There is federal law on the books that state:
Sec. 211. [8 U.S.C. 1181]
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and subsection (c) no immigrant shall be admitted into the United States unless at the time of application for admission he (1) has a valid unexpired immigrant visa or was born subsequent to the issuance of such visa of the accompanying parent, and (2) presents a valid unexpired passport or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality, if such document is required under the regulations issued by the Attorney General. With respect to immigrants to be admitted under quotas of quota areas prior to June 30, 1968, no immigrant visa shall be deemed valid unless the immigrant is properly chargeable to the quota area under the quota of which the visa is issued.
Anyone not included in this description is breaking the law and can be arrested and denied rights under the USA Constitution. American law clearly states ANYONE in violation of the law and found guilty and imprisoned have lost their Constitutional Rights. A person in violation of USA immigration law when arrested and found guilty and jailed have no right to remain in the USA. Just that simple.
What Hazelton has done is extended that provision of the law to include all aspects of their municipal laws to insure the criminal alien cannot hide from authority. No one is denying these people their 'human rights' but they are 'by virtue of their lack of status' chargable under the USA Immigration Laws as they exist. Insuring public safety by criminalizing the presence of illegals in the USA provides for the common good and upholds current immigration law.
U.S. District Judge James Munley neglected to state that when an illegal alien is asked to produce documents for rental and employment and they cannot; then they have then violated the law. I don't know about anyone else, but, when I rent 'anything' even a car or hotel room I have to produce a legal document of identification. If I can't provide legal identity then the rental agent has every right not to rent to me or employ me. The Hazelton Laws are built on the current laws carrying forward the demand for identification in all municipal transactions of any business. It's legal. It's good business and it's safe government. The judge designed a case to go to appeal. The decision makes no sense to me. Human rights apply to all people in the USA, citizen's right apply to those that qualify. Hazelton asked all people to qualify within their municipality. There isn't anything wrong with that.
