[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Mexican Invasion Title: Plaintiffs argue Supreme Court's Arizona decision blunts Alabama immigration law Plaintiffs argue Supreme Court's Arizona decision blunts Alabama immigration law (updated) Updated: Friday, July 06, 2012, 6:07 PM By Brian Lawson, The Huntsville Times Approximately 200 people took part in an immigration march in Huntsville in November which was attended by several different organizations. They started near the VBC and ended at Big Spirng International Park where speakers criticized the Immigration Bill HB 56. (The Huntsville Times/Dave Dieter) Lawyers for a group of 36 plaintiffs suing to block Alabama's immigration law told a federal appeals court this afternoon that a recent Supreme Court decision preempts much of the Alabama law. But lawyers for the State of Alabama said the plaintiffs, led by the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama (HICA), failed to understand what the Supreme Court ruled in Arizona, especially in sections dealing with requirements to carry ID and police stops. "The HICA Plaintiffs' overarching theory is that HB56 as a whole, and particularly Sections 10 and 12, amounts to an unconstitutional regulation of immigration," the state argued. "That theory is incompatible with the way the Supreme Court analyzed the Arizona statute. The Supreme Court did not hold that Arizona's version of Section 10 (carrying proof of status) was preempted because it regulated immigration; it instead held that the provision was preempted because Congress has occupied the particular field of alien registration." The state also argued, "the Supreme Court rejected the argument that Arizona's version of Section 12 (police checks) was facially preempted. Under HICA's sweeping theory, both of those provisions would have been facially invalid on the theory that they were regulations of immigration." The Justice Department also filed its motion this afternoon arguing that the Supreme Court's decision on Arizona's immigration law found that states have a very limited role to play on immigration law. "The Court ruled that immigration policy is an aspect of foreign relations that must be the responsibility of "one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States," the Justice Department filing argued. In a filing this afternoon with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, lawyers for the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama and other civil rights groups and individuals contend that the high court spoke clearly against Alabama's law. "The Arizona decision stands for the basic proposition that when a state enacts its own immigration policy -- either by creating immigration crimes or by enforcing federal immigration laws in a manner not contemplated by Congress -- it is preempted by federal law," the filing argues. In the Arizona case, the Supreme Court did not block a measure requiring local police to check immigration status - based on reasonable suspicion - of people during traffic stops and other police contact. Alabama's law has a similar measure which has not been blocked by the courts. Alabama's immigration law includes: gathering information on students enrolling in a public school; barring entry for illegal immigrants to public colleges; barring illegal immigrants from entering contracts; criminalizing harboring and transporting an illegal immigrant; stopping an illegal immigrant from obtaining a driver's license, car tag or business license; requiring each Alabama business to verify their employees are legally eligible to work here; and authorizing residents to bring lawsuits against public officials if they believe the officials are not fully enforcing the new state law. The plaintiffs argue that bans on seeking work and its requirement to carry proof of lawful immigration status were struck down in the Arizona case and Alabama law includes the same provisions. Alabama's attorneys acknowledge that the court struck down sections dealing with criminalizing the failure to carry immigration papers and for illegal immigrants to seek work, but pointed out the court let stand the police status checks. It also said any problems with detention related to prolonged detention for failure to carry a driver's license has been addressed by changes to the law this year. The plaintiffs further argue that Alabama's requirement that students enrolling in public schools must provide immigration status information cannot stand in the wake of the Arizona ruling because it creates an "impermissible alien registration scheme in conflict with federal law." But in its filing concerning the federal government's opposition to the schools measure, Alabama contends the Supreme Court did not address any issues related to education in the Arizona decision. And, it cited earlier court rulings that allow the states to set education policies that further their interests. The HICA filing says that Alabama's law requiring police perform immigration status checks during traffic stops and other routine contact should be blocked because it will allow prolonged detention, which the Supreme Court cautioned against. It makes the same argument for the law's provisions dealing with status checks after arrests for driving without a license and the provision denying bond to a person who is determined to be in the U.S. illegally. The section that deals with harboring, transporting and encouraging illegal immigrants, should be enjoined, the plaintiffs argue, because the law does things not intended by Congress including establishing crimes and penalties not included in federal law, giving power to state prosecutors for immigration violations and intruding in space already occupied by the federal government. Alabama said the Arizona decision did not shed light on the harboring-transport measure and that changes in the Alabama law this year make it more consistent with federal law. The section that bars illegal immigrants from entering contracts should be blocked, the plaintiffs argue, because the federal government has removal powers and because that is not an instant process, Congress anticipated illegal immigrants would have to live in the U.S. for at least some period to time before possible removal. "(The contracts provision) intentionally interferes with that federal law and policy by fundamentally undercutting the ability of certain immigrants to live in Alabama," the filing argues. "More broadly, Arizona reaffirms that federal immigration enforcement is a complex undertaking, and the fact that a person is undocumented today does not mean that she will remain so, nor that she will be removed in the future." Alabama argues that the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the seeking work provision in Arizona was not based on the idea the state has no power to "impose burden" on residents. The court instead focused on the fact that Congress had made laws in that area, Alabama argues. Because the court did not offer the simple "burden" argument to reject Arizona's measure, the government's theory is not the law, Alabama argues. Finally, the HICA filing argues that the law Alabama making it a crime for illegal immigrants to enter government transactions, including seeking driver's license or car tag, should be blocked because Congress never made it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek those documents. Alabama argues that under the Real ID Act, Congress has authorized states to deny licenses -- driver's, commercial and business -- to unlawfully present aliens and that there is no evidence that Congress wants it to issue car tags to illegal immigrants. The federal government said several of the measures in Alabama's 2011 immigration law conflict with federal efforts and cited the Supreme Court's opinion in making the point. "These provisions of H.B. 56 circumvent the orderly procedures established by Congress in the (Immigration and Nationality Act) for deciding whether an alien is subject to removal and whether he will be removed," the government argues, " ... and constitute an impermissible attempt by 'the State to achieve its own immigration policy.'"
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: CZ82 (#0)
(Edited)
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|