March 13, 2007

Tales of [Misplaced] Priorities

The ACLU is determined to represent illegal aliens (get that? The very term "illegal" has a meaning) in Hazelton, PA because that town has passed a law that "imposes fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and denies business permits to companies that employ them." One may wonder exactly whose -- or what -- civil liberties are at stake by implementation of such a law. Let's see, is it the landlords'? But how does it violate their civil liberties if they knowingly rent to someone who is in the country illegally? Is it the business owners'? But how are their civil rights infringed upon if they knowingly hire people who are not legally permitted to be in the United States? Both cases certainly appear to along the lines of "aiding and abetting," do they not?

So ... whose civil rights are in jeopardy here?

Jose Lechuga struggled as a grocer, but he said his Hispanic customers became scarce when the city of Hazleton began to crack down on illegal immigrants.

''They didn't feel safe and they didn't want to have any problems,'' he testified Monday through an interpreter during the first federal trial to focus on a local law designed to curb illegal immigration.

Why wouldn't Lechuga's customers "feel safe" if they had no reason to fear anything? Like, meaning they were here legally?

But to the point: The ACLU -- whose claim is that they are "guardians of the Bill of Rights" -- consider the civil rights of those here illegally as those rights which are truly in jeopardy. But since they actually cannot come out and state such in plain language (because their case would collapse like a house of cards), their case is based on legalese -- they're arguing that only the federal government has jurisdiction over immigration matters. So, the ACLU is so concerned with everyone's civil rights -- up to and including those whose presence in the country is illegal to rent an apartment and work wherever they wish -- that they're essentially saying "screw" immigration laws. Open borders, everyone?

Elsewhere, in nearby Coatesville, PA, the town council there voted unanimously to begin their meetings with -- *gasp* -- a prayer!

Margaret Downey, leader of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, said she would ask the American Civil Liberties Union, the Anti-Defamation League, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State to review the resolution to determine if the policy met the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state.

You can bet your bottom dollar that all those groups will be investigating en masse this heinous transgression of the Constitution!

The ACLU -- defending the "rights" of those who knowingly broke the law to enter the country illegally, but prosecuting those who want may to say a [voluntary] prayer before a local town meeting.

What a country.

Posted by Felix at March 13, 2007 04:34 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Two entirely different issues here, which you attempt to meld into one with your anti-ACLU rant!

Illegal immigration is clearly a Federal issue, which is all the ACLU is claiming here. Therefore the local officials should be dealing with the Feds on resolving this issue. Are you trying to say that illegals don't have any rights?

Posted by: Perry Hood at March 13, 2007 06:13 PM

No duh, Perry. Felix didn't say they weren't different issues. Just showing the ACLU's "priorities," such that they are.

And where did he claim illegals don't have any rights?

Reading is fundamental, as I like to say.

Posted by: Hube at March 13, 2007 06:18 PM

So, using your argument, Perry, since terrorism is a federal issue there is no place for state and local government in that issue -- including Homeland security.

And as for rights for border-jumping immigration criminals, they have only one in my book -- an immediate deportation to their homeland with a bill for their government.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at March 13, 2007 07:54 PM

The Writ of Habeas Corpus was fundamental to our jurisprudence until the neocon mentality submerged it all, in certain cases.

Of course illegal aliens and terrorists have rights, like their day in court. That's all I am saying!

Posted by: Perry Hood at March 14, 2007 08:35 AM


Terrorists do not have the right to a day in court. They are non-state actors who are not protected by Geneva. This according to USSC.

Posted by: Duffy at March 14, 2007 09:23 AM

In other words, Duffy, any one of us can be picked up off of the street, labeled a terrorist, and thrown in the slammer indefinitely. It has already happened! That's wrong!

Forget Geneva; let's go back to the basic values and foundations of our nation. Habeas Corpus is one of those!

Posted by: Perry Hood at March 14, 2007 03:14 PM

It has already happened! That's wrong!

Please direct us to where this precise occurrence happened. Where an average guy who "was just walking along the street" was picked up, labeled a terrorist, and locked up indefinitely sans habeas corpus.

Forget Geneva; let's go back to the basic values and foundations of our nation. Habeas Corpus is one of those!

Oh, y'see, "let's forget Geneva" b/c of that inconvenient clause or two about how terrorists are NOT afforded the usual POW protections, etc! Of course!

Perry, you wouldn't WANT to go back to the foundations of the nation. Mainly b/c that would demand a dramatic increase in federalism (among many other items), the likes of which would make you scream until your vocal cords ripped. Not to mention the quantity of religion allowed in public life. That was a key value of the Founders, y'know Perry. (And don't go into that the FFs weren't very religious ... that's bunk; even those who weren't denominational were deists who believed in a higher being and would cringe at how religion has been legally excised from public life.)

What you want are the things that YOU believe are valuable and which the FFs shared. There's plenty they believed that I'm willing to bet you're FAR from sharing.

Posted by: Hube at March 14, 2007 06:56 PM

Don't you just love the irony of Downey's atheist group's name..."The Free Thought Society"??

I guess that is what they stand for unless your thoughts are about religion.

Posted by: AJ Lynch at March 15, 2007 05:15 PM

Post a comment

Remember personal info?