Streams

Solidarity Between Immigrants, Civil Rights Marchers After Ala. HB 56 Ruling

Friday, March 09, 2012

Groups opposed to Alabama's HB 56 immigration march participate in a protest. (Sarah Kate Kramer/Feet in Two Worlds)

Immigrants in Alabama are pushing back against the controversial immigration law HB 56, and it’s working.

In the same week as thousands of Latinos are marching with African American leaders to commemorate the bloody civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery that took place 47 years ago, a federal appeals court temporarily blocked two more sections of HB 56 on Thursday.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined Sections 27 and 30 of the state law until legal challenges brought by the federal government and a coalition of church and civil rights groups are resolved.

The state legislature passed HB 56, a law targeting undocumented immigrants in June 2011, and it immediately gained notoriety as the toughest immigration law in the country. In September, Federal Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn issued preliminary injunctions against a few provisions of the law, including one prohibiting undocumented immigrants from attending public universities, another that outlawed harboring or transporting undocumented immigrants and a third that outlawed stopping for day laborers if a motor vehicle blocked traffic. But Judge Blackburn left intact two of the most controversial elements of the law.

That changed on Thursday. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary injunction against HB 56′s sections which made it a felony for an undocumented immigrant to do business with the state and prevented courts from enforcing many contracts involving undocumented immigrants. This part of the law had far reach and led to the cutting of electricity, water and gas services for some immigrants. In November, the non-partisan Immigration Policy Center that does research on the role of immigrants in U.S. society released a report detailing the grave implications of sections 27 and 30 of HB 56.

“These two sections were both part of the legislative scheme to make life so difficult for immigrant families that they would ‘deport themselves,’” said Cecillia Wang, Director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued against the provisions. “But the 11th court recognizes that this is a serious constitutional problem,” she said, “and now the majority of the unconstitutional provisions of the law have been enjoined.”

The news ricocheted through twitter and the immigration rights blogosphere. Dan Werner, Deputy Legal Director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who was attending the civil rights march, tweeted:

VICTORY! Fed app court halts enforcement of contracts & business sections of #hb56. Cheers erupt across the march. #selma2012#CrisisAL

In a show of solidarity between the African American and Latino communities, immigrant rights and opposition to HB 56 are focal points of this year’s march in Alabama.

The injunctions are temporary because the three-judge panel said that it won’t give a ruling on Alabama and Georgia’s immigration laws until the U.S. Supreme Court makes a decision on a federal challenge to SB 1070, Arizona’s tough immigration law. The Court will hear those arguments on April 25. Wang said she was confident that the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would permanently enjoin all the provisions of the law which the federal government is challenging, because the Supreme Court has said that states should not be in the business of enforcing federal immigration law.

Tags:

More in:

News, weather, Radiolab, Brian Lehrer and more.
Get the best of WNYC in your inbox, every morning.

Comments [2]

listener

Interesting how one side is carefully navigating through the daunting legal system and abiding by the rule of law and are derided for their lawful diligence while progressives lionize those who ignored the law.
The contrast between order and anarchy becomes clearly defined in this debate if one looks past the demagogic narrative that is being peddled.

Mar. 14 2012 11:30 AM
PaulC1958 from Colorado

One need read no further than the author's use of the oxymoronic term "undocumented immigrant" to know the article is biased and not worth reading further. Immigrants are documented, they have a green card. Illegal aliens are also documented; they tend to be the most documented residents of the country. The trouble is virtually all of their documents are phony.

Mar. 12 2012 10:40 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.

Sponsored

About It's A Free Country ®

Archive of It's A Free Country articles and posts. Visit the It's A Free Country Home Page for lots more.

Supported by

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public.  Learn more at revsonfoundation.org.

Feeds

Supported by