US court temporarily blocks Alabama from checking immigration status of students

US appeals court temporarily blocks Alabama from checking immigration status of students

Associated Press
October 15, 2011

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - Armando Cardenas says he has thought about leaving Alabama because of the possibility of being arrested as an illegal immigrant and the hostility he feels from residents.

But now that a federal appeals court has sided with the Obama administration and dealt a blow to the state's toughest-in-the-nation immigration law, Cardenas said he will stay for at least a while longer.

"It's not easy to leave everything you have worked so hard for," Cardenas said after the appeals court blocked public schools from checking the immigration status of students.

The decision from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also said police can't charge immigrants who are unable to prove their citizenship, but it let some parts of the law stand, giving supporters a partial victory. The decision was only temporary and a final ruling isn't expected for months, after judges can review more arguments.

Unlike in other states where immigration crackdowns have been challenged in the courts, Alabama's law was left largely in effect for about three weeks, long enough to frighten Hispanics and drive them away from the state. Construction businesses said Hispanic workers had quit showing up for jobs and schools reported that Latino students stopped coming to classes.

While the long-range implications of the decision remain to be seen, immigrants celebrated the judges' ruling. Word spread quickly through the state's Hispanic community as Spanish-language radio stations aired the news.

"When I listened to that, I started crying. I called my friends and said, `Listen to the radio.' We're all happy," said Abigail, an illegal immigrant who didn't want her last name used because she feared arrest.

The judges let stand part of the law that allows police to check a person's immigration status during a traffic stop. Courts also can't enforce contracts involving illegal immigrants, such as leases, and it's still a felony for an illegal immigrant to do business with the state for basic things like getting a driver's license, the judges ruled. Their 16-page decision contained very little discussion about their ruling.

The Atlanta-based appeals court blocked part of the law that required school officials to verify the citizenship status of students enrolled after Sept. 1. It also barred enforcement of a section that lets police file a misdemeanor charge against anyone who is in the country illegally and doesn't have federal registration papers.

The Obama administration and a group of immigrant advocates such as the ACLU sued the state of Alabama after the law was passed in June. A federal judge upheld much of it late last month, and the Obama administration and the groups appealed.

Alabama Republicans said the law was needed to protect the jobs of legal residents. House Speaker Mike Hubbard, who championed the measure, praised the panel for allowing the "most effectual parts" of the law to remain in place.

"We've said from the beginning that Alabama will have a strict immigration law and we will enforce it. Alabama will not be a sanctuary state for illegal aliens, and this ruling reinforces that," he said.

Republicans in the state have long sought to clamp down on illegal immigration and passed the law earlier this year after gaining control of the Legislature for the first time since Reconstruction. Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley signed the measure, saying it was crucial to protect the jobs of legal residents amid the tough economy and high unemployment.

"Unfortunately, by failing to do its job, the federal government has left the problem of dealing with illegal immigration to the states," Bentley said in a statement. "Alabama needed a tough law against illegal immigration. We now have one. I will continue to fight to see this law upheld."

Advocacy groups who challenged the law said they were hopeful the judges will eventually block the rest of it.

"I think that certainly it's a better situation today for the people of Alabama today than it was yesterday," said Omar Jadwat, an attorney for the ACLU. "Obviously we remain concerned about the remainder of the provisions, and we remain confident that we will eventually get the whole scheme blocked."

It's not clear exactly how many Hispanics have fled the state, but earlier this week many skipped work to protest the law, shuttering or scaling back operations at chicken plants and other businesses.

Alabama's law is in the spotlight because it's the only state where some of the strictest provisions were allowed to play out.

Arizona led the nation in April 2010 when it passed a tough crackdown, but a judge blocked parts of it before it could take effect. Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the justices have yet to decide whether to take up the case.

A similar measure adopted in Utah earlier this year was put on hold by a federal judge in May after civil rights groups challenged it. Ditto for parts of new immigration laws passed by Georgia and Indiana.

South Carolina became a flashpoint this week when civil rights groups sued the state to block a law that takes effect in January, requiring police to check suspects' immigration status and mandating that all businesses check their hires through a federal online system.

The Justice Department called the Alabama law a "sweeping new state regime" and urged the appeals court to forbid states from creating a patchwork of immigration policies. Thomas Perez, head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, said he was particularly concerned about the school requirement.

"We're hearing a number of reports about increases in bullying that we're studying," said Perez, who said the government is trying to determine how many absences and withdrawals are linked to the law.

Some critics say the damage has already been done.

Nelly Tadeo, a legal U.S. resident from Mexico, said she notices icy stares in Walmart and feels like whites and blacks are wondering if she is legal and pays taxes.

"Even if the law gets canceled, Alabama is not going to be the same. Now, people are just looking at you like, `You're an illegal immigrant,'" said Tadeo. "I think that's permanent. A lot of people never thought about who was illegal, who was legal before. Now that's what they're thinking about."

Can someone explain why the federal gov't fight state gov't in trying to reduce taxpayer spending on persons who are in the USA without permission? It's apparent that the Feds are doing nothing, but want to stop states from enforcing an illegal activity. Lawsuits and injunctions are filed when states want to enforce the law, but nothing is done about those so-called sanctuary cities who openly defy the law.

On the flip side, federal courts in general are saying states have no right to enact immigration laws. They say immigration laws should fall under federal jurisdiction. States are understandably upset that the federal gov't is doing nothing to enforce immigration laws already on the books. It would be similar to the state of Minnesota declaring war on some foreign country and trying to send members of the Minnesota National Guard into battle. Fighting foreign wars is the federal govt's job, not a job for the states, regardless of how poor the federal government is doing in that regard. That said, if the Republicans want tougher immigration laws enforced, then Republicans need to figure out how to win federal elections with candidates interested in sticking their necks out on the issue... and sticking it way out. Damn the PC bullshit and just fucking do it.

I disagree with your national guard analogy. States taking over enforcement of federal laws dealing with illegal immigrants is not even remotely similar to sending their national guard to fight a foreign war independent of federal armed forces.

For one, these illegal aliens impose real costs to state treasuries and have negative impacts on the availability of jobs for legal residents and citizens.

States, fed up with the explosion of illegal immigration and the resultant costs and often crime, should have a right to impose laws restoring civil order. Such laws do not pose a threat to the federal government, where as a state sending their national guard to fight a foreign nation would represent a huge threat to the nation as a whole.

While I certainly agree with you respecting our federal representatives growing a collective pair and doing something about illegal immigration, but until they do I see no reason why the states should be forced to suffer the economic and criminal havoc that accompanies illegal immigration.

It was an analogy. That's because it wouldn't happen. But you know me on illegal immigration. It needs to stop and if the fed can't do it, then the states must do it.

TexasBlue wrote:It was an analogy. That's because it wouldn't happen. But you know me on illegal immigration. It needs to stop and if the fed can't do it, then the states must do it.

All I'm sayin my friend... all I'm sayin.

The subject is enforcing existing laws on immigration, which the federal government refuses to do. This leaves the states with no choice but to do it themselves. But then, the federal government attacks those laws.

The only honest reasoning one can reach is that the US government WANTS illegals to come across the border illegally.

After that point, the subject becomes something else entirely.

Arx Ferrum wrote:The subject is enforcing existing laws on immigration, which the federal government refuses to do. This leaves the states with no choice but to do it themselves. But then, the federal government attacks those laws.

The only honest reasoning one can reach is that the US government WANTS illegals to come across the border illegally.

After that point, the subject becomes something else entirely.

Now that is a thinking mans response!

And truer words were never spoken. There have been numerous observations by political pundits on the right as to why that might be the case. And we have ample evidence that Democrats on the overwhelmingly support inaction when it comes to enforcing immigration laws.

However, given that no one has come forward with a true motive for this aversion to enforcing our immigration laws, we can only speculate on what those motives might be.

I know what I believe the motives to be. But I'd be more interested in hearing what others here think.

You also have to throw in how the GOP was pushing for amnesty back in 2007. The people were so infuriate that they stopped it. At least they listened. Can't say that about this bunch in the WH now.

TexasBlue wrote:You also have to throw in how the GOP was pushing for amnesty back in 2007. The people were so infuriate that they stopped it. At least they listened. Can't say that about this bunch in the WH now.

Truth be told, it was not rank-and-file Republicans who were pushing for amnesty, it was the RINO's who were pushing for it, along with ALL Democrats (save for the few blue dogs up for re-election).

Let's face it, it is liberals who are in favor of illegal immigration. The record is clear to anyone who would objectively examine it.

Regardless of the current issue of illegal immigration, the current trend seems nearly unavoidable; there will be some sort of North American Union type alliance that perhaps mimics the EU in some respects. This is not to hop the old conspiracy bandwagon but, again, current trends look destined for that junction... probably within the next decade.

Once this becomes a reality, our borders will come down and there will be less immigration altogether and more duality in residency. There won't be any need to actually migrate to find work because you can keep your citizenship as-is and just go get a job where ever one should exist. This will balance out the population issues but initially be horribly problematic when it comes to things like infrastructure and housing, etc.

I'm not personally in favor of such an ending. Not in the least but it's hard not to see a steamroller bearing down on you, lol.

Yeah, I'm definitely not in favor of open borders a-la EU style. The thing that sets us apart from Mexico is culture. The Europeans share almost identical cultures and are separated by language for the most part. Canadians and Americans are a good example of shared cultures.

This country would not stand for a migration to a "North American Union" at all.