Same Question, New Word

"What part of the word 'illegal' don't you understand?"

That is by far the most frequently asked question I get from readers who disagree with my columns on illegal immigration. They are so fixated on that word that somehow they think it entitles them to be cruel to other human beings. Some of their letters expressing their feelings about illegal immigrants are downright scary.

With these folks, there is little sense in trying to explain that jaywalking and driving without a seatbelt are also "illegal" — but it doesn't make us criminals or worthy of discrimination or abuse.

Of course, these are the same folks behind the movement to make local governments enforce federal immigration laws. And now I have a question for them: "What part of the word 'unconstitutional' don't you understand?"

In a ruling that should serve as a warning to immigrant bashers all over the country, a federal court declared last week that local laws limiting where illegal immigrants can live and work are unconstitutional.

The court struck down ordinances passed in Hazleton, Pa., that would have fined landlords and employers who rented or employed illegal immigrants. In fact, the judge ruled that Hazleton cannot enact any ordinances dealing with illegal immigration because they conflict with the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"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," wrote U.S. District Judge James M. Munley in the 206-page opinion. "Since the United States Constitution protects even the disfavored, the ordinances cannot be enforced."

Ironically, the Hazleton ordinances had been used as models by many municipalities that have passed or are considering similar measures to crack down on illegal immigrants. Claiming they are frustrated with the failure of the federal government to enforce immigration laws or to pass stricter enforcement measures, some local grandstanding politicians have decided to take federal law into their own hands.

Yet in a strongly worded ruling, Munley noted that the ordinances were preempted by federal law and violated due process protections in the Constitution.

"Whatever frustrations ...

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," the judge added. "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 or not."

He said the ordinances "penalize landlords, tenants, employers and employees without providing them the procedural protections required by federal law, including notice and an opportunity to be heard."

Nevertheless, Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, the new poster boy of conservative extremists, is vowing to continue appealing the case all the way to the Supreme Court, not just for his town but for other municipalities led by politicians who may be interested in scapegoating illegal immigrants for political gain. Barletta and others like him are determined to keep spending taxpayers' money on a case they cannot win, a case that proves they are so obsessed with the word "illegal" that they are willing to violate the Constitution.

The groups that filed and won the suit, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, had argued that only the federal government has the right to regulate immigration or to deprive residents of the rights of equal protection. On behalf of Hazleton residents, landlords and business owners, they also argued the ordinances violated state and federal housing laws.

Vic Walczak, the Pennsylvania ACLU legal director and the lead attorney in the case, told reporters that "Hazleton-type laws are designed to make life miserable for millions of immigrants" and that "they promote distrust of all foreigners, including those here legally, and fuel xenophobia and discrimination, especially against Latinos."

Perhaps it was wishful thinking, but ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero noted that the ruling means "political leaders, like Mayor Barletta, must stop scapegoating undocumented immigrants for all the problems we confront in our local communities."

And if they persist, we have an old question — with a new word — to ask them: "What part of the word 'unconstitutional' don't you understand?"

To find out more about Miguel Perez, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.