Alabama argues immigration law should stay in place

The Huntsville Times
By Brian Lawson
Published: Tuesday, October 04, 2011, 7:15 AM

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama -- Attorneys defending Alabama's new immigration law argued in a Monday filing the law should not be delayed pending an appeal.

Last Wednesday Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn refused a request by opponents of the measure to block much of the law. On Thursday a group of 36 plaintiffs asked the court to stay Alabama's law until the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta can rule on the appeal.

But Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange argued in the state's response on Monday that there was no reason to grant a stay. Strange contended the plaintiffs were already denied an injunction, and have offered no new arguments and have shown no irreparable injuries will occur if the law stays in place during the appeal.

"Either Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction or they are not. After this Court spent months closely scrutinizing hundreds of pages of evidence and argument, the Court said 'not' with respect to Sections 10, 12, 27, 28, and 30," states Alabama's filing. "That correct ruling does not entitle the Plaintiffs to the same relief on an easier standard."

The U.S. Department of Justice is also asking Blackburn to stay Alabama's law and the judge gave the state until 5 p.m. today to respond to that motion. The Justice Department argues that regulation of immigration is the province of the federal government.

The group of 36 plaintiffs led by the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama, includes civil rights and service organizations, unions, families and individuals, including 12 illegal immigrants. They've argued they will suffer a variety of injuries if the law is allowed to remain in effect.

The plaintiffs specifically seek to block sections 10, 12, 27, 28 and 30 in the law upheld by Blackburn.

The various sections require people to carry proof of valid immigration status; give police the power to investigate a person's immigration status during a traffic stop or arrest; bar entering most contracts with illegal immigrants; require schools to collect immigration status information from new students; and bar state and local governments from conducting "business transactions" with illegal immigrants.

In a court filing Sunday, the plaintiffs listed some of the problems they contend are already occurring:

» "In at least one public elementary school in Montgomery on Sept. 30, teachers asked already enrolled Latino students questions about their immigration status and that of their parents."

» In the first two business days that most of the law has been in effect, substantial numbers of children began withdrawing from Alabama public schools and others stayed home based on their fear that they would be subject to the new verification and recording requirements, the plaintiffs argue.

» The Montgomery Probate Office has published a notice requiring proof of U.S. citizenship or proof that a person is lawfully in the U.S. before any transaction can be conducted, except for corporations, LLCs or LLPs.

» On Sept. 29, Alabama Power told at least one family whose electricity had been disconnected that it could not restore power unless they could provide proof of lawful residence in the U.S.

» At least some individuals are being told they cannot renew rental agreements if they cannot provide proof of lawful residence.

But Alabama contends the plaintiffs have not shown the law will cause them harm.

"As discussed below, plaintiffs rely on conclusory statements, speculation, and conjecture to show irreparable harm, and at times they argue that they are irreparably harmed because HB 56 may reveal their pre-existing violations of federal law," according to the state reply.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/10/ala ... n_sho.html