It is a hallmark of the American character to take independent action when authorities fail their obligations, and therefore it should not have come as any surprise when Congress' protracted and cowardly dithering on the illegal immigration issue prompted a local government to solve the problem in its own way. The city council of Hazleton, Pa., a former coal-mining town of 31,000 people, passed a law that will deny business permits to any company hiring illegal immigrants. The measure also authorizes $1,000 fines for landlords who rent to illegals, and establishes English as the town's official language.

Predictably, open-border advocates and civil rights hysterics have condemned the measures with excessive and often dishonest rhetoric. For example, People for the American Way Vice President for Hispanic Affairs Jorge Mursuli called the Hazleton ordinance "an abhorrent new low for the anti-immigrant movement that has infected our political system." Ethics foul! Mursuli deftly but dishonestly was aiming to confuse the issue by styling anti-illegal immigrant legislation as anti-immigration legislation, a currently popular variety of language jiu-jitsu and a profoundly unethical one.

He had more in this vein. "Forcing businesses to check citizenship papers before selling someone food or clothing?" he said. "Turning landlords into involuntary agents of the state? This isn't the America I know and love."

Ethics foul, number two! The law by no reasonable interpretation requires businesses "to check citizenship papers before selling someone food or clothing," and Mursuli either knows this or he has been wildly misinformed. (If he's wildly misinformed, he has failed an ethical duty as a public spokesperson to get his facts right before shouting that the sky is falling.) The ordinance will withdraw business permits and city contracts from any business that hires or aids or abets by any means, "no matter how indirect" any undocumented immigrant. Legal experts unanimously agree that the ordinance's language could not be realistically applied to "selling someone food or clothing." It is clearly aimed at hiring illegal aliens, a perfectly reasonable restriction, and "aiding and abetting" an illegal alien's efforts to remain here illegally. Similarly, Mursuli's "involuntary agents of the state" lament is nonsense. (Ethics foul, number three!) We require 7-11 clerks to check IDs before selling beer or cigarettes to minors, because the 7-11 is a logical place to inhibit the conduct that we want to stop. Illegal immigrants come to America to work, and employers routinely take advantage of them by paying sub-par wages. Requiring employers to take reasonable measures to ensure that they are not hiring undocumented immigrants is logical and not unreasonably burdensome. Critics of such policies like Mursuli and his employer, the People for the American Way, aren't really concerned with creating "involuntary agents of the state;" they simply want to make sure that illegal immigration can't be controlled by any means at all.

This is obviously the goal of an anti-Hazleton coalition that includes the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represents U.S. Latinos on immigration issues. The group is suing Hazleton in federal court; meanwhile, it is adding to the ethics foul total of Hazelton's critics.

Lee Llambelis, legal director of the Puerto Rican Legal Fund, announced that her group's lawsuit will argue that the ordinance erodes the federal government's power to regulate immigration. Needless to say, it is not likely Ms. Llambelis' coalition's real concern is that Hazleton's efforts might weaken the federal government's efforts to enforce immigration laws. Or that the ACLU has suddenly become a fan of government power.

And by the way, what federal regulation of immigration?

Whatever its legal merits, this is a cynical and disingenuous lawsuit, employing a deceitful strategy reminiscent of the Ralph Reed-Jack Abramoff trick of secretly serving casino gambling interests by assisting anti-gambling efforts to defeat an anti-casino gambling bill because it didn't ban off-track betting on horse races. Llambelis and company want to use a pro-federal enforcement of immigration laws argument to stop about the only enforcement of immigration laws around. Ethics foul, number four.

She's not through, either. "The law pits neighbor against neighbor and only serves to heighten tension with Hispanics in the town," Llambelis said in a Reuter's interview. "Only serves to heighten tension?" Ethics foul, number five! Obviously, if all the ordinance did was "heighten tension," the coalition would find more critical battles to fight. Her concern is that the ordinance will make life harder for illegal immigrants, who, by the way, are not neighbors but illegal neighbors. And law, by definition, "pits" legal neighbors against illegal neighbors. Good citizenship requires that I report my neighbors if they start running a crack house or a prostitution ring or an Al Qaeda cell. Describing a civic obligation in the most unflattering terms possible doesn't change the fact that it is still the right thing to do.

Is there another disingenuous argument to be made? Oh, yes, a classic! Take it away, Jorge Mursuli…

"What is this going to do for Hispanic citizens living in Hazleton? Anyone who might look like an immigrant will face undue harassment and questioning by landlords and store merchants who fear fines or loss of their businesses. Daily life will become a series of assaults on their dignity."

Enough. I have an artificial hip that sets off airport metal detectors. Every time I fly, which can be two or three times in a week, I am pulled out of line, wanded and given a more or less intimate pat-down depending on the enthusiasm of the security employee. Is this "assault" a form of discrimination against former hip surgery patients? No. It is a necessary inconvenience to protect planes from being hijacked and flown into buildings. Do I take it personally? Of course not. It's an annoyance, but it's reasonable under the circumstances. Similarly, being asked for proof of citizenship before being hired or renting an apartment is a reasonable inconvenience for any citizen who cares about controlling the problem of illegal immigration. It is only "undue harassment" in the eyes of those who don't want illegal immigration controlled, and use deceitful and misleading public statements to disguise their true position.

Ethics foul, number six.

As for Hazleton and the several other communities such as Riverside, New Jersey that have followed its lead, the town's attempt to take action where the federal government has failed may yet be over-turned in court. Immigration control is traditionally a federal function, and though Llambelis' and her coalition are using that as an argument of convenience rather than conviction, it still might over-turn some or all of the ordinance. Still, the communities choosing to address a serious social and legal problem that the national government has shamefully neglected do not deserve to be attacked for their courage and initiative, or the fact that they are doing what governments are supposed to do: enforce the law.

Their critics, meanwhile, continue to employ dishonest arguments in support of illegal conduct. It should be clear to all which side of the debate is the ethical one.