Civil rights groups, state of Iowa make case for, against new 'illegal reentry' law

Civil rights groups made their case in federal court Monday against the state's new immigration law, which criminalizes "illegal reentry" and allows local authorities to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants who return to the United States.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Locher heard arguments in a packed courtroom for two separate lawsuits, each requesting an injunction on Senate File 2340 before it takes effect July 1. The Department of Justice filed its lawsuit against the state in early May, the same day as the groups — the American Immigration Council, American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Iowa — filed theirs on behalf of Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice.

Senate File 2340 states that any person previously deported or denied entry to the U.S. would be barred from entering Iowa. The crime would be an aggravated misdemeanor in most cases but could become a felony under certain circumstances, including if the person was arrested for allegedly committing another felony.

Christopher Eiswerth, an attorney for the DOJ, and Emma Winger, the council's deputy legal director, told Locher the new law is unconstitutional, conflicts with existing federal immigration policies and could impact the nation's future relationships with foreign countries. They said the law — which carries a prison sentence of up to 10 years — could also impact people seeking asylum and other temporary protected statuses or legal citizens who were previously deported.

"Just because they were removed one time, it doesn't mean that they're forever banned from the states," Eiswerth said.

More: Iowa's new immigration law relies on local police, but many doubt they can enforce it

That's on top of a 2012 Supreme Court decision that ruled that states cannot implement their own immigration laws.

Iowa's law has spurred harsh opposition from immigration advocates, as well as questions from police and county attorneys who so far have received no guidance on how to enforce the law or prosecute cases involving it. SF 2340 mirrors a Texas law that has been blocked by the courts while a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality is decided.

"You might not know the minutiae of it, but we know how it's going to work," Winger said. A state judge can order a person convicted under the law be deported back to their country of origin — "not the port of entry," she said.

'Let the law play out,' state says

But Patrick Valencia, deputy solicitor general for the Iowa attorney general's office, argued SF 2340 "sets standards," allowing the state to "enforce those federal rights." He said Iowa is "presumed" to follow the constitution.

Locher, who pointed out the new law introduces a pair of new crimes, asked Valencia why the Iowa law "left out" some language detailing exceptions especially since it was modeled after a Texas immigration law. That language could have been left out "for a reason," Locher said.

"Let the law play out," Valencia said. "We can't assume the law will be interpreted unconstitutionally."

Gov. Kim Reynolds and Attorney General Brenna Bird, both Republicans, have signaled they intend to defend the law, which passed the GOP-led Iowa Legislature and was signed into law in April.

In a statement Monday, Bird said President Joe Biden is not enforcing immigration laws in the country, so "Iowa is doing the job for him."

"Biden’s open borders have not only caused record illegal immigration, but they have opened the door for drug cartels, human traffickers, and suspected terrorists to enter our country," she said. "Today, we made the case in court defending Iowa’s law that prohibits illegal reentry and keeps our communities safe. If Biden invested half as much energy into securing our borders as he does suing states like Iowa, we would all be better off.”

Locher said he will rule on the injunction prior to July 1.

During a news conference held outside, Winger said this law would be "unique" if it were enforced and the judge's decision could set a precedent for other states that may be considering their own laws.

"If these laws aren't challenged, we're risking a situation where we have 50 states with 50 immigration polices — an unworkable system that will harm our vibrant immigrant communities across the country," Winger said.

More: 'Divisive and harmful': Iowa immigrants fear racial profiling with new 'illegal reentry' law

Erica Johnson, executive director of Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, told reporters the U.S. needs an immigration system that is "workable" and humane."

"The problem is that Senate File 2340 is just the opposite of that. It's unworkable," Johnson said. "It's creating fear and driving misinformation in immigrant communities around our state. Supporters of the law say that they passed it because they were tired of the way the federal government was handling immigration.

"But again, this law is no solution to that."

Before and during the hearing, faith leaders, Latino families and members of IMMJ, Escucha Mi Voz and Iowa City Catholic Worker gathered outside the federal courthouse. One sign held up high above the more than 100 protesters read: "No tengo miedo a marchar y defienda la dignidad humana": "I am not afraid to march and defend human dignity."

F. Amanda Tugade covers social justice issues for the Des Moines Register. Email her at [email protected] or follow her on Twitter @writefelissa.

This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Immigration groups seek halt to Iowa's new 'illegal reentry' law