Now comes the wait for a ruling (Wilkes-Barre Times Leader)

STEVE MOCARSKY
Staff Writer

SCRANTON – Hazleton’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act trial concluded Thursday, with attorneys for both sides presenting their closing arguments.

Plaintiff attorney Vic Walczak called Hazleton’s illegal immigrants “scapegoats,” who are unfairly blamed for the city’s crime and fiscal problems, and said the city failed to show it had just cause to pass the ordinances in question.

Representing the city, attorney Kris W. Kobach said illegal immigrants aren’t the sole cause of problems but contribute to them significantly. The plaintiffs, he said, fail to show that the ordinances have hurt anyone.

U.S. District Judge James Munley called the case “very convoluted,” with numerous legal issues to be resolved.

At issue is the constitutionality of the Relief Act and a related landlord/tenant registration ordinance, and whether or not they pre-empt federal laws.

The ordinances would fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants, suspend licenses of businesses that hire them and require city tenants to show proof of citizenship or residency status.

THE PLAINTIFF'S STORY

Walczak, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said the message of Mayor Lou Barletta “has been pretty clear … that illegal immigrants are the cause of all the city’s woes, and similarly, all the nation’s woes.”

He said Barletta’s views are shared by “a small category of anti-immigration groups.” He said several of the city’s expert witnesses work for those groups and “did everything possible to inflate problems associated with illegal immigrants.”

Walczak said the plaintiffs who testified – Jose and Rosa Lechuga, Rudy Espinal and Pedro Lozano – moved to Hazleton not to commit crimes, but to live, work and raise their children.

He described the four unnamed plaintiffs who didn’t testify in court – three illegal immigrants and one immigrant who is unsure of his immigration status. They have jobs, pay their taxes and have children who are U.S. citizens, Walczak said.

He said crime statistics don’t support the mayor’s contention that illegal immigrants are responsible for an increase in crime, and he pointed to data showing that the city’s crime rate has actually decreased since 2001.

Walczak called attention to video testimony from expert witness Ruben Rumbaut, a sociology professor who said “National studies show that illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than other groups.”

And he said crime and fiscal data don’t support Barletta’s contention that the city, the hospital and the schools in the city are suffering.

Walczak pointed to data from the Greater Hazleton Health Alliance that shows the alliance had an operating profit of $1.2 million in 2005 and $4 million in 2006, and that patient wait times at Hazleton General’s emergency rooms are comparable to other hospitals’ since the facilities were remodeled last July.

“The mayor says he doesn’t need figures to know the story. The fact is, he doesn’t want the figures because they don’t support the story he tells,” Walczak said.

Walczak said the defense referred to reports that suggest many problems with the online verification systems the city would use to confirm tenant and employee residency status have been fixed, but never produced any of those reports.

Walczak went on to dispute the relevance of several legal citations made by the defense to support the constitutionality of the laws. He said that city council’s recent removal of some language from and addition of other language to the Relief Act ordinance corrected some problems, but it still provides little if any protections for employers and tenants from false claims, and offers no administrative remedies other than magisterial court.

“Undocumented or illegal immigrants are real people with families and children. Real harm will come to them if this ordinance is enacted,” Walczak said.

DEFENDANT'S TURN TO TALK

Defense attorney Kobach told the judge he was “going to go straight to the law and plug in the facts where appropriate,” making most of his closing statements technical in nature.

Kobach argued the plaintiffs did not have proper standing in the case because they suffered no “actual injury.”

He pointed to the Lechugas, whose store had more receipts for three months after council passed the ordinance than it did for the same three months in the previous year. He said bad business practices caused them to lose their business and eventually their home – not a lack of customers caused by the ordinances.

And even if the ordinance did result in fewer customers for the Lechugas, Kobach said, that would not be considered harm caused directly by the ordinance. He also pointed out that 23 new Latino businesses opened since the ordinance was passed – one of them in the Lechugas’ old store.

Landlords who testified they lost tenants because of the ordinances were “speculating” at the reason, and speculation doesn’t give grounds for a win in court, Kobach said.

He said that when the plaintiffs addressed the pre-emption issue, they never addressed the definition of “pre-emption,” and he noted that a court found a “very similar California law” was not a pre-emption.

Kobach rejected an expert plaintiff witness’ contention that only an immigration judge can make a final determination on someone’s immigration status. He said the 10th Circuit Court found that an immigrant became illegal “on the date a status violation becomes effective.”

He said that if the plaintiffs were correct in their assumption, numerous existing laws – such as those that say illegal immigrants can’t get college aid – wouldn’t make sense.

Kobach also told the judge he should consider Hazleton’s code enforcement policy procedures when determining the ordinance’s constitutionality. Although the ordinance doesn’t specifically require it, Kobach said the city code enforcement officers routinely talk with all parties involved when the department receives any complaint.

Munley asked Kobach what training a local district judge might have in immigration law if a landlord or tenant called them to testify that they were legal immigrants.

Kobach said it might be a “difficult … but not impossible” situation. There’s no precedent that says we can’t allow a state judge to investigate that issue.”

What’s next?

Although testimony and arguments in the trial are over, the case is still far from being resolved.

Munley said the court stenographer will need about three weeks to prepare transcripts from the trial’s nine days of testimony.

Attorneys will then have three more weeks to prepare post-trial briefs for the judge to review and consider, in addition to the hundreds of briefs and exhibits the attorneys filed during the litigation process.

Defense attorney Hank Mahoney, of Deasey, Mahoney & Bender, said he’s hopeful Munley will reach a decision in May.

Even then, attorneys on both sides agree that the losing side will likely appeal to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. An appeal from there would go to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta has vowed to take it that far if necessary.