Thread: AL judge casts doubt on harsh new illegal immigration law

Alabama judge casts doubt on harsh new illegal immigration law

Christian Science Monitor
By Mark Guarino, Staff writer / August 24, 2011

A federal court judge in Alabama Wednesday raised questions about whether a recent state law restricting illegal immigration has constitutional merit.


Opponents to Alabama's immigration law gather at Court Square in Montgomery, Ala., on July 30. On Wednesday, a federal court judge raised questions about the constitutionality of a recent state law restricting illegal immigration.

Amanda Sowards/Montgomery Advertiser/AP

A federal court hearing in Alabama Wednesday will determine whether or not a recent state law restricting illegal immigration has constitutional merit. Although the judge has until next week to strike down provisions of the law, critics say the legislation may drive undocumented workers to neighboring states.

Proponents of the law say that illegal immigrants to the state – whose numbers have increased dramatically over the last 10 years – are taking precious jobs away from legal residents.

In June, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley (R) signed into law what is by some measures the harshest anti-immigration bill in the nation. For example, birth certificates or other papers showing legal resident status will now be required at government agencies and from parents seeking to enroll their children in public schools.

Law enforcement can detain people suspected of entering the country illegally if they do not produce proof of residency and employers or individuals face penalties if they knowingly transport, harbor, or hire illegal immigrants.

Wednesday’s hearing, held in federal court in Birmingham, is the result of numerous lawsuits collectively launched by the Obama administration, national civil rights groups, and state church leaders seeking to block the new law, which goes into effect Sept. 1.

US District Judge Sharon Blackburn said in court Wednesday that she believed “there are a lot of problemsâ€

RELATED

Alabama immigration law faces legal challenge: Can it survive?

ChristianScience Monitor
- Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer

Several civil-rights groups sued the state of Alabama Friday to block what some observers say is the toughest anti-illegal-immigration law to date. Among other things, it mandates that primary and secondary schools check residency status of students.

Federal lawsuits have now been filed against the five states that have passed such laws during the past 15 months. The rulings that have come down, which have all been against the laws, have been appealed by the states' attorneys general in the hope that the Supreme Court will take up the issue.

Here is the legal state of play for all five state laws:

1. Arizona

Amid news of desert killings on the border and Mexican kidnapping rings, Arizona became the first state to pass comprehensive anti-illegal immigration laws that challenged not only federal jurisdiction over immigration but also basic constitutional rights of non-citizens living in America.

After Gov. Jan Brewer in April 2010 signed Senate Bill 1070 into law, polls showed widespread support in Arizona and elsewhere for the state crackdown, which included the ability of police to demand suspects they deemed "reasonably suspicious" show legal immigration papers or face arrest.

The Obama administration immediately challenged it in federal court, saying its "papers, please" requirement and its overall intrusion into federal jurisdictions made it unconstitutional and could violate people's civil rights by profiling them by their skin color.

After protests and boycotts, a federal judge granted an injunction against the key part of the law a day before it was to take effect. In February 2011, Arizona countersued, claiming the US government had failed to control the state's border with Mexico. In April 2011, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the earlier ruling against the state.

"The Arizona statute before us has become a symbol," Ninth Circuit Judge John Noonan wrote. "For those sympathetic to immigrants to the United States, it is a challenge and a chilling foretaste of what other states might attempt."

The case has been appealed to the US Supreme Court, though the high court has not yet indicated whether it will take the case.

2. Indiana

Indiana's Republican-controlled Legislature took a slightly different, two-pronged route in following Arizona's lead.

First, a new state law scheduled to go into effect July 1 allowed state and local police to arrest any illegal immigrant they encountered who was facing a deportation order from an immigration court or who had been indicted or convicted of a felony.

Second, the law also blocked any government official from accepting identification cards issued by foreign consulates as valid forms of identification.

Federal District Judge Sarah Evans Barker blocked both aspects of the law two days before they were to take effect. She backed legal complaints by constitutional and civil-rights groups, calling Indiana's effort to "carve out such a permissible role … seriously flawed and generally unsuccessful."

The judge's decision, said Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, "underscores the challenge to Indiana and other state lawmakers who have tried to respond to Washington's failure."

3. Georgia

Bucking pleas from the state's agricultural and business communities, Gov. Nathan Deal in April signed an Arizona-style law into effect that allowed police to ask persons arrested for a crime for immigration documents, and punished businesses and legal Americans for hiring, helping to hire, or transporting illegal immigrants.

The goal: To thwart increasing burdens on schools, hospitals, and social services by people who are in the country illegally.

In rejecting key parts of the law on June 26, US District Judge Tom Thrash found merit in the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) arguments that the state illegally preempted federal law – an argument that could be a key element of a possible Supreme Court hearing on the Arizona-style laws. The judge called Georgia's law an attempt to do an "end run" around federal immigration law.

At the same time, Judge Thrash disagreed with challengers that the law would violate people's constitutional right to travel, and he left intact a requirement for Georgia businesses to use the federal E-Verify system to ensure employee eligibility, which proponents of the law saw as victories.

But in general, the judge was not happy. "The apparent legislative intent is to create such a climate of hostility, fear, mistrust, and insecurity that all illegal aliens will leave Georgia," he wrote.

The statement raised eyebrows among the law's supporters. “Curiously, the court writes ‘all illegal aliens will leave Georgia’ if the law is enforced, as if it is appalled at the thought of people attaining visas before coming to our nation,â€

Related: http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-248059.html

RELATED

Hearing begins on request for injunction against Alabama immigration law
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-248059-0-da ... rasc-.html

Typical Christian Science Moniter .... Throw In a bunch of false statements that you cannot back up and pretend you are reporting the news ... THEY STINK

Originally Posted by topsecret10

Typical Christian Science Moniter .... Throw In a bunch of false statements that you cannot back up and pretend you are reporting the news ... THEY STINK