Within months of each other, Georgia and Alabama passed strict immigration laws aimed at holding businesses accountable and empowering local law enforcement officers. Some have called Alabama’s law the toughest law of its kind in the country – the same title given to Georgia’s law before Alabama followed with its own bill.

The Americano

As far as Arizona pushed the matter of immigration reform, states such as Georgia and Alabama have pushed the matter further by following suit, creating international tensions and substantial legal battles. Once again, the Federal government finds itself opposed to the actions of the states, only inciting both sides to fight harder for the cause of experimenting in the “laboratories of democracy” or the cause of strengthening the Federal government’s power over the issue.

Within months of each other, Georgia and Alabama passed strict immigration laws aimed at holding businesses accountable and empowering local law enforcement officers. Some have called Alabama’s law the toughest law of its kind in the country – the same title given to Georgia’s law before Alabama followed with its own bill. After Georgia passed its immigration law in April, Alabama passed its own version last week. Often in tandem with regards to national issues, this instance was no different for the two state legislatures.

The Georgia law allows law enforcement officials to check the resident status of people stopped for “criminal offenses”, and if they are found to be non-citizens, they will be detained and handed over to federal authorities. The law requires businesses with more than 10 employees to check the resident status of potential employees as well using a federal database.

Now, a couple months later, Georgia finds itself fighting against civil liberty and immigrant advocacy groups, and a coalition of Latin American countries.

The Anti-Defamation League and 11 Latin American countries have joined together to fight the law before it is to go into effect July 1. The League includes the Southern Poverty Law Center and other civil liberty groups, and has garnered the support of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Peru.

The filing from Mexico, submitted late Wednesday, said, “Mexico respectfully submits that, if HB 87 (Georgia’s law) is allowed to take effect, it will have a significant and long-lasting adverse impact on U.S.-Mexico bilateral relations, and on Mexican citizens and other people of Latin American descent present in Georgia.”

In addition, a second federal lawsuit has been filed against Georgia by Atlanta-area lawyer Jerome Lee on behalf of the Association of Persons Concerned with HB 87. Lee names President Barack Obama, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano as defendants as a “last, desperate plea for help to our President” Lee said.

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal (R) has asked U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash to dismiss the suits. Thrash said he will hear arguments June 20, and at which point the suits could be dismissed, or the Judge could rule against the law taking effect until the lawsuit is settled.

Governor Deal caught heat for a suggestion he made Tuesday in response to a statewide survey that found Georgia was short 11,000 farm workers at the beginning of harvest season for summer crops – a clear sign the law has had a large consequence before it has officially taken effect. The survey also found farmers estimated a loss of $300 million in un-harvested crops if the shortage is not filled. Deal said laborer shortages could be filled through employing ex-cons, sending a shock wave through the state and very loud protests to the proposal.

Similarly, Alabama is facing its own legal challenges. The Alabama Law prevents landlords to renting to illegal residents, prohibiting the transportation or sheltering of illegal residents, forces employers to verify legal status of their employees, and empowers local law enforcement to arrest people suspected of being illegal residents if stopped for another violation.

“It is clearly unconstitutional. It’s mean-spirited, racist, and we think a court will enjoin it,” said Mary Bauer, legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center. The ACLU has said it will challenge Alabama’s law as well. One concern raised is the disincentive that is created to report crimes to police by non-citizens due to fear of being detained and deported.

But Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, one of the authors of the immigration bills in Arizona, Alabama, and other states, has said the Federal government will not challenge Georgia and Alabama like it did with Arizona because “in 2010, the climate was different”, hinting at political influences in the Justice Department’s decision. The Alabama law goes into effect September 1.

“The Alabama law is extremely fair and it upholds the American value of the rule of law,” he said.

Reasons given by both States for the passage of the immigration bills revolve around job opportunities, pressure on social services, and demands on the health care and educational systems.

The Americano/agencies

Help Make A Difference By Sharing These Articles On Facebook, Twitter And Elsewhere:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•