6/2- ajc.com – Judge to rule later whether immigration law should go into effect July 1 | ajc.com

Judge to rule later whether immigration law should go into effect July 1  | ajc.com.

Georgia Politics 8:35 p.m. Monday, June 20, 2011

By Jeremy Redmon

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

A federal judge on Mondayasked tough questions about the potential fallout from Georgia’s new anti-illegal immigration law but said he would rule later on whether it should be halted.

Enlarge photo

Manuel Bojorquez, WSB-TV Protesters held signs and marched outside the courthouse during the hearing on the immigration law.

Enlarge photo

Walter Cumming, special U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Thrash focued on practical aspects of Georgia’s new anti-illegal immigrant law in a Monday hearing, suggesting it would not be enforced consistently across the state and that local authorities could choose who to target.

Related

• Insider: 2 Gwinnett lawmakers join fight
• Suit challenges immigration law
• Immigrants leave Georgia
• Survey: Nearly half of Georgia farmers report labor shortages
• Immigration law’s impact on schools

Many of the legal arguments for and against the Arizona-style law revolve around whether it is constitutional. But during a hearing Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Thrash repeatedly focused on the law’s practicality. He questioned its purpose, suggested it would not be enforced consistently across state’s 159 counties and said local authorities could pick and choose who to target with it, favoring some people and not others.

Thrash, who was nominated to the court by President Bill Clinton, offered one hypothetical example in which local authorities could target immigrants to get them out of their public schools but not touch the immigrant cook who works at the popular Mexican restaurant in town. The judge also questioned whether teenage U.S. citizens should be prosecuted for driving their illegal immigrant parents to the grocery store.

Based on Thrash’s line of questioning, the Republican author of the law said Monday he wouldn’t be surprised if the judge grants opponents of the law a preliminary injunction and halts the measure. But Rep. Matt Ramsey,R-Peachtree City, said he was confident the state would appeal to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta and win.

“We believe in the end that the law — on its merits — is going to be found constitutional -– all provisions of the law,” Ramsey said.

Thrash said he plans to issue his decision on whether the law will be halted before July 1, when much of the law is scheduled to take effect.

Signed by Republican Gov. Nathan Deal last month, the law empowers local and state police to investigate the immigration status of certain suspects and arrest illegal immigrants and take them to state and federal jails. It also would require many businesses to use the federal E-Verify program to ensure their new hires are eligible to work in the United States. And it would punish people who — while committing another crime — knowingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants or encourage them to come to Georgia.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center and several other civil and immigrant rights groups asked the judge Monday to put the law on hold, pending the outcome of a lawsuit they have filed to challenge its constitutionality. They say the law would interfere with the federal government’s authority to set and enforce immigration policy, promote racial profiling and violate the Fourth Amendment by allowing police to detain people for inordinate periods of time while investigating their immigration status.

Federal judges have put similar laws on hold in Arizona and Utah following court challenges.

Senior Assistant State Attorney General Devon Orland defended Georgia’s law in court Monday. She had just begun testifying when Thrash started asking her a series of pointed questions about the purpose of the law and its practicality. At one point, he declared “immigration has traditionally been a matter for federal regulation, not local law enforcement.”

“Is the purpose to drive all undocumented immigrants out of Georgia?” he asked Orland. He then referred to the immigrants who work in some of Georgia’s largest industries, including farming, chicken processing and carpet manufacturing.

Orland responded that illegal immigrants are costing the state millions of dollars by burdening its jails and hospitals at a time of high unemployment.

“Just because we economically depend on something that is unlawful does not change it from unlawful to lawful,” she told the judge about illegal immigrants working in Georgia. She later said: “This doesn’t change anything. Illegal is illegal is illegal.”

Thrash asked Orland whether an 18-year-old U.S. citizens should be prosecuted for driving his illegal immigrant mother to the grocery store. Orland responded that the law is sometimes harsh but that “does not make it unconstitutional.”

The attorney general’s office declined to comment after the hearing. But a spokesman for the governor said: “This law was carefully tailored to conform with existing federal law and with the rulings of federal courts.”

Supporters of the law say they are confident that at least the part of the law requiring the use of the federal E-Verify program will withstand the court challenge. They said that is the most important provision of the law because it could discourage illegal immigrants from coming to Georgia to find jobs. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law that requires companies to use the federal work authorization program.

Attorneys for the ACLU and National Immigration Law Center said they didn’t want to read too much into Thrash’s tough questions but said they were cautiously optimistic he would rule in their favor.

“He clearly understands that there are constitutional issues at stake,” said Karen Tumlin, a managing attorney for the National Immigration Law Center. “It was very telling when he said, ‘So, we are going to have 159 different immigration enforcement schemes.’”

Staff Writer Craig Schneider contributed to this report.

6/20 – keeganfederal.blogspot.com – Federal judge “openly skeptical” of Georgia’s new anti-immigration law

Federal’s Law.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Federal judge “openly skeptical” of Georgia’s new anti-immigration law

We had a great hearing this morning in Federal Court before U.S. District Judge Tom Thrash in our lawsuit to stop the State of Georgia from enforcing the new anti-immigrant law.

Judge Thrash was “openly skeptical” as he “grilled a lawyer for the state” — and that’s not just my opinion, it’s straight from Atlanta Business Chronicle.

In an article posted early this afternoon, the Business Chronicle said Judge Thrash “questioned the state’s purpose in enacting the legislation, whether a state can legally assert its authority over what traditionally has been a federal issue and how Georgians — legal and illegal — would be affected if the law is allowed to take effect July 1.”

Those are the very questions my colleagues and I have been asking ever since this awful law was signed by Gov. Nathan Deal last month.

Judge Thrash didn’t issue a ruling on the question of an injunction today, as I thought he might, but indicated it was reasonable to expect an answer before July 1, when the law is scheduled to take effect.

The judge obviously had read all the briefs in advance and he is very knowledgeable about the applicable laws, and the respective positions of the parties.

We remain confident he will enjoin HB 87 because it is unconstitutional. And the practical effect of it would be to hurt not only the “illegal immigrants” which it targets, but also all residents of Georgia — legal and otherwise.

Whichever way Judge Thrash rules, however, the opposition is almost certain to appeal.

In an article published earlier today in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, and an accompanying column by Henry Unger, I was quoted as saying I expect the case to end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

But not by itself.

Similar laws in states like Arizona and Utah are also being challenged, and likely will be heard together when they reach the high court.

Posted by Keegan Federal at 1:49 PM

6/20 – CNN – Judge hears case against Georgia’s immigration law – CNN.com

Judge hears case against Georgia’s immigration law – CNN.com.

By Catherine E. Shoichet and Chelsea Bailey, CNN

June 20, 2011 5:42 p.m. EDT

Georgia’s immigration law has been the subject of several protests. Arguments in the case begin Monday in Atlanta.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• NEW: A federal judge pushes for a clear explanation of the law’s purpose
• NEW: Georgia attorney: “The federal government can’t be everywhere”
• NEW: ACLU attorney: “It’s not for Georgia to make the decision” on immigration
• NEW: The judge says the law gives local police “a tremendous amount of discretion”

Atlanta (CNN) — After supporters and critics of Georgia’s controversial new immigration measure faced off in federal court Monday, a judge said he hoped to weigh in on the law by next week.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. said he intended to issue a written ruling before July 1, when the law is scheduled to go into effect.

Attorneys representing plaintiffs in the class-action suit against the law asked Thrash to issue a temporary injunction that would stop the law, known as HB 87, while the court considers the case.

Attorneys representing the state filed a motion to dismiss the class-action suit.

“HB 87 is deeply flawed and fundamentally unconstitutional,” said Omar Jadwat, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Immigration laws are the U.S. government’s responsibility, he argued.

“It’s not for Georgia to make the decision that federal law is insufficiently harsh,” he said.

The state law, which is aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration, allows police to ask about immigration status when questioning suspects in certain criminal investigations.

It also allows the imposition of prison sentences for people who knowingly transport illegal immigrants during the commission of a crime and says that workers convicted of using fake identification to get jobs could be sentenced to 15 years in prison and fined $250,000.

“Sometimes the law is harsh, there’s no question about that, but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional,” said Devon Orland, senior assistant attorney general for the state.

Thrash questioned Orland throughout the two-hour hearing, repeatedly asking the attorney to clearly define the purpose of the law.

Lawyer hopeful immigration law won’t fly

Georgia immigration law foes protest

April 2011: GA passes immigration bill

Immigration law threatens farm labor

“Don’t you concede that this provides local law enforcement with a tremendous amount of discretion?” he asked.

Orland compared the new immigration measure to provisions that allow local authorities to make arrests using federal laws in drug and weapon cases. She argued the law mirrors federal immigration regulations and clarifies the role that local law enforcement plays in enforcing them.

But Thrash said the law appeared to give local governments too much leeway.

“You’re going to have 159 different versions, because every county and municipality will have its own interpretation of the law,” he said.

Economic issues also figured prominently in Monday’s hearing.

Orland argued that money was one of the main motivations of Georgia’s law, saying illegal immigrants were using state resources.

“The federal government simply can’t be everywhere … and it is costing the state of Georgia an extraordinary amount of money,” she said.

In his questioning, Thrash alluded to contributions immigrants make to the state’s economy, and said the law could open the door to selective enforcement.

“We like the people at the restaurant. Let’s not bother the cook or the guy that does the mayor’s yard work. They’re a nice family. But we’re going to make it so difficult for everybody else they’re going to leave,” he said.

Orland countered that Georgia’s reliance on immigrant labor was not a legal consideration.

“Let’s not forget, just because we’re economically dependent on something unlawful, doesn’t change it to being lawful,” she said.

As attorneys made their arguments, a small group of protesters rallied outside the federal courthouse in downtown Atlanta, chanting, “What do we want? Injunction! When do we want it? Now!”

Fear kept more people from participating in the demonstration, protest organizer Adelina Nicholls said.

“People have been scared, absolutely,” said Nicholls, the executive director of the Georgia Latino Association for Human Rights. “That’s the climate we’re living in — people feel they have a right to ask you for your papers.”

Nicholls said she fears the law will increase profiling of Hispanics, but attorneys representing the state said the concerns are unfounded.

“Any such fear is purely hypothetical and speculative in light of the clear terms of HB 87 that prohibit unconstitutional racial profiling and require criminal conduct before any verification of immigration status would enter the realm of possibility,” says the attorneys’ brief supporting their motion to dismiss the case.

The Georgia Attorney General’s Office declined to comment further after the hearing, a spokeswoman said.

Jadwat, the ACLU attorney, said he was “positive and hopeful,” even though the judge did not make a ruling.

The ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Asian Law Caucus are representing plaintiffs in the Georgia lawsuit.

Several organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, have filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the lawsuit. The governments of 12 Latin American countries also filed friend-of-the-court briefs, saying the law will negatively impact their relations with the United States and people of Latin American descent in Georgia.

The Georgia lawsuit is the latest battle in a nationwide skirmish between state and federal officials over who controls immigration enforcement.

Arizona’s controversial law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration catapulted the issue onto the national stage last year, drawing a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice, which argues the law is unconstitutional.

In April, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Justice Department and against Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed Arizona’s law last year. Brewer announced last month that the state would appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Justice Department has not joined the Georgia lawsuit.

In Monday’s hearing, Thrash referred to the Justice Department’s involvement in the Arizona legal battle. Orland said the Arizona statute is “quite a bit different” than the Georgia law.

CNN’s Gustavo Valdes contributed to this report.

6/20 – ajc.com – Judge to rule later whether immigration law should go into effect July 1 | ajc.com

Judge to rule later whether immigration law should go into effect July 1  | ajc.com.

Georgia Politics 2:55 p.m. Monday, June 20, 2011

By Jeremy Redmon

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

A federal judge on Monday asked several tough questions about the potential fallout from Georgia’s new anti-illegal immigration law but said he would rule later on whether it should be halted.

Enlarge photo

Manuel Bojorquez, WSB-TV Protesters held signs and marched outside the courthouse during the hearing on the immigration law.

Enlarge photo

Walter Cumming, special U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Thrash focued on practical aspects of Georgia’s new anti-illegal immigrant law in a Monday hearing, suggesting it would not be enforced consistently across the state and that local authorities could choose who to target.

Many of the legal arguments for and against the law revolve around whether it is constitutional. But during a more than hour-long hearing in Atlanta Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Thrash repeatedly focused on the law’s practicality. He questioned its purpose, suggested it would not be enforced consistently across the state and said local authorities could pick and choose who to target with it.

Thrash, who was nominated to the court by President Bill Clinton, offered one hypothetical example in which local authorities could target immigrants to get them out their public schools but not touch the immigrant cook who works at the popular Mexican restaurant in town. The judge also questioned whether teenage U.S. citizens should be prosecuted for driving their illegal immigrant parents to the grocery store.

Based on Thrash’s line of questioning, the Republican author of the law said Monday he wouldn’t be surprised if Thrash grants opponents of the law a preliminary injunction and halts the measure. But Rep. Matt Ramsey of Peachtree City said he was confident the state would appeal to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta and win under that scenario.

“We believe in the end that the law — on its merits — is going to be found constitutional – all provisions of the law,” Ramsey said.

The American Civil Liberties Union and several other civil and immigrant rights groups asked the judge Monday to put the law on hold, pending the outcome of a lawsuit they have filed to challenge its constitutionality.

Senior Assistant State Attorney General Devon Orland said the law is aimed at protecting Georgia’s taxpayer-funded resources. She told the judge that illegal immigrants are burdening the state’s hospitals and jails.

6/20 – CNN – Why I’m suing Georgia over immigration law – CNN.com

Why I’m suing Georgia over immigration law – CNN.com.

By Paul W. Bridges, Special to CNN

June 20, 2011 10:21 a.m. EDT

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Paul Bridges, mayor of Uvalda, Georgia, has joined civil suit against new immigration law
• He says law could tear local economy and family structure apart as people live in fear
• He says law makes helping, driving undocumented in community a criminal offense
• Bridges: Law is un-American, unconstitutional, extreme and incursion on privacy

Editor’s note: Paul Bridges is the mayor of Uvalda, Georgia, and a member of a class-action lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center and other organizations to prevent Georgia’s new immigration enforcement law, House Bill 87, from going into effect July 1.

(CNN) — Many are surprised to learn that a conservative Republican mayor like me is involved in a class-action civil-rights lawsuit against my state. And yet, I’m proud to participate in this challenge to Georgia’s harsh “papers please” law, which runs counter to America’s greatest values and threatens to run my town’s economy to the ground.

HB87, which was signed last month by Republican Gov. Nathan Deal, would authorize Georgia police to demand proof of citizenship from criminal suspects not carrying an approved form of identification and would also impose criminal penalties for anyone who knowingly harbors or transports an undocumented immigrant.

This law strikes fear in all skilled laborers and anyone associated with them. It will allow officers untrained in immigration issues to detain and investigate anyone they choose. It threatens to tear families apart — citizen spouses and children will risk permanent separation from undocumented loved ones; grandparents will lose their grandchildren if a family feels forced to leave Georgia.

The people who are challenging this law come from all walks of life, but we all believe that we must fight this broad attack on our basic freedoms and local economies.

Though the law hasn’t yet taken effect, its effect can be seen in the farms across southern Georgia. In Uvalda and in neighboring towns, it’s not uncommon to see farmers struggling to find enough hands to pick the last of their Vidalia onion, squash and berry crops.

Local businesses will soon be deprived of reliable revenue provided by the workers — both with and without papers — who contribute to our economy. Many farmers in southern Georgia fear that this picture will look much bleaker if the law takes effect on July 1 as scheduled.

A farming couple in Graham is sleepless with worry about not being able to repay the federal loan to start their berry business. They fear they won’t have workers to pick their berries, a job machines can’t do.

I ran for mayor of Uvalda in 2009 because I wanted to see my town become a fairer and more prosperous place. 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. Several farmers provide housing for workers. Even family of friends have stayed in my own home during blueberry season.

Under Georgia’s new law, those simple, neighborly activities could become criminal acts. If I fail to use my turn signal or speed while taking fellow parishioners to church, and I incur a traffic violation with an undocumented person in the van, then I could end up with a criminal penalty –even a felony with a second offense. 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. Other Republicans, like Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, have understood this issue; even former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue sees the problem. I don’t feel alone in this stance.

Furthermore, the law imposes an unfunded mandate that will mean a significant burden on every town’s resources. Rather than focusing on their mission to protect and serve, our police officers will now be forced to rent space to jail anyone caught working or living in Uvalda without papers.

In other words, we’ll take someone who had previously been contributing to our economy and pay to house him in a jail far from the community. No one knows how long it might take to process the prisoner and then to be picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This isn’t the fiscal conservatism my party is supposed to promote.

Worse, the men and women who have friends or family members who are undocumented will be less likely to call the police as witnesses or victims of crime — and that makes all of us less safe.

Simply put, the Georgia law will strip my town of its economic livelihood and deny those living here of their right to drive with their friends, host members of their family or engage in other daily activities without government intrusion. Any American who values liberty, privacy and prosperity should fight this unnecessary, unconstitutional and extremist law.

I know families leaving Georgia — a state they have called home for 15 years or more — rather than break up their families.

One Latino father, who was born in Texas, explained to me last week that his family lives in fear of what happens if he is arrested and charged with transporting an illegal alien — his wife. He said that his family cannot call 911 if an emergency occurs at their home. His extended family members are affected, too. These are real people in anguish.

Although those fighting this law have been painted as left-of-center, I’ll stand proudly with them on Monday to ask the court to recognize that this law goes against the values my Republican Party often pledges to protect. Uvalda, like towns across Georgia, has too much to lose for me to stay out of this fight.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Paul W. Bridges