Thread: GEORGIA IMMIGRATION LAW BLOCKED!!

Judge blocks Georgia law targeting illegal immigrants
June 27th, 2011
03:00 PM ET

A federal judge in Atlanta, Georgia, has blocked a controversial state law cracking down on illegal immigrants from taking effect until the broader legal issues are resolved.

Monday's order by Judge Thomas Thrash, which CNN has obtained, temporarily prevents enforcement of the law, which would penalize those who transport or harbor illegal immigrants.

The case is Georgia Latino Alliance v. Deal. The law, known as HB 87, was scheduled to go into effect Friday.




http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/27/ju ... ?hpt=hp_t2

"This sucks so bad, these liberal ass judges need to be voted out now!"

"Here you go good people of Georgia!" Please let this backstabbing criminal know how you feel!

Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.
Judge, United States District Court

2188 Richard B. Russell Federal Building and United States Courthouse
75 Spring Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-3309

Courtroom: 2108
Chambers: 2188
Chambers Phone: (404) 215-1550
Courtroom Deputy: (404) 215-1555
Court Reporter: (404) 215-1558

Blocked this law on what grounds?

W

Ga. immigration law partly blocked



In this Thursday, June 8, 2011 photo,Immigration lawyer Lino Rodriguez who works with Kuck Immigration Partners, LLC, answers questions from the crowd


Updated: Monday, 27 Jun 2011, 1:57 PM CDT
Published : Monday, 27 Jun 2011, 1:41 PM CDT

KATE BRUMBACK,Associated Press

ATLANTA (AP) -- A federal judge on Monday blocked parts of Georgia's law cracking down on illegal immigration from taking effect until a legal challenge is resolved.


Judge Thomas Thrash granted a request to block parts of the law that penalize people who knowingly and willingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants while committing another crime. He also blocked provisions that authorize officers to verify the immigration status of someone who can't provide proper identification.

Thrash wrote that under parts of the law, the state is enforcing immigration law that should be left to the federal government.


Thrash also dismissed parts of the lawsuit at the state's request.

Most parts of the law were set to enter into effect July 1. Civil liberties groups had filed a lawsuit asking the judge to declare the law unconstitutional and to block it from being enforced.

Thrash on June 20 heard arguments from both sides on the civil liberties groups' request to block the law and the state's request to dismiss the lawsuit. He grilled Senior Assistant Attorney General Devon Orland, with the exchange sometimes bordering on testy.

Omar Jadwat with the American Civil Liberties Union argued the law is fundamentally unconstitutional and infringes on federal authority, while Orland said the measure is needed because medical facilities and prisons are being strained by illegal immigrants.

The civil liberties groups argue the law is unconstitutional and could encourage racial profiling. Provisions that penalize people for harboring and transporting illegal immigrants in certain situations also have the potential to punish people for innocent interactions with illegal immigrants, the groups have said.

Georgia's law has some provisions that echo those in a law enacted last year in Arizona and is also similar to another enacted this year in Utah.

A federal judge blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's law last year after the U.S. Department of Justice sued, arguing the law intrudes on the federal government's exclusive powers to regulate immigration. A federal appeals court judge upheld the decision and Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has said she plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ACLU and other civil liberties groups filed a complaint claiming that the Utah law was an unconstitutional burden to legal immigrants and too much like portions of Arizona's immigration law. A federal judge last month temporarily blocked that law, citing similarities to the most controversial parts of Arizona's law. A hearing is set for mid-July to determine if the law can go into effect.


Another section of the Georgia law set to be phased in starting in January will require many businesses to check the immigration status of new hires. An Arizona law with the same requirement was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.




http://www.fox11online.com/dpps/news/na ... pe_3862192

Judge blocks key parts of Georgia immigration law


By the CNN Wire Staff Atlanta (CNN) -- A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Monday temporarily blocking key provisions of a new Georgia law that aims to crack down on illegal immigration.

Most parts of the law, known as HB 87, were scheduled to go into effect Friday.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash Jr.'s ruling blocks enforcement of two of the most controversial sections of the law, while allowing other parts of it to move forward.

"State and local law enforcement officers and officials have no authorization to arrest, detain or prosecute anyone based upon sections 7 and 8 of HB 87 while this injunction remains in effect," Thrash ruled.

Those sections allow police to inquire about immigration status when questioning suspects in certain criminal investigations. They also would allow the imposition of prison sentences for people who knowingly transport illegal immigrants during the commission of a crime.

In his 45-page ruling, Thrash cited a previous court decision that said preliminary injunctions were in the public interest "when civil rights are at stake."

Although his ruling was a victory for the plaintiffs, he also tossed out some of their arguments at the state's request, a point stressed by Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens soon after the decision.

"I appreciate the speed with which Judge Thrash ruled, given the complexity of the issues. I am pleased with the dismissal of the 4th Amendment, 14th Amendment, 'Right to Travel,' and Georgia Constitutional claims by the plaintiffs -- even after this ruling, 21 of the 23 sections of HB 87 will go into effect as planned," he wrote in a statement.

Olens said that his office will appeal the judge's ruling regarding sections 7 and 8.

The Georgia lawsuit is the latest battle in a nationwide skirmish between state and federal officials over who controls immigration enforcement.

Arizona's controversial law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration catapulted the issue onto the national stage last year, drawing a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice, which argues the law is unconstitutional.

In April, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Justice Department and against Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed Arizona's law last year. Brewer announced last month that the state would appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/27/georgi ... n.lawsuit/

R E L A T E D http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-1237652-.html#1237652

This makes me so stinking mad! I live in Georgia and since the law was passed I have noticed fewer illegals around town. A friend of mine told me that she has noticed fewer day laborers in her part of town.

Another corrupt judge defies the will of the American people, siding with open borders terrorist organizations who mean to destroy our country and way of life. We will see a flood of illegal aliens pouring into this state since this corruptocrat wearing a black robe has given permission for them to violate all our laws and not suffer the consequences. So much for containing skyrocketing health care, other social program costs and putting Americans back to work which, under our present scenario will never happen resulting in the death of this nation.

People, any new law that regulates immigration will be challenged and an injunction will issue because immigration, under the Constitution, is under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
I hope the governors are smarter than this, and are just trying to get votes and pressure the feds. I would respect them more.