Federal Trial Over Hazleton, PA’s Anti-Immigrant Ordinances Concludes (3/22/2007)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
Trial Reveals City Officials Unfairly Demonized Undocumented
Immigrants
SCRANTON, PA - Trial came to an end today in a federal
challenge to prevent the city of Hazleton, PA from implementing harsh
anti-immigrant ordinances that are at odds with federal law. The two-week trial
revealed that Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta and city officials rushed to scapegoat
undocumented immigrants for several of the city’s burdens, despite evidence to
the contrary.
The challenge was filed on behalf of Hazleton
residents and business owners who oppose the ordinances, and is led by the
American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, the Puerto Rican Legal
Defense and Education Fund, the Community Justice Project and the law firm of
Cozen O’Connor.
The groups urged Judge James M. Munley to strike
down the ordinances because they violate the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy
Clause by conflicting with federal immigration policy, and because they violate
due process and equal protection rights under the Constitution.
“Immigration is a federal responsibility and allowing every city and town
across America to set their own immigration policies would create a
dysfunctional set of dueling rules and regulations,” said Vic Walczak, the lead
ACLU attorney in the case. “If the Hazleton laws were enacted, they would create
a system that is bound to unfairly discriminate against immigrants, including
U.S. citizens and children.”
Throughout the course of the trial, testimony from city officials revealed
that the city council and mayor rushed to pass the ordinances without conducting
any research. Mayor Barletta insisted that undocumented immigrants are
responsible for Hazleton’s crime problem, even though police records show that
undocumented immigrants were only involved in approximately 20 of the more than
8,500 crimes committed since 2001. Furthermore, of the 428 “violent crimes”
defined and compiled by the city, undocumented immigrants were responsible for
less than five.
Attorneys will file additional legal papers in the case by mid-April, and a
decision is not expected until at least May or June. In the meantime the
ordinances will not go into effect.
More than 80 cities and towns
across America have proposed laws similar to those in Hazleton. In many cases,
these ordinances deprive individuals of due process by terminating employment or
housing without a proper hearing.
“Laws like those passed by Hazleton clearly violate federal law, but more
than that, they violate America’s tradition of fairness and openness,” said Omar
Jadwat of the national ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “We expect the
government to make laws that will prevent discrimination, not require it. The
evidence at trial clearly showed that these ordinances would lead to individuals
losing jobs and housing because of their appearance and language
ability.”
In several cases where challenges have been brought
against local ordinances, the courts have found that the cities had over-reached when
trying to pass a law that is preempted by federal immigration laws, and agreed
to temporarily block their implementation. Nearly 20 of the laws that have
passed have been tabled or defeated. In December 2006, the city of Escondido,
California agreed to a permanent injunction against enforcement of its
anti-immigrant ordinance.
The Hazleton case is Lozano v. Hazleton and is in U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. More information on this case is online at www.aclu.org/hazleton.
In
addition to Walczak and Jadwat, ACLU attorneys in the case are Lucas Guttentag,
Jennifer Chang and Lee Gelernt of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, and Mary
Catherine Roper and Paula Knudsen of the ACLU of Pennsylvania.
|
