Alabama Immigration Law Challenged By Civil Rights Groups

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) -- Civil rights groups sued Friday in federal court to block Alabama's new law cracking down on undocumented immigration, which supporters and opponents have called the strictest measure of its kind in the nation.

The lawsuit, filed in Huntsville, said the law is of "unprecedented reach" and goes beyond similar laws passed in Arizona, Utah, Indiana and Georgia. Federal judges already have blocked all or parts of the laws in those states. It asks a judge to declare Alabama's law unconstitutional and prevent it from being enforced.

Alabama's law, which takes effect Sept. 1, allows police to arrest anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant if the person is stopped for some other reason. It also requires businesses to check the legal status of new workers and requires schools to report the immigration status of students.

The lawsuit said the new law will subject Alabama residents, including U.S. citizens and non-citizens who are in the country legally, to racial profiling. The law also recalls memories of Alabama's troubled segregationist past by making life more difficult for a targeted class of people, according to the lawsuit.

"Individuals who may be perceived as `foreign' by state or local law enforcement agents will be in constant jeopardy of harassment and unlawfully prolonged detention by state law enforcement officers," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit was filed by various organizations across northern Alabama that represent immigrant groups as well as individual immigrants who are listed under the pseudonyms John Doe and Jane Doe. The lawsuit names as defendants various state and local officials, including Republican Gov. Robert Bentley, Attorney General Luther Strange and state schools Superintendent Joe Morton.

Supporters of the new law, including Bentley, have predicted it would withstand any legal challenges.

The law was written so that if any provisions are found to be unconstitutional, other parts of the law can remain in effect.

Comments

[Dave Francis]

09:33 PM on 07/11/2011

American cannot afford anymore to support the poverty of other countries. The final straw was learning from the (FAIR) Federation of American Immigration reform that a volume amnesty would cost to process everybody with all the FBI background checks, health checks and the occupied paperwork over $2.5 trillion dollars. This is incorrigible when 13 million Americans are seeking work and this country, is still in a recession and unlikely to climb out of this $14.4 Trillion dollars financial chaos for years. Every American needs to rethink his vote for 2012. Not for Democrats, not for Liberals and not for Republicans, but for this Nation's People under the banner of the TEA PARTY.

This is the time to empty the overcrowded classrooms, full with the children of illegal aliens. Give hospitals breathing space saving billions of dollars from uninsured illegal immigrants, who knowingly enter by foot, vehicle, aircraft or boat into the United States. Entering illegally in a violation of our national sovereignty and should be a felony, for illegal aliens and those who knowingly break the rules, including businesses. Start the Attrition by enforcement programs such as E-Verify, Secure Communities and support Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Utah and States nationwide who have no choice but to restrict illegal immigrants through police laws as their welfare programs are being sucked dry.

Fearful illegal nationals are bypassing Arizona and loading their possessions, heading for Sanctuary States as California, Nevada, Illinois, Washington state and many counties within particular States.

[Sean777]

11:02 PM on 07/11/2011

FAIR = TANTON NETWORK
costs of enforcement over a 100 million just Arizona
no transferable skills of unemployed citizens to take over labor jobs
TEA PARTY on immigration just google David Duke

[shooter486]

12:36 PM on 07/14/2011

The poor attempt to drag in Duke into this debate has shown you are too out of touch with 90% of Americans.

Maybe you should be working on taking in about 5-10 illegals into your trailer and see if you can pay for their upkeep?

[gunrunner99]

08:45 AM on 07/12/2011

Thank you for a well written post.
I was just reading on AOL news of a border patrol agent who was killed by an illegal,shot,the agents family is considering suing the feds,more money down the drain,I hope they sue the pants off of them,they need to go after these bleeding hearts groups that are taking up for the illegals also.You are correct,we are broke,people need to clearly rethink their political party in 2012,lets vote someone,anyone in, that will uphold the laws of the U.S.A.

[Sean777]

01:24 PM on 07/12/2011

"a border patrol agent who was killed by an illegal"
a criminal killed the agent not an immigrant
BTW the nationality of the shooter is unknown

[Texas rebel]

05:53 PM on 07/11/2011

I think this Alabama law would be a good model to take nationally.

[Sean777]

06:17 PM on 07/11/2011

Try to pass a similar law in Texas first, if you can...

[Texas rebel]

06:30 PM on 07/11/2011

Lord, I wish we would. One reason I would not support Perry is his being weak on illegal immigration.

[shooter486]

08:16 PM on 07/11/2011

Why? Is the illegal immigration obstructionists coalition planning on handing out US flags there?

[shooter486]

08:15 PM on 07/11/2011

I think Mexico's immigration laws is a policy we should take nationally.

[jpt123]

03:09 PM on 07/11/2011

I hope that all or most of it is overturned. Many illegal immigrants do pay taxes, while not utilizing all the services they are eligible for, out of fear of deportation. More money for the government.

[Recce1]

07:42 PM on 07/11/2011

Overlooking or supporting illegal immigration because it might bring in money for the government isn't a good excuse for allowing it. That's like say let's ignore all laws if the government can make money off the lawbreakers. It's the rationale for allowing illegal drugs, prostitution, slavery (yes, it exists in America), stock manipulation, insider trading, and illegal gambling among other things.

Beside, the net affect from illegal immigration is quite negative. As for services, there should not be any that illegals should be eligible for other than emergency medical services, period.

[shooter486]

08:18 PM on 07/11/2011

Imagine the amount of money we can add to the tax revenue of we taxed the funds generated by robbing banks and liquor stores.

[shooter486]

08:17 PM on 07/11/2011

"Many illegal immigrants do pay taxes"

Many? 10%?

"while not utilizing all the services they are eligible for,"

Eligible for? Such as?

[dbrett480]

08:01 PM on 07/10/2011

The majority of this law is pretty bad and will most likely be overturned. But that doesn't mean certain sections can be kept, like the requirement of businesses to use e-verify.

[Sean777]

04:28 PM on 07/10/2011

At the end these laws only will be affecting undeveloped states like Alabama, Georgia and Arizona meanwhile immigration reform is accomplished. These racial profiling laws will never pass in metropolitan states like Illinois, California or New York. Can you image these “show me your papers” laws applied in big cities like Chicago or Los Angeles?

[Recce1]

07:24 PM on 07/10/2011

Sean777, as I understand it LEGAL immigrants and foreign visitors must either have their green cards or their passports/visas in their possession and federal agents can demand they be produced at any time or the person can be detained until their legality for being in the country is established. However, it isn't a crime not to have them on their person but as I said the person can be held until their identity and legality is established.

Of more concern is the Real ID act which would require citizens to carry federally approved IDs at all times thus setting up a National ID card controlled by Homeland Security. Under it I could see toll booths between states set up where one could here the phrase, papers please. Of course this would be a violation of the Constitution. However, requiring foreigners to produce IDs isn't.

To prevent unnecessary detensions the proposed state laws state that a person can only asked for IDs if they are stopped for a possible violation of another crime, a fact that open border opponents often fail to mention. As for racial profiling, the laws specifically prohibit that as a reason to stop someone. But illegal immigration and open border advocates need to find a handle for their attempts to establish a socialist state.

[Sean777]

02:43 AM on 07/11/2011

In Arizona the new anti immigration laws allowed unlawful detentions and false arrests

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2011/07/08/arpaio-to-pay-200k-in-racial-profiling-case/

still Arizona is the main border state where weapons and drugs are smuggled both ways and so far Arpaio haven’t catch no even one drug dealer or arm trafficker but his deputies are constantly caught doing those real crimes.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015138408_apushumansmugglingarrests.html

[shooter486]

12:40 PM on 07/11/2011

"Can you image these “show me your papers” laws applied in big cities like Chicago or Los Angeles?"

We all know the police cannot ask you for your driver licesse in CA, right? Oh wait, they DO.

[Sean777]

04:56 PM on 07/11/2011

CA law enforcement perform lawful detentions it is not like in Arizona where there are several cases of false arrests based on racial profiling
http://azc­apitoltime­s.com/news­/2011/07/0­8/arpaio-t­o-pay-200k­-in-racial­-profiling­-case/

[voyager48]

03:42 PM on 07/10/2011

"Alabama's law, which takes effect Sept. 1, allows police to arrest anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant if the person is stopped for some other reason. It also requires businesses to check the legal status of new workers and requires schools to report the immigration status of students."

As confirmed by the DOJ and upheld in case law, state and city police are already empowered to effect warrentless arrests for suspected civil and criminal infractionsof federal Immigration laws. http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACF27DA.pdf so this is already perfectly within Alabama or for that matter any other states rights to do.

Since 1986 it has been a mandatory rquirement for employers to check paperwork for legal work status and for both parties to sign off on an I-9 under the penalty of purjury, which is a felony. So this law is not news either.

The Plyler v Doe case that evryone cites was not actually resolved fully since the courts deemed it uncessary to subject it to the full legal test - so is open to discussion and frankly circumstances have changed significantly since Plyler v Doe so this is not a slam dunk either!.

[CabinAgue]

10:51 AM on 07/10/2011

Thank you, SPLC!  Proud to support you and your help for people who need your legal strength.

[Picosa]

01:17 PM on 07/10/2011

X2!

[gunrunner99]

05:05 PM on 07/10/2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_ScYY__oyk&feature=player_detailpagehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AXQ02BB10M&feature=related

[Bonnie Larkin]

06:18 AM on 07/10/2011

Go Alabama ! - you have the right / the duty to protect and defend the resources of your state, to better serve your own citizens.
funny -- illegals really only suck the systems of every state they dwell in - just completely dry - then demand more

[Cacey]

08:09 AM on 07/10/2011

Alabama has the responsibility and right to better serve its citizens which frankly it has not done a very good job of given the education system there and elsewhere in the South. However, as a Californian who only gets badk $1 for every $1.80 I send to Washington, the remainder going to support states like Alabama, I object to my money going to defend laws that are both discriminatory and don't benefit the citizens of Alabama. Perhaps it is time for massive protests in the Blue States to halt this use of our tax money and stop letting the red states from sucking the system completely dry then demanding more to pay for their foolish legal defences.

[Picosa]

12:41 PM on 07/10/2011

These big,ots are costing taxpayers millions and those who need transplants die.

For years, suspicions persisted of questionable financial activities and corruption within the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

Recently, some of those suspicions were verified: A county budget probe found Sheriff Joe Arpaio misspent $99.5 million from a restricted fund over eight years, and a separate internal investigation concluded that some of Arpaio's top commanders ran a rogue operation that targeted enemies and flouted the rules.

Meanwhile, the county is averaging $100,000 a month in legal bills to prepare its defense against lawsuits and notices of claim totaling $177 million.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/05/15/20110515maricopa-sheriff-finances-taxpayer-impact.html#ixzz1RfBFdnFt

Don't forget, Arpaio has also cost taxpayers more than $40 million in lawsuits!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/11/975199/-Critics-Call-for-Arpaio-To-Step-Down

[shooter486]

01:11 PM on 07/11/2011

The reason CA pays so much is that they do not get reimbursed for housing all of the illegals criminals they catch.

I guess if immigration were reduced, wouldn't have to pay so much for their care and feeding and can start fixing all the problem that plague CA and all the other sourthern states and those along the border.

[lqw]

10:37 AM on 07/10/2011

GOOD FOR YOU ALABAMA!!!

[brutus1065]

10:46 PM on 07/09/2011

I am sorry, but I do not think that there is anything wrong with enforcing the law.

I am African American, and I am 100 percent sure that this law will lead to hard-to-prove incidents of racial profiling. However, race should not be used to get around the law. Hispanics are using race as means to get around a problem that they have heaped upon the states where they reside. My suggestion though is that police officers and state trooper require the same proof of citizenship from ALL drivers- white, black, hispanic and asian and passangers who are stopped.

I would prefer though if the law goes after employers who hire illegal immigrants than spend state resources jailing and deporting illegal aliens. The solution is simple: Go after employers who hire undocumented workers and fine business owner, jail them and even padlock their doors until the cost of hiring illegal workers- spanish, asian and east european orkers exceeds the benefit.

[Ben F]

05:56 AM on 07/10/2011

Hooray for the police state! We don't need no stinking freedoms! Personally, I think it should be a felony to leave the house without photo I.D. Heck, we need to institute a law or two that makes it a legal requirement to have a police officer accompany anyone who leaves the house, and have daily police inspections of our homes and workplace. We can even start a new division of the government, we'll call it the Gestapo. Everyone can wear fancy brown shirts with armbands on them!

[Cacey]

08:12 AM on 07/10/2011

I don't have a problem with that and I do carry photo ID with me everytime I leave the house as required in California. This is not a loss of freedom but simple common sence. Being older, living alone and being very active, often hiking and sailing alone, I've given serious consideration to a subdermal computer chip.

[voyager48]

03:50 PM on 07/10/2011

Stop the histrionics!

Even in Arizona under Tit. 13, §2412 ALL anyone need do if asked is to give ther true name if lawfully detained!

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

[lqw]

10:44 AM on 07/10/2011

This law goes after employers. It demands that they use E-verify. If they are caught hiring illegals they will loose their business license.

[nicko68]

09:26 PM on 07/09/2011

Illegals shouldn't have rights, nor access to our judicial system, unless their being prosecuted.

[shryock]

10:20 PM on 07/09/2011

which is all great till someone finds a way to declare you illegal, i suppose.
then would you expect the rest of us to defend your rights?
and why would we?

[Recce1]

10:39 PM on 07/09/2011

In criminal prosecutions illegal immigrants have the same rights before the law as citizens do. The Constitution provides for that as do several treaties we're a party to. But why should they have rights to medical care other than emergency care, housing, food, education, and welfare? Those are rights that should only be afforded citizens.

What nicko68 is referring to about rights is that illegal immigrants and other countries such as Mexico should have no legal standing to contest our immigration laws. That doesn't preclude access to the legal system in the case of actual mistreatment.

As for someone trying to find a way to declare a citizen an illegal, well it can happen thanks to the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts. All the president has to do is declare them an enemy of the state and all of their rights under the Constitution are suspended. But would you defend the rights of an "enemy of the state?" Should we expect you to?

So what we need desperately is to restore this once great country to a democratic Republic with a Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, that is taken seriously and enforced rigorously. That would require the federal government or allow the states to defend our borders, the first duty of the federal government.

[gunrunner99]

05:22 PM on 07/10/2011

I think that if nicko68,was born here,it would be hard for someone to make him illegal?
If he went to another country,didnt bother getting legal papers,took advantage of their system and people,then he may have to worry,oh,sorry,other countries actually enforce their borders so,that wouldnt happen.

[Sean777]

08:15 PM on 07/09/2011

KKK divisions have grown substantially since the 2008 election of U.S. President Barack Obama, the first African-American to hold the office. Ex-Grand Wizard David Duke has claimed that thousands of Tea Party movement activists have urged him to run for president in 2012 and he is seriously considering entering the Republican Party primaries. Duke has also released a video detailing his platform. In the video, he pledges that as president he would stop all immigration to the US, including legal immigration, and says that he "will not let Israel or any nation dictate our foreign policy." He has also claimed that he would be "willing to risk life and limb, endure the barbs of the media” to mount “the most honest campaign for president since the time of our Founding Fathers.” However, Duke is legally disqualified from running for public office as part of his 2002 guilty plea for tax evasion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypLjMZUBCZs

[brutus1065]

10:07 PM on 07/09/2011

Sean777 that was a great post and the ending was just what I needed so that tonight, I will sleep like a baby

[Cacey]

08:14 AM on 07/10/2011

Ah, but I was so much lookng foward to a debate between Cain and Duke.

[Recce1]

05:13 AM on 07/10/2011

Sean777, document your claims about the growth of the Klan. Here's a wikipedia chart about them.

Year Membership
1920 4,000,000*
1924 6,000,000*
1930 30,000*
1980 5,000
2008 6,000

2011 5,000-8,000 **

* 04/09/65 "The Various Shady Lives of the Klu Klux Klan - Time" Retrieved 12/24/09.

** Current estimate 5,000–8,000 by the ADL. Many accept the lower number but let's assume the higher one. Still, there're too many. The same goes for other hate groups like the New Black Panther Party, the Christian Identity Movement, and La Raza.

Duke and neo-nazi groups claim support from the TP, but the TPM has rejected their claims. Much of the claims about Klan growth and the TPM, Republicans, and conservatives has been by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a leftist Democratic organization. I believe it caused the assassination attempt on Lou Dobbs.

According to the Congressional Research Service, committing a crime can't constitutionally disqualify someone from Congress or other elected offices and the states have no say about qualifications to serve in Congress. Likely Duke could run for the presidency, but it's amazing what happens in an IRS court. Fortunately, the GOP would never accept him and disavowed his run in Louisiana. States can set stricter qualifications for state offices and federal impeachments can bar someone from future federal office.

I realize there's an effort by the DNC to associate the TPM, Republicans, conservatives, and Libertarians with the KKK, Nazis, Isolationists, anti-immigrant, and other racist groups. I don't buy it.

[Sean777]

02:47 PM on 07/10/2011

Google: Russell Pearce + JT Ready

[voyager48]

03:32 PM on 07/10/2011

F&F

The only way the pro-illegal lobby can raise any argument in support of illegal immigration is to try to borrow legitimacy by emotinally linking it to a defensable cause like civil rights, and simultaneously to demonize the rule of law by re-branding it as extremism.

They really have nothing solid to respond with so are unable to come up with any legitmate defence. So the standard response is an ad homenim attack and to try to deflect the challenge and change the subject.

[Sean777]

08:13 PM on 07/09/2011

Historic fact:
The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by many independent local groups opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama.
Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. Today, researchers estimate that there may be approximately 150 Klan chapters with upwards of 5,000 members concentrated in Georgia and Alabama.

[AZ Stang]

11:45 PM on 07/09/2011

Thanks for the history class. Now back to the current century...

[jweider]

12:48 AM on 07/10/2011

And the current topic of discussion.

[Sean777]

02:12 AM on 07/10/2011

Anti immigration is lead by hate groups infiltrated in government positions as Russell Pearce of Arizona was found linked to JT Ready

http://tucsoncitizen.com/three-sonorans/2010/11/12/neo-nazis-and-russell-pearces-buddy-jt-ready-march-to-arizona-state-capitol-this-saturday-video/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqSSLj5C_C0

[Recce1]

05:16 AM on 07/10/2011

Sean777, all true but it has nothing to do with enforcing immigration laws, something several administrations have been reluctant to do.

[Sean777]

03:03 PM on 07/10/2011

“something several administrations have been reluctant to do.”

Exactly that's why enforcing immigration laws only can be apply for incoming immigrants because the deportation damages over undocumented people living here for many years will be too great, just look the case of Jose Antonio Vargas who grew up as American not knowing until recently he is an undocumented immigrant.

[CarlIII]

07:38 PM on 07/09/2011

The "Dixiecrats" who used to run Alabama are all Republicans now. They control the state and most county governments. They are afraid of the large immigration of Hispanics that has been happening for over thirty years now. These tea bagging bozos passed a law to keep Hispanics from wanting to settle here. It's racially motivated and certainly unconstitutional. The children of earlier immigrant Hispanics are graduating from Alabama colleges and are marrying into traditional white families. It is great !!! the demographics are changing and the good old white boys are trying to stop it. I hope I live to see a Hispanic or Black Governor elected with a solid majority of votes. It's inevitable.

[Brian Samaniego]

07:42 PM on 07/09/2011

Hey if you ever visit Salt Lake City, Utah feel free to send me a message. That's how I see the future as well, Bright for a number of races and religions!

[Cacey]

08:20 AM on 07/10/2011

You do realize that Salt Lake City is heavily Democratic don't you? And it is interesting as well that Utah had the first Jewish governor. No, there are not many Blacks nor Hispanincs in Utah but that is more a case of location and not prejudice. And in terms of the future, mutli-race will be thd future and organized religion will die out in favor or personal spirituality.

[xs10shl]

08:47 PM on 07/09/2011

Illegal is not a race.

[pigpentpa]

03:16 AM on 07/10/2011

You are exactly right!!

[kareemachan]

07:34 PM on 07/09/2011

You know what's interesting here is that the tro//ettes and TP/NOPers don't even touch on the legality of the law. They don't care if it's Constitutional or not, even tho they claim to Constitutionalists to the core. Instead, they pander to hatred and fear, which is very sad.

[Down in FL]

12:08 AM on 07/10/2011

Arguing from constitutionality requires a knowledge of the Constitution.

[pigpentpa]

03:36 AM on 07/10/2011

And I guess you are an Expert on the Constitution; I doubt it.

[Big Game Hunter]

03:41 AM on 07/10/2011

And to prove they know it, they'll recite the first few lines of the Declaration of Independence by heart!

[Recce1]

05:24 AM on 07/10/2011

The state laws were written to follow federal laws. Also please reread the Constitution.

[kareemachan]

02:36 PM on 07/10/2011

If they were written to follow the federal laws, they wouldn't be having to take them through the courts, which, you might notice, they are. And which part of the Constitution do you want me to read?

Failure, rec, failure.

[spytheweb]

07:33 PM on 07/09/2011

America is getting smaller for illegal aliens, in the end they will all be in California being pushed off into the ocean or Mexico.

[Picosa]

08:12 PM on 07/09/2011

It's getting even smaller for big,ots soon they will have to crawl back under the rocks they crawled out of, or smile big while they hold their brown grand babies in their arms if they want to be part of America.

[tjconkster]

08:26 PM on 07/09/2011

Good one!

[Recce1]

05:29 AM on 07/10/2011

Picosa, so one is a bigot if they oppose illegal immigration or open borders, is that it? Should I assume if they support the laws against illegal immigration you'd force them, or worse, out of America?

Is it Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada?