The "Obama Amnesty" -- Too Good to Be True

As reported extensively over the last two weeks, and in a way that was grossly misunderstood by the average person, the Obama administration plans to issue a regulation that would address a long-standing problem in immigration law—a Catch 22 created by requiring the spouses and children of U.S. citizens who entered the country unlawfully to depart the U.S. before completing the processing of their application for lawful permanent residence. The trouble is that once they leave the country, they are subject to a three or ten year bar for unlawful presence and need a waiver to get back into the US earlier than the 3 or 10 year bar would allow.  The new proposal would allow them to submit the waiver application to the USCIS in the United States and receive a decision before departing the U.S., thus reducing the time, anxiety, and sometime danger inherent in waiting abroad for a decision.

This Catch-22 is one of the most notorious problems in the immigration system and the regulatory change is long-overdue. Due to processing backlogs, uncertainty of outcomes and violence in cities with key U.S. consulates—such as in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico—the prospect of becoming a lawful permanent resident has become an uncertain and frustrating affair for some applicants. Recognizing this problem, which arises in part from regulation, is an example of USCIS acting responsibly to address a problem of its own regulatory making in an expedient and lawful way.

The too good to be true part is that there is no change in the law yet, and we have not yet seen the actual wording of the proposed change.  The truth is this rule change will not open the doors for more immigrants, or provide relief for the millions of undocumented immigrants in this country without the necessary family and work relationships to obtain status. Therefore, calling it “amnesty” is nothing short of a lie.  No one who was not already eligible for a waiver is now eligible.  This proposed rule will not affect anyone new.  

The other too good to be true part is that we can not expect this change to take affect before the end of the year. The Rulemaking Process is SLOW. Even if we get a proposed rule issued in the Spring (a big "if"), given the required comment period, and intense desire of USCIS's "culture of no" employees to slow down any real change that benefits immigrants, there is no conceivable way the change will happen before the election. And, if Obama loses in November, that will halt all pending changes in their tracks, and we will never see this common sense change take place.  

What should you do?  Do what you were doing.  Do not make any changes in how you might have currently been processing for a waiver.  Live your life.  And, talk to an attorney if you are married to a US Citizen or permanent resident, or have Citizen or permanent resident parents.  Perhaps you did not know that you already qualify for a waiver.  

Newt Gingrich's Immigration Plan -- Rhetoric Is No Plan At All

Newt Gingrich introduced a unique concept into the Republican primary debate—an attempt at a quasi-rational approach to fixing our broken immigration system.  While Newt has received mostly derisive comments from the Right, focused almost exclusively on calling his idea an “amnesty” plan, the reality of his plan is very different.  It is NOT an amnesty plan.  But more importantly for those who understand the urgent need, Newt’s plan will NOT fix our broken immigration system. 

Start with the obvious, there must be willing participants in Congress to work with any president to solve a problem of this magnitude.  As Newt himself has pointed out, both President Bush and President Obama have tried a “comprehensive” approach to immigration reform, and failed miserably.  In today’s Congress, with a large contingent of elected representatives who view any law that in any way assists an immigrant as “amnesty,” Newt’s plan is dead on arrival.  A recent “piecemeal” bill that passed the Republican controlled House, is held up in the Senate by one Republican Senator!  This unfortunate anti-immigrant attitude persists despite recent (and long standing) polls showing large majorities of voters from both political parties favoring an immigration reform plan that allows for earned legalization.

Newt’s ten point plan is long on the big picture but short on solving the biggest problems of all – securing our future with the right types and mix of immigrants and what to do with all the people in the US without legal papers.

Newt’s plan starts where all immigration reform plans must start—on the border.  But Newt fails to recognize the fact that the borders are far more secure today than they have ever been, and that they are getting more secure each day.  In 2011, the Border Patrol recorded the lowest number of people detained at the southern border since 1974 when Nixon was President, and that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported more people than ever before.  In fact, President Obama can lay claim to being the “Deportation President” because he will have deported more people in his four year term office than any President in modern times.   Fences, patrols, UAVs and electronics will not keep everyone out.  A rational, legal way into the United States is what really stops illegal immigration at the border.

Newt speaks of our needs for a “21^st Century Visa Program,” as if it is something out of Six Sigma lecture, eliminating “inefficiencies” in order to attract the best and the brightest to come to and remain in America.   Here is the sad news, even in our current broken system we are attracting the best people, the problem is that we are quickly losing them when they realize that our legal immigration system (the so-called “line”) has waits of up to 15 years for workers to get permanent residence through employment, and wait times exceeding 25 years for family immigration.   The answer is simple, and yet is ignored by Newt -- increase the numbers of legal immigrants that come to the US in legal categories to meet not only demand, but our needs.

And yet, the biggest flaw in Newt’s plan is not his proposed guest worker program run by American Express (really), but rather his “path to legality” for “millions” of people who are in the United States without legal status.  Newt proposes that only people here 20-25 years could apply for his program. Bad news Newt—President Reagan’s “amnesty” program was 25 years ago, the numbers affected by your original proposal would be only a very small portion of those that are unlawfully present. A more rational approach would be 10 years, which would cover more than 63% of all illegal immigrants.  Newt also proposes the idea that local “immigration boards” would meet regularly to determine whether an immigrant could stay in the US.  Can you imagine thousands of these boards around the country and the extraordinary inconsistency of their rulings?  It would be like, well, the draft boards from the 1960s that Newt compared them to, where certain people got favors because of who they knew or who their family was, while others were sent to the front lines in Vietnam.

The bottom line is this—Kudos to Newt for having the courage to buck the current (although only recent) Republican orthodoxy of “attrition through enforcement,” favored by the anti-immigration lobbyists on Capitol Hill.  But Newt needs to be honest with people.  His plan has zero chance of passing Congress, does not effectively deal with our future need for immigrants, does not address a real resolution to a temporary worker program, and certainly does not deal with a majority of the 11 million people in the United States without lawful status.   Newt’s plan is getting us no closer to solving this real national problem than the failed policies of President Obama.

Seven Reasons Why the Georgia Legislature Should Repeal HB-87

Recently the Alabama Attorney General called on the Alabama State Legislature to repeal parts of Alabama's horrid anti-immigration law (HB 56), because of the "unintended" consequences of the bill (frankly, what happened was not unintended). Because of the similarity between the two laws, Georgia's Speaker of the House, David Ralston was asked whether Georgia Legislature would repeal part or all of HB 87, Georgia own anti-immigration law. HB 87 has caused almost a half a billion dollars in damage to the Georgia economy (along with untold suffering in Georgia's immigrant communities) without any noted or reported positive effect.

Speaker Ralston plainly stated that the Georgia Legislature would NOT do anything to repeal HB87. While it understandable why a politician would not admit that a pet bill he shepherded and pushed through the state legislature was simply bad law, it is also clear that Speaker Ralston is facing a challenge on his RIGHT in the upcoming elections. To admit that he wanted HB87 repealed in whole or in part because of the tremendous negative effects on the Georgia economy would significantly strengthen his own Tea Party challenger.

We know why Speaker Ralston will not move to repeal HB 87 bill through the legislature, but here is here is why Republicans in the Georgia state legislature need to repeal HB 87:

1. The Federal District Court in Georgia has already said that two key provisions in the bill, Sections 7 (transporting/harboring), and Section 8 (show me your papers) are preempted by federal law and thus unconstitutional. Attorneys familiar with the law are in agreement (except for the attorney general) that the 11th Circuit will uphold the District Court. The staying of these two provisions (the only significant provisions of HB 87 apart from the unfounded mandates to state political entities on SAVE, and mandatory E-Verify for employers with more than 10 employees on January 1 each year), caused most undocumented immigrants to remain in Georgia, but to go deeper "underground."

2. The Supreme Court has decided to hear the case involving the anti-immigration laws in Arizona, laws which are remarkably similar to Georgia's HB 87. Decades of Supreme Court precedent support an upholding of the Court of Appeals decision striking down the key parts of the Arizona law. Acting now, before the Supreme Court orders the law stricken shows Georgia as a national leader in ensuring that the laws it enacts are constitutional and just.

2. Secure Communities, the Obama administration's much maligned enforcement tool is in effect in ALL Georgia counties, which means that anyone arrested by Georgia law enforcement has an ICE hold placed upon them if they are wanted for immigration violations by ICE. This tool, more than anything the state legislature did, has more impact on the day to day lives of foreign nationals in Georgia.

3. Georgia's farm crops, from its blackberries and blueberries to tomatoes and onions have rotted in the fields because migrant farm workers bypassed the state upon passage of HB 87. Losses have so far totaled more than $390 million in the agricultural sector alone. We can expect similar losses this year, unless growers change what they plant to less labor intensive (and thus less lucrative) crops, reducing the overall tax base for taxes paid into state coffers.

4. HB 87 has caused massive labor shortages not only in the agricultural sector, but in the restaurant sector, with expected losses to total more than $1 billion dollars. Service employees are difficult to find and even more difficult to keep among the native born population. What do you tell the restaurant or hotel owner who cannot find prep cooks, dishwashers, maids and servers? Close your restaurant or hotel?

5. Economic Development efforts are ongoing in Georgia to attract foreign investment and to create jobs in our state. Georgia is LAST or near last in job creation during Governor Deals first year in office. HB 87 does nothing to attract business, and as Alabama has learned, passing strong anti-immigration laws does wonders for driving foreign investment away. On the other hand, repealing HB 87 will send a STRONG message that Georgia is open for business and will do nothing to take away from the aggressive enforcement of our immigration laws currently being undertaken by the Obama Administration.

6. The argument used by supporters of HB 87, that the federal government is not enforcing the immigration laws, is a lie. The Obama Administration can be better called the Deportation Administration. Never before have so many undocumented immigrants been deported in so short a time! Not in 40 years have so few undocumented immigrant come into the United States. Strong border enforcement, Secure Communities, and a focus on immigrants (legal and undocumented) with criminal violations have led to a lessening of undocumented immigration in the United States. Nothing about HB 87 has led to a lessening of undocumented immigration in the United States.

7. HB 87 was completely unfunded. Every statute, every regulation arising out of each statute, every requirement for counties and cities to carry out was unfunded. Every supposed benefit promised to law enforcement for compliance with HB 87 was unfunded. The leadership in the Legislature talks about unfunded mandates from the federal government. HB 87 is an unfunded mandate to the political subdivisions of Georgia, and is costing those cities and counties hundreds of thousands of dollars to comply, with no visible or tangible result. Prior to its passage, and since its passage, no state legislator has been able to point to ANY money saved because of HB 87. The only evidence that exists for HB 87 is that it is costing the citizens of Georgia tax dollars with no evident benefit.

These seven reasons for repealing HB 87 all involve legalities and facts. There is another reason to repeal HB 87 -- It is the right thing to do. HB 87 has destroyed Georgia families, hurt Georgia business, torn apart Georgia communities, and caused an intense fear of law enforcement for all immigrants in Georgia, regardless of their immigration status. Some have argued that the real purpose of HB 87 was to scare people into leaving the state. The reality is that after the District Court judge stayed Sections 7 and 8, immigrants stopped leaving Georgia. Now it is time to say that immigration enforcement is the federal government's job, and Georgia is going to let the federal government do it. Let's bring some forward thinking to the immigration debate, starting with a repeal of HB 87.

What You Should do to Prepare Yourself if You Are Arrested by ICE or Deported

If you are in the United States without proper immigration papers, it is important that you prepare for the possibility, particularly in today's environment, that you will be arrested by ICE and deported from the United States. You SHOULD MAKE A PLAN NOW for what you would like to have happen to your children and your property in case you are arrested or deported. You do this by completing a "Power of Attorney" form. In doing so you are designating someone to be your agent and giving them power of attorney over everything you own. This can be a scary thing. You must pick someone you trust, particularly because their powers become effective the moment you sign the power of attorney form. That means that they can go into your bank accounts and sell whatever property you have here in the United States. (You can offset this by keeping the documents locked in your house and tell your agent where the forms are once you are arrested. You can also give it to your attorney for safe keeping.)

You must also make a plan and give your agent a lot of guidance when it comes to exactly what you would want to happen to your children and property. Give them a list of emergency contacts. Make sure that the agent knows who their pediatricians, baby-sitters and teachers are. You should talk to your agent about filing the documents with your local county Registrar. In most states that is the sure fire way to make sure that your agent’s powers are recognized with schools and banks.
Planning for an arrest or deportation can be like planning for an “immigration funeral.” And like a funeral lot of people don’t want to think about the fact that it could possibly happen. But those who do plan ahead can have exactly what they want happen to their children, property and money that they have worked so hard for during their time here in the United States. It’s worth spending the few hours filling out all the forms.

If you ever need help on doing this necessary task, contact the attorneys at Kuck Immigration Partners for assistance.

The Georgia Immigration Enforcement Review Board

Section 20, of Georgia's HB 87, created the "Immigration Enforcement Review Board" (IERB) The creation of the IERB was a surprise addition to HB 87 in its last substitution in the House, and never had a public hearing. There is no legislative history about the IERB's purpose, although it is now clear from Rep. Matt Ramsey's statements to the press that it was the Association of City and County Governments (ACCG) that pushed for the IERB, in lieu of the even crazier idea of letting private citizens sue state officials.

The PURPOSE of the IERB

The primary purpose of the IERB, which is now filled by seven white men with virtually no experience in immigration law and is attached to the Department of Audits and Accounting, is to:

(1) Conduct a review or investigation of any complaint properly filed with the Board;
(2) take such remedial action deemed appropriate in response to complaints filed with the Board, including holding hearings and considering evidence;
(3) make and adopt rules and regulation consistent with the provisions of this Code section; and
(4) subpoena relevant documents and witnesses and to place witnesses under oath for the provision of testimony in matters before the board.

What the IERB Can Enforce

All of these duties are appropriately vague considering the actual authority of the Board. Here is what the Board has authority to do:

Investigate and review any complaint with respect to all action of a public agency or employee alleged to have violated or failed to properly enforce the provisions of Code Section 13-10-91 (State E-Verify usage), 36-80-23 (Sanctuary Policies), or 50-36-1 (Public Benefits) with which such public agency or employee was required to comply.

Who can FILE Complaints with the IERB

Only registered voters can bring complaints to the IERB. This little nugget may violate not only the due process clause of the state constitution, and possibly the Voting Rights Act, but all the federal Constitution's right of citizens (not just registered voters) to seek redress and petition the government. This provision has NOT been challenged in Court, but certainly will be at some point in the future.

What Can The IERB DO and to WHOM Can it DO IT?

What is remarkable with the IERB can ONLY deal with the three limited areas of Georgia law (state entity use of E-Verfiy, state entity sanctuary policies, and state entity use of the SAVE system) as it pertains to public employees. No private employers, employees, or individuals are subject to investigation by the IERB.

Further, and more problematic, the IERB does NOT have to act as a Board. One member can carry out ALL of its duties AND impose sanctions!! The sanctions that the IERB can levy include revocation of qualified local government status, loss of state appropriated funds, or a monetary fine of up to $5,000. The standard of proof used for a "conviction" by this Board is a preponderance of the evidence. The Attorney General is the club used by this Board to enforce its decisions and sanctions in Court, should the employee not comply.

What the IERB is NOT

The IERB is NOT a witch hunting panel of anti-immigrants going after private citizens and businesses who violate HB 87. So, regular folks (e.g., non-goverment employees) have not need to fear (yet). BUT, if you are a government employee--watch out!

What the IERB IS

The IERB is a RADICAL privatization of government power, and the constitutionality of this provision is suspect. After all we are talking about giving to a Board of private citizens the power to take away the "city" status of a municipality. Frankly, it is insane that this provision is in this anti-immigration bill. It has nothing to do with immigration, and everything to do with pleasing a particular constituency. Ultimately, the courts will decide the constitutionality of this Section.

The Obama Amnesty--NOT!!

From my friends at www.stopnotariofraud.org.

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S IMMIGRATION ANNOUNCEMENT IS NOT AN AMNESTY. IT DOES NOT GRANT LEGAL STATUS OR WORK PERMITS. IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN SIGN-UP FOR! THERE IS NO “SAFE” WAY TO TURN YOURSELF IN TO IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES. CONSULT AN IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY ABOUT YOUR IMMIGRATION CASE OR STATUS.

STOP NOTARIO FRAUD

Don’t become a victim of dishonest immigration consultants often known as “notarios.” Immigration consultants, notary publics, and notarios cannot represent you in the immigration process. These people—especially notarios—prey on immigrants, often from the same ethnic community as the notarios themselves.

NOTARIOS WILL TAKE YOUR MONEY AND YOUR DREAMS!

Many noncitizens find out that they will never get their green card or other immigration benefits because an unqualified immigration consultant or notario unlawfully working as an immigration lawyer destroyed their dreams.

PROTECT YOUR FAMILY’S DREAMS

To avoid fraud, use your common sense. Many people hear what they want to hear—be smart! If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Don’t believe it if someone tells you about a secret new immigration law or claims to have connections or special influence with any government office or agency. Follow these simple guidelines.

Take action to get help and stop the notario from harming others!

If you have been harmed by a notario or an immigration consultant, you can take action that may help you and stop the person from harming others.

WE WANT TO HELP!

The resources on this website are meant to:

• Help prevent immigrants from being victimized by notarios
• Provide resources for victims of notarios
• Provide information and resources for attorneys working with victims to remedy crimes committed by fraudulent consultants unlawfully practicing immigration law
• Help immigrants find competent and affordable legal service providers

Many Undocumented Immigrants Without Criminal Records Facing Deportation Will Stay In U.S.

According to the Huffington Post, the Obama administration said it will allow many illegal immigrants facing deportation the chance to stay in this country and apply for a work permit, while focusing on removing from the U.S. convicted criminals and those who might be a national security or public safety threat.

That will mean a case-by-case review of approximately 300,000 illegal immigrants facing possible deportation in federal immigration courts, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in announcing the policy change.

Advocates for an immigration overhaul have said that the administration, by placing all illegal immigrants in the same category for deportation, has failed to live up to its promise to only deport the "worst of the worst," as President Barack Obama has said.

"From a law enforcement and public safety perspective, DHS enforcement resources must continue to be focused on our highest priorities," Napolitano wrote a group of senators supporting new immigration legislation. "Doing otherwise hinders our public safety mission – clogging immigration court dockets and diverting DHS enforcement resources away from the individuals who pose a threat to public safety."

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter.

Some states are rebelling against another administration effort to control illegal immigration known as Secure Communities. The program requires that when state and local law enforcement send criminal suspects' fingerprints to the FBI, the prints are run through an immigration database to determine the person's immigration status. States have argued that the program puts them in the position of policing immigration, which they consider a federal responsibility. Immigrant advocacy groups have complained that people who had not yet been convicted of a crime were being caught up in the system.

In June, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John Morton, sent a memo to agents outlining when and how they could use discretion in immigration cases. That guidance also covered those potentially subject to a legislative proposal, known as the DREAM Act, intended to give young illegal immigrants who go to college or serve in the military a chance at legal status.

Morton also suggested that agents consider how long someone has been in the United State, whether that person's spouse or children are U.S. citizens and whether that person has a criminal record.

A senior administration official said delaying deportation decisions in cases for some non-criminals would allow quicker deportation of serious criminals. The indefinite stay will not give illegal immigrants a path to legal permanent residency, but will let them apply for a work permit.

"As a matter of law, they are eligible for a work authorization card, basically a taxpayer ID card, but that decision is made separately and on a case-by-case basis," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discussed the change publicly.

The official said the change will give authorities the chance to keep some cases from even reaching the court system. The message to agents in the field, the official said, would be "you do not need to put everyone you come across in the system."

If an immigrant whose case has been stayed commits a crime or other circumstances change, their case could be reopened.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a longtime supporter of immigration overhaul and the DREAM Act, applauded the policy change.

"These students are the future doctors, lawyers, teachers and, maybe, senators, who will make America stronger," Durbin said in an emailed statement. "We need to be doing all we can to keep these talented, dedicated, American students here, not wasting increasingly precious resources sending them away to countries they barely remember."

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said the Obama administration was implementing reforms "against the will of Congress and the majority of American people we represent."

"It is just the latest attempt by this president to bypass the intended legislative process when he does not get his way," McCaul said in a statement. "The fact that we have a backlog and prioritize deportations is nothing new. This policy goes a step further granting illegal immigrants a fast-track to gaining a work permit where they will now unfairly compete with more than 9 percent of Americans who are still looking for jobs."

Other Republicans have previously criticized the DREAM Act and other immigration legislation that would provide a path to legal status as amnesty. Following Morton's June memo, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, introduced a bill to block the administration's use of prosecutorial discretion and called the use of that discretion "backdoor amnesty."

Thank you President Obama and Senator Durbin for embracing the concept that the United States is truly a nation of immigrants. This policy will allow the government to decide who gets to stay in the United States based on their actions and not based on the arbitrariness of our broken immigration system.

Georgia's Secure Document List--So What.

The Georgia Attorney General just issued his Secure and Verifiable Document List, as required under HB-87, Georgia's Anti-Immigration Law. This list brings to mind the First Rule you need to know when a State passes an Anti-Immigration law. That rule is summarized in one word--"meaningless." That's right. The List, as written, is meaningless. The List changes NOTHING about Georgia law and how people can use documents in Georgia.

The main reason that Rep. Matt Ramsey wanted this part of HB 87 in place was to stop the use by Mexicans of a document known as a "Matricula Consular." The Matricula Consular is a secure document, issued after a lengthy process of identification verification by the Mexican Consulate. It is certainly as secure as a Georgia Driver's license. But, since it gave the impression, apparently, to Rep. Ramsey that people were using a Mexican ID documents to apply for benefits in the U.S. for their US Citizen children, he wanted it done away with, in the mistaken belief that by doing so, perhaps these U.S. Citizen children could be deprived of the benefits they were eligible for. Unfortunately, for Rep. Ramsey he did not do his homework before writing this provision, as Federal Law permits the use of a Matricula Consular and related foreign documents to verify identity for applications for certain purposes. Neither HB 87, nor the List can change that. So, a state law was never going to be permitted to stand that disallowed what the Federal Government permitted.

The Attorney General clearly realized the problem. This is no where more evident than in the last paragraph of The List, which states:

In addition to the documents listed herein, if, in administering a public benefit or program, an agency is required by federal law to accept a document for proof of or documentation of identity, that document will be deemed a secure and verifiable document solely for that particular program or administration of that particular public benefit.

So, the Matricula Consular, as I have been saying for months, is still usable to apply for Federal Benefits for U.S. Citizen Children, even benefits administered by the State of Georgia,as permitted by federal law!

Also interesting in the Attorney General's list is the inclusion on the List of a Canadian Driver's license, as well as the drivers licenses of ALL 50 states! So much for not recognizing the licenses of Washington and New Mexico.

What the Attorney General failed to include were the dozens of variations of documents issued by USCIS to verify a person's immigration status and identification. We cannot expect the Attorney General of Georgia to be an immigration expert, but it is surprising that there was no attempt made to try to bring into the List, secure and verifiable immigration documents carried as the sole source of identification by thousands of people living in Georgia!

There must be much weeping and wailing of those anti-immigrants who wanted a limited List. the current List fails to effectively change anything about Georgia law. This List coupled with Judge Thrash's order stopping the most egregious sections of HB 87 from being enforced means that Georgia law is effectively not changed as it pertains to people's immigration status. HB 87 continues its march toward the dust heap of history as yet another bill passed by a state more concerned about the social effects of new immigrants rather than compliance with actual federal law.

Finally, let's note that the Attorney General also turned out his "Report on Public Benefits" a lengthy tome that details all the public benefits available in Georgia to U.S. citizens and
qualified aliens". Most of us who are conservatives will say WOW, I had no idea that so many programs existed, there is one thing lacking in this report. There is no indication that anyone who was not entitled any of these benefits actually got the benefit. No evidence that a person who is not a U.S. Citizen or qualified alien received benefits only intended for U.S. citizens and qualified aliens. Makes you wonder why, if there was no evidence of abuse of "public benefits" by non-qualified aliens, this law and report was even necessary.

The Oral Argument on HB 87

The Plaintiffs' litigation team, of which I am proud to be a part, just left oral argument in front of Judge Thrash. Omar Jadwat and Karen Tumlin both did a terrific job in their arguments on the constitutional issues and the severe harm that will befall immigrants, US citizens and permanent residents if HB 87 is allowed to go into effect.

Judge Thrash had numerous questions for the government lawyer, who argued, incorrectly that if all these undocumented people wanted to, they could just fix their status and become legal. The most honest thing the government attorney said, after repeat questioning by the Judge, was that US citizens who drive around their parents who are undocumented, and take them to the sore for groceries, and while doing so commit a traffic offense absolutely face arrest and jail for transporting and harboring. In fact, the government attorney compared such an activity (helping your mom get groceries) is just like cocaine possession. When she said this an audible gasp was heard across the courtroom. The government attorney also mischaracterized federal law and its similarity to provisions of HB 87, but failed to either recognize or acknowledge the plain fact that immigration is a federal issue in which the states have been invited to participate only in limited fashion, and that HB 87 fair exceeds this authority.

The government attorney also tried to justify HB 87 by saying that the law protects undocumented immigrants! Yes, she really said that! She then went on to say that the law is justified by all the costs created by undocumented immigrants in Georgia. However, she failed to note that there was no fiscal note in this bill and thus we have no idea how much money this bill either saves OR costs the state of Georgia. This irresponsible inaction on the part of the Georgia state legislature allows people like the government lawyer to use made up numbers from anti-immigration groups to justify state action, when the reality is much different. Immigrants, both documented and undocumented provide a net positive contribution to the economy of Georgia. It was clear that her economic arguments made no impact on the judge, as they should not have as they had nothing to do with the reason for HB 87.

Finally, the judge repeatedly asked the state' s attorney what the purpose of the law was. She responsed with arguments about economics, crime, healthcare, and even the aforementioned protection of undoumented immigrants. But, the judge was simmply not buyng it, and said, twice, "are you really telling me the the purpose of this law is to help undocumented immigrants? In noted exasperation, he finally said, "counsel, move on, you are not answering my question"!

The only question the judge had for Omar was "where is the federal government?" Good question! Where was the Federal Government? Someone should ask Eric Holder where he was.

At the end of the the argument, which lasted about 90 minutes, Judge Thrash said that he would not be ruling from the bench but that he would likely rule by July 1, 2011, the effective date of the law. I expect a ruling shortly before that date. No one knows, other than Judge Thrash, how he is going to rule. But I remain confident, and repeat what I have been saying since January when the state legislature first took this law up: the law is unconstitutional and I believe an injunction will be granted.

Oral Argument on HB87

In the courtroom. Counsel table for plaintiffs is full with 6 attorneys all prepared to argue the various aspects of the motion. Three government counsel from The state attorney General's office are also here to argue their case. Judge Thrash had said in an earlier status conference that he was "known to rule from the bench" so hopefully he will do so today in favor of the Plaintiffs.

Karen Tumlin and Omar Jadwat are the lead attorneys on oral argument for the plaintiffs. We expect to start the arguments at 10 am.

No blogging allowed so I will report back in after the hearing!