I knew two more sections of Alabama's toughest-in-the-nation immigration law were unconstitutional but was not sure whether there were enough votes on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to enjoin them. Oh me of little faith.
On March 8, the federal appeals court enjoined (blocked) section 27 of Alabama's infamous HB56, which forbids Alabama courts from enforcing contracts between undocumented aliens and parties who know their immigration status.
The court also blocked section 30, which forbids state and local agencies from doing business with unlawfully present aliens.
The issuance of the ruling came as a surprise to me because the court had previously stated that it would wait on the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on Arizona's immigration laws before issuing its opinion.
Why are the two provisions of Alabama's immigration laws unconstitutional?
They violate the Article I, Section 10(1) of the U.S. Constitution and its First Amendment ("Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests."), and Article I, Sections 4 and 22 and Article 4, Section 95 of the Constitution of Alabama 1901. The provisions of the law struck down restrict personal liberty instead of expanding or protecting it, which is a bedrock conservative principle. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who wrote the laws, is a Republican but not a conservative. Don't get me started.
Alabama's immigration laws represent an expansion of government, not a limitation on government (another bedrock conservative principle).
All of the federal courts in Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Utah have upheld the state's power to grant a license or take one away for a violation, but wholesale interference with contracts is not supportable.
All of the federal courts have given effect to provisions that require employers to use E-Verify.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Alabama senator pre-files bill to fix parts of immigration law
Republican Alabama senator Gerald Dial of Lineville has pre-filed a bill to change parts of Alabama's "toughest in the nation" immigration laws. Sen. Dial said he wants to add some common sense to the law and has described the law as "overreaching".
After the arrests of Mercedes-Benz and Honda executives, some legislators -- even Alabama's governor, Dr. Robert Bentley -- expressed concerns about the immigration law and said it needed to be "tweaked".
Some unconstitutional provisions of the law will likely be stricken by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange has suggested that the Alabama Legislature repeal those provisions, which include making public school teachers immigration police by requiring the immigration status of their students to be verified.
After the arrests of Mercedes-Benz and Honda executives, some legislators -- even Alabama's governor, Dr. Robert Bentley -- expressed concerns about the immigration law and said it needed to be "tweaked".
Some unconstitutional provisions of the law will likely be stricken by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange has suggested that the Alabama Legislature repeal those provisions, which include making public school teachers immigration police by requiring the immigration status of their students to be verified.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Another example: The federal government is not your friend
Real message today from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Insecurity:
Dear Stakeholder,
The USCIS Verification Division and the Office of Public Engagement invite any interested parties to participate in a national stakeholder engagement to discuss the nationwide launch of Self Check on Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 3:00 pm (Eastern Time) at the USCIS Orlando Field Office. Self Check, a service of E-Verify, is a simple online process that allows an individual to check his or her own employment eligibility in the United States . During the session, USCIS will describe and demonstrate the service, discuss its performance, and debut the new Self Check webpages and promotional materials. For more information, please see the attached invitation.
To Participate in the Session
Any interested parties may participate in this event in person, via teleconference or live web stream. All participants must respond to this invitation. Please contact the Office of Public Engagement at USCIS-IGAOutreach@dhs.gov by February 7, 2012, and reference the following in the subject line of your email:
If you plan to attend in person, please reference “Self Check – In Person”
If you plan to attend by phone, please reference “Self Check – Phone”
If you plan to attend by live web stream, please reference “Self Check – Live Web Stream”
Kind Regards,
Office of Public Engagement
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Friday, December 23, 2011
Appeals court moves forward on AL, GA immigration laws
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta turned down Alabama's and Georgia's motions to stay its proceedings over their immigration laws in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to review Arizona's immigration laws.
That was no surprise. Appellate matters, generally, move at a glacial pace, so stopping an appellate proceeding is akin to freezing it in place and having to thaw it out again when it's time to move forward.
No party -- either for or against Alabama's and Georgia's immigration laws -- can glean anything from the Eleventh Circuit's ruling. It is entirely procedural.
But the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari and consider issuing its opinion concerning Arizona's immigration laws is important. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolten blocked the unconstitutional provisions of Arizona's laws a year ago, a decision that was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. So the U.S. Supreme Court will consider only those provisions blocked by Judge Bolten.
Among the provisions blocked in Arizona and Georgia -- but not in Alabama -- was the "reasonable suspicion" provision which allowed local law enforcement officials to stop and possibly imprison people who might appear to be "not from around here". But the infamous "show me your papers" provision of Alabama's law was blocked -- not by U.S. District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn of Birmingham -- but by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which may understand the U.S. Constitution. That, however, is yet to be determined.
The last state to successfully implement a "show me your papers" law was Nazi Germany. That state did so successfully for almost ten years. A Jew back then would be asked for his "papers". If he didn't have them on his person, or if his "papers" were not in order, the Nazis would arrest him, send him to a labor camp, then transfer him to a concentration camp and later incinerate him.
Judge Bolten blocked the Arizona "show me your papers" law. Judge Blackburn did not. The U.S. Supreme Court may support Judge Bolten's opinion or Judge Blackburn's and the Nazis' opinion. We'll see which one prevails.
Republicans in the Alabama Legislature set the state back more than 50 years. Some people still remember the civil rights era when black people suffered in the South because of their race and color. So far, economic development officials in Athens, Demopolis and Monroeville say that foreign-owned companies have told them the companies' jobs -- hundreds of jobs -- are not coming to Alabama. The foreign-owned companies won't tell these economic development officials exactly why, of course, but everyone knows why.
If I worked for the Alabama Development Office, I would think about finding something else to do. If you were an economic development official in another state, competing for the same jobs offered by these foreign-owned companies, wouldn't you accuse Alabamians -- with good reason -- of being xenophobes, the new racists of the 21st century? Of course you would. You would use every tool at your disposal.
That was no surprise. Appellate matters, generally, move at a glacial pace, so stopping an appellate proceeding is akin to freezing it in place and having to thaw it out again when it's time to move forward.
No party -- either for or against Alabama's and Georgia's immigration laws -- can glean anything from the Eleventh Circuit's ruling. It is entirely procedural.
But the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari and consider issuing its opinion concerning Arizona's immigration laws is important. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolten blocked the unconstitutional provisions of Arizona's laws a year ago, a decision that was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. So the U.S. Supreme Court will consider only those provisions blocked by Judge Bolten.
Among the provisions blocked in Arizona and Georgia -- but not in Alabama -- was the "reasonable suspicion" provision which allowed local law enforcement officials to stop and possibly imprison people who might appear to be "not from around here". But the infamous "show me your papers" provision of Alabama's law was blocked -- not by U.S. District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn of Birmingham -- but by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which may understand the U.S. Constitution. That, however, is yet to be determined.
The last state to successfully implement a "show me your papers" law was Nazi Germany. That state did so successfully for almost ten years. A Jew back then would be asked for his "papers". If he didn't have them on his person, or if his "papers" were not in order, the Nazis would arrest him, send him to a labor camp, then transfer him to a concentration camp and later incinerate him.
Judge Bolten blocked the Arizona "show me your papers" law. Judge Blackburn did not. The U.S. Supreme Court may support Judge Bolten's opinion or Judge Blackburn's and the Nazis' opinion. We'll see which one prevails.
Republicans in the Alabama Legislature set the state back more than 50 years. Some people still remember the civil rights era when black people suffered in the South because of their race and color. So far, economic development officials in Athens, Demopolis and Monroeville say that foreign-owned companies have told them the companies' jobs -- hundreds of jobs -- are not coming to Alabama. The foreign-owned companies won't tell these economic development officials exactly why, of course, but everyone knows why.
If I worked for the Alabama Development Office, I would think about finding something else to do. If you were an economic development official in another state, competing for the same jobs offered by these foreign-owned companies, wouldn't you accuse Alabamians -- with good reason -- of being xenophobes, the new racists of the 21st century? Of course you would. You would use every tool at your disposal.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Federal judge blocks far-reaching part of Alabama immigration law
When I first read H.B. 56, Alabama's new immigration laws, it was a bill pending in the Alabama Legislature. I noticed section 30 immediately as the most far-reaching provision in the bill, one I had not seen before, and one so draconian that it made the entire state of Alabama inhospitable to people who don't have their "papers."
I don't know who came up with the idea, but I suspect is was Chris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state. I didn't see the provision in the laws passed by Arizona, Utah, Georgia or South Carolina.
Basically, section 30 provides that no state or local government agency may transact business, grant a license application, etc., unless it obtains proof of citizenship or legal residence before entering into the transaction. I'm not sure how I could find enough papers to prove my citizenship or legal residence, but I guess I'm going to have to try before it's time to renew my business license.
On November 23, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson of the Middle District of Alabama, in Montgomery, issued a 10-page order blocking enforcement of section 30. Two John Does had petitioned for a restraining order, stating that they had to renew registrations for the mobile homes by November 30, and enforcement of section 30 would drive their families from their homes.
Section 30 requires an alien's status to be verified using the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) online system, a program of the federal government. The system allegedly can tell you whether the person asking for some government service or benefit is legally present in the United States. I don't believe it, but that's what the system was designed to do.
The Elmore County revenue commissioner and probate judge testified at the November 23 hearing that they had not employed the system but were trying to develop one to comply with the law.
The lawsuit stated that the purpose of section 30 is to drive undocumented immigrants, "and in particular minority immigrants of Latino heritage, out of Alabama by making living conditions miserable for them or by funneling them into deportation proceedings."
Sen. Scott Beason of Gardendale and Rep. Mickey Hammon of Huntsville testified that the provision was aimed at undocumented immigrants, regardless of national origin. Hammon noted that some language in the bill forbids racial profiling.
Here's the lawyer talking: I don't think an Alabama federal judge has yet closely examined the legislative record and legislative intent.
I don't know who came up with the idea, but I suspect is was Chris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state. I didn't see the provision in the laws passed by Arizona, Utah, Georgia or South Carolina.
Basically, section 30 provides that no state or local government agency may transact business, grant a license application, etc., unless it obtains proof of citizenship or legal residence before entering into the transaction. I'm not sure how I could find enough papers to prove my citizenship or legal residence, but I guess I'm going to have to try before it's time to renew my business license.
On November 23, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson of the Middle District of Alabama, in Montgomery, issued a 10-page order blocking enforcement of section 30. Two John Does had petitioned for a restraining order, stating that they had to renew registrations for the mobile homes by November 30, and enforcement of section 30 would drive their families from their homes.
Section 30 requires an alien's status to be verified using the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) online system, a program of the federal government. The system allegedly can tell you whether the person asking for some government service or benefit is legally present in the United States. I don't believe it, but that's what the system was designed to do.
The Elmore County revenue commissioner and probate judge testified at the November 23 hearing that they had not employed the system but were trying to develop one to comply with the law.
The lawsuit stated that the purpose of section 30 is to drive undocumented immigrants, "and in particular minority immigrants of Latino heritage, out of Alabama by making living conditions miserable for them or by funneling them into deportation proceedings."
Sen. Scott Beason of Gardendale and Rep. Mickey Hammon of Huntsville testified that the provision was aimed at undocumented immigrants, regardless of national origin. Hammon noted that some language in the bill forbids racial profiling.
Here's the lawyer talking: I don't think an Alabama federal judge has yet closely examined the legislative record and legislative intent.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Justice Department wants Alabama schools to report
More than 130 Alabama public school superintendents received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) by Nov. 1 asking the school districts to report any student who is turned away from school, other than for a disciplinary problem.
The letters request records of enrollment by race and lists of students who have withdrawn since the beginning of the year, broken down by race, national origin, and whether they are classified as English Language Learners. DOJ also wants a list of unexplained absences since Alabama's draconian immigration law took effect on Sept. 27.
"(Superintendents) want to know if this is part of collection of data for the Justice Department's case against the state, or if the Justice Department is collecting information to develop actions against school systems," said Eric Mackey, director of School Superintendents of Alabama.
Section 28(a) of Alabama's new immigration law 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.
The U.S. Court of Appeals of the Eleventh Circuit blocked section 28, pending the DOJ's appeal of a U.S. district court judge rulling, allowing section 28 to go into effect.
The letters request records of enrollment by race and lists of students who have withdrawn since the beginning of the year, broken down by race, national origin, and whether they are classified as English Language Learners. DOJ also wants a list of unexplained absences since Alabama's draconian immigration law took effect on Sept. 27.
"(Superintendents) want to know if this is part of collection of data for the Justice Department's case against the state, or if the Justice Department is collecting information to develop actions against school systems," said Eric Mackey, director of School Superintendents of Alabama.
Section 28(a) of Alabama's new immigration law 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.
The U.S. Court of Appeals of the Eleventh Circuit blocked section 28, pending the DOJ's appeal of a U.S. district court judge rulling, allowing section 28 to go into effect.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Appeals court blocks enforcement of two key parts of Alabama immigration law
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has restored my faith (somewhat) in applying the words in the United States Constitution to Alabama's stupid immigration laws. Section 28 was blocked Friday (Oct. 14). That provision made Alabama schoolteachers immigration police, requiring them to check students' immigration status, as well as their parents'.
The chilling effect, of course, is that parents, whether here legally or not, are withdrawing their children from elementary, middle, and high school or not allowing them to attend.
And the appeals court blocked section 10 from being enforced. This is the Nazi-era "show me your papers" provision of the Alabama law. The last country to successfully enforce a "show me your papers" law was Nazi Germany. Prior to World War Two, when a Jew was encountered in public "without his papers", he was arrested and sent to a labor camp, transferred to a concentration camp, and later incinerated.
I regret to inform my readers that Alabama is no better than Nazi Germany.
I say again that we need smart immigration reform. What Alabama has done is Kris Kobach stupid.
Oh, you don't know Kris Kobach? He is writing Alabama's laws, but he is the secretary of state of Kansas. Winner of Phyllis Shlafly's Eagle Award in 2008. Now there's something he can be proud of.
The chilling effect, of course, is that parents, whether here legally or not, are withdrawing their children from elementary, middle, and high school or not allowing them to attend.
And the appeals court blocked section 10 from being enforced. This is the Nazi-era "show me your papers" provision of the Alabama law. The last country to successfully enforce a "show me your papers" law was Nazi Germany. Prior to World War Two, when a Jew was encountered in public "without his papers", he was arrested and sent to a labor camp, transferred to a concentration camp, and later incinerated.
I regret to inform my readers that Alabama is no better than Nazi Germany.
I say again that we need smart immigration reform. What Alabama has done is Kris Kobach stupid.
Oh, you don't know Kris Kobach? He is writing Alabama's laws, but he is the secretary of state of Kansas. Winner of Phyllis Shlafly's Eagle Award in 2008. Now there's something he can be proud of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)