Hazleton Anti-Illegal Immigration Statutes “Work in Harmony with Federal Law”

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today it has filed an amicus curiae brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in support of two ordinances enforced by the City of Hazleton relating to the employment and harboring of illegal aliens (Pedro Lozano, et al., v. City of Hazleton, Cause No. 07-3531).  A lower court ruled the ordinances unconstitutional in July 2007.

“…The regulation of the landlord-tenant and employment relationships – are well within the traditional police and licensing powers of the City.  Because the ordinances do not seek specifically to regulate immigration, they are not preempted by federal immigration law,” Judicial Watch argued in its brief.  “In fact, the ordinances work in harmony with federal law and are entirely consistent with purposes set forth by Congress in enacting legislation concerning immigration. They also fit comfortably within well-established case law authorizing local government actions.”

Hazleton’s Ordinance 2006-13, otherwise known as the Rental Registration Ordinance, requires a person desiring to rent a dwelling unit in the City of Hazleton to submit an application for and obtain an occupancy permit.  (To obtain such a permit, an applicant must provide “proper identification showing proof of legal citizenship and/or residency.”)  Ordinance 2006-18, otherwise known as the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, prohibits any business entity in the City of Hazleton that holds a business permit from employing an illegal alien.  This ordinance also prohibits any person or business entity who owns a dwelling unit in the Hazleton from harboring an illegal alien in that unit.

According to Judicial Watch’s brief, the Hazleton statutes satisfy the U.S. Supreme Court’s three-part test to determine whether or not state immigration laws violate the Supremacy Clause, which gives precedence to federal laws over state laws.  First, the Hazleton statutes do not attempt to regulate immigration, which is the exclusive domain of the federal government, but instead rely upon the immigration standards established by federal law.  Second, the Hazleton statutes regulate areas (tenant and employment relationships) traditionally governed by state governments, not the federal government.  And, finally, the Hazleton statutes do not burden or conflict with the “full purposes and objectives of Congress,” but rather seek to facilitate the objectives established by Congress with the enactment of federal immigration laws.

Other federal courts in Arizona and Missouri recently upheld local statutes substantially similar to Hazleton’s statutes.
 
“The clear intent of federal immigration law is to prevent illegal aliens from coming here and staying here,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “The Hazleton statutes are completely consistent with the objectives of Congress in enacting federal immigration laws.  The ACLU and its allies seem to be against any laws that might curtail illegal immigration.  Let’s hope the appellate court does the right thing and overturns the lower court’s flawed decision.”

To read Judicial Watch’s amicus curiae brief, click here.  To learn more about Judicial Watch’s nationwide campaign to enforce our nation’s immigration laws, click here.

February 20, 2008

###