INJUNCTION ISSUED AGAINST SECTIONS 7 AND 8 OF HB87

Federal Judge Thrash issued an injunction against the governor of Georgia to stop some of HB87's provisions from being implemented as unconstitutional. The decision explains that because the ACLU and the other Plaintiffs have proven that they are likely to win on the merits, and in order to preserve the status-quo, the injunction was granted against the state of Georgia.
In a 79-page decision, the judge issued an injunction against the state of Georgia from implementing sections 7 and 8 of HB87, which are the sections most important to individuals living in the state. The judge determined that both sections are pre-empted by federal law, meaning that is if there is a conflict between state and federal law, the federal law controls, and therefore unconstitutional as they clash with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. constitution. The court rejected the State’s “gross hypocrisy” in claiming that the new law was meant to prevent exploitation of undocumented individuals and called out the true legislative intent, which is to create “a climate of hostility, fear, mistrust and insecurity” in Georgia.
Section 7 also known as the “harboring” section creates crimes in Georgia that replace and add to the language of the federal law section § 1324 (at 8 U.S.C.) with its own criminal provisions. The federal law only involves very specific situations of helping people to get into the country unlawfully (for example coyotes). But HB87’s section 7 also wants the police in Georgia to prosecute anyone who transports or houses an illegal alien, including U.S. citizen children who give rides to their undocumented parents, wives that live with their undocumented husbands, etc.
Section 8 also known as “show me your papers” created a state system for policing civil immigration offenses. It authorizes state and local police officers to check the immigration status of suspects where there is probable cause that the suspect has committed another crime (even a federal civil immigration violation or traffic offense like speeding).
Parts of the law that remain include the E-Verify provision requiring businesses and government agencies E-Verify to check the immigration status of new workers and the section that creates a new crime for people who use fake identification to obtain a job (imposing fines of up to $250,000 and 15 years in prison). Other provisions include requiring people applying for food stamps or public housing to provide specific forms of identification.
Governor Deal said the state would appeal the judge’s decision and that the federal government is an obstacle to the immigration problem. Yes, Governor Deal, you are right in that the federal government is an obstacle, but it is an obstacle to states writing up unconstitutional laws as it very well should be. Almost no one who is here illegally is able to just get a visa (that does not exist) and get into the U.S. legally. It is not an option. That is why there are so many people living here illegally. The Federal law needs to be fixed, that is clear, and states should stay out of immigration laws because they only make matters worse.

JUDGE THRASH ISSUES INJUNCTION AGAINST HB87

Breaking news: Judge Thrash just issued an injunction against the governor of Georgia to stop some of HB87's provisions from being implemented as unconstitutional. Most importantly, police will NOT be able to check for immigration documents come July 1 and the harboring provision is also blocked as unconstitutional.
I will blog in more detail tomorrow or Wednesday after I have a chance to read the judge Thrash's decision in full but here is one beautiful quote: The state's "... claim that the new criminal statutes will prevent exploitation of illegal aliens is 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”.

GEORGIA AGRIBUSINESS LOSS MAY BE $1 BILLION

The Georgia Agribusiness Council is estimating that the state of Georgia might lose up to $1 Billion (!) if crops would not be picked and rot in the fields, or not be processed after they are picked, because of the HB87 induced farming job shortage. This figure only includes this season's fruit and vegetables, and does not not include cotton and pecans that are up next for harvest in our state's cycle. Republicans who voted for HB87 sure found a great way to increase the state's budget problems!

GEORGIA PAROLEES LEAVE FARMING JOBS

After Governor Deal had an idea to cover the farming labor shortage with unemployed ex-cons on probation (which he thought was a bright one but we all knew it was not) most of the workers are either refusing the jobs outright or quitting after a few hours or a few days. One farm reported that of a crew of 11 probationers who reported to work early Saturday, one left after only 45 minutes and only five returned to work a second day.
It's obvious the U.S. workers (even ones with less options) do not want to do farming jobs. It's been obvious for years but Republicans don't want to believe it.

2000 CAB DRIVERS JOIN AGAINST HB87

2,000 drivers and cab companies from the metro Atlanta area hired a law firm to represent them in opposition of HB87. The cab drivers may be in jeopardy for arrest for harboring - transporting illegal immigrant while committing a crime (such as speeding for example). Penalty for harboring under HB87 is 15 years in prison. So it's not hard to understand why the taxi drivers are concerned. Even though transporting less than seven undocumented people is a misdemeanor, driving more than seven is a felony. Cab drivers do not want to be pulled over and have their passengers checked for immigration papers so they joined the suit. Judge Thrash please rule for the good side (and it is not Georgia)!

MEXICO AND 10 OTHER LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES JOIN IN SUIT AGAINST HB87

Mexico and 10 other countries from Latin America incuding Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru filed briefs in support of the Plaintiffs declaring HB87 unconstitutional.
Attorneys representing Mexico filed briefs challenging similar legislation in Arizona and Utah. The briefs argue that the immigration crackdown could jeopardize close ties between the U.S. and its Latin American neighbors.
Mexico argued that these measures would strain diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Mexico and the interests of the two countries and would encourage discrimination against its citizens in the U.S.
The Anti-Defamation League filed an amicus brief also in favor of Plaintiffs warning that the law could deter Latinos from reporting crimes and create an underclass vulnerable to increased hate crimes and violence. The American Immigration Lawyers Association also filed a brief in support of Plaintiffs claiming that the law forces police to make highly discretionary judgment calls about who to detain (and they are certainly not trained for that).
I am not sure what legal standing Mexico has but the other Plaintiffs in this case certainly can show imminent harm if the law is implemented, and we all hope judge Thrash issues the injunction and blocks the law. He does not have a lot of time to act as it goes into effect July 1.

GEORGIA STATE OFFICIALS FILE MOTION TO DISMISS IN FEDERAL COURT

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal and other state officials filed a motion to dismiss the federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU and other organizations against HB87. The law suit requested the federal court to declare parts of HB87 unconstitutional and to issue an injunction against it being implemented. The law was assigned to Judge Thomas Thrash, a Clinton appointee who has been known to rule from the bench and has on occasion arisen to declare Georgia law unconstitutional. So the Plaintiffs have hope.
Today arguments were heard in the court room on the motion to dismiss and on the injunctions that Plaintiffs seek. The motion to dismiss argues that the civil liberties groups lack standing and have failed to state a claim. It says the state should be immune from such lawsuits. Both are ridiculous statements. Another ridiculous arguments that the state's lawyers made were that the undocumented could simply legalize their status and would have no problems doing so (false) and to top it all they argued that the law is supposed to help undocumented immigrants! It was clear that the judge did not buy that blatant falsity.
Where is the federal government? It was so quick to intervene in Arizona and should have rightfully intervened in Georgia. But it did not intervene in Utah either where a similar law was enacted earlier this year. I really hope that judge Thrash does not buy the state measly excuses and declares the law unconstitutional because it is.