Judge blocks Alabama illegal immigration law

posted at 6:47 pm on August 29, 2011 by Tina Korbe

So far, every state law aimed to crack down on illegal immigration has been stymied in court — and a judge’s ruling today ensured a law passed in Alabama earlier this year is no exception to that. The Washington Times reports:

A federal district judge halted Alabama’s new immigration law Monday just days before it was to take effect, making it the latest state to see a crackdown law blocked by a court.

Chief District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn said she didn’t have enough time to consider the law in full before the Sept. 1 date it goes into effect, so she halted its enforcement until she has time to make a broader ruling later next month.

“In entering this order the court specifically notes that it is in no way addressing the merits of the motions,” Judge Blackburn wrote in her brief order, promising a ruling by Sept. 28.

Given the federal government’s seeming unwillingness to take up the issue of immigration reform or even to take first preliminary steps to further secure the border, the state-led attempt to ascertain immigrant status and to appropriately penalize immigrants in the country illegally is certainly understandable. Given that four of the five state laws blocked by federal judges does no more than grant local police the authority to enforce federal law, the court decisions are especially perplexing. But Judge Blackburn might have more of a leg to stand on. The Alabama law went further than any other law — it required schools to determine the legal status of students, for example — so perhaps Blackburn was sincere when she said she simply didn’t have time to consider the law completely. So, stay tuned to her decision Sept. 28.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Ignore the judge.

darwin on August 29, 2011 at 6:49 PM

In fact, I recommend states ignore all dictates from the federal government as well.

darwin on August 29, 2011 at 6:50 PM

does no more than grant local police the authority to enforce federal law, the court decisions are especially perplexing

you think dear leader would be thanking them to help enforce the law…

cripe…

cmsinaz on August 29, 2011 at 6:54 PM

Given that four of the five state laws blocked by federal judges does no more than grant local police the authority to enforce federal law, the court decisions are especially perplexing.

Not if you look at it from feral government’s point of view of seeing the illegal invasion as a whole new block of voters for the Democratic National Progressive Party.

Chip on August 29, 2011 at 6:55 PM

Hmm, a Bush 41 appointee.

TxAnn56 on August 29, 2011 at 6:55 PM

Judging is hard.

Jocundus on August 29, 2011 at 6:56 PM

you think dear leader would be thanking them to help enforce the law…

cripe…

cmsinaz on August 29, 2011 at 6:54 PM

Quite the opposite

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-seeks-stay-alabama-immigration-law-193937456.html

Lawyers for the Obama administration and other groups asked a federal judge on Wednesday to temporarily block Alabama’s immigration law, widely seen as the toughest state measure on illegal immigration in the country.

William Amos on August 29, 2011 at 6:57 PM

she didn’t have enough time to consider the law in full before the Sept. 1 date it goes into effect,

Why hasn’t a judge blocked ObamaCare like this?

faraway on August 29, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Chip on August 29, 2011 at 6:55 PM

D’oh! you are right….

cmsinaz on August 29, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Maybe the judge would have upheld the law if the the “undocumented workers” were smuggling “questionably sourced” Indian Rosewood for Gibson Guitars.

DeathB4Tyranny on August 29, 2011 at 7:00 PM

William Amos on August 29, 2011 at 6:57 PM

it’s absolutely shameful…

cmsinaz on August 29, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Given that four of the five state laws blocked by federal judges does no more than grant local police the authority to enforce federal law, the court decisions are especially perplexing.

No Tina the decisions are not perplexing. Lets call it what it is—effing BS. The feds won’t do a thing, Obama just took approx. 300k illegals out of the deportation pipeline, and both parties let this problem simmer.
We had an amnesty in 1986 that was supposed to fix this problem. I didn’t like it but figured it was reasonable given the situation. Four presidents later the problem is worse than ever.

arnold ziffel on August 29, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Judge blocks Alabama illegal immigration law?

(Seems a double entendre there.)

But, sticking to the subject…when are we going to be allowed to block illegal immigrants????

Every other nation in the world does so…’cept US.

(Another adianoeta, for those who are more eruditer than I are.)

coldwarrior on August 29, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Seems to me that, lacking any demonstrable harm to anyone who has standing to sue, the law should be allowed to go into effect on schedule.

Our three branches of government are supposed to be “co-equal”: the courts should not be running things, and they should not be interfering in state issues.

landlines on August 29, 2011 at 7:06 PM

it’s absolutely shameful…

cmsinaz on August 29, 2011 at 7:01 PM

It gets worse

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/mollyclaflinblog/gGg7DQ

you’re a lawyer or law student, the Obama campaign needs your help. We’re dispatching volunteer lawyers across the country as part of the Obama Voter Protection Program.

This unprecedented program will make sure we have volunteer attorneys as voter protection monitors in battleground states across the country. We’ve got hundreds of thousands of first-time voters participating in the election this year, and they’re going to need your help in making sure their ballots get counted.

William Amos on August 29, 2011 at 7:07 PM

So far, every state law aimed to crack down on illegal immigration has been stymied in court

AZ’s mandatory E-verify law was upheld a few months ago by the Supreme Court.

Rick Perry opposes such a law in Texas.

Jon0815 on August 29, 2011 at 7:07 PM

This is not surprising. The administration wants the chaos. They are like the anti-Borg. Making everone miserable through chaos.

SouthernGent on August 29, 2011 at 7:08 PM

Maybe the judge would have upheld the law if the the “undocumented workers” were smuggling “questionably sourced” Indian Rosewood for Gibson Guitars.

DeathB4Tyranny on August 29, 2011 at 7:00 PM

LOL. And, it’s kind of hard to swallow or put into suppository form, I would think.

TXUS on August 29, 2011 at 7:09 PM

William Amos on August 29, 2011 at 7:07 PM

cripe…he drops to a new low each day doesn’t he…

cmsinaz on August 29, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Undocumented children can go to school without fear of persecution?

Sounds good to me.

mythicknight on August 29, 2011 at 7:12 PM

This is fantastic news, at least as fodder for the 2012 elections. Let the independents have such court decisions absolutely rubbed in their faces as they decide who’ll they vote for.

I can only hope Obama gives a speech about it.

Drained Brain on August 29, 2011 at 7:13 PM

Needless to say, people who go to law school are overwhelmingly of a liberal persuasion, thus it is no surprise to find that most judges have a liberal worldview.

It really is a tyranny of an elite. But it’s the conservatives’ fault. They didn’t go to law school so they abdicated the levers of power to the lefties. This is the result.

keep the change on August 29, 2011 at 7:15 PM

she didn’t have enough time to consider the law in full before the Sept. 1 date it goes into effect,
Why hasn’t a judge blocked ObamaCare like this?

faraway on August 29, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Thread WINNER!!

Khun Joe on August 29, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Welcome new troll mythicknight. We have cookies in the lobby.

angryed on August 29, 2011 at 7:21 PM

How are Obama and Hurricane Irene alike?

They both costs a lot of money, got downgraded and didn’t live up to expectations.

dforston on August 29, 2011 at 7:21 PM

I am not understanding how a court/judge is even permitted to block a law without stating a specific reason. Am I in the Twilight Zone? This makes no sense. Ignore this ruling, Alabama!

JannyMae on August 29, 2011 at 7:22 PM

you think dear leader would be thanking them to help enforce the law…

cripe…

cmsinaz on August 29, 2011 at 6:54 PM

Not if it keeps probably Dem voters off the rolls.

Freelancer on August 29, 2011 at 7:23 PM

dforston on August 29, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Ha!

txhsmom on August 29, 2011 at 7:27 PM

Hmm, a Bush 41 appointee.

TxAnn56 on August 29, 2011 at 6:55 PM

And Bush 41 and Barbara are backing Huntsman. *SIGH*

capejasmine on August 29, 2011 at 7:28 PM

“The law prohibits almost everything which would harbor or shield an undocumented immigrant or encourage an undocumented immigrant to live in Alabama. This new Alabama law makes it illegal for a Catholic to priest baptize, hear the confession of, celebrate the anointing of the sick with, or preach the word of God to, an undocumented immigrant. When it involves undocumented immigrants, it is illegal to encourage them to attend Mass or give them a ride to Mass. It is illegal to allow them to attend adult scripture study groups, or attend CCD or Sunday school classes. It is illegal for the clergy to counsel them in times of difficulty or in preparation for marriage. It is illegal for them to come to Alcoholic Anonymous meetings or other recovery groups at our churches. The law prohibits almost every activity of our Catholic Social Services. If it involves an undocumented immigrant, it is illegal to give the disabled person a ride to the doctor; give food or clothing or financial assistance in an emergency; allow them to shop at our thrift stores or to learn English; it is illegal to counsel a mother who has a problem pregnancy, or to help her with baby food or diapers thus making it far more likely that she will choose abortion. This law attacks our very understanding of what it means to be a Christian.” –Most Reverend Robert J. Baker, S.T.D., Bishop of Birmingham in Alabama

RBMN on August 29, 2011 at 7:29 PM

she didn’t have enough time to consider the law in full before the Sept. 1 date it goes into effect,
Why hasn’t a judge blocked ObamaCare like this?

faraway on August 29, 2011 at 6:59 PM
Thread WINNER!!

Khun Joe on August 29, 2011 at 7:20 PM

I second that motion! Excellent post, and excellent point!!!

capejasmine on August 29, 2011 at 7:29 PM

This weekend I spoke to a local candidate who is running for office in the 2011 election in my very liberal city.

I asked him if he was elected to office would he enforce the Federal Secure Communities Act which would require him to send finger prints of people who were arrested to ICE to screen for ILLEGAL aliens.

His answer was basically, no because he would follow the “policy that the community wants” which in this case is to be a sanctuary city for ILLEGALs. (Alas, he is the most conservative of the candidates who are running for this office.)

If we want to stop ILLEGAL immigration, we need to make it very clear to every candidate at the Local, State and Federal level that we, the “members of the community”, want our laws against ILLEGAL immigration to be enforced.

It is way past time for the silent majority to stop being silent!

wren on August 29, 2011 at 7:31 PM

“In entering this order the court specifically notes that it is in no way addressing the merits of the motions,” Judge Blackburn wrote in her brief order, promising a ruling by Sept. 28.

Is there ANYONE reading this blog that thinks this judge has NOT already made up her mind?

As typical with many judges these days, her goal is to ENFORCE HER DECISION for as long as she can before it is appealed to the next court. This judge is circumventing the legal process by extending her period of study beyond the most effective moment of implementation, the start of the school year. Her decision on the date is not accidental.

In the same manner as the judge in Wisconsin, this judge will sit on this case for as long as she can. In Wisconsin, that judge helped to funnel tens of millions of dollars into the crooked labor union healthcare scam. I wonder how much this judge is going to cost the people of Alabama?

Freddy on August 29, 2011 at 7:37 PM

*sniff*

Smell that? Someone crapped another tyranny-plunkie in the water supply.

How many more of those before we decide the water is too tainted? Dunno about you guys, but I’m damn tired of it.

Midas on August 29, 2011 at 7:40 PM

she didn’t have enough time to consider the law in full before the Sept. 1 date it goes into effect,
Why hasn’t a judge blocked ObamaCare like this?

faraway on August 29, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Because a conservative Constitution-upholding judge who might be interested in that outcome is precisely the kind of judge who *won’t* pull this kind of BS.

Midas on August 29, 2011 at 7:42 PM

And Bush 41 and Barbara are backing Huntsman. *SIGH*

capejasmine on August 29, 2011 at 7:28 PM

you’re joking, right?

cmsinaz on August 29, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Its not like Obama would deport them once they found them. Need to hire his replacement for 2013.

El_Terrible on August 29, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Undocumented children can go to school without fear of persecution?

Sounds good to me.

mythicknight on August 29, 2011 at 7:12 PM

What nonsense. Illegal alien kids would not be “persecuted” just because someone asks them where they were born when they enroll in school. Providing a public school education for illegal aliens costs states billions of tax dollars every year. Taxpayers forced to incur this burden have every right to know how many illegal aliens are being educated in their schools. Liberals prefer to keep the numbers secret, for all the obvious reasons.

AZCoyote on August 29, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Isn’t this the same people who said there wasn’t enough resources to uphold the law? You’d think they would welcome the states’ help.

tinkerthinker on August 29, 2011 at 7:50 PM

RBMN on August 29, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Render to Caesar…and all that.

coldwarrior on August 29, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Ignore the judge.

darwin on August 29, 2011 at 6:49 PM

I Wish!

They can try to ignore illegial immigration, but they can’t ignore the will of the people. Keep pushing, like the budget.

itsspideyman on August 29, 2011 at 8:13 PM

What kind of crazy world do we live in where anyone can think that it is unconstitutional to give benefits to illegal aliens?

BierManVA on August 29, 2011 at 8:15 PM

RBMN on August 29, 2011 at 7:29 PM

The State maintains that none of this is true.

Bugler on August 29, 2011 at 8:24 PM

AZCoyote on August 29, 2011 at 7:47 PM

You’re right. The law does not allow for a child to be denied access to public education on the basis of immigrant status.

Bugler on August 29, 2011 at 8:31 PM

These states should stop all assistance to the feds on every other law where they are called on to help until the feds enforce the existing immigration laws as they took an oath to do.

If the feds won’t perform their primary job to defend the nation by securing the borders, then the states should stop all policing aid for all less vital laws.

Plead fiscal restraints.

profitsbeard on August 29, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Why hasn’t a judge blocked ObamaCare like this?

faraway on August 29, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Obama appeals the rulings against Obamacare that have already been handed down and gets a stay pending the appeal. I suppose proponents of this law could appeal a delay until the end of September, but that would get decided later than that date anyway. Probably not worth the effort.

KW64 on August 29, 2011 at 9:48 PM

This law attacks our very understanding of what it means to be a Christian thief and illegal invader engaged in stealing goods and services from American taxpayers.”

RBMN on August 29, 2011 at 7:29 PM

(Corrected obvious error, and referring Most Reverend Robert J. Baker, S.T.D., Bishop of Birmingham in Alabama to “Remedial 10 Commandments” school to correct glaring deficiency in understanding of “Thou Shalt Not Steal”)

landlines on August 29, 2011 at 10:51 PM

RBMN on August 29, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Don’t get me started on Bishop Baker. I’ve met Bishop Baker at my son’s confirmation last spring. This confirmation was held by our Catholic church at their spanish mass even though the vast majority of our Catholic community speaks english. However, it is the spanish kids (who cannot speak english) that the church is catering to because there happen to be a lot of them, and they are Catholic. The kids who spoke English got very little out of their own Confirmation mass because they couldn’t understand hardly any of it. Why it was held at a spanish mass is so the good bishop could pander to the hispanic community to help fill the pews that the whites are leaving.

I truly loathe Bishop Baker. His whole lawsuit against the State of Alabama is bogus on its face, and the fact that he is encouraging the Catholic congregations in our state to get involved in fighting this issue with him really makes me angry.

KickandSwimMom on August 30, 2011 at 12:18 AM

As far as requiring school officials to determine immigration status, that is only partially true:

Section 28(a)(1) requires every public elementary and secondary school, at the time of enrollment, to determine whether the student enrolling in public school “was born outside of the jurisdiction of the United States or is the child of an alien not lawfully present in the United States and qualifies for assignment to an English as Second Language Class or other remedial program.” Section 28(a)(2) requires that determination to be made by relying on the student’s original or certified copy of a birth certificate. Under Section 28(a)(3), if from that review, it is determined that the is student born outside of US is child of illegal alien or if a birth certificate is unavailable available, then the parent, guardian or custodian must notify the school within 30 days of the student’s actual citizenship or immigration status. Section 28(a)(a)(5) requires a school to presume that a student is an illegal alien if no documents or declarations are made. Section 28(c) then requires the school to give the data to the State Board of Education which then compiles the info, “aggregated by public school, regarding the numbers of…citizens, lawfully present aliens…, and of [illegal] aliens…” Basically what the law requires is for the State Board of Education to report the numbers of illegal aliens to the Legislature in the aggregate by schools so that the Legislature can plan for planning future school budgets. In other words, to statement that HB 56 requires determining immigration status of students is misleading.

Also, the characterization ignores Section 7(e) which specifically states that “Verification of lawful presence…shall not be required for…primary or secondary school education…”

Conservative in NOVA on August 30, 2011 at 2:53 PM