You may recall the efforts of Hazleton, PA to effectively ban illegal immigrants from housing in that city. Last November, a Federal Judge blocked the Hazleton law from going into effect, pending trial. This week, that trial began.
Erika Hayasaki writes in the LA Times, City’s illegal immigration laws go on trial:
The nation’s first trial debating the rights of local governments to curtail illegal immigration began Monday in federal court, with officials from the city of Hazleton, Pa., defending laws that would make life difficult for undocumented residents and civil liberties lawyers charging that the measures unfairly targeted Latinos.
Illegal immigrants accounted for 30% of the city’s drug arrests from 2005 to 2006, Kobach said. Hazleton police arrested 19 undocumented residents in 2006 on charges of murder, rape, assault and dealing drugs, he said. From 2000 to 2004, he said, police arrested three illegal immigrants on such charges.
New residents also drained Hazleton’s public school and health systems, [lead lawyer for Hazleton, Kris] Kobach said. Spending on programs for English as a second language soared from $500 in 2000 to $1.1 million in 2006, he said.
And the average wait in emergency rooms climbed to more than five hours, he said.
In opening arguments, Witold J. Walczak, lead lawyer for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, called the Hazleton situation “Two tales of a city,” with the mayor and elected officials on one side and Latino residents on the other.
After the laws were passed, Latino residents — legal and illegal — “no longer felt safe in Hazleton,” he said. “Their businesses failed and they started moving out.”
Julia Preston writes in the New York Times, City’s Immigration Restrictions Go on Trial:
Judge Munley’s ruling could be a major marker of how far local governments can go to limit illegal immigration. In another closely watched case, a state court judge in St. Louis on Monday struck down similar employment and housing laws adopted by Valley Park, Mo., a suburb of St. Louis.
In that case, the blunt ruling by the judge, Barbara W. Wallace, means that “as a matter of state law, no city in Missouri should be doing this,” said Linda M. Martínez, one of the lawyers who brought the challenge.
Most of the ordinances that followed Hazleton’s have faced state and federal challenges. So far, not one of the tougher measures has gone into effect, according to a roster compiled by the Puerto Rican rights group.
Judge Munley ruled Friday that the illegal immigrants who were plaintiffs in the case did not have to appear in court but could present their depositions as evidence, meaning they would not face cross-examination.
In USA Today, Sue Kirchhoff uses the story as a jumping-off point to discuss illegal immigration from a business perspective, (although in parts she muddies the water by confusing illegal immigration with legal immigration) Immigration debate squeezes some businesses
More than 80 cities have considered ordinances similar to Hazleton’s, the ACLU says. Nearly 600 immigration-related bills were introduced in state legislatures last year, and at least 84 new laws were enacted, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Federal officials are stepping up workplace raids, and Congress soon could launch an effort at a major immigration overhaul.
Businesses are hoping Congress will break the deadlock on immigration policy this year, worried that without new uniform national standards, they will be subject to hundreds of laws that increase their legal exposure, make it tougher to attract high-skilled workers and foreign capital, or sell to the immigrant market.
To bolster political clout, business leaders are forming unlikely alliances with Hispanic, religious and civil rights groups, and labor unions. They’re often battling Republican lawmakers, such as Barletta, normally their free-market allies.
