July 27, 2007

 

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

 

Judge Rules Against Hazleton’s Crackdown on Illegal Immigration

 

Illegal immigrants and their special interest groups got a helping hand on Thursday from U.S. District Court JudgeJames Munley, a Clinton appointee, who ruled unconstitutional two Hazleton, Pennsylvania, laws designed to crack down on illegal immigration. 

 

The judge issued a permanent injunction preventing the City of Hazleton from enforcing the Illegal Immigration Relief Act and the Landlord Tenant Ordinance, which were intended to prevent businesses from hiring illegals and landlords from renting to them.

Judicial Watch believes Judge Munley is wrong on this issue.  Weekly Update 
readers will recall that in March, Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae brief on 
behalf of the City of Hazleton.  Here, in a nutshell, was our argument:
 
“…The City of Hazleton has found it both reasonable and necessary for the public 
health and welfare to exercise its police power by enacting [these ordinances]…
The subject matter regulated – the employment and harboring of persons ‘not 
entitled to lawful residence in the United States, let alone to work here – is 
certainly within the mainstream of [the City of Hazleton’s] police power…’”
 
The U.S. District Court, however, sided with the illegals and their special interest
allies.  Hazleton Mayor Louis Barletta, the architect of the law, will now appeal
the ruling.
 
Mayor Barletta should be commended for his courage in taking on the illegal 
immigration crisis.  At a time when many local officials are taking the easy way 
out by providing sanctuary to illegals, Mayor Barletta chose to enforce the law.  
In February, we were fortunate to have Mayor Barletta join our panel discussion 
entitled, “Local Government and Illegal Immigration,” which was held at the 
National Press Club in Washington, D.C.  Here, in his own words, is why he 
decided to fight this battle: 
 
“Every time we answer a domestic incident, our police, every time we 
answer a nuisance call, every time there's a traffic accident involving 
illegal aliens, it takes police away from their patrols.  Every time we send 
a code enforcement officer, every time we send a health officer, every 
time we send a fireman involving an incident with illegal aliens, it drains 
the City's resources and we realized we needed to do something…
 
“I could no longer wait for the Federal Government to do anything.  Illegal 
Immigration is not a federal problem.  It's a local issue.  We deal with it 
every single day…So we crafted an Ordinance that would do one of two 
things.  It would punish businesses that hire unlawful workers because it 
is illegal to hire unlawful workers.  We also punish landlords and hold them 
accountable for harboring illegal aliens because it is illegal to harbor illegal 
aliens.”
 
 To most Americans, this would seem a completely logical response to the 
federal government’s failure to secure the borders.  In fact, according to a recent 
Zogby poll commissioned by Judicial Watch, 72% of likely voters believe local law 
enforcement officers should help enforce federal immigration laws, including 40% of 
Hispanics and 55% of self-described political “liberals.”  Unfortuantely, Judge Munley 
did not see it that way.  And now we’ve got to hope the appellate court overturns 
this unjust decision.

 

President Bush to Attend Security and Prosperity Partnership Summit

 

Next month, President Bush will join Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Quebec for a Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit.  (I would include a link to a news story on the summit, but you can’t read about it anywhere in the mainstream press, which has largely ignored the Security and Prosperity Partnership from the very beginning.)

 

So, what is the purpose of this summit, the third since the partnership was announced in 2005?  The State Department claims the purpose is to “develop common approaches to transnational security threats and to expand economic productivity by streamlining trade among the countries.”  Critics, however, maintain the true purpose is to develop and implement policies that would ultimately erase the borders between all three nations and form a North American Union, much like the European Union.

 

So, which is it?  Is it an innocent plan to enhance cooperation between the three nations?  Or is it a slippery slope to the loss of U.S. national sovereignty?

 

That is the very question we tackled recently in an educational panel entitled “Security and Prosperity Partnership: Threat or Opportunity?”  Joining me on the panel, which was held at the National Press Club, were:  Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum; Rosemary Jenks, NumbersUSA; Dr. Robert Pastor, American University; and David Bohigian of the U.S. Department of Commerce.  We now have the full video up on our Internet site.  If you’ve got the time (about an hour) I suggest you check it out.

 

While there may be disagreement between the government and its critics with respect to the ultimate mission of the partnership, this much is beyond dispute:  Officials from the highest levels of government from all three nations are meeting on important issues that touch on nearly every aspect of the lives of American citizens, including commerce, travel, security, health, energy, and the environment.  (And they’re doing it with no congressional oversight and very little media scrutiny.)

 

From the very beginning, our focus at Judicial Watch has been to make the inner workings of the partnership as transparent as possible.  (In fact, just this week, Judicial Watch filed a notice with Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez that we plan to seek access to meetings and records of the North American Competitiveness Council during the Quebec summit.  The council is the SPP’s “private” counterpart and has provided a number of recommendations to the Security and Prosperity Partnership on a range of issues from border security to energy policy.)

 

So far, through our investigation, we have managed to uncover a number of documents that, in our opinion, raise some red flags.  Check out our Security and Prosperity Partnership summary page to see what we’ve uncovered thus far.  And judge for yourself whether there’s cause for concern.

 

 

JW Joins Conservatives To Push For Judicial Confirmations

 

This week, Judicial Watch joined a coalition of 60 organizations calling for the Senate Judiciary Committee to do its job and vote on President Bush’s judicial nominees.  Overall, the record of the U.S. Senate on judicial confirmations throughout the Bush presidency has been abysmal and isn’t getting any better now that Democrats control Congress.  Currently, there five appellate court nominees - three waiting to fill vacancies declared "judicial emergencies" - and 14 district court nominees who are stalled in the Judiciary Committee, some for more than a year.  (Four other nominees were just announced.)

 

The problem, as we see it, is two-fold.  First, the Senate Judiciary Committee insists on holding hearings on these nominees just once per month, a pace that would leave them far short of historical averages in terms of confirmations.  Second, and more importantly, liberal special interest groups and their allies in the Senate have chosen to obstruct the confirmation process.  In short, they don’t like the conservative judicial philosophies of the nominees and are trying to slow pedal the confirmations until the president leaves office.  Liberals have also engaged in character assassination against these candidates, smearing their reputations, all to keep competent conservatives off the bench.

 

This, of course, in our view is shameless and irresponsible.

Here’s how the coalition put it in a letter, dated July 25, 2007:  “That approval ratings for the 110th Congress are among the lowest in history is a testament to the American people's concern that their elected representatives are more interested in partisan politics and politically driven investigations than in making progress on the issues citizens really care about.  The American people want you to do your job, and among the most important responsibilities of the Judiciary Committee are processing and voting on the President's judicial nominees.”

 

Judicial Watch, of course, has been a leading voice in the judicial confirmation debate.  We even filed a historic lawsuit against the United States Senate for allowing a minority of Senators to hijack the judicial confirmation process and filibuster the president’s judicial nominees, a clear violation of their constitutional duty to “advise and consent.”

 

In recent installments of the Weekly Update, I have discussed why it is so important that we nominate and confirm conservative jurists, some who are now currently languishing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Unable to find success at the ballot box, the radical Left rely on the courts to legislate their agenda through judicial fiat. (The Hazleton decision (see above) is a good example of this judicial activism.)  So please let your senators know what you think of the liberal hold-up of good conservative judicial nominees.  The number for the Senate switchboard is (202) 224-3121.

 

Until Next Week 

 

Tom Fitton

President

  

Contributions to Judicial Watch are tax deductible to the fullest extent of the law.

 

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.