Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
Immigration Law
Federal Judge Blocks Yet Another Provision of Alabama’s Extreme Anti-Immigrant Law
01 month ago
As if people needed more proof that Alabama’s extreme anti-immigrant law, HB 56, is bad for the state, a federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of yet another provision of the law this week. U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson temporarily enjoined enforcement of Section 30 that, as applied, requires mobile home owners to provide proof of lawful status before renewing their registration. Judge Thompson’s ruling, in which he calls Alabama’s law “discriminatorily based,” is the latest in a series of blows to the harsh law—a law that even Alabama’s own attorney general and governor find problematic.
Judge Thompson ruled Monday that enforcement of Section 30—as applied to the requirement that individuals must prove legal status in order to renew mobile home registration—violates the Fair Housing Act. The case involved two unauthorized immigrants who sued Alabama because they could neither register their mobile homes in the state nor drive their unlicensed homes out of the state. According to Judge Thompson, Section 30 left these men—and their U.S. citizen children—“between a rock and a hard place.”
“They face civil and criminal liability for not paying their manufactured home tax, while simultaneously facing civil and criminal liability if they attempt to remove their homes from the state,” he wrote. “They can neither stay, nor can they go.”
In his ruling, Judge Thompson also commented that HB 56 is “discriminatorily based” given the difference in treatment of children in mixed-status homes and children in general. According to Judge Thompson, HB 56’s departs “from an established tradition in Alabama of assisting children regardless of their parents’ actions”—a difference he said is likely “driven by animus against Latinos.” Civil rights groups agree. The Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU, and others lauded the judge’s ruling, which they say calls the law for what it is, “a race-based attack on Latinos and their ability to stay in their homes.”
In fact, a new report released by Human Rights Watch documents the widespread abuse or discrimination reported under the law. Alabama’s new law effectively “denies unauthorized immigrants and their families, including US citizen children, their basic rights, threatening their access to everyday necessities and equal protection of the law,” the report says.
Meanwhile, state leaders have been under fire from Alabama’s business community following the arrest of a visiting Mercedes executive and Honda employee under HB 56. In an about-face, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange recently sent a letter to state lawmakers recommending they repeal problematic sections of HB 56. And just last week, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley announced that he would revise the law following a complaint by the Birmingham Business Alliance (BBA), the state’s largest business organization.
Yet, despite overwhelming concern that HB 56 is hurting state—complaints from farmers, business groups, and the American Federation of Teachers, court rulings, and acknowledgements from conservative lawmakers that this law needs to be changed—there are still those, like state Sen. Scott Beason, the bill’s sponsor, who believe Alabama is “moving in (the) right direction.”
Clearly, the voices of those being hurt by Alabama’s immigration law may need to get even louder before people like state Sen. Beason wake up and notice the large enforcement elephant sitting in Alabama’s living room.
Photo by zimmytws.
Thousands Rally for Repeal of Alabama’s Extreme Anti-Immigrant Law
02 months ago
Thousands gathered outside the historic 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama yesterday to demand the repeal of the state’s harsh anti-immigration law, HB 56. Religious, community and civil rights leaders, as well as a special Congressional delegation, urged state legislators to bring an end to Alabama’s immigration law—a law which continues to slow state businesses, separate families and drive immigrants from the state. The Congressional delegation also held an ad hoc hearing at Birmingham City Hall to hear how the controversial law is effecting state residents, especially the Latino and immigrant communities where, according to Rep. Luis Gutierrez, “the feeling of danger and despair is palpable.” One Congressional member, Rep. Al Green of Texas, commented that the law “deserves to be placed on the trash heap of history.”
During yesterday’s hearing, Birmingham Mayor William Bell told 11 Congressional members that Alabama’s law “smacks of apartheid and Jim Crow laws,” places financial burdens on cities and could force police officers to employ racial profiling. Echoing the mayor’s economic concerns, Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona forewarned that much like Arizona’s SB1070, Alabama’s immigration law “is going to hurt the economy and the social fabric of the state.”
Many are concerned that the law is already jeopardizing foreign investments in the state. Just this week, Alabama police arrested a Mercedes-Benz executive for failure to produce proper documentation. Normally he would have just been issued a ticket, but since the passage of HB 56, police are now required to pursue those suspected of being in the country unlawfully. According to a Mercedes spokeswoman, the Mercedes-Benz executive was visiting from Germany to propose new business plans in Alabama. The German car manufacturer—which has a plant near Tuscaloosa—is Alabama’s largest international trading partner, generating more than 40,000 jobs for the state and $6.8 billion in economic output.
David Bronner, chief executive of the Retirement Systems of Alabama, worries that the law will prevent potential foreign businesses from investing in the state. Currently, there are more than 400 foreign-based businesses in Alabama, hailing from 30 countries. “Sometimes we forget in Alabama that when we label a group as a problem and when we paint the brush so broadly, we’ve included most of the world,” Bronner said.
Aside from the economic impact on state businesses, HB 56 is also effecting the lives of Alabama residents, both legal and unauthorized. During yesterday’s Congressional hearing, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) gave examples of how Alabama’s extreme anti-immigrant law has impacted folks in the state. Taken from a telephone hotline set up after the law’s passage, SPLC reported that:
- A victim of domestic violence went to court to obtain a protective order. The clerk told her that she’d be reported to ICE if she proceeded.
- Latino workers on a construction jobsite were threatened by a group of men with guns, who told them to go back to Mexico and threatened to kill them if they were there the following day. They declined to report the crime to law enforcement because of fears of what would happen to them if they did.
- In Madison County and in Decatur, the public utilities have announced that they will not provide water, gas, or sewage service to people who could not prove their status.
And those are only a few examples. HB 56 has also been widely criticized for its impact on Alabama schools, which reported a large absence of Latino students since the law’s passage.
This week, the National Education Association—along with the Alabama Education Association and National School Boards Association—filed a joint amicus brief this week challenging the law, which requires administrators to ask enrolling children about their legal status and that of their parents. The brief argued that Alabama’s law “will cause undocumented parents not to send their children to school and deprive them of their right to an education.” While that specific provision of HB 56 has been temporarily enjoined, the law runs counter to a Supreme Court ruling (Plyler v. Doe) which requires states to provide an education to all students regardless of immigration status. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit will hear arguments on HB 56 in 2012.
Although Governor Robert Bentley has admitted the law “needs to be simplified,” Alabama legislators need to go a step further and consider the broader impact HB 56 is having on the state residents, businesses and communities. As critics made clear yesterday, the far-reaching impact of this anti-immigrant law is overwhelming.
Photo by OneFamilyOneAlabama.
Federal Appeals Court Enjoins Two Provisions of Alabama’s Extreme Immigration Law
03 months ago
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit temporarily blocked two controversial provisions of Alabama’s extreme immigration law, HB 56. A federal appeals court enjoined the provision requiring public school to determine the immigration status of enrolling students and the status of their parents as well as the provision that made it a criminal misdemeanor for an unauthorized immigrant to fail to carry immigration documentation. The provision that requires law enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of those stopped, detained, or arrested whom they reasonably suspect is in the country illegally—along with other provisions—remains in effect. Meanwhile, according to the New York Times, the 11th Circuit court has expedited the appeals process and is scheduled to hear arguments within the next two months.
Tell Me Again How Alabama’s Immigration Law is a “Victory for the State?”
04 months ago
Almost immediately after Judge Sharon Blackburn failed to enjoin key provisions of Alabama’s draconian immigration law (HB 56) last week, Alabamans began to feel the sting of the law’s harsh provisions. As immigrants leave the state, farmers, contractors, and homebuilders complain that labor shortages are and will continue to hurt their businesses. School administrators worry absent students will result in the loss of future funding. Immigrant rights groups fear the law will prevent victims from reporting crime to the police and pregnant women from going to the hospital. While Alabama Governor Robert Bentley hailed HB 56 as a “victory for the state,” the law’s intended and unintended consequences have proven to be anything but.
Supporters of Alabama’s restrictive law—which requires, among other things, police to demand proof of immigration status from those reasonably suspected to be here without documents—commented that the widespread fear in Alabama means the law is working. But tell that to local tomato farmer Chad Smith who said his family’s farms stands to lose as much as $150,000 this season with no one to pick tomatoes. Another farmer, Wayne Smith, added that there “might not even be a growing season next year.”
Bill Caton, president of Associated General Contractors of Alabama, said that estimates show that nearly one-fourth of the state’s commercial building work force has fled since Judge Blackburn’s ruling, leaving contractors, roofers and landscapers in the lurch. In Montgomery, landscape business owner Rick Pate said he lost two of his most experience legal workers whom he spent thousands training. In Tuscaloosa, where devastating tornadoes struck last April, many worry the lack of workers will hinder the town’s recovery efforts.
School administrators also worry that Alabama’s law will impact the state’s already cash-strapped school system, given that the law requires administrators to ask enrolling children about their legal status and that of their parents. According to Alabama’s Department of Education, 2,285 Hispanic students (of 34,000 Hispanic students state-wide) were absent from school on Monday.
According to Montgomery Public Schools Superintendent Barbara Thompson, a major dip in student enrollment could mean less state funding for schools:
The school system receives some funds from the state based on enrollment … Thompson said the system stands to lose money if absent students withdraw. Also, if absent students don’t show up in time for testing, the system could fail to meet participation requirements needed to make Adequate Yearly Progress [a federal accountability measure for schools.]
Aside from the impact on state business and schools, HB 56 is causing many people—documented and undocumented—to fear being racial profiled. Alabama’s police have already falsely arrested one legal resident whom they thought was here without authorization.
According to Montgomery educator, Lizzette Farsinejad, “[the law] is having an impact on children. Many have come to school fearful, many have cried,” she said. “A lot don’t understand why they are having to leave since they were born in the U.S.” Immigrant rights groups have also reported calls from immigrants worried about reporting crimes to police or pregnant women who fear going to the hospital.
Is this really the victory Governor Bentley was referring to?
While Alabama’s business leaders and school administrators struggle to find a way forward and the Department of Justice seeks an appeal of Judge Blackburn’s ruling, perhaps Alabama legislators should consider the real impact this law is having—not just on undocumented immigrants, but on Alabamans of every race, status, and profession.
Photo by KOMUnews.
Federal Judge Denies DOJ’s Request to Stay Alabama’s Immigration Law
04 months ago
Today, U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn denied the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) request to stay her previous ruling last week which kept major portions of Alabama’s restrictive immigration law, HB 56, intact. Following the judge’s ruling, the DOJ requested a stay of the law pending an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Among the provisions Judge Blackburn kept, one requires police to determine the immigration status of those stopped, detained, or arrested whom they reasonably suspect is in the country illegally. Another provision requires public schools to determine the immigration status of enrolling students. Pending a stay from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, HB 56 will remain in effect.
What You Should Know About Initial Rulings on Alabama’s Immigration Law
04 months ago
Yesterday’s initial rulings from Judge Sharon Blackburn over Alabama’s new anti-immigrant legislation are disturbing and disappointing on many fronts. Absent a reversal of her decision based on an emergency appeal, many provisions of the law that mirror those struck down in every other jurisdiction will go into effect. If so, everyone in Alabama will pay the price of the law’s implementation—and there can be no doubt that residents of Alabama with dark skin, a foreign sounding name, or an accent will face more questions, intrusions, and humiliations. From a legal perspective, however, declarations of a “victory” for Alabama by media outlets and anti-immigrants’ rights groups are premature. The truth is much more complicated.
Spanning three lawsuits and totaling more than 200 pages—yesterday’s rulings temporarily blocked a number of H.B. 56’s most onerous provisions, failed to reach the merits of others, and rejected a key argument on which Alabama and other states with similar laws have relied. Following, then, are a number of points that should be kept in mind when reading about the decisions.
First, contrary to media assertions, no provision of H.B. 56 was “upheld” yesterday. Rather, Judge Blackburn merely declined to enter a preliminary injunction against certain provisions of the law pending a full trial on the merits. As the judge explained, a preliminary injunction—which prevents a law from even going into effect—is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” that “must be granted reluctantly and only upon a clear showing that the injunction before trial is definitely demanded.” Thus, while the granting of a preliminary injunction is highly uncommon, the denial of a temporary injunction is routine—and in no way forecloses Judge Blackburn from reaching a contrary conclusion after a full trial.
Second, even where Alabama escaped the entry of a preliminary injunction, it did not always persuade the Judge that its legal position was correct. For example, Alabama did not “prevail” in its defense of the most controversial provision of the law—Section 28—which requires school districts to determine and report the immigration status of all newly enrolling students born abroad or to undocumented parents. Instead, Judge Blackburn refrained from deciding the constitutional challenge to the provision because she found none of civil rights’ plaintiffs possessed “standing” to raise the claim in court—e.g. that neither the suing organizations nor any of their members faced sufficiently imminent injury to obtain an injunction. As a consequence, the constitutionality of Section 28 remains very much an open question in the case—and Judge Blackburn’s standing analysis is ripe for challenge on appeal.
Moreover, while it is disappointing that Judge Blackburn declined to enter a preliminary injunction against Section 12—which requires state and local law enforcement agents to verify the immigration status of individuals they reasonably suspect of being in the country unlawfully—Alabama should have little cause for celebration. For one thing, Judge Blackburn flatly rejected the argument that state law enforcement agents have “inherent authority” to arrest noncitizens for mere civil violations of federal immigration law—the same conclusion reached by the Ninth Circuit in upholding the injunction against S.B. 1070. In addition, Judge Blackburn noted that Section 12 is likely to result in lawsuits against untrained state officers who detain people for unconstitutionally excessive periods of time pending immigration status check. Thus, far from giving Alabama a victory, Judge Blackburn signaled that the state was inviting future litigation.
Third, Judge Blackburn did in fact enter a preliminary injunction against a slew of provision in H.B. 56, including: Section 8, which would have prevented many legal immigrants from attending state colleges, including refugees and persons with Temporary Protected Status; Section 11, which would have outlawed the solicitation or performance of work by “unauthorized aliens”; Section 13, which would have made transporting or renting to an undocumented immigrant a state crime; and Sections 16 and 17, which would have forbidden employers from deducting compensation paid to undocumented workers as business expenses, and allowed other workers to sue the companies for damages in court.
Finally, and also contrary to media assertions, yesterday’s rulings do not necessarily increase the chances that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the state of Arizona’s challenge to the injunction against S.B. 1070. As we previously noted, Arizona faces an uphill climb in persuading the Justices to hear the case, in part because little to no disagreement exists among federal appeals courts on the underlying issues involved. Because yesterday’s decision was issued by a federal trial judge (and is only temporary in any event), it will likely be irrelevant to the Justices’ calculus. If anything, it may give the Justices’ reason to reject Arizona’s petition, so as to afford more lower courts an opportunity to rule on the underlying issues.
In sum, while disappointing in some respects, Judge Blackburn’s rulings are far from a full-fledged victory for proponents S.B. 1070, H.B. 56, and other copycat laws. Instead, the outcome was more akin to a split-decision—and the opponents of the law remain in a prime position to prevail during the rematch.
Photo by
Federal Judge Rules to Keeps Key Provisions of Alabama’s Restrictive Immigration Law
04 months ago
Today, U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn ruled to keep many of the key provisions in HB 56, Alabama’s restrictive immigration law recently challenged by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and civil and immigrant rights groups. While Judge Blackburn ruled to enjoin some provisions of HB 56, she found that the DOJ and civil and immigrant rights groups did not meet “the requirements for a preliminary injunction” in its claim that major provisions—such as the section requiring schools to determine the immigration status of students’ and their parents’—are preempted by federal law. Signed by Governor Robert Bentley in June, HB 56 was challenged by civil rights groups, religious leaders and the DOJ on the basis that the law interferes with the federal enforcement of immigration laws and places undue burdens on local schools and federal agencies.
In today’s ruling, Judge Blackburn ruled to allow Alabama to ENFORCE the following sections:
- Section 10, which makes it a criminal misdemeanor for an unauthorized immigrant to fail to carry immigration documentation
- Section 12(a), which requires law enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of those stopped, detained, or arrested whom they reasonably suspect is in the country illegally
- Section 18, which requires law enforcement to transport those arrested for driving without a license to the nearest magistrate where they will be detained for prosecution or handed over to federal immigration authorities
- Section 27, which bars Alabama courts from enforcing a contract involving an unauthorized immigrant
- Section 28, which requires public schools to determine the immigration status of enrolling students
- Section 30, which makes it a felony for an unauthorized immigrant to enter into a business contract with the State of Alabama
The judge ruled to ENJOIN the following sections:
- Section 11(a), which makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized immigrant to apply for, solicit or perform work
- Section 13, which makes it unlawful for a person to conceal, harbor or transport an unauthorized immigrant or encourage an unauthorized immigrant to come to Alabama
- Section 16, which forbids an employer from claiming tax deductions from wages paid to unauthorized immigrants
- Section 17, which allows discrimination lawsuits against employers who dismiss U.S. citizen or legal immigrants while employing unauthorized workers
To date, federal judges have blocked key provisions of immigration laws in four (Arizona, Utah, Georgia and Indiana) of the six states that passed them. The judges agreed that many of the restrictive provisions contained in laws violate the Constitution’s due process clauses and interfere with the federal government’s authority over immigration matters.
In a statement following today’s ruling, Gov. Bentley said that he intends to work with Alabama Attorney General, Luther Strange, to appeal the sections of the law enjoined by Judge Blackburn.
Nation’s Highest Immigration Court Says Government Can Ask Questions First, Explain Right to Silence Later
05 months ago
As any Law & Order enthusiast knows, when a criminal suspect is placed under arrest, no interrogation can begin until police recite the famous “Miranda” warnings required by the Supreme Court: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you. You have a right to have an attorney present. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.
But what happens when federal immigration officers take a noncitizen into custody?
According to a curious decision last week from the Board of Immigration Appeals, immigrants must still be informed of their (more limited) rights. However, unlike criminal suspects, who receive warnings before questioning starts, immigrants arrested without a warrant need not be advised of their rights until after their interrogation has ended—and formal deportation proceedings have already been initiated.
If you’re scratching your head right now, you’re not alone. Reading immigrants their rights after their questioning has ended not only renders the warnings practically meaningless, but encourages immigration agents to exploit foreign nationals’ unfamiliarity with our legal system.
To be sure, noncitizens facing deportation have never been afforded the same rights as criminal suspects facing imprisonment. They have no right to a jury trial. Some are denied a bail hearing. They are often tried in states far from the site of arrest. And the government does not cover the cost of counsel for immigrants who cannot afford one.
Until last week, however, persons subject to warrantless arrests by federal immigration agents were still entitled to learn—prior to questioning—of their right to hire a lawyer at their own expense, and that any statement made could be used against them in a subsequent proceeding. Though less comprehensive than “Miranda” warnings, the notifications served the same basic purpose: to prevent government agents from extracting unwitting or involuntary statements.
Going forward, the consequences of last week’s decision will be drastic for both immigrants and the government alike. Immigrants in custody will be less likely to actually assert their right to silence or to ask to have an attorney present during questioning. Meanwhile, immigration attorneys will have more reason to argue that their clients’ statements were obtained involuntarily, and immigration judges will in turn face greater difficulty determining whether such statements can be admitted in court.
As the nation’s highest administrative immigration tribunal, the Board of Immigration Appeals sets the rules by which all immigration judges must abide. Though its members are appointed directly by the Attorney General—and are considered employees of the Justice Department—the Board independently reaches its decisions without influence from higher officeholders.
While the Obama Administration is in no way responsible for last week’s ruling, it has the power to fix it. Under federal regulations, the Attorney General can choose to review any decision the Board issues. While previous administrations have used this power to give immigrants even fewer rights than criminal suspects, last week’s decision provides a perfect opportunity for the Justice Department to make the playing field more equal, even if still not perfectly level.
Photo by Keith Allison.
ACLU, Civil Rights Groups File Suit Against Alabama’s Immigration Law
07 months ago
More than just stars fell on Alabama last week when civil rights groups filed a class action lawsuit against the state’s restrictive immigration law, HB 56, charging that the law unconstitutionally interferes with federal law and will lead to racial profiling. Filed on Friday, the lawsuit makes Alabama the fifth state (joining Arizona, Utah, Indiana and Georgia) to defend itself against a costly legal challenge to Arizona-style immigration laws. Federal courts have blocked key provisions of restrictive immigration enforcement laws in every state that passed them, save South Carolina, which only recently passed a copycat law.
Signed by Governor Robert Bentley last month, Alabama’s immigration law requires local law enforcement to verify the immigration status of those stopped for traffic violations, public schools to determine the immigration status of students, employers to use E-Verify and makes it a crime to knowingly rent to, transport or harbor undocumented immigrants. The law is slated to take effect September 1, 2011.
In their lawsuit, however, the ACLU, National Immigration Law Center, Southern Poverty Law Center, Asian Law Caucus and Asian American Justice Center, charge that HB 56 interferes with federal law (in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution), subjects all Alabamians to unlawful search and seizure (in violation of the Fourth Amendment) and unconstitutionally restricts immigrants and their families from enrolling in educational institutions. According to National Immigration Law Center’s general counsel, Linton Joaquin:
“… Alabama’s law will affect the daily lives of countless residents, native-born and foreign alike. Alabama cannot constitutionally turn teachers, landlords, and community members into de facto immigration enforcement agents. We look forward to adding HB 56 to the roster of discriminatory laws that have been blocked by federal courts.”
To date, federal judges have blocked key provisions of state level immigration enforcement laws in Arizona, Utah, Georgia and Indiana, finding that they unlawfully interfere with federal government’s authority over immigration matters as well as violate the Constitution’s due process, search and seizure provisions and other protections. So it stands to reason that a federal judge will likely block key provisions of Alabama’s law, which some refer to as “SB 1070 on steroids.” Although South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley only recently signed their immigration bill S 20 into law, the ACLU and other civil rights groups have already threatened to sue.
And these laws aren’t cheap. Arizona has already doled out $1.9 million defending their law, not to mention the millions lost in tourism revenue and conference cancellations. As previously reported, Alabama stands to lose $2.6 billion in economic activity, $1.1 billion in gross state product, and approximately 17,819 jobs if all undocumented immigrants were driven from the state.
How much more evidence do state lawmakers need before they accept these laws are bad for business, state economies and most importantly, for the well-being and safety of communities in their state?
Federal Courts Block Key Provisions of Restrictive Immigration Laws in Georgia and Indiana
07 months ago
Today, a federal judge in Georgia granted a preliminary injunction against key provisions of the state’s immigration law, HB 87, which was slated to take effect Friday. Today’s decision follows another federal court decision handed down last week in Indiana which also blocked key provisions of the state’s new immigration law, SB 590. And these restrictive immigration laws aren’t the only ones caught up in legal battles. Several restrictive immigration laws are being challenged in court with more likely to follow. This week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) requested a meeting with Alabama law enforcement officials to determine whether or not to file suit against their immigration law while civil rights groups threatened to sue South Carolina if Gov. Nikki Haley signs their restrictive bill, S 20, into law.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. granted a preliminary injunction today temporarily enjoining two key provisions of the state’s restrictive immigration law, HB 87. In his decision, Judge Thrash argued that Georgia’s law “unlawfully interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters.”
One provision of Georgia’s law would have made it a crime to “knowingly and willingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants while committing another crime.” The other provision would have authorized “Georgia law enforcement officers to investigate the immigration status of criminal suspects where the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect committed another criminal offense.” The section of Georgia’s law that requires businesses to check the immigration status of new hires, however, remains intact and is expected to be implemented July 1, 2011.
Georgia’s farming industry, meanwhile, is taking a hit as a result of HB 87 with reports of thousands of undocumented farm laborers fleeing the state. One survey estimates that there are already 11,080 vacant farm positions in Georgia that need to be filled. Georgia’s Agribusiness Council said farms have lost $300 million to date and could lose up to $1 billion if they can’t find reliable farm workers.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker blocked two provisions of Indiana’s immigration law, SB 590. Describing the law as “seriously flawed,” Judge Evans found that the law violated the Constitution’s due process, search and seizure provisions and other protections. One provision would have allowed law enforcement to make warrantless arrests of those who have questionable immigration status—including those for whom DHS has issued a detainer or notice of action, which doesn’t necessarily mean they are unlawfully present. The other provision barred the use of consular identification cards as a valid form of ID. The ACLU and National Immigration Law Center (NILC) sued Indiana in May.
In Alabama this week, the DOJ is scheduled to meet with state law enforcement officials to determine whether not Alabama’s immigration law, HB 56, interferes with the federal government’s enforcement of immigration law. Alabama’s law requires local law enforcement to verify the immigration status of those stopped for traffic violations, public schools to determine the immigration status of students, employers to use E-Verify and makes it a crime to knowingly rent to, transport or harbor undocumented immigrants.
Despite the large costs and uphill legal battles in nearly every state that has passed Arizona-inspired immigration laws, some states, like South Carolina, continue attempts to put restrictive immigration laws on the books. Just this week, the ACLU and NILC announced plans to sue South Carolina if Governor Nikki Haley signs S 20, an immigration law which passed last week.
Sadly, the costs of these lawsuits is only one aspect of the numerous costs borne by states where SB 1070-style laws have passed. One can only hope that lawmakers’ appetites for restrictive immigration lawmaking will decrease as fallout continues.
Photo by zimmytws.