Groups seek to block tough Alabama immigration law

Related Topics

BIRMINGHAM, Ala | Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:16pm EDT

BIRMINGHAM, Ala (Reuters) - Civil rights groups filed a motion in Alabama on Thursday asking a federal judge to stop what has been called the nation's toughest new immigration law from taking effect.

The motion for a preliminary injunction follows its class action lawsuit filed earlier this month. Judges have already blocked key parts of other immigration laws passed in Georgia, Arizona, Utah and Indiana.

Critics say the Alabama law, due to take effect on September 1, is unconstitutional on multiple grounds.

"It will criminalize Alabamians for everyday interactions with people who are here without documents, such as driving someone to the grocery store or to church," said Olivia Turner, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama.

"Law enforcement officers will be required to violate the constitutional rights of citizens and non-citizens alike," she added.

Under the Alabama law, police must detain someone they suspect of being in the country illegally if the person cannot produce proper documentation when stopped for any reason.

The law would also make it a crime to knowingly transport or harbor someone who was in the country illegally.

Alabama's law is unique in requiring public schools to determine, by review of birth certificates or sworn affidavits, the legal residency status of students upon enrollment.

The civil rights groups' lawsuit says that provision will deter children in immigrant families from enrolling in public schools.

The sponsors of the Alabama law said they were confident it would withstand the legal challenge. Alabama House Majority Leader Micky Hammon said the state would continue its fight against illegal immigration, even if an injunction is granted.

"These far-left, liberal groups have filed (for) an injunction because those who live here illegally and break our laws with their simple presence are packing up and leaving Alabama," said Hammon, a Republican and principle sponsor of the law.

"That was the intent of the bill in the first place, to protect our borders and our jobs."

(Reporting by Peggy Gargis; Writing by Colleen Jenkins; Editing by Jerry Norton and Cynthia Johnston)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
Bamatron wrote:
If you present proper documentation there is no need to worry.

Jul 21, 2011 4:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
iflydaplanes wrote:
I thought the Constitution protected rights of American citizens? What Constitutional rights do non-citizens have?

Jul 22, 2011 8:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
joelwisch2 wrote:
“Law enforcement officers will be required to violate the constitutional rights of citizens and non-citizens alike,” she added.
——————————-
Alabama Law Enforcement Officers are fully aware of constitutional rights, are coached in those rights all through their careers, and have not, and will not, do that. Neither one in fact. And if they did, they would lose a very well paying job with excellent retirement benefits for an illegal alien. So this phrase has been used in several hundred American Civil Liberties Union law suits, and they have not been able to tell us how that would happen in any of them.

Under the Alabama law, police must detain someone they suspect of being in the country illegally if the person cannot produce proper documentation when stopped for any reason.
————————————-
With reasonable cause, this is correct. If the person said.. I left those papers at home, they would be allowed to go get them and come back and show them to the police in a few days. No English? … that breeds another matter. Americans are required to carry identification everywhere they go if they are of age. Why shouldn’t they carry identification if they are immigrants, or visitors?

The law would also make it a crime to knowingly transport or harbor someone who was in the country illegally.
—————————-
That law is aimed at the employers who take a bus to Mexico, hire 50 workers for the tire factory, farm, or butcher plant and comes on back to put them to work. If you don’t ask, and they don’t tell you, and you are on the way to Church, it is silly to be expected to be stopped.

Alabama’s law is unique in requiring public schools to determine, by review of birth certificates or sworn affidavits, the legal residency status of students upon enrollment.
———————————————-
Local communities pay for the cost of that school. Not the Federal or State Government, although both help that local school district. It is mandated by the Feds, though, that they must be taught in their own language until they can deal with English, that they be taught in their language, and that is expensive. Immigrants are allowed to come to the U.S. if they speak English. One reason for this enormous push is that the illegal aliens cannot speak English, and don’t feel they should have to. The children of the illegal aliens seldom speak English and suddenly, in addition to catching these students up with other fifth graders, for example, they must be taught in their tribal language from Guatemala (only vaguely resembling Spanish). The cost of illegal aliens in the school system is staggering, and most schools cannot do that without cutting classes for the American Citizens. The Feds don’t care.. they force the local schools to teach the illegal aliens as they tell them to, and do not help with money.
=================================
Alabama law very successfully protects the people of Alabama, AND the immigrants that have moved to Alabama. I wish them the very best of good luck on their efforts to deal with the very wealthy organization called ACLU.

Jul 22, 2011 11:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.