Justice Department Sues Alabama over Controversial Immigration Law

Fox News, August 1, 2011

The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against Alabama’s new controversial immigration law, essentially fighting Alabama on grounds similar to its legal battle with Arizona over that state’s controversial law.

In both cases, the Justice Department argues that the states are overstepping their authority by wading into something that is a strictly federal responsibility: immigration enforcement.

Gov. Robert Bentley signed the Alabama law in June, but it’s not set to take effect until Sept. 1. The law makes it a crime to be an undocumented immigrant in Alabama and allows law enforcement to detain individuals they have a “reasonable suspicion” of being in the country illegally. The law also makes it illegal to give undocumented immigrants rides and requires school districts to check on the immigration status of students who enroll.

{snip}

The Justice Department, in its filing, says a state cannot set its own immigration policy and cannot pass laws that conflict with federal immigration laws.

{snip}

The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the lawsuit, calling Alabama’s immigrant law “draconian” and “anti-immigrant.”

The law has already faced lawsuits from civil rights groups and others, and Alabama religious leaders announced Monday their own lawsuit against the law, saying, “the bishops have reason to fear that administering of religious sacraments, which are central to the Christian faith, to known undocumented persons may be criminalized under this law.”

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    More states need to follow Arizona and Alabama in passing these so-called “draconian” and “anti immigrant” laws. It would reduce some of the pressure these two states are facing from the loathsome Eric Holder, in addition to the ultra-liberal national news media.

  • Ken

    Have you ever been to a wal mart after midnight in any Alabama town? If so you know why Alabama had to pass this law. Its like a third world country there with little english spoken. The same with our emergency rooms any time of the day. Our schools are overcrowded and we have a teacher shortage of Spanish speakers. Most of these invaders have no drivers license or insurance and very little driving skills. If you get into a accident you pay and the police simply throws up his hands and walks away. We knew Erik Holder would be after us and expected this law suit. Our only hope is that more states will pass similiar laws and the Illegals will go back home as their economy is getting better in Mexico.

  • olewhitelady

    This is like telling state or local law enforcement that they cannot arrest someone who murders a federal agent right before their eyes.

    I wonder what Eric Holder would have to say if states declared that they would no longer enforce federal civil rights laws. Private enterprises and public schools could resegregate, and it would be up to the feds to do anything about it!

  • Question Diversity

    The law has already faced lawsuits from civil rights groups and others, and Alabama religious leaders announced Monday their own lawsuit against the law, saying, “the bishops have reason to fear that administering of religious sacraments, which are central to the Christian faith, to known undocumented persons may be criminalized under this law.”

    Those religious groups are the Methodists, Episcopals and Catholics.

    In the Deep South not counting southern Louisiana, almost all whites who are at least moderately religious are either Southern Baptists or some sort of theology lite Fundagelical/Charismatic. Any Christian denomination associated with the North, when they went South to fish for new members, found the whites uninterested. Any success they had, and it wasn’t much, was among blacks. And because of Hispanic immigration, Catholic Parishes in the Deep South (again, not counting historically Catholic southern Louisiana) are heavily Hispanic in the places where there are Hispanics. Therefore, these churches filing suit are heavily black and Hispanic.

  • BannerRWB

    No nation could defeat us by force, as all enemies would fall before us as a White union (particularly a union with the resources of America). But just as we have certainly lost this will of union, we will as certainly be defeated as a nation (I would say we have already been defeated). The continuing mass immigration of non-Whites, which is mainly a non-violent attack upon White America, now becomes the prelude to our defeat; and whether we are exterminated by force or by time combined with immigration, the result will be the same. In any case, no matter what we do and even if we reach a point of near extinction, we will still be called racist, anti-immigrant, or whatever. The sooner we accept that we are a hated group, the sooner Whites can get on with re-coalescing into a new union. Hopefully, we’ll do so soon enough to survive into the distant future.

  • rockman

    They want the illegals here it seems as voters for Obama. Look for amnesty and fast track citizenship

  • NBJ

    I love the part of this bill that says school districts must check the immigration status of students. This should be true of all 50 states. Why should we have to pay for their education?

    I was thrilled to learn that in our county, all Spanish classes in our elementary schools will be no more this Fall. They have finally done away with them because of budget cuts. It always irked me to no end knowing my children were forced into Spanish class grades K – 5. In middle and high school, Spanish is an elective, and with so many other options and languages avaliable, I hear these classes are pretty darn small.

    As for this ridiculous lawsuit, I agree with poster 3. If the federal government is going to pick and choose which laws they will enforce, perhaps states should do the same.

  • Luke

    5 — BannerRWB wrote at 7:59 PM on August 3:

    “The sooner we accept that we are a hated group, the sooner Whites can get on with re-coalescing into a new union. Hopefully, we’ll do so soon enough to survive into the distant future.”

    True statement, Mr. BannerRWB. However, unless and until we all can speak forthrightly about such critical matters such as where all this diabolically evil hate is originating from, and who it is who is driving it – whites will continue to bang their heads against a brick wall and accomplish very little.

    But then, perhaps that is the reason why the identity of the white-hate promoters must remain off-limits? To ensure that we accomplish very little?

  • Anonymous

    We need to make this more of an issue in the 2012 presidential election. If we re-elect Obama, his “justice” department will continue to champion mass immigration – that’s a given. Even more pressing is that we need to evaluate each Republican challenger in the primaries to see which one(s) would favor states taking decisive moves on immigration. Or even better, a candidate who wants a Federal law like Arizona’s.

  • Blaak Obongo

    “Justice Department Sues Alabama over Controversial Immigration Law”

    “Controversial” is liberalmediaspeak for “our ruling elites don’t like it.”

  • down the bayou

    @#4_question diversity

    As a South Louisiana Cajun, I can tell you that my parish is being punished for this by the diocese with non Frenglish speaking priests from india. That and the Vatican2 causes me to quit going to church.

  • Playing Roots Backwards

    So tell me, Alabama Folks, are you still kicking yourselves for not getting up off the couch to back up Governor Wallace as he stood blocking the front doors of the University? A strong message back then would STILL be echoing in the Halls of Congress.

    You can’t get a do-over with the Guv at the U of A, but it’s not too late to send a strong message on illegal immigration that will still ring in the ears of politicians many decades from now.

    If you peacefully, but noisily, clog the streets around the Federal Building in Montgomery the way those Egyptians clogged the streets of Cairo, politicians will be soiling their overpriced suits all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue.

    What was that? You have a job, so you don’t have time to protest?

    Those Egyptians had jobs, too. So did the guys who dumped the tea in Boston Harbor. Quit making excuses and make a difference.

    I live in KY, but if you Alabama folks want to shake things up the way the Egyptians did it, I’ll come on down and wave signs and holler with you. Pick a week, get the plan in the news, and I’ll be there and I’m pretty sure that we won’t be alone.

  • Josh Harlan

    It always gets me; “states can’t enforce immigration laws because they are federal laws already” say the elite.

    Federal Laws – Kidnapping, bank robbery, counterfeiting – all federal and all enforced by local cops if necessary.

  • Old White Jim

    Josh Harlan, you might be on to something. If the state, county and city law enforcement agencies in the states currently under lawsuits from the federal government over immigration laws refused to enforce any federal laws on the grounds that those crimes are outside their jurisdiction and they can’t afford any more lawsuits, I believe they could force Obama, Holder and Napolitano to get their noses out of state business.

  • Anonymous

    “I love the part of this bill that says school districts must check the immigration status of students. This should be true of all 50 states. Why should we have to pay for their education?”

    Exactly. But the federal government FORCES all states to admit illegal alien students and (try) to educate them at taxpayer expense. You see, the US Supreme Court decided way back in 1982

    (Plyler v. Doe) that schools cannot turn them away. It doesn’t matter if it costs states like California BILLIONS of dollars. Liberals tell us this is settled law, even though the decision was far from unanimous; 5 for, 4 against. The last time any state challenging this was CA way back in ’94 with Proposition 187. But it was precvented from taking effect thanks to attorney Peter Schey (son of a communist) liberal judge Marianna Pflazer and ex gov Grey Davis who along with the Mexican president had the measure destroyed in a closed door meeting.

  • Fr. John

    Question Diversity wrote at 7:15 PM on August 3

    and ‘Down the Bayou’

    Y’all are so right! I left the Roman communion when I realized that my Celtic, Germanic, and Francophone ancestors did not build the churches, monasteries, cathedrals, and colleges that called themselves ‘catholic’ (before Vat. II) to have them HANDED OVER to the denizens (and the descamisados) of the Third World!

    Christianity – true, conciliar Christianity, has ALWAYS been ‘the White Man’s religion.’

    The great ‘sticking point’ with the Orthodox and the Protestants, is that we all feel Rome traded the Gospel for the fallacy of ‘universal jurisdction’ and then went beyond the ‘Ecumene’ (i.e.e, the Boundaries of Europe and her Caucasoid peoples) to ‘…make it so,’ only because no one in Europe was going to give them the time of day!

    Fraser’s tome, ‘The WASP Question’ points out that the West needs to break free of that mindset of post-Schism Catholicism, in order to save us from Cultural and Racial genocide. I concur.