The ACLU's suit against Hazleton, Pennsylvania over their Illegal Immigration Relief Act continued today with mayor Lou Barletta taking the stand. The AP claims that the ACLU is suing because they think the proposal is "unconstitutional". However, they also quote the ACLU lawyer sounding like a cheap labor pimp, promoting the supposed economic benefits of illegal immigration.

And, the ACLU-PA's own site makes it clear that this is about supporting the rights of foreign citizens to come here and reside here at will, and not about the ACLU's supposed concern for the Constitution. From the AP:

...The American Civil Liberties Union argues that the federal government has exclusive power over immigration policy...

Take a look at aclupa.blogspot.com for what they really think about this issue. Note that you can leave comments on their entries, and I strongly suggest that you take the opportunity to leave on-topic comments designed to discredit them.

From aclupa.blogspot.com/2007/03/is-it-getting-hot-in-here.html

Day III of the Hazleton anti-immigrant trial kicked off today with testimony from Manuel Saldana, president of Casa Dominicana of Hazleton, a plaintiff in the suit...

[...mayor reduced numbers of cops as population increased...] But crime is the fault of "illegal aliens"... [in quotes in original]

Several times, the mayor appeared to be unnerved by [ACLU-PA legal director Vic Walczak]'s questioning. Vic asked him if undocumented immigrants engage in "consumer spending." At this, Barletta became agitated about discussing the economic value of "illegal aliens," but Vic cut him off by saying, "I'm not asking you for a value judgment."

Later, Vic asked the mayor if he and the city solicitor discussed NAFTA, the United States' treaty obligations, the presidents of Guatemala and Mexico, or the implications for the country if every U.S. city passed an ordinance like Hazleton's. The answer, obviously, was no.

Apparently the ACLU thinks we should consult with Mexico and perhaps get their permission to enforce our laws. And, the penultimate paragraph above leaves off what Barletta said before, according to the AP:

"So do other people who commit crimes," Barletta replied. "Do I condone illegal behavior because they buy gas or eat in someone's restaurant? I'm not one who believes that's OK."

From aclupa.blogspot.com/2007/03/hazleton-trial-heats-up-with-testimony.html

(A note about language: attorneys for both sides use the terms "illegal immigrants" and "illegal aliens" rather than our preferred term, "undocumented immigrants," so I am using the first term to give a more accurate picture of what transpired in the courtroom.) [italicized in original]

...Under examination by plaintiff's attorney Tom Wilkinson, it quickly became clear that the Hazleton City Council had acted with little information or preparation in passing their anti-immigrant ordinances... [they appear to be right about that]

Tensions erupted at the end of the day, when Wilkinson asked Yanuzzi if he now regretted the fact that the city council had not studied the issue more before passing the ordinance, given the potential harm it could cause. Yanuzzi responded, "Every law we make, somebody's going to be hurt. There is no 100 percent. I pass the pooper-scooper law, what am I going to do - study that? We can't have consultants come here every two seconds."

"So removing these people from town who are working, living, employed is just the same thing as removing something off the sidewalk?" Wilkinson asked pointedly.

Obviously a sleazy question to ask.

Related: The ACLU is indirectly linked to the Mexican government.