Judge blocks parts of Ga. immigration law

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
24,425
Reaction score
551
ATLANTA (AP) — A federal judge on Monday blocked parts of Georgia's law cracking down on illegal immigration from taking effect until a legal challenge is resolved.

Judge Thomas Thrash granted a request to block parts of the law that penalize people who knowingly and willingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants while committing another crime. He also blocked provisions that authorize officers to verify the immigration status of someone who can't provide proper identification.

Thrash wrote that under parts of the law, the state is enforcing immigration law that should be left to the federal government.

Thrash also dismissed parts of the lawsuit at the state's request.

Most parts of the law were set to enter into effect July 1. Civil liberties groups had filed a lawsuit asking the judge to declare the law unconstitutional and to block it from being enforced.

Thrash on June 20 heard arguments from both sides on the civil liberties groups' request to block the law and the state's request to dismiss the lawsuit. He grilled Senior Assistant Attorney General Devon Orland, with the exchange sometimes bordering on testy.

Omar Jadwat with the American Civil Liberties Union argued the law is fundamentally unconstitutional and infringes on federal authority, while Orland said the measure is needed because medical facilities and prisons are being strained by illegal immigrants.

The civil liberties groups argue the law is unconstitutional and could encourage racial profiling. Provisions that penalize people for harboring and transporting illegal immigrants in certain situations also have the potential to punish people for innocent interactions with illegal immigrants, the groups have said.

Georgia's law has some provisions that echo those in a law enacted last year in Arizona and is also similar to another enacted this year in Utah.

A federal judge blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's law last year after the U.S. Department of Justice sued, arguing the law intrudes on the federal government's exclusive powers to regulate immigration. A federal appeals court judge upheld the decision and Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has said she plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ACLU and other civil liberties groups filed a complaint claiming that the Utah law was an unconstitutional burden to legal immigrants and too much like portions of Arizona's immigration law. A federal judge last month temporarily blocked that law, citing similarities to the most controversial parts of Arizona's law. A hearing is set for mid-July to determine if the law can go into effect.

Another section of the Georgia law set to be phased in starting in January will require many businesses to check the immigration status of new hires. An Arizona law with the same requirement was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge blocks parts of Ga. immigration law - Yahoo! News
 
It was predicted that Judge Thrash would throw out the whole HB 87 and would be won under appeal.

He threw out sections 7 and 8 (the other sections go into effect) and it will be appealed to have sections 7 and 8 go into effect as well.

You might have also noticed that Judge Thrash threw out notions the bill was racist and unconstitutional.
 
It was predicted that Judge Thrash would throw out the whole HB 87 and would be won under appeal.

He threw out sections 7 and 8 (the other sections go into effect) and it will be appealed to have sections 7 and 8 go into effect as well.

You might have also noticed that Judge Thrash threw out notions the bill was racist and unconstitutional.

You really can't expect if it is win via appeals because illegal immigrants are federal matters.
 
It was predicted that Judge Thrash would throw out the whole HB 87 and would be won under appeal.

He threw out sections 7 and 8 (the other sections go into effect) and it will be appealed to have sections 7 and 8 go into effect as well.

You might have also noticed that Judge Thrash threw out notions the bill was racist and unconstitutional.

umad?
 

uh...

The decision did not directly address a second, more recent Arizona law that in some circumstances requires police there to question people they stop about their immigration status. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit blocked enforcement of that law in April, and the case may reach the Supreme Court soon.

The state/local law enforcement part was a major issue of state immigration law
 
The challenge to the older Arizona law that was the subject of Thursday’s decision was brought by a coalition of business and civil liberties groups, with support from the Obama administration. They said the law, the Legal Arizona Workers Act, conflicted with federal immigration policy.


yup ... Arizona won that one.
 
yup ... Arizona won that one.

yes and it's hardly a concern to many. Nobody cares. The states were allowed to fined employers anyway but they didn't bother for many years because *cough* the politicians are in corporations' pockets

It's the state/local law enforcement part that made this issue very hot.
 
yes and it's hardly a concern to many. Nobody cares. The states were allowed to fined employers anyway but they didn't bother for many years because *cough* the politicians are in corporations' pockets

It's the state/local law enforcement part that made this issue very hot.

It was the whole illegal amnesty that made this issue hot and prompted Obama to try and halt every bit of enforcing federal law at the State level.

The whole law enforcement thing hasn't even been challenged in the SCOTUS - I anticipate several states will sue ... and win ... just like Arizona recently won.
 
It was the whole illegal amnesty that made this issue hot and prompted Obama to try and halt every bit of enforcing federal law at the State level.

The whole law enforcement thing hasn't even been challenged in the SCOTUS - I anticipate several states will sue ... and win ... just like Arizona recently won.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
 
Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468

722 F2d 468 Gonzales v. City of Peoria | OpenJurist

“Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.

United States v. Salinas-Calderon,

728 F2d 1298 United States v. Salinas-Calderon | OpenJurist

"state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”

United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294


http://openjurist.org/176/f3d/1294/united-states-v-vasquez-alvarez
“this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”


this will be the reason why they will win:

http://openjurist.org/264/f3d/1188


And now Mexico is suing Georgia because they have a problem with our illegal immigrant laws? I mean WHOA DUDE!!! Thats like the Devil saying "That was too evil, I don't think I coulda done that!"
 
Last edited:
It was the whole illegal amnesty that made this issue hot and prompted Obama to try and halt every bit of enforcing federal law at the State level.

The whole law enforcement thing hasn't even been challenged in the SCOTUS - I anticipate several states will sue ... and win ... just like Arizona recently won.

Oh, really? :laugh2:
 
Back
Top