My RSS Feeds
WHY IT'S ESSENTIAL TO Prevent Election Of GOP Presidents, Who Nominate "Conservative" Judges: Federal Court Rules Against Hazleton, PA, Illegal Immigration Relief Act - RI10
WHY IT’S
ESSENTIAL TO
Prevent Election Of
GOP Presidents,
Who Nominate
“Conservative”
Judges: Federal
Court Rules Against
Hazleton, PA,
Illegal Immigration
Relief Act - RI10
LOU DOBBS TONIGHT
Federal Judge Blocks Illegal Immigration Laws in
Pennsylvania Town; Congress Seeks Perjury
Investigation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Aired July 26, 2007 - 18:00 ET
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight: a stunning legal decision against a small town in Pennsylvania trying to curtail the impact of illegal immigration, a federal judge ruling against Hazleton's new ordinances. The mayor of Hazleton, Lou Barletta, and top official of the ACLU, one of the groups suing Hazleton, joins us here tonight.
DOBBS: It's -- well, denial. It is utterly maddening that this White House is tolerating American consumers at risk, whether it's food imports, inspections of food, whether it is the drug agency responsibilities in pharmaceuticals. It goes on and on with their own employees saying we have got to change the culture of this agency and its effectiveness.
Thank you, Kitty. Follow this one through, as I know you will.
As we have reported, Senate Democrats are accusing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales of perjury. That is the subject of our poll tonight: Do you believe Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should now just simply resign, yes or no? Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com. We will have the results here later.
Up next: new tensions between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. It's not pretty.
And a very important court ruling affecting hundreds of communities, if not thousands, across this country. My guests tonight, among them, the mayor of Hazleton, the city at the center of this legal battle, and one of the leading officials with the ACLU that prevailed in its suit against the community.
We will be right back with that and a lot more. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: A federal court today ruled that Hazleton, Pennsylvania's Illegal Immigration Relief Act is unconstitutional.
That law aimed to hold landlords and employers responsible if they did business with illegal aliens. More than 120 communities across the country have passed similar legislation and local laws in the fight against the impact of illegal immigration, a crisis caused by the federal government's unwillingness to and enforce border security and existing U.S. immigration law.
A federal court ruled that Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act is unconstitutional.
Bill Tucker has our story.
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, Judge Munley wrote a carefully worded and carefully argued 200-page plus ruling. But it really came down to just one word -- unconstitutional.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
TUCKER (voice-over): The mayor of Hazleton was clearly disappointed.
MAYOR LOU BARLETTA, HAZLETON, PENNSYLVANIA: I'm very disappointed in Judge -- that Judge Munley has ruled against all legal residents of the City of Hazleton. This fight is far from over. I have said it many times before that Hazleton is not going to back down.
TUCKER: The court ruled that the City of Hazleton has no right to enact any ordinances dealing with illegal immigration because they conflict with the supremacy clause of the United States constitution, a clause which says that a state cannot pass laws which interfere with or violate federal law.
Federal District Court Judge Munley wrote: "Whatever frustrations the City of Hazleton, Pennsylvania may feel about the current state of federal immigration enforcement, the nature of the political system in the United States prohibits the city from enacting ordinances that disrupt a carefully drawn federal statutory scheme."
He went on to add: "Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton's measures, the city could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not."
The ruling cheered the plaintiffs, who immediately claimed it sends a clear message to other communities across the country.
DR. AGAPITO LOPEZ, HAZLETON LATINO ASSOCIATION: From farmers' rights in Texas to Florida, there's about 120 cities that have been waiting to see if they can enact their own immigration laws. This is something that pertains to the Congress.
GEORGE BARRON, PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: We hope other municipalities who have enacted similar ordinances will take this as -- will heed this warning and will eliminate those ordinances as soon as possible.
TUCKER: But the City of Hazleton is not done yet.
KRIS KOBACH, ATTORNEY FOR HAZLETON: With all due respect to Judge Munley, this 204-page opinion begs for an appeal. This decision is extraordinary. This decision is activist and it is a decision that will not stand up on appeal, nor is it entirely unexpected.
TUCKER: The lawyers pointing out that, among other things, that the judge declares "no one is illegal until an immigration judge finds them illegal."
(END VIDEO TAPE)
TUCKER: Lou, the case will now go to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Attorneys for both sides estimate that it will probably be at least eight to nine months before the case is heard -- Lou.
DOBBS: Well, to my knowledge, Bill Tucker, that's the first time I've ever heard any judge say that no -- no one is in this country illegally until an immigration determines that.
TUCKER: Well, he spent seven pages of his 206-page ruling explaining why he feels that way.
DOBBS: Well, this is -- it is, as the other attorney pointed out, quite a remarkable document.
Thank you very much.
TUCKER: You're welcome.
DOBBS: Bill Tucker in Hazleton, Pennsylvania.
And the mayor of Hazleton, Lou Barletta, joins me now. Good to have you with us, Mr. Mayor.
BARLETTA: Hi, Lou.
Nice to be here.
DOBBS: You're disappointed at this decision.
Are you surprised?
BARLETTA: No, I'm not surprised, Lou.
We are, obviously, disappointed, but not surprised. The judge has really shown throughout the course of this trial that he was not in favor of what the City of Hazleton was doing. And I say that just by the fact that some of the illegal aliens who were suing the City of Hazleton who have gone by the name of John and Jane Doe, their identities were protected by the judge. They did not have to show up for the trial. I never saw the people who were suing us. And, obviously, I feel that this was an injustice not only to the city, but to those around the country.
DOBBS: Right. It's -- that is sort of remarkable but it also -- is the situation what you've said all along, you're going to appeal.
What's your next legal step?
BARLETTA: Well, we're going to appeal to the 3rd Circuit Court of Philadelphia, where we feel that this will be overturned. And from there, Lou, I'm prepared to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court.
Today was a slip and not a fall, and this battle is far from over.
DOBBS: There was this -- we last reported from Hazleton -- there was a general belief expressed to us, as we were there in the community, that this district court judge, that there was way in the world, given his political -- his perceived political viewpoints and ideology -- that he could possibly rule in the favor of the city.
The idea that this would be politically based, do you reject that, even though you're disappointed with the decision?
BARLETTA: Well, you know, I would hope that that wouldn't be the case, Lou. But it's -- it's almost amusing to me that the judge would say we can't do what the federal government should be doing when, in fact, the federal government is not doing it. And if they were doing their job, obviously, I wouldn't have to take this stand.
But I'm going to continue to fight for the people of this community and other cities around the country.
DOBBS: Mayor Lou Barletta, we thank you very much.
BARLETTA: Thank you. DOBBS: And, of course, we'll be following the progress of the next legal development, as you pursue your course.
BARLETTA: Thanks, Lou.
DOBBS: Up next here, I'll be talking with one of the heads of the ACLU that sued Hazleton.
Also, pro-business senators who are trying to weaken a program that would help American workers and their families.
And Senator Clinton responds to Senator Obama's charge. That's after Senator Obama responded to her charge. The latest charge was Obama's. We'll tell you all about it and tell you how this little feud is going here next. It's getting to be quite something.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The American Civil Liberties Union one of the groups suing the City of Hazleton and today winning a legal victory.
The legal director of the Pennsylvania ACLU joins is Vic Walczak.
He joins us tonight from Pittsburgh.
Good to have you with us.
VIC WALCZAK, ACLU: Good to be here.
Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: We'll begin with congratulations.
And at this point, what do you think the impact of this decision will be?
WALCZAK: Well, we hope that this decision sends a blaring red light to any local elected officials around the country who may be thinking of passing a similar law. You know, I found it curious both Mayor Barletta and his lawyer were so soundly attacking not just Judge Munley's opinion, but also Judge Munley himself, and suggesting there was politics involved.
You know, this is the first court to rule on one of these ordinances after having had a full trial. We had a two-week trial back in March...
DOBBS: Right. Nationwide. Nationwide, we should point out.
WALCZAK: Right, nationwide.
But there have been six or seven other decisions by judges around the country, on a preliminary basis...
DOBBS: Yes.
WALCZAK: ...and they -- every single one of them has ruled the same...
DOBBS: Right.
WALCZAK: ...and has rejected the arguments...
DOBBS: Rt.
WALCZAK: ...that, you know, the mayor thinks are so strong for them.
DOBBS: Well, in fairness, not each of those ordinances is the same. There are now some very similar to that and -- as Hazleton's.
But you say not political. Mayor Barletta saying that this judge managed, in a 207-page opinion, to include concerns about whether the government of Mexico would get mad and would have an influence on U.S. foreign policy.
I mean help me out there.
WALCZAK: Yes...
DOBBS: Why would he do that?
WALCZAK: Well, you know, with -- again, with all due respect to Mayor Barletta, that is testimony that was in the record. And, in fact, it came in to show that immigration requires a careful calibration between lots of interests, including foreign policy, the national economy, individual rights.
DOBBS: Well, Vic, if I may say...
WALCZAK: And those are considerations...
DOBBS: If I may say, balderdash. U.S. immigration law and the U.S. Constitution should not be swamped by that sort of absolute balderdash.
WALCZAK: Well, it...
DOBBS: I mean that's absurd.
WALCZAK: No, I'm...
DOBBS: Are you saying that there has to be reciprocity and mutuality..?
WALCZAK: No!...
DOBBS: ...in immigration law before it can be enforced?
You know better than that.
WALCZAK: No, I'm sorry, Lou. I -- I mean you asked me to come on this show.
DOBBS: Sure.
WALCZAK: You asked me a question and I thought you wanted to hear the answer. So...
DOBBS: Well, I want to hear the answer.
WALCZAK: ...it...
DOBBS: I just want to hear you make some sense on the thing.
WALCZAK: Well, if you'd let me finish...
DOBBS: OK, then please.
WALCZAK: ...and not distort what I'm saying...
DOBBS: Please, please.
WALCZAK: Right.
DOBBS: Please.
WALCZAK: And I'm sorry, you know...
DOBBS: No, no. Please.
WALCZAK: I know I'm a guest...
DOBBS: Hey.
WALCZAK: I'm a guest on your show.
Look, the point is...
DOBBS: Go for it, partner.
WALCZAK: The point is, the reason that it is so important for the federal government to be making decisions about immigration is that it affects a lot of national interests like foreign policy, like how are you going to affect the national economy?
How are you going to deal with individual rights?
And Congress has to calibrate those things. And, in fact, it is those considerations that have prevented Congress from coming up with any kind of legislation.
The point the judge is making, which was reflecting...
DOBBS: Whoa, whoa, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...
WALCZAK: ...which is reflecting argu...
DOBBS: now you're putting forward a political opinion and I'm asking you for a -- a few legal -- a legal analysis.
WALCZAK: Well, the legal opinion...
DOBBS: So let's go back to your political point now.
The ACLU would recommend to those communities -- and I know that the ACLU is every bit as concerned about the impact of illegal immigration, just as concerned as any American in this country about the fact our borders are not secure, that a million illegal aliens, as many as a million illegal aliens are entering this country illegally.
What would be the ACLU's advice and counsel -- legal advice and counsel -- to mayors and city councils and small towns all over the country who, as you say, might be contemplating an ordinance like this, what would you have them do?
What's your best counsel to them to deal with the impact of a government that will not enforce existing U.S. immigration laws, the impact of a government and an administration that will not secure the borders, even though we're in a global war on terror?
WALCZAK: Right.
First of all, Lou, I'm a -- I'm a trial lawyer. I'm a constitutional lawyer. I'm probably not the kind of immigration expert that you are. And I'm going to talk about a position on the borders. The ACLU has not taken a position on that.
In terms of what...
DOBBS: You could have fooled me.
WALCZAK: Well -- no, I mean I think that's -- that's accurate, that we have not taken a position on what to do with the borders.
DOBBS: I understand.
WALCZAK: You know, my job in this case was to look at this local ordinance...
DOBBS: Sure.
WALCZAK: ...and try to help the judge determine whether or not it's constitutional or not.
DOBBS: Right.
WALCZAK: We think it's very difficult for municipalities to...
DOBBS: Well, let me ask you this, then, if you want to defer on that.
What counsel would you give to Americans..?
WALCZAK: Oh, I can't answer it.
(LAUGHTER)
DOBBS: I'm sorry?
WALCZAK: I thought I was trying to answer that.
DOBBS: Well, I thought you had. If you hadn't, please, go ahead.
WALCZAK: What local municipalities need to do is first put pressure on their Congressional representatives to try to come up with some kind of solution. And I know that's partly a dodge.
The second point that's really important is that I think if we're going to have a discussion about immigration in this country, it's very important...
DOBBS: All right...
WALCZAK: ...that we deal with facts and not myths and propaganda.
DOBBS: Oh, partner, I couldn't agree with you more.
So let's term the question just a little differently...
WALCZAK: OK.
DOBBS: ...since you have only partially dodged the -- the question. And this I know you won't want to dodge.
Is there any legal recourse to the American people, U.S. citizens, against a government and an administration, executive departments, particularly at Homeland Security, the Justice Department, when they refuse to enforce existing U.S. law, when they refuse to enforce the border?
On this very day we're watching the National Guard be withdrawn by half from our borders, even though illegal immigration is unabated.
WALCZAK: Right. I mean, ultimately, I'm -- I'm sorry, I don't know whether there is a legal cause of action. The bottom line is that accountability for the president, for members of Congress, lies at the ballot box and, you know...
DOBBS: Well, that's certainly one of them.
WALCZAK: Right.
DOBBS: But we -- we don't want to keep you lawyers out of work. We wouldn't want that to...
WALCZAK: Oh, I...
DOBBS: ...you to be idle.
WALCZAK: I wouldn't worry too much about that.
DOBBS: How about this? How about this -- you're a volunteer organization. You're worried about -- the American Civil Liberties Union.
WALCZAK: Right.
DOBBS: Are our civil liberties being violated by a government that will not enforce border security, that will not enforce existing law, that will not protect local communities and their citizens from the impact of those who have violated the law and from the very need to do so because it is, fundamentally, a failure, a dereliction of duty on the part of the federal government?
WALCZAK: Well, I think, you know, the problem with a legal cause of action there comes from your conservative colleagues on the Supreme Court who have said...
DOBBS: My conservative colleagues?
I'm neither a conservative nor -- nor a justice.
WALCZAK: Well, they are -- well there are -- the conservative folks in this country have helped the Supreme Court and other courts rule that the government is not a guarantor of people's safety. So, you know, I think, frankly...
DOBBS: I'm sorry.
Say that again.
(CROSSTALK)
WALCZAK: The government cannot be held accountable as a guarantor of people's safety.
DOBBS: Yes.
WALCZAK: So in terms of the legal (INAUDIBLE)...
DOBBS: I don't think there are many people in this country looking for a guarantee on either the issue of homeland security, border security or illegal immigration.
But you know what they would like if they can't get a guarantee or a warranty?
They sure would like a best effort.
Do you think we're getting that?
WALCZAK: You know, it -- it does not appear that the federal government is -- I mean I -- you know, I think it's a difficult political situation, Lou.
DOBBS: Yes...
WALCZAK: ...and what's ironic is that some of the... DOBBS: Well, there should be.
Look, can we agree on this as we end?
WALCZAK: Yes?
DOBBS: there should be nothing political about a president and a department head's responsibility to enforce the law. There should be nothing political about a Congress and a president preserving the safety and the security of the American people and enforcing immigration laws.
Can we agree on that?
WALCZAK: Amen, Lou.
DOBBS: Amen, brother.
WALCZAK: How's that?
Yes.
DOBBS: Thank you, sir.
WALCZAK: Good.
Thank you.
DOBBS: Good to have you with us.
WALCZAK: Thank you.
DOBBS: A reminder now to vote in our poll.
Do you believe U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should just simply resign?
Yes or no?
Cast your vote at loudobbs.com.
We'll have the results for you in just a few moments.
That's, by the way, Mr. Walczak, our conservative question of the day.
And if you want to call the White House and check out my independent populist credentials, I'm sure they'd be glad to give you an answer.
Coming up next, pro-business senators and Congressmen.
And Wolf Blitzer.
He's up next.
WOLF BLITZER, HOST, "THE SITUATION ROOM": Thanks so very much, Lou.
New allegations tonight that our tax dollars could be funding what's being described as slave labor in the construction of the new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. The Justice Department now investigating.
And Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton are engaged in a verbal slugfest right now. Tonight, you'll see their top aides battle it out, and it becomes rather fiery.
Fidel Castro is noticeably absent from Cuba's annual Revolution Day celebration. His brother is offering a deal to the U.S. with one big condition. We're going to have a report from Havana.
And a catapult into the limelight because of his psychic ability?
Jeanne Moos tells us this most unusual story.
All of that, Lou, coming up, right here in "THE SITUATION ROOM".
DOBBS: After they finish in Iraq looking for the slave labor -- that slave labor evidence, perhaps they could drop by a number of Southwestern border states and see about the impact of illegal immigration and illegal employers.
Coming up next, here pro-business senators threatening to weaken a program designed to protect American workers and their families -- victims of overseas outsourcing. That story coming up.
And fighting words between Senators Obama and Clinton. We'll tell you all about it here next.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The Senate last night voted for an emergency influx of cash to help secure our borders. The Senate voted 89-1 to add $3 billion to a homeland security bill for next year. That money would then go to hiring more Border Patrol agents and buying equipment for mostly along our Southern border with Mexico, because that's where mostly we have a really big problem.
The additional money, however, isn't a sure thing, as they never are in Washington. The president has already threatened to veto the legislation because of its high cost. And that was before the extra $3 billion was added for border security.
I love Washington.
And two senators, who are running for the presidency, escalating their war of the words. Senator Clinton responding to Senator Barack Obama's charge that she is Bush-Cheney Lite.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The results of our poll tonight -- 95 percent of you say U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign.
Time now for some of your thoughts.
Jene in New Mexico: "Thank goodness you're reporting on the Hazleton, Pennsylvania situation, where illegal aliens have more legal rights than the U.S. taxpayers, who fund much of their social wants and needs".
Ellen in New York: "Lou, my small check is in the mail this afternoon to assist Hazleton in their appeal process. Hopefully, millions of other Americans will follow".
We thank you for being with us tonight.
Please join us here tomorrow.
For all of us at ABC News, thank you for watching.
Good night from New York. "THE SITUATION ROOM" begins now with Wolf Blitzer.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/26/ldt.01.html
Tabacco: As stated in this column previously, the decisions rendered depend totally on the judges in place at that particular time. There is no such thing as “just rulings” across the board by any court anywhere – that is particularly true in the United States.
The Neocon-Christian Right Coalition realized long ago that “Packing the Supreme Court” with justices, who would vote the “Right Way”, was extremely important to their Agendas. The American public still hasn’t realized how important it is to defeat Republican presidential candidates – one and all. Whenever a Republican inhabits the White House, he automatically puts Conservatives on the Supreme Court. When a Democrat is in office, elderly justices bide their time and wait for another Republican before retiring. Over time, this creates an imbalance on the Court, favoring conservative agendas, the Religious Right and Big Business at the expense of minorities, working people and the American voters.
Even if a Democrat wins in 2008, the Supreme Court will rule as if Bush were still on the throne. This “Packed Supreme Court” will not change for at least 30 years, and then only if we do not elect another Republican during that period. The election of just 1 Republican president during the next 32 years will ensure the continued monopoly and control of our Supreme Court decisions for as long as most of us live and beyond. Justices serve until they either retire voluntarily or die.
The president also controls other court appointments such as the Conservative, who issued the decision on Hazleton. If you elect Republicans anywhere, they control Court appointments. When you go into the voting booth henceforth and forever more, remember that fact. You are not just voting for a candidate, who will serve the next 2, 4 or 6 years, you are laying the groundwork for judicial appointments, which can affect you adversely until you and your children are dead!
The best alternative to a bad Democratic politician is NOT a Republican politician, but another Democratic politician. Our only viable OUT is to defeat BAD DEMOCRATS in PRIMARIES, NOT VOTE IN REPUBLICANS TO REPLACE THEM. That policy is too dangerous to even contemplate. NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN lest you permit Rightwing judicial bias on a permanent basis!
Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.
In 1981's 'Body Heat', Kathleen Turner said, "Knowledge is power".
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization)