Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Upside Down? 

The San Diego Union Tribune today has a story about the ACLU's lawsuit against Hazleton, PA, which has enacted an ordinance penalizing landlords and businesses who deal with illegal immigrants. The ACLU says the ordinance is unconstitutional because the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration issues.

At the same time, many cities have declared themselves, or have tacitly become, "sanctuary cities" by virtue of the fact that they will not inform the federal government about illegal immigrants that they might become aware of, and some actively refuse to cooperate with federal immigration control efforts.

Why is it that the town that is trying to support the federal government's policy on illegal immigration is being sued, while those cities that act contrary to federal law are not only tolerated, but celebrated?

It seems to me that if the preemption doctrine makes it unconstitutional for localities to enact ordinances and establish p0licies that essentially support federal policy, it should be equally unconstitutional to enact ordinances and establish policies that contravene federal policy. Preemption means that the local authorities have no business legislating on the subject at all.

But then again, the ACLU long ago lost sight of its original goals and became a shill for the far left.

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?