Thread: Federal appeals judges grill Georgia attorneys on immigration law

Federal appeals judges grill Georgia attorneys on immigration law




By Associated PressAssociated Press
March 1, 2012 - 12:36pm Federal appeals judges grill Georgia attorneys on immigration law
ATLANTA | A federal appeals court pressed Georgia attorneys today on whether the state's new law targeting illegal immigration conflicts with federal rules and challenged critics of the crackdown to explain why local authorities can't use the new powers to complement federal efforts.The three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals peppered both sides with questions at a hearing on a lawsuit opposing Georgia's new law filed by activist groups. The judges were set to hear arguments later on two separate challenges to Alabama's immigration law filed by immigrant rights groups and the Justice Department.
The panel said it wouldn't rule until the U.S. Supreme Court releases a decision on a federal government challenge to a similar law passed by Arizona. The arguments in that case, set for April, revolve around a sweeping law taking aim at illegal immigration passed in 2010 that was opposed by activist groups and the federal government.
At today's hearing, Circuit Judges Bev Martin and Charles Wilson repeatedly asked state attorney Devon Orland whether the state law pre-empts federal rules. Martin said she's concerned that part of the law "bumps up against this very comprehensive federal scheme."
Orland urged the panel to view the state law as a supplement to federal statutes that allow "dual enforcement," much like laws that allow both state and federal prosecutors to charge suspects with drug crimes.
"It's axiomatic that both the state and the federal government can both prosecute the same crime," she argued, adding that the law's intent is not to "persecute people."
Opponents of the measure argued that immigration is a federal issue that shouldn't be governed by a patchwork of state laws. Omar Jadwat of the American Civil Liberties Union said the law forces "police officers to take off their police officer's hat and put on an immigration enforcement hat."
That prompted Wilson to ask him whether a state can seek to regulate illegal immigration if it decides the "illegal alien population morphs into a public safety concern." Jadwat countered that it should be up to federal officials to address the issue.
The three-judge panel also included U.S. District Judge Richard Voorhees, a visiting judge from North Carolina who asked few questions during the hearing. Wilson and Martin were appointed by Democratic presidents while Voorhees was tapped by Republican Ronald Reagan.
Five other states - Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah - adopted variations on Arizona's law last year, with Alabama's widely considered the toughest in the nation. All five laws have been challenged by coalitions of civil rights and immigrant rights groups, and the federal government has sued to block those in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah.
Opponents of the measures argue such laws lead to discrimination and racial profiling and that immigration is a federal issue that shouldn't be governed by a patchwork of state laws. Supporters say states have been forced to act to protect their resources because the federal government hasn't done enough to quell the influx of illegal immigrants.
A federal judge in June temporarily blocked parts of Georgia's law pending the outcome of the legal challenge filed by the activist groups. One blocked section would authorize police to check the immigration status of suspects who don't have proper identification. The other would create a state penalty for people who knowingly and willingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants while committing another crime.
Georgia appealed that decision to the 11th Circuit, which means the court will decide whether the injunction can remain in place.
After a federal judge in Alabama declined in September to block many provisions of that state's law, the 11th Circuit in October temporarily blocked some parts, including a requirement for schools to check students' immigration status. But the appeals court left intact a section that allows police to check a person's immigration status during a traffic stop and to detain someone they believe is in the country illegally. Courts also can't enforce contracts involving illegal immigrants, such as leases, and it's a felony for an illegal immigrant to do business with the state for basic things such as getting a driver's license.
The 11th Circuit will now decide whether to block sections of the law that had been allowed to go into effect, and whether to leave the injunctions previously obtained on other sections in place.
The arguments attracted national media and dozens of protesters, who rallied outside the downtown Atlanta courtroom chanting slogans and holding signs saying: "We are families not fugitives" and "Hate Hurts Alabama."




Federal appeals judges grill Georgia attorneys on immigration law | jacksonville.com

Appeals court presses Alabama on effects of immigration law

Published: Thursday, March 01, 2012, 8:50 PM

By Brian Lawson, The Huntsville Times

ATLANTA, Georgia - Supporters have touted Alabama's immigration law for urging those here illegally to "self-deport," but a federal appeals court on Thursday questioned if the law amounts to "forced expulsion."
A three-judge panel at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta on Thursday took up two challenges to Alabama's immigration law and a third case involving a similar Georgia law.

As spectators filled the courtroom and a packed overflow area, protesters outside called for the repeal of both laws, with one sign reading, "Hate Hurts, HB 56."

But the panel also announced that it would not rule immediately, and would instead wait until the U.S. Supreme Court decides a case on a similar immigration law in Arizona. The Arizona case is scheduled for oral arguments next month.

Attorneys for Alabama, Solicitor General John Neiman and Deputy Solicitor General Prim Escalona, on Thursday argued Alabama's law is complementary to existing federal law and that Congress gave states a role to play in immigration law enforcement.

Escalona said Alabama's law is closely tied to the federal government, as it ultimately asks federal officials to determine a person's immigration status.

But attorneys for the U.S. Justice Department said the Alabama law is unconstitutional and conflicts with congressional intent on immigration law enforcement. U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Beth Brinkmann argued the law makes it impossible for an "alien to live in the state."

Alabama's far-reaching law regulates law enforcement contact with illegal immigrants, bars an illegal immigrant from seeking work, entering into contracts or transacting business with the government. The law also calls for public schools to obtain residency status information from new students.

Led by Appeals Court Judge Charles Wilson, the three-judge panel included Appeals Court Judge Beverly Martin and visiting U.S. District Judge Richard Voorhees of North Carolina.

Attorneys on Thursday told the judges that Alabama's law was overly simplistic, sorting only illegal and legal immigrants. They said the state law doesn't consider immigrants who lack proper paperwork but are currently applying for a change or awaiting a decision on immigration status.

The attorneys for a group of 36 plaintiffs, including several civil rights groups, argued that under Alabama law such immigrants would still face the brunt of Alabama's law, from traffic stops to being unable to conduct routine business.

Judge Martin raised the issue of forced expulsion. She said Alabama's law bars all contracts except for 24-hour agreements for housing, emergency medical care, food and transportation back to their home country. Martin questioned how immigrants, including those whose status was undetermined, could live in a state where they couldn't contract for housing, or even water and sewer services.

"What if all 50 states had this law?," Martin asked. "How would people survive?"

Neiman, the solicitor general for Alabama, answered that Alabama Attorney Luther Strange issued an opinion letter in December that contended that the government business transactions section doesn't apply to water and sewer and other government services, only those related to driver's license-type applications.

Martin pointed out an attorney general's opinion is not binding on state courts and that the law says "all transactions."

Neiman suggested that immigrants could essentially enter into contracts, as long as the other party didn't know their immigration status. It was only knowledge of unlawful status that would place the other party in a contract in violation of Alabama law.

But Cecillia Wang, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, arguing on behalf of the group of 36 plaintiffs, said a likely outcome of the contract issue would be most law-abiding citizens would err on the side of caution and not rent or otherwise contract with those they suspect may be here illegally.

Wang also said unscrupulous operators would enter into such deals, knowing they could get out of trouble by citing the law. She said the intent of Alabama's law is clear, given that only 24-hour contracts are allowed.

"You can pass through, but you'd best be gone by morning," she said.
Martin asked if the law's intent was to force people to leave the state.
Neiman offered a qualified "yes" in response.

"I'm not taking the position that that is not the intent," he said, drawing laughter from the packed courtroom.

The court also questioned if someone whose immigration status is up in the air could be detained under Alabama's law. Neiman said it depended on the sequence of events, including when law enforcement was notified of the person's status.

The court also question a provision that requires public schools to obtain residency status information about new enrollees, a provision that has been temporarily blocked while the case is appealed.

Judge Wilson asked if the request for information was a "scare tactic."
Neiman said it was not, but was an attempt to gather information about student populations in order to inform legislators, educate the public and help financial planning decisions.

Alabama's attorneys stressed that the law does not prevent any child from attending public school and that students can decline to provide information. Those students who decline are presumed to be the children of illegal immigrants, the court was told.

Attorney Sam Brooke, an attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center, said the data-gathering violates equal protection guarantees in the Constitution. He said it's more than a scare tactic, that the law sets up a system where immigration status information is to be shared with the federal government.

Alabama's attorneys told the court that because the lawsuits were filed shortly after the law was passed, and because several parts of the 72-page law had been temporarily blocked, much of the information needed to assess its impact and to work out correct procedures hasn't taken place.

But Wang argued many of the plaintiffs in the case have already suffered injury under the law and urged the court now to block the sections relating to law enforcement stops and detention, contracts and government transactions.

After Thursday's hearing, Alabama Attorney General Strange issued the following statement: "Congress has a policy against illegal immigration. Alabama's law is consistent with what Congress wanted. It is ironic that in this case, the Obama administration is hoping to stop the operation of Alabama's law and to undermine the purposes of Congress."

Appeals court presses Alabama on effects of immigration law/al.com