A victory for which Americans? (Lebanon, Pa., Daily News)
By Dan Sernoffsky
Lebanon Daily News
Not that is was particularly unexpected, given the circumstances, but a U.S. District Court Judge, one James Munley, overturned an ordinance enacted by Hazelton that had been designed to protect itself from the problems inherent with illegal immigration.
Under the ordinance, the “Illegal Immigration Relief Act,” Hazelton essentially sought to protect itself by attempting to deter property owners from renting to illegal aliens and employers from hiring them. The decision to enact the ordinance stemmed from a shooting in which two illegal immigrants killed a U.S. citizen.
Munley, appointed to the District bench by Bill Clinton, ruled that the ordinance violated “Constitutional guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not,” and that it was contrary to current federal immigration policy because it did not consider “the implications of the ordinances on foreign policy.”
The decision was immediately praised by many on the American left, among them one of the men who would be President, one Barack Obama, who called it “a victory for all Americans.”
And which Americans would that be?
Would that be the Americans find hospital emergency rooms closing because they have been bankrupted after having been forced to provide services for illegal immigrants without remuneration?
Would that be the Americans who find themselves facing a bigger and bigger tax bite on their paychecks to provide public services for illegal immigrants?
Would that be the Americans who find themselves victimized by illegal immigrants who, being already in violation of the law by virtue of their presence in the United States, see no reason to obey other societal laws, from traffic ordinances to felonious behavior?
Would that be the Americans who find themselves threatened by diseases such as tuberculosis, a disease once virtually eradicated in the U.S. thanks to hygiene and drugs that is making a comeback thanks to the influx of tubercular illegal immigrants spreading the disease?
Would that be the Americans who first arrived in the United States as immigrants, but did so fully intending to become citizens, and who have spent the time and money necessary to fulfill the requirements of citizenship, including becoming both fluent and literate in English?
Would that be the Americans who have endeavored to live as law-abiding citizens?
Would that be the Americans who view the U.S. Constitution as a document which pertains to citizens of the United States, and not those whose allegiance is to a foreign power?
It is not particularly surprising that in their support of Munley’s ruling, the American left has been almost unanimous in painting the Hazelton ordinance as “anti-immigration.” Considering the mayor of Hazelton, the man behind the ordinance, is the son of immigrants, the semantic sleight of hand is ludicrous. The Hazelton ordinance, and the numerous other ordinances since enacted by other municipal bodies, neither impose restriction on nor deny availability of opportunity to those who, in coming to the United States from elsewhere, willingly accept and abide by the laws of the country in which they seek citizenship.
The ordinances which Murley overturned are, in fact, no different than any other ordinances designed to protect the citizenry of a municipality, a state or a nation.
The opposition to illegal immigration is not now, nor has it ever been, opposition to legal immigration. It is opposition to the blatant violation of existing laws, and to an equally blatant attack on U.S. sovereignty.
Americans very recently made their voices heard when they spoke up loudly and clearly in their opposition to the immigration bill which would have essentially provided blanket amnesty to the millions of illegals now in the country, and which would have opened the door for millions more.
Hazelton has appealed the Munley ruling, which means it could be overturned and the ordinances reinstated. Such a result just might inspire the United States to begin enforcing already existing ordinances, and to begin acting on the myriad of proposals to enforce border security. Should that occur, it would really be “a victory for all Americans.”
###
Dan Sernoffsky is an award-winning sportswriter and political columnist for The Lebanon Daily News in Lebanon, Pa. A career journalist, he is a graduate of Ottawa University, Ottawa, Ks., and attended graduate school at Central Michigan University.