Why Is Federal Authority Inviolable In Hazelton, But Irrelevant In Newark?

By John W. Lillpop

Decent American citizens like those in Hazelton, Pennsylvania are increasingly disenfranchised as they struggle to protect their communities from unwelcome third world aliens who come here illegally in violation of violate U.S. borders and laws.

For the most part, Americans residing in Hazelton are law-abiding citizens who have been raised to believe that America operates within the rule of law. They pass local ordinances and laws in order to protect their schools, families, and property with the expectation that the rule of law, rather than violence, is the American way of adjudicating differences.

After all, the rule of law, rather than anarchy, is supposed to be the American way for resolving conflicts, is it not?

When a federal judge unilaterally blocks enforcement of a local immigration law because it is "unconstitutional," concepts like the will of the people and rule of law are flagrantly mocked, and American citizens are disenfranchised by fiat.

In most cases, the federal judge will justify his/her action by ruling that the local law is unconstitutional because of inviolable federal jurisdiction.

Ordinary citizens in Hazelton will understandably be outraged to learn that that argument is made by institutions that should be working for, rather than against, Americans.

That includes the ACLU, the Democrat party, leaders of the Catholic Church, the Chamber of Commerce, RINOs, and even our addled president.

Americans do not pass restrictive, mean spirited laws to discriminate against people with brown skin. Laws are passed only when responsible citizens and leaders realize that their community is threatened by those who are not here legally, irrespective of race, color, ethnicity, or nation of origin.

That reality really hits home with a punch when folks realize that their schools are overwhelmed by the children of illegal aliens who cannot understand English. Such students impede the learning of English proficient children because teachers are constantly forced to 'dumb down' instruction to accommodate non-English speakers.

Citizens also tend to become angry activists when they realize that local emergency rooms can no longer meet the needs of Americans because hordes of illegal aliens take over such facilities for free medical care.

Citizen outrage grows even stronger when medical facilities are forced to close because of illegal aliens who do not pay for services received.

Indignation becomes even more profound when citizens contemplate the fact that, although illegal aliens do not pay for medical care, they somehow manage to send scores of billions of dollars back to Mexico and other countries of origin each year.

Cities like Hazleton are also forced to deal with other unwelcome byproducts of illegal immigration including violent gangs, drunken driving, proliferation of illegal drugs, and increased criminal behavior of all types.

So, the great questions of the moment are:

* Why in the hell are people born and raised in Hazelton prevented from implementing laws to protect their community, children, and culture from illegal aliens?

* What would the Founding Fathers say to a federal judge who has unilaterally blocked a law passed by American citizens to protect their communities from foreigners in America illegally?

There is an even larger question, that being:

If a local community is barred from acting to restrict illegal aliens based on constitutional concerns about federal jurisdiction, how in the hell can a city like Newark, New Jersey or San Francisco, California unilaterally declare itself a "Sanctuary City" for illegal aliens?

Why Is Federal Authority Inviolable In Hazelton, But Irrelevant In Newark?