Hazleton ordinance blocked by judge James Munley; ACLU wins for now
U.S. District judge James Munley (a Clinton appointee) has struck down Hazleton Pennsylvania's Illegal Immigration Relief Act, a big win for the ACLU, a group indirectly linked to the Mexican government.
You can download the 200 page ruling in a PDF linked from either of these:
I just scanned the beginning, but the judge's arguments regarding the harm that the plaintiffs endured seem rather weak. For instance, the Lechugas complained about a police car parked outside their restaurant and said that played a part in it being shut down because people said it was there to take away their customers:
Lechuga blamed his lack of business on the City's activities. A police car was often parked across the street from the restaurant, and after a police officer paid a visit, "people began to comment that the police [were] there to take the clients away when they came to eat."
Should Hazleton be held responsible for such myth-making? Regarding Lechuga's first claim, see: ACLU's anti-Hazleton star witness admits myth-making.
Regarding a landlord plaintiff the judge says:
We disagree with the defendant that these injuries cannot be recognized by the law because they constitute a complaint about an inability to rent to illegal immigrants. The plaintiffs testified that they were unaware of the immigration status of their renters. No evidence, therefore, indicates that the renters they lost were illegal immigrants. Such tenants may have been legal residents who did not desire to live in a town that appeared (to them) to seek to exclude Spanish-speaking residents. Such tenants may also have concluded that they did not want to register with the town and provide private information to the City as a condition of residing there. Perhaps they found the fees required for a permit onerous. In any case, we will not assume that the renters plaintiff lost were necessarily illegal immigrants.
Bolding added. Once again, if they have such unjustified feelings, should Hazleton be held responsible? Should the judge strike down all other cases where residents of a town have to provide personal information, such as when obtaining a building, dog, or bike license? Those involve fees as well.
Hopefully this will be appealed and a higher court will have more sense.
I've pointed out many times before how you - yes, you - can resolve this issue: discredit those who support illegal immigration. If that's done, judges like Munley will just be far-left voices in the wilderness.