ATLANTA—A judge blocked Georgia’s controversial new immigration law on Monday, June 27. Part of House Bill 87, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011 (HB87) would have taken effect on July 1. Federal Judge Thomas Thrash issued a 79-page order, partly based on the idea that preliminary injunctions are justified when matters affecting civil rights are at stake. He issued his order in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division.
Thrash did not say he thought the law would be found unconstitutional. The plaintiffs in their suit said they thought it would be. The legislators who created the law tried to make it constitutional. A key point was not requiring law enforcement to verify the immigration status of individual suspects, but rather allowing them to do so.
Another question is whether the law improperly takes over federal authority. Thrash wrote: “Seventy years ago the United States Supreme Court declared that the federal government had the exclusive right to legislate in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization, and deportation.”
The case is Georgia Latino Alliance v. Deal. The alliance is a collection of individuals and advocacy groups, including a group that supports Asian immigrants. One of the most notable individuals is a Republican mayor.
Nathan Deal is the governor of Georgia, who advocated for stricter laws and enforcement against illegal immigration when he was a congressman and when he campaigned for governor. Deal has been mostly quiet about the law. He signed it without fanfare. He asked the Georgia’s Department of Agriculture, under the leadership of Commissioner Gary Black, to study the impact of the law on farmers, after Deal signed it. Black found that there were 11,000 vacancies in fieldwork jobs. Migrant workers may avoid the state because of the law. Deal has recommended that farmers hire people on probation to harvest crops.
Business groups, charitable groups, immigration lawyers, and agricultural and tourism organizations, have criticized the law. Multiple demonstrations have been held at the state Capitol to protest it. The law would penalize individuals who harbor or transport illegal immigrants.
D.A. King, a Georgia activist who founded the Dustin Inman Society, named for a child killed by an illegal immigrant driver, says the law is necessary. His website was unavailable on Monday due to heavy traffic, it said.
Paul Bridges is mayor of Uvalda, Ga., a very small town near Vidalia, famous for its sweet onions. He joined the suit because of its potential harm to farmers, who need migrant workers to harvest crops. He also said he might be among those penalized for helping illegal immigrants. In a commentary he wrote for CNN, Bridges said: “With only 600 people in our town, we know one another pretty well. We give rides to our friends and don’t ask for their papers. During harvest season, we open our homes to those who work in the fields. … If I don’t check the papers of friends who stay with my family, I might be charged with harboring an undocumented person. This shocking governmental intrusion on one’s private activities is why Republicans like me are fighting to keep this heinous law off Georgia’s books.”
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs would not be harmed by the law, and therefore had no standing to file suit against it. In the judge’s opinion, he wrote that the plaintiffs did have standing because the law could cause them harm, in the way Bridges described.
Mary Bauer, legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, said in a press release, “By perpetuating the hate rhetoric that has become commonplace among many elected officials, this law threatens the rights of citizens and noncitizens alike by encouraging racial profiling. Sadly, too, it places Georgia on the wrong side of history.”
Georgia, Alabama, Utah, and Indiana have passed immigration laws. All have been challenged in court. The Supreme Court will ultimately address the question if it cannot be settled in lower courts.
Thrash did not say he thought the law would be found unconstitutional. The plaintiffs in their suit said they thought it would be. The legislators who created the law tried to make it constitutional. A key point was not requiring law enforcement to verify the immigration status of individual suspects, but rather allowing them to do so.
Another question is whether the law improperly takes over federal authority. Thrash wrote: “Seventy years ago the United States Supreme Court declared that the federal government had the exclusive right to legislate in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization, and deportation.”
The case is Georgia Latino Alliance v. Deal. The alliance is a collection of individuals and advocacy groups, including a group that supports Asian immigrants. One of the most notable individuals is a Republican mayor.
Nathan Deal is the governor of Georgia, who advocated for stricter laws and enforcement against illegal immigration when he was a congressman and when he campaigned for governor. Deal has been mostly quiet about the law. He signed it without fanfare. He asked the Georgia’s Department of Agriculture, under the leadership of Commissioner Gary Black, to study the impact of the law on farmers, after Deal signed it. Black found that there were 11,000 vacancies in fieldwork jobs. Migrant workers may avoid the state because of the law. Deal has recommended that farmers hire people on probation to harvest crops.
Business groups, charitable groups, immigration lawyers, and agricultural and tourism organizations, have criticized the law. Multiple demonstrations have been held at the state Capitol to protest it. The law would penalize individuals who harbor or transport illegal immigrants.
D.A. King, a Georgia activist who founded the Dustin Inman Society, named for a child killed by an illegal immigrant driver, says the law is necessary. His website was unavailable on Monday due to heavy traffic, it said.
Paul Bridges is mayor of Uvalda, Ga., a very small town near Vidalia, famous for its sweet onions. He joined the suit because of its potential harm to farmers, who need migrant workers to harvest crops. He also said he might be among those penalized for helping illegal immigrants. In a commentary he wrote for CNN, Bridges said: “With only 600 people in our town, we know one another pretty well. We give rides to our friends and don’t ask for their papers. During harvest season, we open our homes to those who work in the fields. … If I don’t check the papers of friends who stay with my family, I might be charged with harboring an undocumented person. This shocking governmental intrusion on one’s private activities is why Republicans like me are fighting to keep this heinous law off Georgia’s books.”
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs would not be harmed by the law, and therefore had no standing to file suit against it. In the judge’s opinion, he wrote that the plaintiffs did have standing because the law could cause them harm, in the way Bridges described.
Mary Bauer, legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, said in a press release, “By perpetuating the hate rhetoric that has become commonplace among many elected officials, this law threatens the rights of citizens and noncitizens alike by encouraging racial profiling. Sadly, too, it places Georgia on the wrong side of history.”
Georgia, Alabama, Utah, and Indiana have passed immigration laws. All have been challenged in court. The Supreme Court will ultimately address the question if it cannot be settled in lower courts.
