Excerpts from judge’s ruling on Georgia’s immigration bill
As Attorney General Sam Olens points out, in the aftermath of U.S. District Judge Tom Thrash’s ruling, 21 of 23 sections of Georgia’s new illegal immigration law remain intact and go into effect on Friday.
Other victories for the state side of the argument include the judge’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ assertions that the law would violate a citizen’s right to travel.
Read the entire decision here.
However, it’s clear that Thrash is no fan of the core thought behind the bill. Here’s what he said about the key portion of the Georgia law — which he enjoined — that permits law enforcement officers to require proof of legal U.S. residency after individuals have been stopped for other purposes:
”HB 87 is state regulation of immigration. Section 8 attempts an end-run – not around federal criminal law – but around federal statutes defining the role of state and local officers in immigration enforcement….[B]oth the United States government and several foreign nations have expressed concern about the international relations impact of HB 87.
“In reference to HB 87, the President of the United States stated that “[i]t is a mistake for states to try to do this piecemeal. We can’t have 50 different immigration laws around the country.”…Mexico has also filed an amicus brief registering its concern that HB 87 will impede bilateral negotiations, hinder trade and tourism, and damage diplomatic relations between the United States and Mexico….
“These international relations underscore the conflict between HB 87 and federal immigration law. The conflict is not a purely speculative and indirect impact on immigration. It is direct and immediate…..”
Trash also applied the injunction to the portion of the law that criminalizes the transporting and harboring of illegal immigrants:
”Defendants wildly exaggerate the scope of the federal crime of harboring….when they claim that the Plaintiffs are violating federal immigration law by giving rides to their friends and neighbors who are illegal immigration. This is a good reason to require supervision of any attempts by Georgia to enforce illegal immigration law…..”
And there’s this general defense of federal immigration practices:
”The widespread belief that the federal government is doing nothing about illegal immigration is the belief in a myth. Although the Defendants characterize federal enforcement as “passive,” that assertion has no basis in fact. On an average day, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrest approximately 816 aliens for administrative immigration violations and remove approximately 912 aliens, including 456 criminal aliens, from the United States….In 2010, immigration offenses were prosecuted in federal court more than any other offense….”
- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
146 comments Add your comment
Freudian Slip
June 27th, 2011
6:02 pm
Trash also applied the injunction to the portion of the law that criminalizes the transporting and harboring of illegal immigrants:
”Defendants wildly exaggerate the scope of the federal crime of harboring….when they claim that the Plaintiffs are violating federal immigration law by giving rides to their friends and neighbors who are illegal immigration. This is a good reason to require supervision of any attempts by Georgia to enforce illegal immigration law…..”
This ruling is garbage.
Rick in Grayson
June 27th, 2011
6:04 pm
It will soon be a FELONY to submit false documents to obtain a job in Georgia. Illegal aliens presenting false documents (all of them) will then be FELONS!
Michael
June 27th, 2011
6:08 pm
I’m sure law enforcement was just as happy with this result as they were with the sex offender registry law being enjoined. More vague, discretionary laws to enforce with no more officers or money. I believe the term “unfunded mandate” started with the decision in Brown vs Board of Education.
td
June 27th, 2011
6:08 pm
summer
June 27th, 2011
6:00 pm
just to let everybody know that in the state of georgia that illegal immigrants are not allowed to get any kind of medicaid foodstamps or any other government issued benefit even though they are pregnant
That is a big lie. Emergency Medicaid pay for 99% of illegal babies in this state. Federal law may not allow the illegal to get such benefits as FS but their anchor baby is entitled and the illegal is the legal guardian and as such gets the EBT card and can use it anyway they choose.
td
June 27th, 2011
6:10 pm
Rick in Grayson
June 27th, 2011
6:04 pm
It will soon be a FELONY to submit false documents to obtain a job in Georgia. Illegal aliens presenting false documents (all of them) will then be FELONS!
And as a felon the feds will be forced to deport.
Victoria
June 27th, 2011
6:13 pm
I guess the Tyson Chicken plant in Georgia laid the illegals off, and now Georgia is looking to get rid of them. They can not afford the welfare, food stamps, free hospital, etc.
Aquagirl
June 27th, 2011
6:15 pm
“Federal law may not allow the illegal to get such benefits as FS but their anchor baby is entitled”
A citizen is entitled to benefits?!?! Oh my god….call out the National Guard!
jsmtih
June 27th, 2011
6:16 pm
when hispanics take over this country one day the united states will turn into another mexico or 3rd world country. thats what all the amercian hating mexicans dont realize. without the intelligent anglo european people running this country the america that everyone wants to come to and make a living will not exist !! it will turn into a giant mexican ghetto without white leadership. all you have to do is look at how mexico has developed over the past 200 years and look at how america has developed over the past 200 years. which country is more successful?? i agree that the USA needs cheap mexican labor , as long as Americans make the laws and run the country america will stay on top and be the envy of the rest of the world
td
June 27th, 2011
6:17 pm
Last Man Standing
June 27th, 2011
5:59 pm
I agree with you. I just do not like to let that kind for bull to go unchallenged. If you make a fool look like a fool enough then they will eventually either change their mind or just shut up.
td
June 27th, 2011
6:20 pm
Aquagirl
June 27th, 2011
6:15 pm
“Federal law may not allow the illegal to get such benefits as FS but their anchor baby is entitled”
A citizen is entitled to benefits?!?! Oh my god….call out the National Guard!
Take the quote out of context why don’t you. BTW: I personally do not think anchor babies should become automatic citizens.
Rick in Grayson
June 27th, 2011
6:26 pm
It is already a crime to aid and abet illegal aliens. Transporting illegal aliens is already against the law, just like transporting bank robbers from the scene of a crime.
Junior
June 27th, 2011
6:28 pm
How can anyone say the Federal government is doing it’s job when there are 50 Mexicans standing out in front of a Home Depot? Where are the Feds? I don’t understand what trumps Federal Law when a local police officer investigates whether or not someone is in the country illegally. This would seem to be working in conjunction with Federal law.
Rick in Grayson
June 27th, 2011
6:30 pm
E-Verify has already confirmed that states can require EMPLOYERS to check the immigration status of job applicants.
How is this different than local law officers questioning the immigration status of detainees?
Rick in Grayson
June 27th, 2011
6:31 pm
Especially since many counties already have officers trained to determine immigration status of detainees as a result of their participation in 287g!
DwayneL
June 27th, 2011
6:33 pm
He’s just one liberal judge….it will go to higher court and will be found legal. States should have every right to protect it’s own people and interests from criminal invaders!
Young Lady
June 27th, 2011
6:34 pm
@How can anyone say the Federal government is doing it’s job when there are 50 Mexicans standing out in front of a Home Depot?
The constitutional interpretation has nothing to do with who is doing a good job of enforcement but WHO should be doing the enforcing. It’s a clear case of State vs. Federal power that will be decided in the US SC. And the federal government has a terrible track record of reliquishing power to state governments so I think those that have their hopes up for a ruling in the state’s favor are just setting themselves up for dissappointment and burst bubbles.
DwayneL
June 27th, 2011
6:34 pm
No more anchor babies!!! This country can’t afford them!!!!
Aquagirl
June 27th, 2011
6:34 pm
td, why was that quote out of context? Were you not upset that “anchor babies” qualify for benefits?
I’m not sure that I agree with automatic citizenship to everyone born on American soil either, but that’s the current law. What you or I “personally think” is of no consequence. All those children are citizens and will remain citizens. And without a constitutional amendment, that’s how it will be in the future.
It seems counterproductive to want these children uneducated and malnourished.
Nichole Hernandez
June 27th, 2011
6:36 pm
@ Fed UP…..did it EVER occur to you that the children were born here and are LEGAL??? How about the fact that they offer cheap labor and services to Americans where we would otherwise be overcharged by some money hungry American for a service that is half ass done. Illegals do the dirty hard work that the lazy Americans don’t want to do! They come home each night to support their families and I am not sure who is recieving all this free healthcare, but my husband who is illegal can’t get ANY coverage. Nope. Just has a tax id # to pay taxes only to get ZERO refund. Some of these illegals have FAMILIES, many of them do. We are american wives with american children, we are FAMILIES. It is what it is. THEY ARE HERE. We can’t go breaking apart families because you want the millions to go back…….IT WONT HAPPEN
Rick in Grayson
June 27th, 2011
6:36 pm
We need to pass a new bill that requires local schools to ask for citizenship documents for those children attending local schools. The Supreme Court only stated that illegal aliens can not be denied a state provided education. It did not state that immigration status could not be questioned when childen are registered for school. We need to know our costs of educating the children of illegal aliens. If fraudulent documention is submitted or none supplied then local law enforcement should be called in to investigate.
Nichole Hernandez
June 27th, 2011
6:39 pm
ANCHOR BABIES???? We are families! I am sitting here typing this as I watch my children run around the house, laughing and playing, saying “momma, lets go to the lake” they are children, we are families…..this is not an issue on paper!!!!! This is more than you will ever have to deal with in your own personal life….worries about your family being ripped apart!!
Nichole Hernandez
June 27th, 2011
6:40 pm
And I don’t know about your schools, but my schools require proof of citizenship….thats how my children are in school. they are citizens!!!!!
td
June 27th, 2011
6:40 pm
Aquagirl
June 27th, 2011
6:34 pm
td, why was that quote out of context? Were you not upset that “anchor babies” qualify for benefits?
Upset no. Pointing out the fact that the benefits from anchor babies is the same as a direct benefit to an illegal because the illegal controls the service.
Here is another tidbit of information for you to chew on. If a person comes into a office and applies for benefits and they have a spouse then the spouses full income counts in determining eligibility if the husband is a citizen, but if the husband is an illegal then the income is only prorated.
Rick in Grayson
June 27th, 2011
6:41 pm
Aquagirl. The Supreme Court has not taken on “automatic citizenship”. There is the little complication that the newly born are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US. Babies born to Mexican citizens are automatically Mexican citizens (many illegal aliens are now getting Mexican passports for their “US citizen babies”).
This is not settled law and these citizens may not truly be US citizens.
Aquagirl
June 27th, 2011
6:43 pm
It did not state that immigration status could not be questioned when childen are registered for school.
Actually it did. Specifically. But don’t let that interrupt your little tea party. Lack of knowledge never slows down a wingnut.
Young Lady
June 27th, 2011
6:44 pm
@How is this different than local law officers questioning the immigration status of detainees?
Employers can only report. Their role in immigration is the same as it was before. If they caught someone before E-Verify, they would report them. If they catch them now it’s the same. The question was just whether they could mandate everyone use this program.
This law changes the role of local law enforcement in immigration which is a traditional federal power which is why it’s going to be constitutionally challenged.
td
June 27th, 2011
6:45 pm
Nichole Hernandez
June 27th, 2011
6:39 pm
“worries about your family being ripped apart!!”
Why would your family ever be ripped apart. If you are here illegally then you just take your children with you if you are deported. When the children are of age then they still have their US citizenship and can decide if they want to come back.
td
June 27th, 2011
6:49 pm
Young Lady
June 27th, 2011
6:44 pm
Georgia currently has a good number of counties as 287g status (I know Cobb and Gwinn). This means they are doing exactly what HB 87 wanted the rest of the state to do, help the feds do their jobs in enforcing Federal immigration policy. I can not believe the state did not make this same argument.
Rick in Grayson
June 27th, 2011
6:50 pm
The 14th amendment, section 1. contains a clause that states the person must be “subject” to the jurisdiction of the US. Babies of Mexican citizens are automatically Mexican citizens and are under the jurisdiction of Mexico. Mexico must be notified if their citizens are facing criminal prosecution in the US so that the Mexican consulate can provide legal aid.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
jconservative
June 27th, 2011
6:50 pm
“Law making from the bench- what has happend to America?”
Ask Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Chief Justice Roberts about law making from the bench, they do it more than any court since the Warren court.
I believe it centers on the idea that the only way to stop judicial trends is to legislate from the bench.
In this case Congress has passed a series of laws governing how much authority states have in immigration law enforcement. They gave virtually no role to the several states. But the several states are taking it upon their own authority to decide to ignore federal law in defiance of federal law.
What part of illegal do you not understand?
Nichole Hernandez
June 27th, 2011
6:53 pm
Because I am American and so are our children! They have medical needs here, they and I go to school here, we have family here, and who cares WE ARE AMERICAN, that is our right. The people in Mexico come here because of the horrible conditions they live in there and the fact that there is NO work….THERE IS A REASON THEY ARE HERE and like it or not, the have work here! AMERICANS are the ones giving them work…. and we are paying a lawyer $8,000 to fix this problem just to become legal….who gets the $$$ and who suffers????
Rick in Grayson
June 27th, 2011
6:55 pm
Young lady. Local law enforcement is going to report to the federal government which ultimately makes the decision to move forward with prosecution for deportation.
Local law enforcement is only performing the same function as employers are when they use E-Verify. Only the federal government has the power to actually deport and HB87 is not making that argument. They are simply detaining individuals that do not properly identify themselves. Try being arrested and refusing to identify yourself properly to police and the courts!
Aquagirl
June 27th, 2011
6:59 pm
Rick, considering you were just pontificating on Plyler vs. Doe without the tiniest grasp of the legal side, please forgive me if I’m skeptical of your legal assessment of the 14th Amendment.
Also, arguments made by you on this blog do not constitute a legal challenge to anyone’s citizenship. If anyone has filed a suit with your legal points, I’d like to know. Otherwise it’s just talk on Teh Interwebz which has no bearing on the real world.
Young Lady
June 27th, 2011
7:00 pm
@TD They can’t make that argument is why they don’t. Any power that comes from that program is charged to them by the federal entities.
On their own they would not have the authority to do that; they’d have to turn them over to INS. The federal statues governing immigration are still federal statues which HB 87 are circumventing. As much as people want to portray this as activist; it’s really not. It’s a fairly clear case of conflicting authority which needs to be brought to US SC.
It is essentially a pissing contest to see who is in charge. And you have to be blind to not see that the federal government is not going to let this stand. And it’s a legitimate charge of overreaching state powers. We’re a centralized government when it comes to immigration and they’re not going to reliquish that power to states. Personal feelings don’t apply since historically the feds don’t relinquish power well.
td
June 27th, 2011
7:01 pm
Nichole Hernandez
June 27th, 2011
6:53 pm
Your previous posts made no sense to me. You are either here legally or not. If you are here legally then there is no problem, if not then you need to go back to your country of origin and get in the back of the line of the people trying to come here legally.
Rick in Grayson
June 27th, 2011
7:02 pm
There are many immigrants that would become US citizens if it only involved a fee of $8,000 to an attorney. Legal immigrants pay much more to obtain US citizenship. If it were that simple, millions of immigrants would be on a plane tomorrow to obtain such citizenship documents. Please publish the name of the lawyers who can do this task for $8,000 so that all those immigrants from across the globe can take advantage of this legal expertise!
Rick in Grayson
June 27th, 2011
7:06 pm
One of the parts of HB87 that can go into effect is the section that makes the act of providing fraudulent documents to obtain a job here in Georgia a felony!
Illegal aliens should think twice about supplying fake identification to obtain a job after Friday.
td
June 27th, 2011
7:09 pm
Young Lady
June 27th, 2011
7:00 pm
You are essentially correct as with current judicial opinions. The one variable is that the current configuration of the SC has not said anything on this matter. It will be interesting on how they rule. Most people with any common sense knew the SC is where this law, the one in AZ and the future one in AL. The states are forcing this issue before the court to get some settled conservative law. You do realize our current administration is doing everything it can to not have this law or the health care act come before the SC before next years election. One may wonder why?
MrTaco01
June 27th, 2011
7:09 pm
That is the problem now days… not everything is as clear as black or white… everyones trying to find an easy solution to a complicated matter.. I am Mexican.. I am proud of my heritage…. I know what some think.. ” well go back to Mexico”… blah blah blah… well guess what?? I am a US citizen now and proud of that too… Proud of the opportunities this great country has provided… so can I stay now???
williev2000
June 27th, 2011
7:09 pm
The funny thing to me about the whole immigration debate is that Native Americans have been primarily relegated to Reservations. I hear it all the time; “but my family came here legally and did what they supposed to have done.” Well, my forefathers were forced to come here and work for free while being abused, whipped and trampled upon. I’m sure most of you would like to get rid of me too. Also, why is this a major issue with states that border Mexico (or close to Mexico) and not with states that border Canada? Just asking. . . . .
Aquagirl
June 27th, 2011
7:15 pm
“I’m sure most of you would like to get rid of me too.”
It’s not coincidental the 14th Amendment (required because “those people” were being uppity in the 1860’s and demanding their rights) is under attack.
Abogado Gringo
June 27th, 2011
7:17 pm
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Well…unless they are Irish, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, Black, Arab, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, Hispanic, or anything that threatens me if I don’t work as hard as them and/or am down on my life and need to look down on someone…ahh…the Politics of Hate….got to love it!!
Young Lady
June 27th, 2011
7:17 pm
@The one variable is that the current configuration of the SC has not said anything on this matter. It will be interesting on how they rule.
Actually it’s very obvious how they’ll rule. I know you like to thow out conservative conspiracies but this is really a clear cut case of holding power. As conservative as Scalia, Thomas, et al can be they’re not exactly pro-states rights. Unless said states are secretly corporations.
And I don’t see any concerted effort to keep the ACA or this away from the SC. The AZ brief is already filed and there’s plenty of pushing for the other. Sorry your wondering seems rather misplaced. Maybe you need to find a better use of your time if you’re so bored?
tim
June 27th, 2011
7:30 pm
Was the judge smokin crack………again?
Last Lawyer Standing
June 27th, 2011
7:50 pm
Interpreting legislation is not lawmaking in the sense that the law was “made” by the legislature. Any decision by a court interpreting a law or determining whether the law meets constitutional muster or violates or does not violate the principles of federalism is not activism. If courts did otherwise they would fail in their duty as the third branch of government.
zeke
June 27th, 2011
8:46 pm
Just another idiot judge! The feds are doing no more than a token enforcement!! If they were indeed intent on enforcing the law they would arrest the protesters who flagrantly admit being illegal! If they were indeed intent on enforcing the law they would arrest and deport all 15 or 20 million! These criminals have no Constitutional rights! Get over it you leftist morons!
Nichole Hernandez
June 27th, 2011
8:48 pm
My appologies, my husband is the illegal immigrant. I am the American. We are a family and this is where the families get torn apart thing takes place. We have started the process of legalization. It is a 3 step process starting with the I 1-30 and ending with going back to his country where he will apply for a hardship waiver. All the immigration forms will be an additional $1,500. Not everyone has the money, not everyone has a good case. If they have been deported, it makes it harder. Plus, you need a sponsor….many factors play into this. But yes, there are lawyers that can help. And you do go back for a period. Siskind & Susser are excellent immigration lawyers in Atlanta. Check them out
reusha
June 27th, 2011
9:01 pm
The Bill Is An Excellent Start!! To Many Citizens and Law Enforcement Have Been Killed By Illegal Aliens, In This Country! Many Trojan Horse, Mexico Drug Cartel Enforcers Are Camouflaged By Illegal Aliens!!
Mexico Legal Citizens-USA Illegal Aliens, Waving The Mexico Flag, Bo-o-oing The National Anthem, Conducting Ceremonies In Spanish At Soccer Game In California, Will Do The Same In Georgia When The Numbers Are Higher!!
DEPORT!
Nichole Hernandez
June 27th, 2011
9:10 pm
Ha! Reusha must live in another world. I have never seen such garbage….This can happen with any other nationality and it happens with our own! You can’t deport half million mexicans in ga….WONT HAPPEN!!! If it did, we would be sorely affected by it in numberous ways. Wake up
td
June 27th, 2011
9:19 pm
Nichole Hernandez
June 27th, 2011
9:10 pm
You do not deport anyone (beside convicted felons). You just make it impossible for illegals to get a job (fine and jail time for anyone that hires them and no government assistance) and they will deport themselves.