Thread: Alabama defends immigration law in court filing

Alabama defends immigration law in court filing
Published: Monday, August 08, 2011, 6:00 AM
By Kent Faulk -- The Birmingham News

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama -- State officials say a federal judge should deny a request by those who want to block enforcement of Alabama's new immigration law.

The state, in a 159-page document filed Friday, disputes allegations made in recent lawsuits filed by groups suing to block the new law. "There is little in the way of hard facts based on personal knowledge. Instead, they present hearsay, legal opinion, speculation, and even speculation about other people's speculation," according to the state's response.

The document was filed by attorneys for Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley and other state officials, to respond to a request by groups seeking to have a judge issue a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of Alabama's immigration law enacted in June. The groups want enforcement of the new law delayed while their lawsuits against Bentley and the others to overturn the law proceed in court.

Most of the provisions of the new law go into effect Sept. 1.

Chief U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn has set Aug. 24 for a hearing at the Hugo L. Black U.S. Courthouse in Birmingham to hear arguments in the request for an injunction.

In its response, the state rejects claims in the lawsuits that the new law is aimed to be discriminatory or is designed to usurp federal law.

[Read the state response.]

The law repeatedly "bows" to federal law with certain phrases written into the law, according to the state response. The state law envisions cooperation with, and deference to, the federal government, according to the state response.

The new law also expressly and repeatedly prohibits unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin, according to the state response.

Federal officials have argued Alabama's law unconstitutionally interferes with the federal government's authority over immigration. But the state argued in its response that "states are not preempted in the immigration arena when they prohibit the same activity that is already prohibited under federal law."

The state argues that the plaintiffs can't prevail "on any of their various challenges" to the state law. But if the federal court agrees that an injunction is needed for a particular section of the law, that "is clearly preferable to the blunt remedy of enjoining the Act in its entirely."

Groups suing to overturn the law argue that one section -- Section 28 of the new Alabama law will deter children --lawfully or unlawfully in the country -- from enrolling in school, according to the state response. "Of course, deterrence is not denial. But, even if deterrence were enough, Plaintiffs' allegations are highly speculative and uninformed," according to the state response.

The state response cites an Aug. 1 letter from State Superintending of Education Joseph B. Morton to city and county superintendents. The new state law requires schools to collect information on how many students are enrolled without birth certificates, but no one shall be denied enrollment or admission to the school due to a failure to provide one, according to the letter.

"Any plaintiffs whose children are scheduled to start school this fall should expect that their children will be enrolled before Section 28 is even effective," according to the state response. "And any children who enroll thereafter, should be able to do so assured that (the act) .¤.¤. does not compel that they or their families be reported to anyone in the event they are unlawfully present."

The state needs the information to determine the impact illegal aliens have on state education budgets, the state argues.

Four lawsuits have been filed to try and block the state law that was enacted in June. Three of them were filed in federal court: the U.S. Justice Department; bishops in the Episcopal, United Methodist, and Roman Catholic churches in Alabama; and the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama and other groups. The other lawsuit was filed in state court.

All three federal lawsuits have been consolidated into one.

Join the conversation by clicking to comment or email Faulk at kfaulk@bhamnews.com.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/08/ala ... on_la.html

Originally Posted by Ratbstard

Alabama defends immigration law in court filing

Groups suing to overturn the law argue that one section -- Section 28 of the new Alabama law will deter children --lawfully or unlawfully in the country -- from enrolling in school, according to the state response. "Of course, deterrence is not denial. But, even if deterrence were enough, Plaintiffs' allegations are highly speculative and uninformed," according to the state response.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/08/ala ... on_la.html

==========================================

Children of illegal aliens (anchor babies) would not be an issue if immigration laws were enforced in the first place.

What is truly barbaric, tragic, cold, and calculating is that illegal aliens use their children as a POLITICAL WEAPON to CIRCUMVENT United States immigration laws in order to pervert our legal system into forcing it to allow the parents to remain in the US.

We see Europe being run over by illegal aliens with widespread violence breaking out all over that continent as a result of racial tensions from massive illegal immigration.

Who in their right mind is naive enough to believe that infusing over 20 million illegal alien Mexicans won't have the same wholesale social upheaval within the United States?

Interestingly, Hispanics are NOT recognized as a racial MINORITY of birth certificates upon birth. They are recognized as "White", meaning no special legal racial preference is extended to the Mexican population by the US government.

Please correct me on the birth certificate issue if I missed something.

Borders were created for a reason. Once they are no longer enforced, the nation that allowed it ceases to be a nation and reverts into being nothing more than an uncontrolled territory.

"states are not preempted in the immigration arena when they prohibit the same activity that is already prohibited under federal law."

To rule against Alabama is to rule against the LAWS already on the books. Unless this judge is a total liberal, I don't see how she can rule against THE LAW.

It sends me right around the bend that I have to pay property taxes for schools. I have no kids in school, I don't mind paying for my LEGAL neighbors who need the school programs such as free lunch if they are in need... but I resent the hell out of all the freeloaders around me collecting when I see Mommy and Daddy going off to work at jobs they have NO right to. I see these same parents in the grocery store buying mountains of groceries with an EBT (foodstamp) card... then see them load everything into a brand new SUV!

OUR kids are required to have a birth certificate and medical records to enter school. It's only fair that illegals should have to have the same. With the re-emergence of deadly diseases, if I were a parent I'd be screaming bloody murder to know who is in class with my child! I'd be screaming about THEIR medical records... just what are they bringing into class? If they are illegal they were NEVER given a health screening.

Originally Posted by nomas

"states are not preempted in the immigration arena when they prohibit the same activity that is already prohibited under federal law."

OUR kids are required to have a birth certificate and medical records to enter school. It's only fair that illegals should have to have the same. With the re-emergence of deadly diseases, if I were a parent I'd be screaming bloody murder to know who is in class with my child! I'd be screaming about THEIR medical records... just what are they bringing into class? If they are illegal they were NEVER given a health screening.

===========================================

The irony here is that illegal aliens will RUSH, RUN, HURRY, MAD DASH to get their anchor babies birth certificates and social security numbers.

Why? To use these documents to establish THEIR OWN IDENTITIES, of course.

Added to the Homepage
http://www.alipac.us/article-6472--0-0.html

State asks judge not to block new immigration law
Aug 8, 2011 7:59pm

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — State officials have asked a federal judge to let Alabama's new law cracking down on illegal immigration to take effect as scheduled on Sept. 1.

The state filed an official response Friday to the three federal lawsuits that seek to stop all or parts of the new law. Opponents and supporters have called the new law the toughest in the country.

The three lawsuits were filed by the Obama administration, a coalition of Alabama civil rights groups and by state religious leaders. They have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn, who has scheduled a hearing for Aug. 24 in Birmingham on a request that she block the new law from taking effect.

The Birmingham News reported on the response on Monday. It was prepared by attorneys for Gov. Robert Bentley and other state officials and rejects claims from plaintiffs that the new law discriminates on the basis of race, color or national origin.

The lawsuit filed by the Obama administration claims that the Alabama law deals with issues that are the responsibility of the federal government.

But in the response, state officials say the law was written to work alongside federal statutes and that some of the language is identical to that in federal immigration law.

The filing by state officials says the Alabama law "in no way determines who should or should not be admitted into the country. On the contrary, the law defers to federal categories of immigration status and the federal government's determination of any particular alien's immigration status."

The groups suing to block the law had expressed concern about a provision that requires schools to report the immigration status of students. Opponents have said that requirement would discourage parents, even those in the country legally, from sending their children to school.

The state's response says the new law requests information on how many children are enrolled without a birth certificate, but also says that no child shall be denied admission because of failure to provide one.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit by the civil rights groups include a number of anonymous immigrant plaintiffs who are only called John or Jane Doe. The state's response says some of those plaintiffs may be in the country illegally and that would make the lawsuit invalid.

http://www.necn.com/08/08/11/State-asks ... 0b0c322677

Originally Posted by Ratbstard

State asks judge not to block new immigration law

But in the response, state officials say the law was written to work alongside federal statutes and that some of the language is identical to that in federal immigration law.

http://www.necn.com/08/08/11/State-asks ... 0b0c322677

============================================

The reason there is duplication here is that the State of Alabama is reinforcing within their own State Law the precepts of Federal Law that the Federal Government under Obama and Eric Holder are NOT REINFORCING.

Hello ..

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit by the civil rights groups include a number of anonymous immigrant plaintiffs who are only called John or Jane Doe. The state's response says some of those plaintiffs may be in the country illegally and that would make the lawsuit invalid.

That's calling an Illegal and ILLEGAL!