Dream Act now the law in CA, TX and NM

The Dream Act is now the law in California. Gov. Jerry Brown signed it into law Saturday, Oct. 8.
The new law allows illegal immigrant college-age children to qualify for state financial aid. Only two other states -- Texas and New Mexico -- have similar laws. California is one of about a dozen states that allow illegal immigrant students to pay in-state tuition, based on attendance and graduation from a state high school.
"The Dream Act benefits us all by giving top students a chance to improve their lives and the lives of all of us," Brown said. Last July, Brown signed into law a companion bill to allow illegal immigrant children to qualify for privately funded college scholarships.
Opponents of the California Dream Act have argued that public funds should not be used to help illegal immigrants, especially as California faces deep budget woes that have prompted cuts in education and higher tuitions at the state's public colleges and universities.
A federal Dream Act that would have created a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who attend college or serve in the military failed in the U.S. Senate last year, but Sen. Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.) couldn't even bring the bill up for debate in the summer of 2007. Some members of Congress actually believe the children are criminals even though most -- if not all -- did not have the capacity to break the law (a misdemeanor) when their parents brought them across the U.S.-Mexico border without inspection.
The new California law would affect 3,633 students, or less than one percent of the 440,000 students enrolled in the current school year.  Of the nearly 2.9 million community college enrollees in California, 34,057 would be affected, or one-tenth of one percent.

Alabama schoolteachers are now immigration police

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn inexplicably blocked section 8 of Alabama's new immigration law, but left the chilling and controversial section 28 in place, which may prevent many legal immigrant and U.S. citizen children from going to elementary, middle, and high school.
Section 8 prohibits “[a]n alien who is not lawfully present in the United States” from attending or enrolling in an Alabama “public postsecondary education institution in this state,” and requires any alien attending such an institution to possess either “lawful permanent residence or an appropriate nonimmigrant visa," pending issuance of the court's final judgment. That was blocked. Why she didn't block the more discriminatory and unconstitutional section 28 regarding elementary and secondary school students is not clear.
Section 28 basically makes schoolteachers immigration police and requires them to collect information about  students' parents. That's the chilling effect. I don't think, as conservative as the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is, the court will give effect to section 28, arguably the most harmful provision in Alabama's immigration law. To quote a former federal judge and law school dean, "That's a quantum leap in nastiness."
The judge enjoined the state from enforcing the last sentence of sections 10(e), 11(e), and 13(h) of the immigration bill, so-called "HB 56" wherein a court of this state shall consider only the federal government’s verification in determining whether an alien is lawfully present in the United States.”
Fnally, the judge enjoined the state from enforcing section 11(f) and (g) of H.B. 56 – “(f) It is unlawful for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway, or highway to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic,” and “(g) It is unlawful for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and to be transported to work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic."
That surprised me. But what really surprised me was the "driving while Latino" provisions, which, in my humble opinion, are blatantly unconstitutional. Sections 10 and 12 should have been struck down, given the legislative history when HB 56 was passed by the Alabama Legislature.
The judge's rulings pertain to the Hispanic Coalition lawsuit. Earlier she blocked portions of HB 56 in connection with the lawsuit filed by the U.S. attorney general and threw out the so-called "bishops' lawsuit", which challenged HB 56 on First Amendment issues regarding free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association.
But most of all, Alabama's new immigration law does not come from a conservative political position; it comes from Republicans who are not at all conservative. In fact, these Republicans are burdening Alabamians with new unfunded state mandates, which is not an action true conservatives take in order to enact public policy. Republicans as liberal do-gooders who force us to spend our money to enforce their laws? Believe it.
Another conservative principle the Alabama immigration laws violate is the concept of limited government. HB 56 is a huge state government intrusion into the lives of Alabamians.
The third conservative principle the Alabama immigration laws violate is the creation of an activist judicial system in which tort reform becomes a Republican joke.  HB 56 actually created causes of action for failure to enforce HB 56, unleashing what may be a torrent of lawsuits across the state.
The only conservative principle the Alabama immigration laws did not violate is "no wars of opportunity or adventure". I'm sure if these neo-liberals could have figured out a way to start a war with HB 56, they would have. They certainly got a bunch of other countries riled up.
Is this stupid immigration reform or what? Get used to it, Alabama.

Judge blocks parts of Alabama's new immigration law

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn blocked four key parts of Alabama's new immigration law, often referred to as "HB 56".
The judge enjoined the state from executing or enforcing section 11(a) of HB 56 – “It is unlawful for a person who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public or private place, or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state,” – pending issuance of the court's final judgment.
Alabama may not enforce section 13, which prohibits concealing, harboring, transporting, etc., of unlawfully present aliens, nor section 16, which concerns the taking of a state tax deduction for wages paid to an unauthorized alien employee.
Finally, the judge enjoined the state from executing or enforcing section 17, which creates a state “discrimination” cause of action based on the retention or hiring of an unauthorized alien.
Of great interest to my clients was whether the judge would block enforcement of section 15, which is basically the E-Verify part of the new immigration law. I had already told my clients it would very likely survive a challenge to its constitutionality or to interference with contracts, so I was not surprised that the judge did not block enforcement of section 15.
Section 15 says that no business entity shall knowingly employ or continue to employ an unauthorized alien and orders all Alabama businesses to enroll in E-Verify no later than April 1, 2012, and verify their employees' eligibility for employment. It's going to be expensive and a burden for my small business clients. But they can't complain if they didn't complain to their Republican legislative representatives and senators during last spring's legislative session.
And I've said it before:  This federal database is dirty. Sure, it will catch a few guys named Pedro Gonzalez, but think how many Susan Smiths were born in Alabama and got married and divorced a few times and whose name entered into E-Verify will be kicked out of the system like a football.

Judge temporarily blocks Alabama immigration law

A federal judge has temporarily blocked Alabama's new immigration law from going into effect on Sept. 1.

The brief order of U.S. District Court Presiding Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn says she is not ruling on the merits of the motions filed by the parties in court, but will issue an order so ruling no later than Sept. 28.

The injunction is in effect until Sept. 29 or when the judge rules on the motions, whichever comes first.

U.S. Justice Department sues Alabama over law

The U.S. Department of Justice has sued the State of Alabama over a restrictive immigration law called the toughest in the nation.

http://media.al.com/bn/other/U.S.%20Justice%20Department%20lawsuit.pdf

Alabama's new immigration law challenged

On July 8, 2011, the Southern Poverty Law Center of Montgomery, Alabama, and the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants Rights Project filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern Division, seeking to prevent Alabama's new anti-immigrant law from taking effect on Sept. 1, 2011. The law is also known as HB56.

The bill was passed by the Alabama Legislature on June 2, 2011. Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley signed the bill, making it state law, on June 9, 2011. All provisions of the law will take effect on Sept. 1 except for sections 22 and 23, which concern state law enforcement staffing and coordination, and sections 9 and 15, which concern employment verification and will go into effect in 2012.

That is, unless a federal court judge invalidates, as unconstitutional, all or parts of HB56.

The most interesting aspect of the immigration law is that it creates new state crimes that are tied to one's immigration status or a means or process for determining one's immigration status which, the new law acknowledges, can only be determined by the federal government.

But Department of Homeland Security officials have said its immigration "databases cannot be relied upon to determine immigration status ... because immigration status is dynamic ..." and databases are normally outdated. What I call "garbage in, garbage out." Imagine losing your car, your job, your freedom and your life because your name is "not in the computer", or that's your name alright, but it is attached to someone else's social security number.

In addition to the Supremacy Clause, Fourth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment violations represented by the new Alabama immigration law, which I had seen before in the laws passed in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Utah, what I found interesting were the First Amendment violations, specifically with respect to the Contracts Clause.

The Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 10, says, in part, "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." Alabama's new immigration law forbids the enforcement of contracts "between a party and an alien unlawfully present in the United States, within the meaning of HB56, if the party had direct or constructive knowledge that the alien was unlawfully present in the United States at the time the contract was entered into, and the performance of the contract required the alien to remain unlawfully present in the United States for more than 24 hours after the time the contract was entered into or performance could not reasonably be expected to occur without such remaining."

That language is tortured, but I think you get the meaning. This one is the most far-reaching provision in HB56. It will affect all manner of written and oral agreements between and among Alabamians and aliens "unlawfully present". Leases, mortgages, deeds, sales agreements, you name it. It makes it impossible for aliens unlawfully present to live here.

Section 6 makes it illegal to enter into a rental agreement with an alien if the lessor knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law.

Section 6 also makes it illegal to transport or attempt to transport or move an alien in the state in furtherance of the presence of the unauthorized alien in a means of transportation if the person knows or recklessly disregrards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law. Violation of this provision subjects your vehicle to mandatory immobilization or impoundment. Violation of this provision is a misdemeanor, unless you're caught transporting 10 or more unauthorized aliens. Then it's a Class C felony.

But the provision that attacks the state's obligations to educate children within its borders is the most draconian, in my view. I have long been a supporter of the DREAM Act, which would enable kids who were brought here from south of the border as babies, to get a college education and contribute to our economy. So section 28(a) took unequivocal action to prevent undocumented children and U.S. citizen children of undocumented parents from attending school.

Section 28(a) requires "[e]very public elementary and secondary school ..., at the time of enrollment in kindergarten or any grade in such school, shall determine whether the student enrolling in public school was born outside the jurisdiction of the United States or is the

child of an alien not lawfully present in the United States[.]" It requires educators and teachers to presume that the student is an alien unlawfully present in the United States if the student cannot produce proof of lawful presence within 30 days.

While it is true that the cost of public elementary and secondary school to educate unlawfully present children or the children of unlawfully present alien parents is the single biggest cost of illegal immigration, it is also true that states are required to educate these children in accordance with federal law. To fail to do so will very likely cost the state of Alabama Department of Education, which funds local school boards, around $100 million. My source is the FY2011 Fiscal Stabilization Fund that comes not from Alabamians' tax money, but from the federal government. The feds could pull the money out if Alabama educators and teachers are deemed to be violating federal education policy.

I don't put all of my faith in the courts, even though I'm a lawyer, but I am confident that most federal judges understand the United States Constitution was written to both establish a government and to protect the people from their government. The Fourteenth Amendment, as applied to the states, is the primary tool the federal courts have to protect the people's rights and prevent states from hurting people.

Much of Alabama's new immigration law will likely be struck down as unconstitutional, but depending upon the judge who is assigned to the case, some of the provisions, including the business license provision and/or businesses' mandatory use of E-Verify, might survive.

A tiny bang for your taxpayer buck

According to a new study published by the National Immigration Forum, last year the federal government deported 197,000 immigrants with no criminal record, at a cost of $23,000 each. The government spends $7,500 for every person apprehended on our southern border, a 500 percent increase over what it spent six years ago with no real change in the number of people caught.

While the number of people crossing the border illegally has decreased, the U.S. Border Patrol budget has increased by an average of $300 million since 2005.

The Center for American Progress Analysis found that mass deportation of undocumented immgrants would be very expensive and trigger profound collateral consequences. The total cost of mass deportation and continuing border interdiction and interior enforcement efforts would be $285 billion (in 2008 dollars) over a five-year period.

We need smart immigration reform.