Immigrant crackdown is challenged in Pa.

[chuckandkim 0]

Derekki, Agree 100%

I have read this old news a few weeks back in the Philadelphia Inquirer. That is exactly how I understand it. What is the problem here? The ordinance is going after the BUSINESS and Landlord who profit from doing businesss illegally, dry cut short and sweet! I don't think they will go around and hunt for illegal immigrants, it is actually a witchhunt against the business and landlords.

It is so much easy for us to say how highly unconsitutional this and that because we don't have illegal immigrants standing around your neighborhood waiting for jobs. You don't have 10-15 illegal immigrants living together in a 2 bedrooms apt. which produce 8 trash cans each Mondays and Thursdays.

I am all for LEGAL immigrants. We did it, why can't they? Why didn't they take their problem the government where they came from and raise an issue there, but they come here and start asking for RIGHTS!!!

WE DID IT, legally, why can't they? Why are they any more special than us? C'mon, get real!

[pedroh 21]

And once again:

It makes every person who looks or sounds foreign a suspect, including those who are here legally

This is the key sentence, and yes, that is the consequence resulting out of any ordinance passed like the one this article is all about.

And that results in witch hunting.

Everything else written on your part I regard as written in haste. I don't even take offence - you got carried away. Which is quite understandable with a topic like this.

thas a BS cop out. subjective and without proof. another case of "he said/she said" and not provable. sure i'll grant that some will be profiled... but EVERY person? please... lets make a mountain out of a mole hill and call it good.. m'kay

lol.. Hola racial profiling!! yea.. Im curious how can the authorities define that someone 'looks like an illegal'.. accent? skin color? all people named jose or pedro? (zomg! lol)...

Has happened before, under the Braccero-program and similar attempts to tighten immigration. Lots of the people deported in the 1950s were actually Mexican Americans whose families had lived in the Southwest since the 1600s, and who were citizens.

The claim that there are other illegals and that the program doesn't target a specific group are cheap excuses because the article explicitly states that Hazeltown has had an influx of Mexicans and that it was in reaction to recent changes in the population make-up that led to teh decision. We here in Indiana have similar measures and believe me noone is targeting people speaking Mandarin or Hindu natively but those who crowd the aisles at Walmart speaking Spanish.

No wonder the Puerto Ricans are suing because there is no reason to believe that they might not be targeted as well. After all, they speak Spanish too and ordinances making English the only official language hurt them as badly -if not more- than any illegal immigrants.

yeap, thats the thing.. they can stop any1 who looks hispanic, even though they are 2nd or 3rd generation american.. and if they're stopped and then they realize the hispanic-looking guy was american, what? 'oh sir i'm sorry, we thought you were illegal because you look like a mexican'.. lol.. If I get stopped like that, I'm gonna sue everyfuckinbody

[mawilson 2,133]

There are also no ID-laws, meaning you don't have to carry around documentation to proof you're really a citizen (I do think it would be a good idea to change this because it would help ICE). In theory, by the time you can proof that you're not illegal you might already find yourself at the other side of the border.

No, thank you. It's our long-standing right not to have to carry ID.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

There are also no ID-laws, meaning you don't have to carry around documentation to proof you're really a citizen (I do think it would be a good idea to change this because it would help ICE). In theory, by the time you can proof that you're not illegal you might already find yourself at the other side of the border.

No, thank you. It's our long-standing right not to have to carry ID.

Yep, I know, but having an ID-law would nevertheless solve a number of problems in this country today. For one thing, it would help with immigration enforcement. Then, it would solve a number of issues connected to voter fraud. And finally it would help with a number of other aspects, like access to health care, social security fraud, etc.

I don't think anyone coming from countries with ID-laws considers IDs an infringement on their civil liberties. Sometimes, long-standing traditions change due to social changes.

[mawilson 2,133]

There are also no ID-laws, meaning you don't have to carry around documentation to proof you're really a citizen (I do think it would be a good idea to change this because it would help ICE). In theory, by the time you can proof that you're not illegal you might already find yourself at the other side of the border.

No, thank you. It's our long-standing right not to have to carry ID.

Yep, I know, but having an ID-law would nevertheless solve a number of problems in this country today. For one thing, it would help with immigration enforcement. Then, it would solve a number of issues connected to voter fraud. And finally it would help with a number of other aspects, like access to health care, social security fraud, etc.

I don't think anyone coming from countries with ID-laws considers IDs an infringement on their civil liberties. Sometimes, long-standing traditions change due to social changes.

ID cards are okay *only* if people are not required to carry them at all times and the police

do not have the right to stop people at random and demand ID. We are not a "checkpoint

society" and I'd like to keep it that way.

You don't need ID cards for immigration enforcement - there are many existing ways to identify

legal and illegal immigrants.

[derekkj 0]

yeap, thats the thing.. they can stop any1 who looks hispanic, even though they are 2nd or 3rd generation american.. and if they're stopped and then they realize the hispanic-looking guy was american, what? 'oh sir i'm sorry, we thought you were illegal because you look like a mexican'.. lol.. If I get stopped like that, I'm gonna sue everyfuckinbody

Again, I seem to be reading the ordinance differently than others. It states that the USC businesses and landlords will be punished for aiding illegals. Not that people who look or sound "immigrant" are being profiled, grabbed off the streets, and deported. As I mentioned before, employers are already supposed to check the work status of each of their employees. I know I have had to present proof for any job I have held, as did my Canadian husband who looks more "American" than I do. And I have no problem with landlords asking for the same documents. Certainly, all of the people I have rented from, be it individuals or property management companies, have asked for credit and personal references. If the ordinance was being used improperly, (only focusing on Hispanics, detaining or deporting legal residents, etc.) I would have a problem with it. But it only was passed in July. Let's at least see what Hazelton does with it before we start criticizing.

For what it's worth here is the letter from the Mayor of H describing the whys and wherefores of the ordinance. It explicitly states that this ordinance is directed towards ALL illegals, not just Hispanics...

An Open Letter from Mayor Lou Barletta:

I believe the United States of America is the greatest nation on Earth. People who are in this country have an incredible amount of opportunities and blessings. But some people have taken advantage of America’s openness and tolerance. Some come to this country and refuse to learn English, creating a language barrier for city employees. Others enter the country illegally and use government services by not paying taxes or by committing crime on our streets, further draining resources here in Hazleton.

Illegal immigration leads to higher crime rates, contributes to overcrowded classrooms and failing schools, subjects our hospitals to fiscal hardship and legal residents to substandard quality of care, and destroys our neighborhoods and diminishes our overall quality of life.

The City of Hazleton is empowered and mandated by the people of Hazleton to abate the nuisance of illegal immigration by aggressively prohibiting and punishing the acts, policies, people and businesses that aid and abet illegal aliens. That is why I proposed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act.

Part of this ordinance, if enacted, would punish companies that hire illegal immigrants by denying them permits, making it harder for them to renew permits and forcing their loss of city business.

Another part would hold landlords accountable. Because people moving into the city naturally require a place to sleep, our landlords are our first line of defense. Landlords who rent to illegal immigrants—that is, who rent to people without checking their documentation, may be fined $1,000.00 for every illegal immigrant staying on their properties.

The final part of this ordinance makes English the official language of Hazleton. All city documents will only be available in English. Those applying for a permit would have to speak English. While our emergency services will never be denied to anyone because of a language barrier, every other aspect of city business will be conducted only in English. Let me be clear, this ordinance is intended to make Hazleton one of the most difficult places in the U.S. for illegal immigrants.

This measure is not racist because it does not target one particular race. The Illegal Immigration Relief Act is intended to deter and punish any illegal immigration in the City of Hazleton. Requiring the use of English does not target any other language; it merely states that no matter what language you prefer to speak at home, English will be spoken when you conduct business with Hazleton officials.

Illegal Immigration is a drain on city resources. Every domestic incident, every traffic accident, every noise complaint, each time we send our police department, fire department or code enforcement officer to respond, it costs taxpayer dollars.

If the City of Hazleton began publishing official documents or conducting business in a second language, how would we respond when someone asks us to use a third, or fourth language?

Recent crimes – the shooting on Chestnut Street, the discharge of firearms at the Pine Street Playground, and high profile drug busts – have involved illegal immigrants. Sadly, some of those allegedly involved in those crimes were detained by other law enforcement officials over the years, but were somehow allowed to remain in this country. They eventually migrated into Hazleton, where they helped create a sense of fear in the good, hardworking residents who are here legally.

This ordinance does not roll back the welcome mat to those who are legally in the United States. This country was built on the backs of legal immigrants. My own great grandparents came to this country seeking a better life. Rather, this ordinance seeks to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into Hazleton. They are not welcome here!

To the residents of Hazleton, I say thank you for your continued support. Hazleton is moving forward and becoming an even better place to live. To our recently arrived legal immigrants, I say welcome. I personally wish you all the best. With hard work and determination, the United States and Hazleton can be a place where your dreams come true. And to illegal immigrants and those who would hire or abet them in any way, I say your time is up. You are no longer welcome.

http://www.hazletoncity.org/illegal_immigration_petition.htm

[chuckandkim 0]

What are you talking about? Look "american" more than you?

What does an american look like???? You see the picture in the banner on the top-right corner of this Forum? Those are AMERICANS right there.... that's how a typical american looks like...EVERYONE!!!

[derekkj 0]

What are you talking about? Look "american" more than you?

What does an american look like???? You see the picture in the banner on the top-right corner of this Forum? Those are AMERICANS right there.... that's how a typical american looks like...EVERYONE!!!

It was sarcasm. Hence the American part in quotes. My point was that I DON'T believe that all Americans are lily white with blue eyes. I certainly am not, although my husband is.

Edited August 16, 2006 by derekkj

[Fandango 1,439]

Yet the ACLU sat impotent while FL starved and dehydrated a woman to death....they are nothing but a bunch of troublemaking b@stards

No money it for them there because without the autopsy.. he coulda (and was) correct in his assessment about her brain atrophying.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but it was not about letting someone die peacefully by removing life support...that's one thing...but she had police over her preventing even an ice cube being placed in her mouth.

Dying is one thing, starving is another. And if you did that to a dog, you'd go to jail.

So yeah, shame on the ACLU

[Mirorgate 0]

Yet the ACLU sat impotent while FL starved and dehydrated a woman to death....they are nothing but a bunch of troublemaking b@stards

No money it for them there because without the autopsy.. he coulda (and was) correct in his assessment about her brain atrophying.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but it was not about letting someone die peacefully by removing life support...that's one thing...but she had police over her preventing even an ice cube being placed in her mouth.

Dying is one thing, starving is another. And if you did that to a dog, you'd go to jail.

So yeah, shame on the ACLU

blah.. hijack away

i agree.. they coulcda done something.. and that is definately not the way they coulda helped her go. Dr K.. where are you!?

[mawilson 2,133]

Dying is one thing, starving is another. And if you did that to a dog, you'd go to jail.

Really? Is it against the law to kill a dog? How about a cat? A hamster? A rat?

Just curious...

[Fandango 1,439]

Dying is one thing, starving is another. And if you did that to a dog, you'd go to jail.

Really? Is it against the law to kill a dog? How about a cat? A hamster? A rat?

Just curious...

It's against the law to starve one, isn't it? Wouldn't you be charged with animal cruelty? hey I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, but I thought they have laws for those types of things...

I know now I shouldn't have opened my mouth when it comes to this issue...yes she had a right to die, yes as next of kin it was her husband's decision. But the idea that she had police over her to monitor whether or not anything is placed in her mouth is astounding. The idea that she needed a court order to get last rites and rec Communion just baffles me that the ACLU wasn't in there fighting.

Here's the way I see it:

It's one thing to take someone off a ventilator....but if that person starts breathing on his or her own, the NOK doesn't have the right to smuggle the patient to ensure death.

It's one thing to remove a feeding tube...but to disallow even the possibility of her taking anything by mouth is another. Even if it was just to keep her comfortable while the inevitable happened.

The ACLU would have been there if the gov't sanctioned this treatment of the world's most violent killer, yet sat impotent for Terri, which confuses me to no end.

[mawilson 2,133]

Lisa,

I'm with you vis-à-vis Terry Schiavo; I was just wondering if it's illegal to kill a dog.

[Mirorgate 0]

Lisa,

I'm with you vis-à-vis Terry Schiavo; I was just wondering if it's illegal to kill a dog.

yes!.. but gecko's on the other hand

[Fandango 1,439]

Lisa,

I'm with you vis-à-vis Terry Schiavo; I was just wondering if it's illegal to kill a dog.

hahahah and there I went off on a tangent