Officials react to Alabama illegal immigration ruling

Following a historic ruling Wednesday allowing Alabama to move forward with its illegal immigration law, Gov. Robert Bentley spoke out, calling the ruling a "victory" for the state.

"Today is a victory for Alabama. The court agreed with us on a majority of the provisions that were challenged," he said.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn Wednesday upheld a majority of provisions in the immigration law that were brought into question after numerous organizations including the U.S. Department of Justice and church groups filed suit against the state, claiming the law is unconstitutional.

In her order, Blackburn upheld a section of the law that requires schools document citizenship status of their students by viewing birth certificates and a provision that calls for local law enforcement to detain individuals they have a "reasonable suspicion" may be in the country illegally after committing a prior crime.

A temporary injunction was also lifted on portions of the law that would allow law enforcement to charge aliens with a misdemeanor "for willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration documentation," Blackburn's ruling states.

"During my campaign, I promised a tough law against illegal immigration, and now we have one. The law that the Alabama Legislature passed and I signed is constitutional," Bentley said.

Blackburn, however, halted portions of the law that would make it illegal for an individual to conceal or harbor an illegal immigrant or encourage an undocumented individual to come to Alabama, protects businesses from facing discrimination lawsuits for hiring an illegal immigrant over a lawful citizen and a section that would create a criminal charge for illegal immigrants seeking work in the state.

"The judge temporarily enjoined four parts of the law, but this fight is just beginning. I am optimistic that this law will be completely upheld, and I remain committed to seeing this law fully implemented," Bentley said. "I will continue to fight at every turn to defend this law against any and all challenges."

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange echoed Bentley's call for a continued fight against illegal immigration.

"We respectfully disagree with those parts of the orders that have enjoined portions of the law. We have the right to take an immediate appeal of those parts of the orders or we could wait to appeal until the court has made a final decision. We are currently weighing our options," he said.

Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center that initially challenged the law say they, too, are weighing its options.

"While the court has blocked some extremely problematic provisions from going into effect, thereby allowing Alabamians to continue engaging in everyday activities such as seeking employment and giving rides to neighbors, we are deeply concerned by the decision to allow some unconstitutional provisions to stand," Andre Segura, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project said. "Laws that require police to demand ‘papers' from the people who they suspect appear undocumented encourage racial profiling, threaten public safety, undermine American values and have no place in our society."

Calling the ruling a "dark day" for Alabama, SPLC legal director Mary Bauer said, "This decision not only places Alabama on the wrong side of history, but also demonstrates that the rights and freedoms so fundamental to our nation and its history can be manipulated by hate and political agendas-at least for a time."

National Immigration Law Center general counsel Linton Joaquin said provisions to be implemented in the law require "local police, and even school teachers, to become de facto immigration agents."

"Allowing these portions of the law to take effect will cause irreparable harm to communities of color in Alabama, and we will take every legal action necessary to ensure that these provisions ultimately will be stripped from Alabama's law books," he said.

But Strange said Blackburn's ruling was based on "thoughtful and thorough analysis."

"Illegal immigration is a severe problem facing Alabama and other states across our nation, and it has been addressed by state legislatures in various ways. Rejecting the unduly restrictive approach taken by other courts around the country, the court today vindicated Alabama's right to take action to address this issue in the manner its people, through their elected representatives, see fit," he said.

As attorneys gear up for a probable ensuing court battle, both sides have studied immigration law rulings from other states including Arizona and Georgia.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit struck down Arizona's immigration law April 11.

The panel came to the conclusion that the law, which was challenged by the government, violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The court gave the opinion that the federal government had the sole authority to enforce immigration laws. One judge dissented.

The court also refused to lift an injunction preventing the law from taking effect.

The Supreme Court May 26 upheld a challenge to Arizona's immigration law that provided guidelines for the sanctioning employers of illegal immigrants and requiring employers to utilize the E-verify system to verify immigration status of possible employees.

Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrant's Rights Project said the court's ruling was "a narrow one" that did not address other state and local immigration laws.

To date, Georgia, Utah and Indiana have each passed immigration reform law similar to that passed in Alabama.

In May, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed into law immigration reform that requires proof of citizenship during traffic stops.

The bill makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to have access to state services and facilities.

A federal judge in June halted numerous aspects of Georgia's law, including a provision that would allow police to investigate the immigration status of those they believe committed a crime.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash lifted an injunction placed on portions of the law that require businesses to participate in the E-verify system, which checks the immigration status of employees.

Utah's law was blocked from taking effect pending further court action. A hearing is set for Nov. 18.

Officials in Indiana are not challenging a June injunction placed on portions of its illegal immigration law.

Similar to other states, Indiana's requirement that employers participate in E-verify remains in tact.