Posted on 10/14/2011 11:54:39 AM PDT by montag813
The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta this afternoon blocked enforcement of two sections of Alabama's immigration enforcement law, H.B. 56. But it also let two parts stand including the main provision based on Arizona's S.B. 1070. The provisions are blocked until the Court hears arguments from the DOJ at a November 29th hearing, as to why they assert the law should be blocked permanently.
It is a mixed bag, to be sure, and Alabamans are getting rightly sick and tired of meddling by the same Federal government which refuses to enforce its own laws against illegal aliens.
Here are the affected provisions:
BLOCKED:
On balance, however, we would consider this a loss for Eric Holder & Co, and a victory for Alabama. This is because Section 12 was upheld. This is the main, Arizona-derived provision of the bill, which was BLOCKED in Arizona's S.B. 1070, using absurd emotional reasoning by the political hack Judge Susan Bolton. The ruling is unclear, but it seems that police are also still able to hold illegals without bond - a huge win, since they can hold illegals when I.C.E. won't - the basis of many inmates of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's "Tent City".
Section 30 being upheld is also a big deal, as it makes it almost impossible for illegal aliens to operate businesses in Alabama, which will drive even more of them out - the objective of any Arizona-style law.
Of course the thought of Holder arguing anything in a court, when his butt belongs in a cell at Leavenworth, is aggravating enough. but that is another matter entirely.
We will update this page as we get additional clarity and perspective from other analysts.
I’ll be curious to see what our interpretation the phrase “business transaction” takes on.
Buying a house? Probably.
Renting an apartment? Maybe.
Getting a bank loan? Possibly, though the banks themselves may take it upon themselves to restrict this.
Buying groceries? In the strictest sense, yes.
Also by splitting its decision does this mean it will delay another appeal? Or will the DOJ appeal the other 2 they didn’t put on hold?
The day after the new law was upheld, Gomez saw three police cars driving around her housing complex, which is almost entirely Hispanic in occupancy. Word went around that the police asked men standing on the street to go inside their homes or face arrest.
She took the mandate literally, and from that moment has barely set foot outside. She no longer drives, her car sitting unused by the kerbside. Under the new law, police have to check the immigration papers of anyone “suspicious” they stop for a routine traffic violation – a missing brake light, perhaps, or parking on the wrong spot.
“If they see me they will think I’m suspicious and then they will detain me indefinitely,” Gomez says.
Why would the police think she was suspicious? “They will see the colour of my skin.”
Gomez’s is one of thousands of Hispanic families in Alabama trapped in a sort of half-life while they wait to see what will happen in the courts to the new law, HB56. Both the US department of justice and a coalition of local groups are challenging the clampdown at the 11th circuit appeals court in Atlanta, Georgia. The court must decide whether to allow the new law to stand or to block it pending higher judgment by the US supreme court; its ruling is expected by the end of this week.
Tough provisions
While the judges deliberate, Alabama’s uniquely tough new provisions remain in effect. In addition to the police check of “suspicious” people, anyone failing to carry immigration papers is now deemed to be committing a criminal act.
Undocumented immigrants are also forbidden from entering into a transaction with the state, which has already led some town halls to demand residents produce their papers or risk losing water supply. Schools have been instructed to check the immigration status of new pupils as young as four.
Even families legally entitled to be in the country are being caught. Cineo Gonzalez was shocked a few weeks ago when his six-year-old daughter came home from school carrying a printout. It gave details of HB56 and its implications, under the heading: “Frequent questions about the immigration law.”
Gonzalez is a US permanent resident, having come from Mexico more than 20 years ago. His daughter is an American citizen, having been born in Alabama. Both are entirely legal. Yet she was one of only two children in her class – both Hispanic in appearance – who were given the printout.
Why was she singled out, Gonzalez asked the deputy head teacher. “Because we gave the printout to children we thought were not from here,” came the reply.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/14/alabama-immigration-law-families-trapped
Thriving on darma
For the school part, make them present a valid shot record.
IMO, those are the most important parts anyway. The cop stops were the biggest sticking point for AZ's SB 1070.
‘had the most minimum usefulness’
most minimum?
How about it ‘had the least usefulness’ or ‘was the least useful’?
Ping!
Caught? A letter from school is "caught?"
That letter should've gone home with all students.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
