Legal Ease by
Shane Givens
Oct. 19, 2011
|
Latest on the immigration law Recently, I have been asked by several people to write about Alabama's new immigration law. The law was signed by Gov. Robert Bentley in June and since then has been the center of much debate and controversy. The law may be the most extreme position taken by any state so far regarding illegal immigrants. The law is located beginning at Alabama Code 31-9C-1, and I would suggest that anyone who has any dealings with potential illegal immigrants look it up and read it. The law takes a very tough stand on illegal immigrants and contains some pretty serious penalties for violators. In the coming weeks I will break down the law and attempt to explain what it means for Cherokee County. For now, however, that would be impossible considering the ongoing litigation regarding the certain portions of the law. I am writing this article on October 12, 2011. I mention that because what has happened thus far in the litigation process may change before this article is released, on Oct. 17. After the law was signed, two federal lawsuits were filed in federal court. The United States filed one suit and the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama filed the other. The main argument in both is basically that the state of Alabama (or any other state for that matter) does not have the authority to pass and enforce immigration law. The plaintiffs argue that this power can only come through the federal government. Those arguments were generally rejected by U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on Sept. 28, 2011 and many parts of the law went into effect the next day. Blackburn let stand measures requiring people to carry proof they have the right to be in the country; directing police to check the immigration status of drivers involved in traffic stops and arrests; barring entering contracts with illegal immigrants; requiring schools to check the immigration status of enrollees and prohibiting illegal immigrants from entering into business transactions with state and local government. Both plaintiffs are appealing the ruling and want the 11th Circuit Federal Appeals Court to temporarily “stay” (not enforce) the law until it rules. This sort of legal procedure is called a “preliminary injunction.” In response, the state of Alabama filed a response asking that the Court keep the law in effect during the appeal. The state argues that the law does not infringe on the federal government's role in immigration, but instead helps ensure that federal law is respected. The state further argues that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from citizens and others authorized to work in the U.S., that it is difficult to collect taxes from them and that illegal immigrants make up a substantial part of the state's prison population. The plaintiffs argue that Alabama has no authority to act in the area of immigration, not even to gather information or to cooperate with federal officials. Ultimately, the law will be argued in court for several months and may end up in front of the United States Supreme Court. For now, however, many parts of the new immigration law remain in effect. This column is intended for general information purposes only. The answers to most legal problems rely on specific facts of a particular situation; therefore, it is very important to see a lawyer when these situations arise. Please e-mail questions for future columns to givenslaw@tds.net. |