A federal judge on Monday put on hold some of the most controversial parts of Georgia's new anti-illegal immigration law pending the outcome of a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality. The judge upheld other provisions, prompting both sides in the debate over illegal immigration in Georgia to claim victory.
This is the fourth time a state immigration enforcement law has been put on hold since last year. States frustrated with what they consider lax federal enforcement of the nation's immigration laws have adopted their own. But federal judges in Arizona, Indiana and Utah have halted similar laws in those states following constitutional challenges.
U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Thrash's 45-page ruling sharply criticizes state officials for making an end-run around federal law. That provoked a stinging response from Gov. Nathan Deal’s office Monday, which said the state would appeal Thrash’s decision to halt two sections of the law that were supposed to go into effect Friday.
One of those provisions would empower police to investigate the immigration status of suspects who they believe have committed state or federal crimes and who cannot produce identification, such as a driver’s license, or provide other information that could help police identify them. The other part would punish people who -– while committing another offense -- knowingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants or encourage them to come here.
The judge said the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil and immigrant rights groups who are suing to block the law have shown they are likely to succeed in arguments that these provisions are preempted by federal law.
At the same time, Thrash threw out several other arguments from the ACLU’s lawsuit, including complaints that the new law would violate constitutional rights to travel and equal protection.
The ACLU and other critics trumpeted how they had at least temporarily stopped what they called the key parts of the law. They argued these provisions would promote racial profiling and violate civil rights.
“The judge recognized the serious flaws in the law in his decision,” said Omar Jadwat, staff counsel for the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.
On the other side, supporters of the law highlighted how Thrash left most of Georgia’s measure intact, including a provision that would require many Georgia businesses to use the federal E-Verify system. That system helps companies ensure their newly hired employees are eligible to work in the United States.
Proponents say Georgia needed to act because the federal government has failed to secure the nation’s borders, allowing illegal immigrants to stream into this state and burden its public schools, jails and hospitals.
“E-Verify is kind of the tent pole of the whole legislation to me,” said the law’s author, Republican state Rep. Matt Ramsey of Peachtree City. “We know the No. 1 incentive that exists for illegal aliens to come to Georgia is access to private sector jobs.”
In his ruling, Thrash said the section of the law that gives local and state police authority to investigate the immigration status of certain suspects is an attempt at an end-run around federal law that defines the role of state and local officers in immigration enforcement. He also questioned the discretion that part of Georgia’s law would give local and state police.
“Such discretion poses a serious risk that HB87 will result in inconsistent civil immigration policies not only between federal and state governments, but among law enforcement jurisdictions within Georgia,” the judge wrote. “That risk is compounded by the threat of other states creating their own immigration laws.”
Thrash added that same provision of the law will “convert many routine encounters with law enforcement into lengthy and intrusive immigration status investigations” and burden federal authorities who are ultimately responsible for doing the immigration status checks.
Further, Thrash raised concerns about how the law would affect foreign relations. He noted how Mexico and several other nations have filed court papers in support of the ACLU’s lawsuit.
“These international relations concerns underscore the conflict between HB87 and federal immigration law,” Thrash wrote. “The conflict is not a purely speculative and indirect impact on immigration. It is direct and immediate.”
Thrash called the belief by some that the federal government is doing nothing about illegal immigration a “belief in a myth.” He cited statistics showing the federal government deports hundreds of illegal immigrants daily. And he scoffed at a claim from state officials that Georgia’s law would help protect illegal immigrants from exploitation, calling their claim “gross hypocrisy.”
“The apparent legislative intent is to create such a climate of hostility, fear, mistrust and insecurity that all illegal aliens will leave Georgia,” Thrash said.
A spokesman for Deal -- who signed the measure into law last month -- criticized the judge’s ruling Monday.
“Curiously, the court writes ‘all illegal aliens will leave Georgia’ if the law is enforced, as if it is appalled at the thought of people attaining visas before coming to our nation,” said Brian Robinson, a spokesman for Deal. “The federal court’s ruling, however, will crystallize for Georgians and other Americans our underlying problem: Beyond refusing to help with our state’s illegal immigration problem, the federal government is determined to be an obstacle.
“The state of Georgia narrowly tailored its immigration law to conform with existing federal law and court rulings. Georgians can rest assured that this battle doesn’t end here; we will appeal this decision.”
About the Author
