Ga. sued over new immigration law

Thursday, June 2, 2011 4:18 PM
Last updated 4:19 PM

ATLANTA  — Civil liberties groups filed a lawsuit today seeking to block Georgia from enforcing a law that cracks down on illegal immigration, saying it violates state and federal law.

The groups claim they "face an imminent threat of harm" if the new law is enforced. They are asking a federal judge to declare the law unconstitutional and to block state authorities from enforcing it. The groups also plan to ask for a preliminary injunction to stop the law from going into effect.

A coalition of local and national groups filed the complaint in federal court in Atlanta, said Azadeh Shahshahani, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia. The suit seeks class-action status and names as defendants Republican Gov. Nathan Deal and several other state officials.

The governor signed the law last month.

"The Georgia General Assembly carefully vetted a piece of legislation that ensured a constitutional product," Deal spokeswoman Stephanie Mayfield said in an email. "When filed, the lawsuit will be handled by the attorney general's office, and the governor fully expects a ruling in the state of Georgia's favor."

Most parts of the law are set to take effect July 1.

The measure authorizes law enforcement to check the immigration status of a suspect who cannot provide identification and to detain and hand over to federal authorities anyone found to be in the country illegally. It also penalizes people who, during the commission of another crime, knowingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants and makes it a felony to present false documents or information when applying for a job.

The law "usurps powers constitutionally vested in the federal government exclusively" and "attempts to legislate in the fields occupied by the federal government," which is a violation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, the lawsuit alleges.

The law also violates other constitutional rights — including the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to equal protection and the right to due process — the suit said.

Immigrant outreach groups and labor unions say they will be harmed and their missions will be compromised if the new law takes effect because they may risk violating the law by helping people who are in the country illegally. Other plaintiffs include illegal immigrants who live in Georgia and say they will be afraid to drive or leave their homes if the law takes effect because they will fear encounters with law enforcement officers.

"This law undermines our core American values of fairness and equality," said Mary Bauer of the Southern Poverty Law Center. "By perpetuating the hate rhetoric that has become commonplace among elected officials this law threatens citizens and non-citizens alike by encouraging racial profiling. Sadly, too, it places Georgia on the wrong side of history."

Paul Bridges, a plaintiff in the suit, is a Republican and the mayor of Uvalda, a town of about 600 people in the south Georgia region where Vidalia onions are grown. Some farmers have told him that immigrant workers didn't show up to pick onions this spring because they feared the new law. That hurts farmers and also businesses in the area where migrant laborers spend their money, he said.

"The business part of the Republican Party fell through the cracks on this bill," he said.

He regularly drives immigrants in the community to doctor appointments, court appearances and other places, and said he worries he could get in trouble under the new law for providing help to his friends, some of who are in the country illegally.

The state's attorney general, as well as the heads of the agencies that would be responsible for enforcing various parts of the law, were also named as defendants.

The bill's author, state Rep. Matt Ramsey, R-Peachtree City, said he wasn't surprised to hear about the lawsuit.

"We've expected the ACLU and other groups to file suit against the law since the first day we started working on it," he said. "We're confident this law is constitutional, and we're going to be vindicated in the courts."

Georgia's law has some provisions that echo those in a law enacted last year in Arizona and is also very similar to another enacted this year in Utah.

A federal judge blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's law last year after the Justice Department sued, arguing the law intrudes on the federal government's exclusive powers to regulate immigration. A federal appeals court judge upheld the decision and Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has said she plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ACLU and other civil liberties groups filed a complaint claiming that the Utah law was an unconstitutional burden to legal immigrants and too much like portions of Arizona's immigration law. A federal judge last month temporarily blocked that law, citing similarities to the most controversial parts of Arizona's law. A hearing is set for mid-July to determine if the law can go into effect.

Another section of the Georgia law set to be phased in starting in January will require many businesses to check the immigration status of new hires. An Arizona law with the same requirement was upheld last week by the U.S. Supreme Court. The lawsuit filed Thursday does not take issue with that part of the Georgia law.

Comments (1) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
socks99
250
Points
socks99 06/02/11 - 03:32 pm
0
0
That GA would be the target

That GA would be the target of lawsuits and even 'boycotts' should come as no surprise. I think we should urge Federal Lawmakers to reimburse the state of GA (and Arizona) for the costs of defending such lawsuits. For instance, both GA and Arizona have taken the steps they have taken BECAUSE the federal government has variously failed to enforce its own immigration rules. Why then should the states taxpayers be liable for expenses incurred due to federal failures?

After all, GA's citizens, now, are paying for the costs of medical care, education, incarceration ... and on and on ... of some illegal immigrants to this state. Why should we pay, again, for the mistakes of the Federal Government?

Back to Top

Top headlines

More than 2,000 get meal at annual dinner

More than 800 volunteers served a hot meal to more than 2,000 homeless people at James Brown Arena on Saturday at the Bridge Ministry's annual Thanksgiving Dinner.
Search Augusta jobs