Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member Ratbstard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New Alien City-(formerly New York City)
    Posts
    12,611

    Battle over Alabama immigration law heads to court Wednesday

    Battle over Alabama immigration law heads to court Wednesday
    Published: Tuesday, August 23, 2011, 8:01 AM
    Updated: Tuesday, August 23, 2011, 8:25 AM
    By Brian Lawson
    The Huntsville Times

    HUNTSVILLE, Alabama -- Being sued by the U.S. Justice Department, Alabama will be back in federal court Wednesday. But unlike disputes in the 1960s and 1970s, Alabama says this time its only fault is trying too fully to cooperate with federal law.

    The Justice Department disagrees, calling the state's new immigration law an "inflexible Alabama-specific approach" that is by any definition "non-cooperative."

    Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange is expected to lead a team of lawyers that will argue for the state. The Attorney General's Office declined to comment on the hearing, saying its positions are laid out in the court record.

    "For there is a marked difference between this case and other suits filed decades ago, also styled United States v. Alabama, during an era of the State's history that is now thankfully part of the past," attorneys for the state wrote in a court filing earlier this month.

    "In contrast to the suits filed then," the state writes, "the United States here has no occasion to allege that Alabama or its leaders are defying federal law. To the contrary, the entire point of the Alabama statute at issue is to require Alabama and its officials to fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities in the enforcement of federal immigration laws."

    The U.S. Department of Justice, leaders from three large Alabama churches and a host of interest groups and individual plaintiffs will ask U.S. District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn in the hearing in Birmingham to block implementation of the law. Most provisions are set to take effect on Sept. 1.

    They contend the law, which Alabama legislators say is carefully designed to mirror federal immigration law, violates many Constitutional rights. Alabama argues that the state has been harmed in numerous ways by illegal immigration.

    The filings and replies roam all over the law and U.S. Constitution. Arguments range from denial of church sacraments to people being held indefinitely without charge to Alabama's intention to count illegal immigrant children to determine how many English as a Second Language teachers are needed.

    In order to secure a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs will have to show two things, said John Carroll, a retired federal judge and dean of Cumberland School of Law. First, they must be able to prove there will be an injury if the law is not blocked. Second, they have to persuade the judge there is a strong chance they will ultimately win the case.

    Alabama's law covers more ground than immigration laws passed by Arizona, Georgia, Indiana and Utah, which have been blocked at least temporarily by federal courts. None have reached the Supreme Court.

    At the center of the argument is the federal government's contention that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives it the sole power to set national immigration policy. U.S. government lawyers dismiss Alabama's claims of cooperation as laid out in the law, known as House Bill 56.

    " HB 56 attempts to displace the federal government's exclusive authority to create a systematic scheme for the administration and enforcement of the federal government's own immigration laws by codifying an inflexible Alabama-specific approach that is, by any definition, "non-cooperative,'" the government wrote.

    The question of whether Congress intended to give states a role in enforcing immigration law and how far the states can go is just one of several major issues Judge Blackburn is being asked to weigh.

    Attorneys for Alabama argue that it is not a violation of federal law if its stepped-up enforcement results in federal agents having more cases to handle and more requests to determine a person's immigration status.

    A filing by a group of Alabama legislators contends the federal government's opposition to portions of Alabama law is directly at odds with what Congress intended in terms of operation of the Department of Homeland Security.

    "Congress requires the federal government to respond to inquiries about citizenship and immigration status," they wrote. "Congress did not say that DHS shall respond to inquiries when it so chooses."

    The federal government is challenging 10 major sections of the law, including portions criminalizing work by illegal immigrants and renting property to them. It opposes the provisions that seek immigration status information from school children and provisions barring illegal immigrants from entering contracts.

    And it opposes the state's plans to jail and fine any person 18 or older who is not carrying paperwork showing they are here legally, calling it a "thinly veiled and impermissible attempt to criminalize unlawful presence," which "Congress has repeatedly declined to do."

    The state disagrees and says its requirements for proper paperwork simply mirror federal laws.

    But the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama argues that Alabama has invented a "novel doctrine" of "concurrent enforcement" and it argues "no court has ever recognized or applied such a doctrine."

    It also says Alabama's criminalizing work or soliciting work by an illegal immigrant is incompatible with federal law.

    "HB 56 allows Alabama to put in jail individuals who may be in the process of trying to adjust their immigration status or obtain work authorization through federally prescribed procedures, " the coalition plaintiffs argue.

    The state also faces challenges from leaders of the United Methodist, Episcopal and Catholic churches, which say the law will harm their ministries, including transporting, caring for and offering housing and other services to church members who may be here illegally.

    Alabama argues the law should not be blocked in advance of its implementation because the church officials can't show an imminent threat of prosecution and that church practices such as marriage and baptism will not be affected by the contract ban. State attorneys also question the standing of the church leaders to speak for the more than 300,000 members of their various churches.

    In an argument for the injunction, church officials filed an affidavit by state Sen. Roger Bedford, D-Russellville. He had inserted a measure in the Senate version of the immigration bill that would have barred prosecution of religious organizations. Bedford said the measure passed the Senate, but was not included in the final act.

    Church officials argued that if Alabama did not want to prosecute church personnel and activities it would have left the measure in place.

    "God does not decide if you are legal or illegal," Bedford wrote in his affidavit. "He decides if you are saved or unsaved.

    "I offered the Bedford Amendment to make it very clear that it would not be against the law for a church to go into a community and bring people in for a religious event or take them back after that event was over," he wrote. "I wanted to ensure that there was no gray area where a church could get into trouble for reaching out to the lost."

    In wrapping up its opposition to an injunction, Alabama's attorneys draw on familiar arguments for states' rights.

    "The public consequences to Alabama from enjoining (the law) are significant," the state attorneys wrote. "The Act represents a good-faith attempt to help stem the tide of illegal immigration in the State, and no one can know how efficacious that attempt will be until the law is allowed to go into effect.

    "Federalism concerns thus counsel heavily against an injunction here."

    http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/08/bat ... ratio.html
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    As much focus as possible needed on this story.

    The question now is will the courts just IN-YOUR-FACE openly defy standing immigrations law.
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Senior Member Ratbstard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New Alien City-(formerly New York City)
    Posts
    12,611
    Typical BS served up yet again:

    Editorial: An immigration argument
    Published: Tuesday, August 23, 2011, 8:29 AM
    By Mike Hollis
    The Huntsville Times

    Here we go again, ranting about the federal government.

    This time, 14 legislators argue in a federal court brief that the U.S. Justice Department is trampling on the sovereignty of Alabama because the department is suing the state to block enforcement of the state's new immigration law. A hearing will be held in the case in U.S. District Court in Huntsville Wednesday.

    "The federal government has willfully relinquished its right to enforce its immigration law and now, the Department of Justice is trying to take away Alabama's right to enforce our own laws," Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn, said in a statement. "If the federal government won't do its job and protect us, we must protect ourselves."

    Hubbard is right about one thing: The federal government failed to control a flood of undocumented immigrants.

    But that doesn't mean the government has stopped trying to enforce the law, or that it or some officials haven't tried to work on the problem.

    President George W. Bush four years ago backed a bipartisan immigration reform bill but it was killed by Senate conservatives who opposed its amnesty provisions.

    Rather than relinquish its authority over immigration, the federal government has increased its efforts to control the border with Mexico. Since 2004 the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents has nearly doubled to 18,000.

    More recently, President Obama stepped up immigration audits of businesses. Those employing illegal immigrants are fined and required to fire them. Critics say the program isn't effective because it doesn't deport undocumented workers, who wind up working other places.

    But neither Congress nor Obama has said they are just going to turn our backs on the problem.

    Indeed, the federal government enforces immigration laws around the clock through the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, deportation, work visas, green cards, the E-Verify program for employers, citizenship requirements and immigration courts.

    So, no, the federal government in many ways has not relinquished its right to enforce immigration law, nor is it about to do so. Of course, there's certainly room for some improvement.

    Sovereignty is the fancy word for states' rights. And we've been arguing about the rights of states versus the power of the federal government since the founding of the country.

    Yes, the Justice Department is trying to block Alabama from enforcing new laws on immigration, and in doing so it is showing that the federal government isn't about to relinquish its authority over immigration.

    By Mike Hollis, for the editorial board. Email: mike.hollis@htimes.com

    http://blog.al.com/times-views/2011/08/ ... argum.html
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •