Palm Bay Ordinance Is Highly Defensible

In an effort to promote their open border agenda the ACLU, FIAC and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF) have threatened to sue Palm Bay over the proposed Unlawful Business Practices ordinance. The law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges will also be party to their possible legal challenge.

More information:

http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/index.cfm?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=2062

http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/PalmBayLetter.pdf

http://www.aclufl.org/brevard/news/PalmBay%20ImmigLetter072606.doc (This is a MSWord document entitled Please do NOT re-distribute widely.)

Fueling the misperception that the Palm Bay ordinance is unconstitutional is a Congressional Research Service (CRS) study, widely published by the media, that has reservations over the Hazelton, PA ordinance. For example, see
 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/16/national/main1899788_page2.shtml

Some consider this troublesome for the Palm Bay ordinance but further analysis shows that the Palm Bay ordinance is significantly different from the Hazelton ordinance. The Palm Bay ordinance is narrower in scope and excludes issues such as housing and language. The Palm Bay ordinance is based on local licensing law, an approach specifically recommended by CRS.

Two paragraphs from an LA Times article shed additional light on the Palm Bay legal approach:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig16aug16,1,5483446.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo

"When attorneys for the Congressional Research Service, Congress's nonpartisan research arm, studied Hazelton's ordinance in June, they concluded that it "would arguably create a new immigration regulatory regime independent from the federal system," and would "very likely" be struck down in court. The report quotes a 1976 Supreme Court decision that found that regulation of immigration is "unquestionably exclusively a federal power."

But the report also noted that Hazelton was entitled to use local licensing law to regulate the employment of illegal immigrants. Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri law professor and former immigration advisor to former Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, said states had prevailed by proving that their immigration measures were consistent with federal objectives. The "grey areas" in the Hazelton ordinance, he said, involve issues such as renting to illegal immigrants, which Congress has never specifically addressed."

It is important to note that:

1) "Hazelton was entitled to use local licensing law to regulate the employment of illegal immigrants",

2) "states had prevailed by proving that their immigration measures were consistent with federal objectives", and

3) "The "grey areas" in the Hazelton ordinance, he said, involve issues such as renting to illegal immigrants, which Congress has never specifically addressed."

It should be duly recognized by the public, Palm Bay Council, and the media:

1) The Palm Bay, FL and Hazelton, PA ordinances are significantly different, and

2) The Palm Bay ordinance is tightly written and is likely to survive legal challenge.

If the potential plaintiffs are concerned about pre-emption of federal immigration law they should be challenging illegal alien hiring halls and sanctuary cities which are both pre-emptive and contradictory to federal law.

The Palm Bay Council should not be swayed by the threat of potential litigation as the costs of illegal immigration are too staggering to ignore.

August 16, 2006