蜜桃传媒

The Southern Poverty Law Center (蜜桃传媒), the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants鈥� Rights Project (ACLU-IRP), and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Louisiana (ACLU-LA) today filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Louisiana Supreme Court in the cases of State v. Bonifacio Ramirez and State v. Marquez, challenging a state law that puts foreign exchange students and construction workers rebuilding the state after hurricanes Katrina, Isaac and Rita at risk of a felony conviction for doing nothing more than driving a car.聽聽

聽鈥淭his law is clearly unconstitutional and places a tremendous burden on citizens and non-citizens alike,鈥� said Meredith Stewart, 蜜桃传媒 staff attorney.聽鈥淎s federal lawmakers are working hard to fix our broken immigration system, such state attempts at regulating immigration are unproductive and are a drain on local law enforcement resources.聽We urge the Louisiana Supreme Court to find the law unconstitutional.鈥�

The law, called 鈥渙perating a vehicle without lawful presence,鈥� makes it a felony for immigrants to drive a vehicle without carrying proof that they are lawfully present in the United States. The Louisiana State Legislature enacted the law shortly after 9/11 as a purported anti-terrorism measure.聽The law has not been used to prosecute terrorists, however, but rather to criminalize even lawful immigrants and to harass U.S. citizens who may look or sound foreign.聽

鈥淛udging people by how they look is un-American and against the law, and that is exactly what this misguided law requires,鈥� said Marjorie R. Esman, ACLU Foundation of Louisiana executive director.聽鈥淚t imposes criminal penalties on those who can't provide documents on demand, without any other basis for suspicion.聽There is a good reason that similar laws in other states have been struck down.聽The people of Louisiana deserve better than this."

Laws like Louisiana鈥檚 were dealt a blow in 2012 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Arizona v. United States that key components of a similar state law in Arizona were unconstitutional and preempted by federal immigration law. Louisiana鈥檚 law is particularly pernicious because violations of it are classified as felonies.

"Like challenges to Arizona's SB 1070, or Alabama's HB 56, the law before the Louisiana Supreme Court provides a perfect example of an unworkable 鈥� and unconstitutional 鈥� state attempt to meddle in strictly federal immigration territory," said Karen Tumlin, NILC managing attorney. "As the rest of the nation drives toward immigration reform, Louisiana should not be stuck in reverse."聽

Louisiana鈥檚 law intrudes on the federal government鈥檚 power to regulate immigration by dictating the circumstances under which immigrants have to carry documents regarding lawful presence.聽The law also allows state and local law enforcement agencies and state courts to determine and adjudicate an individual鈥檚 immigration status. Individuals who are deemed by a state or local law enforcement officer to be unlawfully present are subject to arrest and risk a felony conviction.