Alabama Immigration Law Put On Hold

 

Alabama’s controversial immigration law was put on hold as a federal judge issued a temporary injunction staying implementation of the law until Judge Sharon L. Blackburn has had time to determine whether or not the law is constitutional.

At a hearing on the injunction Judge Blackburn said that there were “a lot of problems” with the statute that could lead to a number of unlawful arrest suits.  The law would make it a crime for an undocumented person to be in the state and would criminalize hiring or renting property in the state.

Despite her reservations surrounding the law Blackburn made it clear that she was not ruling on the merits at this time.

Alabama Gov. Robert Bently (R) was not dismayed by the injunction and issued a statement that said “I look forward to the Judge ruling on the merits.  We have long needed a tough law against illegal immigration in this state and now we have one.  I will continue to fight at every turn to defend this law against any and all challenges.”

The Department of Justice had sued the state arguing that the law interfered with federal immigration law and is therefore unconstitutional.  Business leaders have also come out in opposition to the measure stating concerns over the impact it would have on their workforce.

The law had been set to go into effect on September 1, 2011.  Judge Blackburn said that she will rule on the merits of the law by September 29th.

Related Stories:

Professors Create Freedom University For Georgia’s Undocumented Students

Obama Administration Halts Some Deportations

Photo from barnaby via flickr.

95 comments

William C
William C5 months ago

Thank you.

SEND
W. C
W. C5 months ago

Thanks.

SEND
LMj Sunshine

Thank you for article.

SEND
LMj Sunshine

Thank you for article.

SEND
Sarah M.
Sarah M5 years ago

"a lot of problems"--no, really?! it sounds like most of the people commenting on here have the same problems as the idiots who started this law. What is wrong with all of you?! This thing doesn't need to be merely put on hold, it needs to be done away with completely and put down in the history books as one of the stupidest, most ignorant, racist laws in American history. Thank you very much.

SEND
Lynda H.
Lynda Harrison5 years ago

Pray tell me, what is wrong with the concept of a person being asked to prove they have the right to be in this country? This idea that illegals should be given a free pass is a slap in the face to those who have waited, in some cases for many years, for the right to come to this country LEGALLY.

SEND
Vince D.
Vince D5 years ago

Anyways, I am all with you on wanting to protect citizens from profiling and preserving voting rights. Oh, and did you see where the census didn’t bother to ask citizenship status? My state will be losing a House seat, and states with high illegal populations will gain representation due to non-citizens being counted the same as citizens. My vote just got diluted!

SEND
Vince D.
Vince D5 years ago

Hi Pego,

Wow, you are a night owl! ;^)

No argument at all that profiling exists and that the courts are not colorblind. But I see that as a separate problem from illegal migration.

Yes, most of our illegal invaders happen to be Hispanic, that’s a fact of geography, not a racial issue. And I see that the pro-illegal alien folks are constantly trying to hide behind the race issue to justify a lack of action against the illegal invaders. (And their employers!) Personally, I would object to this invasion no matter what race they were or where they came from. My objections have always been primarily on environmental and economic issues. The level of disrespect for our laws that also is troublesome.

Now if you want to delve into the racial implications of illegal employment, we can go there at the risk of stepping into PC quicksand. I trust that you and I can handle that conversation, but others on this board might go ballistic. Anyways, suffice to say that the illegals are harming the legal minority populations disproportionately. In that sense, deporting illegals would help minorities who are here legally.

Anyways, I am all with you on wanting to protect citizens from profiling and preserving voting rights. Oh, and did you see where the census didn’t bother to ask citizenship status? My state will be losing a House seat, and states with high illegal populations will gain representation due to non-citizens being counted the same as citizens. My vote ju

SEND
Pego R.
Pego R5 years ago

This is the problem between theory and on-the-ground fact. Your theories are great, I even agree with some, but the history shows elsewise. Profiling is one of our baggages. Our police and our laws are so natively shaped around controlling women and minorities that just about everything still works out that way, regardless of the race of the person trying to apply. This is not a secret of anything. This was one of the things we were studying to work out ways to "stop doing this" when I was studying in law enforcement. At ALL levels laws are applied differently to people of color. They are stopped for "suspicion" more often, they are given warning "less" often, when jailed, they are jailed longer, they are represented less effectively in courts, they are guilty or not, convicted more often, once convicted they are given odd sentences (Odd sentences are always rounded "UP" for parole review) they are therefore delayed in getting parole.

I'll get back to that bouncing ball after work tomorrow, sleepy now

SEND
Vince D.
Vince D5 years ago

All of that said, I am completely against “profiling” and racial harassment. Back when I was younger and had a lead foot, I got pulled over a few times: “License, registration and insurance card please.” Had I not been able to produce these, I would not have been simply turned loose. That is fair and asking for ID in the course of a lawful contact is perfectly acceptable. In this day of computers in every police car, there is no reason not to check EVERY person who is lawfully contacted by the police. No profiling, no harassment, just check everyone who is picked up.

Also employers should be required to run E-Verify on EVERY employee, many are doing so now voluntarily. Potentially, E-Verify could include a photo and be an on-line ID for voting, which would make the process easier and less prone to abuses.

SEND