez without any notice to the adult responsible for him.

more: http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/11728prs20040326.html

[AngryAmish]

51. The C stands for Civic

That is why they defend Honda owners everywhere.

[dmosh42]

52. Thanks to all of you for ....

spending your time explaining this. I don't want to keep pounding away at a dead horse, and have arrived at a much better understanding of what is involved in these cases. Of course I have my own little doubts, but will wait to see if the case gets a ruling.

[charles22]

54. Yes. I think local gov't have right to deny employment, rental,

to illegal aliens, but certainly they should do it in a legal way.