After AZ, More Anti-Immigration Laws Blocked

Flickr/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/carve/4568567669/">th.omas</a>

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


Well before Arizona passed its controversial immigration law this year, a slew of other states and municipalities tried to pass laws targeting illegal immigrants. A federal appeals court ruled today that Hazleton, Pennsylvania, could not fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants or deny business permits to companies that hire them. The laws, spearheaded by Republican Mayor Lou Bartletta who’s currently running for Congress, were passed in 2006 after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting.

The federal appeals court ruled that the Hazleton laws were illegal because they pre-empted federal authority on immigration, which was the same rationale cited by the judge who blocked Arizona from implementing its immigration law this summer. “We are…required to intervene when states and localities directly undermine the federal objectives embodied in statutes enacted by Congress,” wrote Chief Judge Theodore McKee.

Before Arizona, Hazleton had been one of the biggest rallying cries for immigration activists on both sides of the debate, and the city’s laws inspired many copycat measures in other communities. The ACLU, which was among the civil rights groups that challenged the laws, hailed the ruling as a major victory. “This is a major defeat for the misguided, divisive, and expensive anti-immigrant strategy that Hazleton has tried to export to the rest of the country,” said Omar Jadwat, an ACLU staff attorney, in a press release.

The Hazleton ruling should put a damper on some of the anti-immigration laws that states and local communities have tried to put on the books, and help the Obama administration’s case that the Arizona law is unconstitutional. It’s also another blow to Kris Kobach—the conservative attorney mastermind behind the Arizona law—who was called in to defend the Hazleton measures as well.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest