After seeing how the media and federal government react to such non-stories like Andrew Breitbart’s attempt to smear Shirley Sherrod and a nobody pastor like Terry Jones wanting to burn Korans at his church, it kind of puts the stunts that conservatives do in a new light. Ultimately it is not about doing right or even practical by the community as it is getting attention for you. The problem is, people sometimes get hurt until someone spends a whole boatload of taxpayer’s dollars to beat you back, but so what if you personally get fame, fortune and prestige. Exhibit A: The stupid, racist laws that state and local municipalities have pushed against immigrants. They know they will get stomped in court. They very seldom, if ever, walk out of a courthouse claiming victory because enforcing immigration laws is the jurisdiction of the federal government. But that won’t stop the money coming in from conservatives and others looking for their little race war. A few years ago Hazelton, PA tried to pass a law that was supposed to be a crackdown on illegal immigrants, but it was a law that threatened legal ones as well – at least the Hispanic ones, the ones responsible for getting this town out of economic strife. On Thursday, a federal judge handed down a verdict saying that Hazelton cannot enforce this law. Our favorite Nazi symapthizer Dan Smeriglio is from this town and championed Mayor Lou Barletta’s efforts back then, making this his political mean ticket for the past three years until we came along and started proverbialy taking food out of his mouth by exposing his ties to white supremacists. So anything that upsets his apple cart is a damn good thing. This is one of those things. Meanwhile, Mayor Barletta – who has been using the attention he is getting from all of this to mount yet another campaign for congress – says he will appeal the ruling. But one local newspaper thinks he should just stop. He won’t, not with all that good money pouring into his campaign for it. Sometimes, being anti-immigrant is just one hell of a racket.

Pennlive.com

ALLENTOWN, Pa. — A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Hazleton, Pa., may not enforce its crackdown on illegal immigrants, dealing another blow to 4-year-old regulations that inspired similar measures around the country.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said that Hazleton’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act usurped the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration.

“It is … not our job to sit in judgment of whether state and local frustration about federal immigration policy is warranted. We are, however, required to intervene when states and localities directly undermine the federal objectives embodied in statutes enacted by Congress,” wrote Chief Judge Theodore McKee.

The northeastern Pennsylvania city had sought to fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. A companion measure required prospective tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.

Mayor Lou Barletta had pushed the measures in 2006 after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting. The Republican mayor, now mounting his third try for Congress, argued that illegal immigrants brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city of more than 30,000 and overwhelmed police, schools and hospitals.

Hispanic groups and illegal immigrants sued to overturn the measures, and a federal judge struck them down following a trial in 2007. The laws have never been enforced.

“We’re glad that the court recognized that allowing states and municipalities to set up alternate employment and housing regulations for immigrants will lead to an unworkable patchwork of laws,” said Vic Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which represented the plaintiffs.

Barletta did not immediately return a phone message Thursday.

Hazleton’s act was copied by dozens of municipalities around the nation that believe the federal government hasn’t done enough to stop illegal immigration.

The crux of the debate has now shifted to Arizona and its strict new law, provisions of which include requiring officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws. A judge has blocked the law’s most controversial provisions.

In the Hazleton case, the appeals court said the city’s ordinances conflict with federal immigration law and thus are pre-empted.

Time for Barletta to end appeals

Times Leader

LOU BARLETTA apparently believes the third time’s the charm.

The Hazleton mayor – who, incidentally, is mounting a third campaign for Congress – announced last week he intends to appeal Thursday’s ruling on the city’s ill-fated Illegal Immigration Relief Act, which, predictably, courts have twice rejected as unconstitutional.

Supporters say the act would enable Hazleton to discourage illegal immigrants from populating the city, putting costly strains on public services such as the police department and schools. Detractors point out that the proposal usurps the federal government’s authority.

Barletta vows to take his case, if necessary, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why bother?

Instead, why not devote the considerable time and energy required for another appeal into re-writing portions of the law, using the court’s critiques as a guide? Better yet, why not recognize that Hazleton’s bit role in this national saga has ended, and it’s time to pull the curtain?

This protracted court battle already has burned through nearly a half million bucks in private donations. (If you care to toss good money after bad, contributions are accepted via www.smalltowndefenders.com.)

On the bright side, no city funds have been used for this case. And the furor generated by Hazleton’s attempted passage of the law more than four years ago definitely helped to propel the illegal immigration issue to the forefront of the national debate – presumably forcing Congress to soon remedy the situation. (Hello, Congress?)

In July 2007, after a federal judge first struck down the ordinance, The Times Leader published an editorial titled “Hazleton immigration law ruling was right decision.” The editorial stated, in part: “(It’s) up to the U.S. government to write and revise immigration laws, not local municipalities. That’s the way it should be, or the state and nation risk creating a patchwork of regulations that vary widely from place to place.”

Our opinion – much like the Constitution – has not changed.

Nor is it likely to any time soon.