Full opinion text
ORDER THOMAS W. THRASH, JR., District Judge. This is a constitutional challenge to Georgia’s new illegal immigration law. It is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 29] and the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 47]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 29] and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 47]. I. Background On April 14, 2011, the Georgia General Assembly enacted House Bill 87, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011 (“HB87”). Most provisions of HB87 are scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2011. The Act was designed to address the “very serious problem of illegal immigration in the State of Georgia.” (Debt, on HB87 Before the Georgia Senate (April 14, 2011); Lauterback Deck, Ex. B.) Section 8 of HB87 authorizes Georgia law enforcement officers to investigate the immigration status of criminal suspects where the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect committed another criminal offense. O.C.G.A. § 17-5-100(b). The suspect may show legal immigration status by providing one of five types of identification. If, however, the suspect fails to present one of the five listed forms of identification, the officer may use “any reasonable means available to determine the immigration status of the suspect.” 0.C.G.A. § 17-5-100(c). If the officer determines that the suspect is in the United States illegally, he may detain the suspect, transport him to a state or federal detention facility, or notify the United States Department of Homeland Security. O.C.G.A. § 17-5-100(e). Section 7 of HB87 prohibits “transporting or moving an illegal alien,” “concealing or harboring an illegal alien,” or “inducing an illegal alien to enter into [Georgia]” while committing another criminal offense. O.C.G.A. § 16-11-200; O.C.G.A. § 16-11-201; O.C.G.A. § 16-11-202. Finally, Section 19 of HB87 requires Georgia agencies and political subdivisions to accept only “secure and verifiable” identity documents for official purposes and provides criminal penalties for those who “knowingly accept ]” documents that are not secure and verifiable. O.C.G.A. § 50-36-2(c) & (d). HB87 defines secure and verifiable documents as those “approved and posted by the Attorney General.” O.C.G.A. § 50-36-2(b)(3). Consular identification cards are specifically excluded. Id. The Plaintiffs are nonprofit organizations, business associations, and individuals. The Plaintiff organizations claim that HB87 will cause them to divert resources from their traditional missions in order to educate the public on the effects of the new law. The individual Plaintiffs claim that they will be subject to investigation, detention, and arrest under HB87 because of their status as, or association with, unauthorized aliens. The Plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit on June 2, 2011 [Doc. 1]. On June 8, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 29]. The Plaintiffs seek to enjoin enforcement of the portions of HB87 that will go into effect on July 1, 2011. The Plaintiffs argue that HB87 violates the Supremacy Clause, the Fourth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the constitutional right to travel. The Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 47]. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs lack standing and that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claims. The Court held a hearing on the motions on June 20, 2011. II. Legal Standards A. Preliminary Injunction Standard A “preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted until the movant clearly carries the burden of persuasion as to the four prerequisites.” Northeastern Fla. Chapter v. Jacksonville, Fla., 896 F.2d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir.1990). In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate: “(1) a substantial likelihood that he will ultimately prevail on the merits; (2) that he will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues; (3) that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) that the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest.” Zardui-Quintana v. Richard, 768 F.2d 1213, 1216 (11th Cir.1985); Gold Coast Publications, Inc. v. Corrigan, 42 F.3d 1336, 1343 (11th Cir.1994). “The purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.” University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981). “[A] preliminary injunction is customarily granted on the basis of procedures that are less formal and evidence that is less complete than in a trial on the merits.” Id. “At the preliminary injunction stage, a district court may rely on affidavits and hearsay materials which would not be admissible evidence for a permanent injunction, if the evidence is ‘appropriate given the character and objectives of the injunctive proceeding.’ ” Levi Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Intern. Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982, 985 (11th Cir.1995). B. Motion to Dismiss Standard A complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) only where it appears that the facts alleged fail to state a “plausible” claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A complaint may survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, however, even if it is “improbable” that a plaintiff would be able to prove those facts; even if the possibility of recovery is extremely “remote and unlikely.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citations and quotations omitted). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court must accept factual allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Quality Foods de Centro America, S.A. v. Latin American Agribusiness Dev. Corp., S.A., 711 F.2d 989, 994-95 (11th Cir.1983). Generally, notice pleading is all that is required for a valid complaint. See Lombard’s, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 753 F.2d 974, 975 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1082, 106 S.Ct. 851, 88 L.Ed.2d 892 (1986). Under notice pleading, the plaintiff need only give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiffs claim and the grounds upon which it rests. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955). III. Discussion A. Standing The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs do not have standing to sue. “Standing ‘is the threshold question in every federal case, determining the power of the court to entertain the suit.’ ” CAMP Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 451 F.3d 1257, 1269 (11th Cir.2006) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975)). “A plaintiff who invokes the jurisdiction of a federal court bears the burden to show ‘(1) an injury in fact, meaning an injury that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the causal conduct, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.’ ” Id. (quoting Granite State Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 351 F.3d 1112, 1116 (11th Cir.2003)). Further, “[a] plaintiff who challenges a statute must demonstrate a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute’s operation or enforcement.” Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301, 60 L.Ed.2d 895 (1979). The Plaintiff need not “first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge [the] statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights.” Id. (quoting Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974)). However, “persons having no fears of state prosecution except those that are imaginary or speculative, are not to be accepted as appropriate plaintiffs.” Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 42, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). “[W]hen lack of standing is raised in a motion to dismiss, the issue is properly resolved by reference to the allegations of the complaint.” Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1336 (11th Cir.1994). 1. The Individual Plaintiffs The Defendants claim that the individual Plaintiffs do not have standing because the Plaintiffs’ injuries are too speculative. In City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), the plaintiff sued to enjoin the use of choke-holds by California police officers. The plaintiff argued that he faced a realistic danger of being choked by police officers in the future. The defendants argued that the plaintiff lacked standing because his potential injury was too speculative. The United States Supreme Court agreed, reasoning that “[i]n order to establish an actual controversy in this case, [the plaintiff] would have had not only to allege that he would have another encounter with the police but also to make the incredible assertion either, (1) that all police officers in Los Angeles always choke any citizen with whom they happen to have an encounter, whether for the purpose of arrest, issuing a citation or for questioning or, (2) that the City ordered or authorized police officers to act in such manner.” Id. at 105-106, 103 S.Ct. 1660. The Court further noted that “assuming that [the plaintiff] would again be stopped for a traffic or other violation in the reasonably near future, it is untenable to assert ... that strangleholds are applied by the Los Angeles police to every citizen who is stopped or arrested regardless of the conduct of the person stopped.” Id. at 108, 103 S.Ct. 1660. Thus, “the ‘odds,’ that Lyons would not only again be stopped for a traffic violation but would also be subjected to a chokehold without any provocation whatsoever” were not sufficiently high to support equitable relief. Id. at 108, 103 S.Ct. 1660. See also Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 382-83, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976) (no standing where plaintiff alleged possibility of future harm from unconstitutional acts of small, unnamed minority of policemen). By contrast, in Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1336 (11th Cir.1994), homeless plaintiffs sued to enjoin the defendant from arresting, harassing, or removing them from the city limits. The defendant argued that there was no realistic threat that the plaintiffs would be arrested or removed in the future. The court, however, held that the plaintiffs had standing to sue. Further, the court noted that, unlike in Lyons, the plaintiffs had alleged a “custom, practice and policy of arresting, harassing and otherwise interfering with homeless people for engaging in the ordinary and essential activities of daily life.” Id. at 1339. Here, as in Church, HB87 represents a formal policy that the Plaintiffs allege is unconstitutional. See id. at 1339 (distinguishing Lyons on grounds that “plaintiffs have alleged that it is the custom, practice, and policy of the City to commit the constitutional deprivations of which they complain.”). For example, Jane Doe # 2 is in violation of federal civil immigration law, but has been given deferred status by the federal government. (See Compl. ¶ 58; Decl. of Jane Doe # 2, Doc. 29-5.) Nevertheless, Jane Doe # 2 would be subject to investigation, detention, and potential arrest under Section 8 of HB87 because she does not have paperwork to establish her deferred federal status. Similarly, Plaintiff David Kennedy is an immigration attorney. (Kennedy Decl. ¶ 4; Doc. 29-6.) He regularly represents undocumented aliens. In the course of this representation, Kennedy meets with clients in his office and gives them rides. (Id.) Despite HB87’s exception for criminal attorneys, Kennedy may be subject to prosecution under Section 7 of HB87 for transporting or harboring illegal aliens in the course of his representation of them in civil matters. (See also Compl. ¶¶ 43-60.) The Defendants stress, however, that local police must find probable cause of a separate criminal offense before investigating the Plaintiffs’ immigration status or charging a suspect under Section 7. This condition does not make the Plaintiffs’ injury unrealistic, however. See Babbitt, 442 U.S. at 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301 (plaintiff “must demonstrate a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute’s operation or enforcement.”). First, the Plaintiffs need not actually commit any criminal offense to trigger an immigration investigation under HB87. Rather, probable cause will suffice. Second, the Plaintiffs will be subject to such allegedly unconstitutional investigations based on probable cause that they committed any criminal violation, including (and perhaps most commonly) minor traffic violations. Significantly, probable cause to suspect transporting or harboring (Section 7) would justify interrogation and detention (Section 8). Further, unlike Lyons, the Court may assume that police officers will investigate the Plaintiffs’ immigration status each time there is probable cause to believe the Plaintiffs have committed a crime. See Lyons, at 461 U.S. at 108, 103 S.Ct. 1660 (“[Assuming that [the plaintiff] would again be stopped for a traffic or other violation in the reasonably near future, it is untenable to assert ... that strangleholds are applied by the Los Angeles police to every citizen who is stopped or arrested regardless of the conduct of the person stopped.”). Unlike in Lyons, no attenuated series of events is required to provoke the allegedly unconstitutional conduct. Indeed, the underlying offense need not result in arrest and the suspect need not resist to trigger an investigation. Section 8 will convert many routine encounters with law enforcement into lengthy and intrusive immigration status investigations. Thus, the individual Plaintiffs have shown a realistic threat of injury as a result of HB87. 2. The Plaintiff Organizations The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiff organizations lack standing. An organization may have standing in its own right or based on the rights of its members. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). To sue in its own right, the Court must consider whether the Plaintiffs have “ ‘alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy’ as to warrant [their] invocation of federal-court jurisdiction.” Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 378-79, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982) (quoting Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 261, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977)). The organization may establish such an interest by showing that the challenged statute would cause it to “divert resources from its regular activities.” Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340, 1350 (11th Cir.2009). In Bill-ups, the plaintiffs challenged a statute requiring voters to present photo identification. The organizational plaintiff alleged that it had traditionally directed resources toward voter registration. The challenged statute, however, would force it to “divert resources from its regular activities to educate and assist voters in complying with the statute that requires photo identification.” Id.; see also Havens, 455 U.S. at 379, 102 S.Ct. 1114 (organization had standing where defendants’ racial steering practices frustrated plaintiffs efforts and forced plaintiff to “devote significant resources to identify and counteract” the defendants’ actions.). Here, the Plaintiff organizations have alleged that HB87 will cause them to “divert resources from [their] regular activities to educate and assist” members in complying with the new law. Billups, 554 F.3d at 1350. Indeed, the Coalition of Latino Leaders (“CLL”) traditionally provides “citizenship classes; English-language classes; Homework Club for children whose parents do not speak English; computer classes; and assistance in completing applications for legal residency and naturalization.” (Comply 36.) Since the passage of HB87, CLL has received 400 percent more calls per day. (Id. ¶ 37.) CLL has already been forced to cancel its citizenship classes to respond to questions about HB87. (Id.) There is a realistic danger that this trend will worsen when HB87 takes effect. Similarly, Plaintiff Task Force for the Homeless (“TFH”) traditionally encourages people to apply for food stamps and public housing. (Id. ¶32.) TFH has already “diverted resources from other organizational priorities to educate its volunteers and residents about the law.” (Id. ¶ 30.) If HB87 takes effect, “TFH will be overburdened by requests from residents for help with overcoming problems caused by [HB87’s] new document requirements” and related criminal penalties. (Id. ¶ 32.) Thus, the Plaintiff organizations have sufficiently alleged that HB87 will cause them to divert resources from regular activities. For this reason, the Plaintiff organizations have standing to sue in their own right. B. Jurisdiction The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have not properly stated a preemption claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To establish a claim under § 1983, “the plaintiff must assert the violation of a federal right.” Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, 493 U.S. 103, 106, 110 S.Ct. 444, 107 L.Ed.2d 420 (1989). Further, “even when the plaintiff has asserted a federal right, the defendant may show that Congress ‘specifically foreclosed a remedy under § 1983.’ ” Id. (quoting Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 1005 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 3457, 82 L.Ed.2d 746 (1984)). The Supremacy Clause “is not a source of any federal rights,” and thus cannot support § 1983 liability. Id. Nevertheless, a federal statute may create a right enforceable under § 1983. “In all cases, the availability of the § 1983 remedy turns on whether the statute, by its terms or as interpreted, creates obligations ‘sufficiently specific and definite’ to be within ‘the competence of the judiciary to enforce,’ is intended to benefit the putative plaintiff, and is not foreclosed ‘by express provision or other specific evidence from the statute itself.’ ” Id. (quoting Wright v. City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Auth., 479 U.S. 418, 432, 107 S.Ct. 766, 93 L.Ed.2d 781 (1987)). The statutorily created right must be “unambiguously conferred.” Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 282, 122 S.Ct. 2268, 153 L.Ed.2d 309 (2002). In Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Puerto Rico, 906 F.2d 25 (1st Cir.1990), the plaintiffs brought a § 1983 action claiming that the Cable Act preempted a state obscenity statute. The court held that the Cable Act, while preempting state law, also created a right enforceable under § 1983. The First Circuit reasoned that “the protection from liability provided cable operators by [the Cable Act] for the content of leased access channel programming is an ‘immunity’ created by federal law and enforceable by the courts.” Id. at 32. Here, Congress has adopted a comprehensive statutory framework regulating aliens and immigration. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. Determinations of legal residency can be legally and factually complex. The varieties of immigration statuses are numerous and include many categories of individuals who have technically violated the immigration law but who are nonetheless present in the United States with the permission of the United States government, as well as many people who are awaiting adjudication of their removability or claims to asylum or other relief from removal. Indeed, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 defines “special immigrants” who may be in violation of federal immigration law, but are authorized to be in the United States under federal law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J). For example, Jane Doe #2 is an unauthorized alien who has been given deferred status by the federal government. Like the plaintiffs in Playboy, she is entitled to “protection from liability provided [aliens] by” federal law. Similarly, “special immigrants,” as defined by § 1101, are entitled to the specific and definite protections provided by the Immigration and Naturalization Act. This protection “is an ‘immunity’ created by federal law and enforceable by the courts.” Playboy, 906 F.2d at 32. Thus, the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., creates a right enforceable under § 1983. For this reason, the Court has jurisdiction over the individual Plaintiffs’ preemption claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, the United States Supreme Court has upheld federal jurisdiction over preemption claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96 n. 14, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983); Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Puerto Rico, 906 F.2d 25, 29-30 (1st Cir.1990) (exercising jurisdiction federal jurisdiction over claim that Puerto Rican criminal statute was preempted by federal regulatory law). In Shaw, the plaintiff airlines argued that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act preempted two New York laws. The Court found that it had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs’ preemption challenge. The Court noted “[i]t is beyond dispute that federal courts have jurisdiction over suits to enjoin state officials from interfering with federal rights.” Shaw, 463 U.S. at 96 n. 14, 103 S.Ct. 2890 (citing Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 160-162, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908)). “A plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief from state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is pre-empted by a federal statute which, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, must prevail, thus presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to resolve.” Id. Here, the Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief from HB87, “on the ground that such regulation is preempted by a federal statute.” Id. Thus, the Court has jurisdiction of the Plaintiffs’ preemption claims under § 1331. C. Preemption The Plaintiffs argue that HB87 is unconstitutional because it violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. Federal law preempts state law in two circumstances. First, “[w]hen Congress intends federal law to ‘occupy the field,’ state law in that area is preempted.” Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372, 120 S.Ct. 2288, 147 L.Ed.2d 352 (2000) (quoting California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93, 100, 109 S.Ct. 1661, 104 L.Ed.2d 86 (1989)). Second, “even if Congress has not occupied the field, state law is naturally preempted to the extent of any conflict with a federal statute.” Id. Conflict preemption, in turn, occurs “where it is impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal law ... [or] where ‘under the circumstances of [a] particular case, [the challenged state law] stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’ ” Id. (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941)). Finally, the preemption analysis “must be guided by two cornerstones.” Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 129 S.Ct. 1187, 1194, 173 L.Ed.2d 51 (2009). “First, ‘the purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone in every pre-emption case.’ ” Id. (quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485, 116 S.Ct. 2240, 135 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996)). Second, where “Congress has ‘legislated ... in a field which the States have traditionally occupied,’ ” there is a presumption against preemption without clear Congressional intent. Id. Seventy years ago the United States Supreme Court declared that the federal government had the exclusive right to legislate in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941): When the national government by treaty or statute has established rules and regulations touching the rights, privileges, obligations or burdens of aliens as such, the treaty or statute is the supreme law of the land. No state can add to or take from the force and effect of such treaty or statute, for Article VI of the Constitution provides that ‘This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.’ The Federal Government, representing as it does the collective interests of the ... states, is entrusted with full and exclusive responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties. ‘For local interests the several states of the Union exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power.’ Our system of government is such that the interest of the cities, counties and states, no less than the interest of the people of the whole nation, imperatively requires that federal power in the field affecting foreign relations be left entirely free from local interference. Id. at 62-63, 61 S.Ct. 399 (footnotes deleted). In striking down a state alien registration law, the Court emphasized the close connection between foreign relations and regulation of immigration: One of the most important and delicate of all international relationships, recognized immemorially as a responsibility of government, has to do with the protection of the just rights of a country’s own nationals when those nationals are in another country. Experience has shown that international controversies of the gravest moment, sometimes even leading to war, may arise from real or imagined wrongs to another’s subjects inflicted, or permitted, by a government. This country, like other nations, has entered into numerous treaties of amity and commerce since its inception-treaties entered into under express constitutional authority, and binding upon the states as well as the nation. Among those treaties have been many which not only promised and guaranteed broad rights and privileges to aliens sojourning in our own territory, but secured reciprocal promises and guarantees for our own citizens while in other lands. And apart from treaty obligations, there has grown up in the field of international relations a body of customs defining with more or less certainty the duties owing by all nations to alien residents-duties which our State Department has often successfully insisted foreign nations must recognize as to our nationals abroad. In general, both treaties and international practices have been aimed at preventing injurious discriminations against aliens. Concerning such treaties, this Court has said: ‘While treaties, in safeguarding important rights in the interest of reciprocal beneficial relations, may by their express terms afford a measure of protection to aliens which citizens of one or both of the parties may not be able to demand against their own government, the general purpose of treaties of amity and commerce is to avoid injurious discrimination in either country against the citizens of the other.’ Id. at 64-65, 61 S.Ct. 399. Accordingly, the states are not permitted to subject aliens to burdens that are unique to them: Legal imposition of distinct, unusual and extraordinary burdens and obligations upon aliens-such as subjecting them alone, though perfectly law-abiding, to indiscriminate and repeated interception and interrogation by public officials-thus bears an inseparable relationship to the welfare and tranquillity of all the states, and not merely to the welfare and tranquillity of one. Laws imposing such burdens are not mere census requirements, and even though they may be immediately associated with the accomplishment of a local purpose, they provoke questions in the field of international affairs. And specialized regulation of the conduct of an alien before naturalization is a matter which Congress must consider in discharging its constitutional duty ‘To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization * * *.’ It cannot be doubted that both the state and the federal registration laws belong ‘to that class of laws which concern the exterior relation of this whole nation with other nations and governments.’ Consequently the regulation of aliens is so intimately blended and intertwined with responsibilities of the national government that where it acts, and the state also acts on the same subject, ‘the act of congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the state, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.’ And where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation and has therein provided a standard for the registration of aliens, states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations. Id. at 66-67, 61 S.Ct. 399. That remains the law of the land. 1. Section 8 The Plaintiffs argue that Section 8 of HB87 conflicts with federal immigration law. Section 8 provides that “when [an] officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect has committed a criminal violation, the officer shall be authorized to seek to verify such suspect’s immigration status when the suspect is unable to provide one of’ five specified identity documents. O.C.G.A. § 17 — 5—100(b). Officers are “authorized to use any reasonable means available to determine the immigration status of the suspect.” O.C.G.A. § 17-5-100(e). There are no time limits on the immigration status investigations. Further, where state officers determine that a suspect is an illegal alien, Section 8 authorizes officers to “take any action authorized by state and federal law, including, but not limited to detaining such suspected illegal alien, securely transporting such suspect to any authorized federal or state detention facility.” See O.C.G.A. 17-5-100(e). First, mere presence in this country without authorization is not a federal crime. Enforcement of civil immigration offenses is not “a field which the States have traditionally occupied.” Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S.Ct. at 1194. Thus, the Court will not apply a presumption against preemption. Federal law authorizes the Attorney General of the United States to enter into written agreements with states “pursuant to which an officer or employee of the State ... who is determined by the Attorney General to be qualified” to enforce federal civil immigration laws may do so. 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1). Further, 8 U.S.C. § 1103 provides that in the event of a mass influx of illegal aliens, “the Attorney General may authorize any State or local law enforcement officer ... to perform or exercise any of the powers, privileges, or duties” of federal immigration officers. 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(10). 8 U.S.C. § 1252c does not contradict § 1357 or § 1103. Rather, § 1252c authorizes state and local law enforcement to arrest an illegal alien who “has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction, but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252c. The statute does not authorize local law enforcement to detain individuals for mere illegal presence in the United States. Rather “local law enforcement officers cannot enforce completed violations of civil immigration law (i.e., illegal presence) unless specifically authorized to do so by the Attorney General under special conditions.” United States v. Urrieta, 520 F.3d 569, 574 (6th Cir.2008); see also United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339, 362-64 (9th Cir.2011) (finding that § 1252c did not authorize local officers to enforce civil immigration law). In United States v. Arizona, the United States brought an action to enjoin a state law similar to the one at issue here. The Arizona law provided that where officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that a suspect who had been lawfully detained was an unauthorized immigrant, they “ ‘shall’ make ‘a reasonable attempt ... when practicable, to determine the immigration status’ of that person.” United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d at 346 (quoting Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 11-1051(B)). The Ninth Circuit held that the law was preempted by 8 U.S.C. § 1357. The court reasoned that “Congress intended for state officers to systematically aid in immigration enforcement only under the close supervision of the Attorney General — to whom Congress granted discretion in determining the precise conditions and direction of each state officer’s assistance.” Id. at 350. Further, the court noted that “[b]y imposing mandatory obligations on state and local officers, Arizona interferes with the federal government’s authority to implement its priorities and strategies in law enforcement, turning Arizona officers into state-directed DHS agents.” Id. at 351-52. Here, Section 8 of HB87 authorizes local law enforcement officers to investigate a suspect’s illegal immigration status and, if the officer determines the suspect has violated federal immigration law, detain and arrest the suspect without a warrant. O.C.G.A. § 17-5-100. Congress, however, has already addressed the circumstances in which local law enforcement personnel may enforce federal civil immigration law. 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and § 1103 clearly express Congressional intent that the Attorney General should designate state and local agents authorized to enforce immigration law. Indeed, Congress has provided that local officers may enforce civil immigration offenses only where the Attorney General has entered into a written agreement with a state, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1), or where the Attorney General has expressly authorized local officers in the event of a mass influx of aliens. 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(10). See United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d at 350 (“8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) demonstrates that Congress intended for state officers to systematically aid in immigration enforcement only under the close supervision of the Attorney General.”). Thus, Congress has established a system providing Executive Branch discretion to establish “immigration enforcement priorities and strategies.” United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d at 352; see also Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 226, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982) (with respect to federal discretion in immigration enforcement, Court noted that “there is no assurance that a[n] [illegal alien] subject to deportation will ever be deported. An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in this country, or even to become a citizen.”). HB87 transfers this discretion to local law enforcement. Indeed, Section 8 provides local law enforcement significant discretion to develop its own enforcement priorities and strategies. First, after finding probable cause to believe that a suspect has committed a crime, local officers are “authorized,” but not required, “to seek to verify [a] suspect’s immigration status.” O.C.G.A. § 17-5-100(b). This will undermine federal immigration enforcement priorities by vastly increasing the number of immigration queries to the federal government from Georgia. Second, during the investigation, the officer is “authorized to use any reasonable means available to determine the immigration status of the suspect.” O.C.G.A. § 17-5-100(c). Finally, if, after investigation, the officer “receives verification” that the suspect is an illegal alien, the officer “may take any action authorized by state and federal law.” O.C.G.A. § 17-5-100(e) (emphasis added). Thus, HB87 gives local officers discretion in determining whether to initiate an investigation, what “reasonable means” to take during an investigation, and how to proceed at the conclusion of the investigation if the suspect is confirmed to be an illegal alien. Such discretion poses a serious risk that HB87 will result in inconsistent civil immigration policies not only between federal and state governments, but among law enforcement jurisdictions within Georgia. That risk is compounded by the threat of other states creating their own immigration laws. See United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d at 354-55; Wisconsin Dep’t of Indus., Labor and Human Relations v. Gould Inc., 475 U.S. 282, 288-289, 106 S.Ct. 1057, 89 L.Ed.2d 223 (1986) (“Each additional statute incrementally diminishes the [federal government’s] control over enforcement of the [federal statute] and thus further detracts from the ‘integrated scheme of regulation’ created by Congress.”). The Defendants argue, however, that Section 8 “does not criminalize any activity ... that isn’t already criminal under federal statute.” (Defs.’ Br. in Opp’n to Pis.’ Mot. for Prelim. Injunction, at 17.) Rather, the Defendants contend, “it creates a mechanism by which the crime could be prosecuted at a local level.” (Id.) That mechanism, however, conflicts with federal law. Not only has Congress legislated the contours of civil immigration law, but it has also legislated a mechanism by which state and local officers may enforce those offenses. HB87 is state regulation of immigration. Section 8 attempts an end-run — not around federal criminal law-but around federal statutes defining the role of state and local officers in immigration enforcement. Conflict between state and federal law is especially acute where, as here, the “legislation is in a field which affects international relations, the one aspect of our government that from the first has been most generally conceded imperatively to demand broad national authority.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 68, 61 S.Ct. 399, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941). Indeed, both the United States government and several foreign nations have expressed concern about the international relations impact of HB87. In reference to HB87, the President of the United States stated that “[i]t is a mistake for states to try to do this piecemeal. We can’t have 50 different immigration laws around the country.” (Lauterback Deck, Ex. A, Doc. 29-29.) Mexico has also filed an amicus brief registering its concern that HB87 will impede bilateral negotiations, hinder trade and tourism, and damage diplomatic relations between the United States and Mexico [See Doc. 50]. These international relations concerns underscore the conflict between HB87 and federal immigration law. The conflict is not a purely speculative and indirect impact on immigration. It is direct and immediate. Ultimately, Section 8 circumvents Congress’ intention to allow the Attorney General to authorize and designate local law enforcement officers to enforce civil immigration law. The statute thus “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Crosby, 530 U.S. at 373, 120 S.Ct. 2288 (quoting Hines, 312 U.S. at 67, 61 S.Ct. 399). For this reason, the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their preemption claim with respect to Section 8. 2. Section 7 Section 7 of HB87 creates three criminal violations: (1) transporting or moving an illegal alien in a motor vehicle, O.C.G.A. § 16 — 11—200(b); (2) concealing, harboring or shielding an illegal alien from detection, O.C.G.A. § 16-ll-201(b); and (3) inducing, enticing, or assisting an illegal alien to enter Georgia, O.C.G.A. § 16-ll-202(b). All three crimes require knowledge that the person being transported, harbored, or enticed is an illegal alien. Also, all three sections require that the defendant be engaged in another criminal offense. The Defendants’ claim that the new criminal statutes will prevent exploitation of illegal aliens is gross hypocrisy. The apparent legislative intent is to create such a climate of hostility, fear, mistrust and insecurity that all illegal aliens will leave Georgia. The Plaintiffs contend that Section 7 is preempted by 8 U.S.C. § 1324. That statute provides criminal penalties for bringing an alien into the United States, transporting an alien within the United States, concealing, harboring or shielding an alien from detection, or encouraging or inducing an alien to enter or reside in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A). In De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 96 S.Ct. 933, 47 L.Ed.2d 43 (1976), the United States Supreme Court considered whether federal law preempted a state statute that assessed civil fines against businesses employing unauthorized aliens. The Court held that the state law was not preempted, reasoning that although the “[p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably ... a federal power,” id. at 354, 96 S.Ct. 933, “States possess broad authority under their police powers to regulate the employment relationship to protect workers within the State.” Id. at 356, 96 S.Ct. 933. Further, the Court noted that the federal government had, at the time, expressed only “a peripheral concern with [the] employment of illegal entrants.” Id. at 360, 96 S.Ct. 933. In Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1968, 179 L.Ed.2d 1031 (2011), the Court revisited a state law regulating the employment of illegal aliens. In Whiting, the plaintiff argued that federal law preempted an Arizona statute providing for suspension and revocation of business licenses for entities employing unauthorized aliens. The statute also required employers to verify employees’ immigration status using an online database. The plaintiff argued that the Arizona law was preempted by 8 U.S.C. § 1324a, which expressly preempts “any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2) (emphasis added). The plaintiff argued that Congress intended for this federal system to be exclusive. The Court, however, held that the Arizona statute was not preempted, reasoning that “Arizona’s procedures simply implement the sanctions that Congress expressly allowed the States to pursue through licensing laws.” Whiting, 131 S.Ct. at 1971. Indeed, “[g]iven that Congress specifically preserved such authority for the States, it stands to reason that Congress did not intend to prevent the States from using appropriate tools to exercise that authority.” Id. Finally, the Court noted that Arizona acted in an area of traditional state concern, finding that “[r]egulating in-state businesses through licensing laws is not” an area of exclusive federal interest. Id. By contrast, in Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 61 S.Ct. 399, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941), the plaintiffs challenged a Pennsylvania law that required aliens to obtain and carry alien identification cards. The United States Supreme Court held that the state law was preempted by federal immigration law. The Court reasoned that “where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in [the immigration] field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation ... states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.” Id. at 66-67, 61 S.Ct. 399. The Court further noted that given the international relations implications, “[a]ny concurrent state power that may exist is restricted to the narrowest of limits; the state’s power here is not bottomed on the same broad base as is its power to tax.” Id. at 68, 61 S.Ct. 399. First, the Defendants argue that Section 7 simply reinforces § 1324’s parallel provisions. Despite superficial similarities, however, Section 7 is not identical to § 1324. See Whiting, 131 S.Ct. at 1982 (noting that state law traces federal law). For example, O.C.G.A. § 16-11-202 prohibits knowingly inducing, enticing or assisting illegal aliens to enter Georgia. Section 1324’s corresponding “inducement” provision prohibits inducing an alien to “come to, enter, or reside in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324. Once in the United States, it is not a federal crime to induce an illegal alien to enter Georgia from another state. Similarly, O.C.G.A. § 16-11-201 defines “harboring” as “any conduct that tends to substantially help an illegal alien to remain in the United States in violation of federal law,” subject to several exceptions. Under § 1324, federal courts have also discussed the bounds of “harboring,” developing a significantly different definition. See Hall v. Thomas, 753 F.Supp.2d 1113, 1158 (N.D.Ala.2010) (“The plain language reading of ‘harbor’ to require provision of shelter or refuge, or the taking of active steps to prevent authorities from discovering that the employee is unauthorized or illegally remaining in the country, should control.”); United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 573-74 (2d Cir.1999) (harboring defined as “conduct tending substantially to facilitate an alien’s remaining in the United States illegally and to prevent government authorities from detecting his unlawful presence.”); Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1298-99 (11th Cir.2010) (discussing whether hiring illegal alien constituted harboring under § 1324). The Defendants wildly exaggerate the scope of the federal crime of harboring under § 1324 when they claim that the Plaintiffs are violating federal immigration law by giving rides to their friends and neighbors who are illegal aliens. This is a good reason to require federal supervision of any attempts by Georgia to enforce federal immigration law. Still, the Defendants contend that HB87 does not create new crimes, but rather “creates a mechanism by which [immigration crimes] could be prosecuted at a local level.” (Defs.’ Br. in Opp’n to Pis.’ Mot. for Prelim. Injunction, at 17.) No doubt the Defendants believe such a mechanism is necessary. Indeed, the Defendants assert that “every day that passes with passive enforcement of the federal law is a day that drains the state coffers.” (Id. at 14.) In response to this concern, Section 7 creates a state system for prosecuting and interpreting immigration law, just as Section 8 creates a state system for policing civil immigration offenses. Under Section 7, state agents will exercise prosecutorial discretion. Decisions about when to charge a person or what penalty to seek for illegal immigration will no longer be under the control of the federal government. Similarly, Georgia judges will interpret Section 7’s provisions, unconstrained by the line of federal precedent mentioned above. Thus, although Section 7 appears superficially similar to § 1324, state prosecutorial discretion and judicial interpretation will undermine federal authority “to establish immigration enforcement priorities and strategies.” United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d at 352. The widespread belief that the federal government is doing nothing about illegal immigration is the belief in a myth. Although the Defendants characterize federal enforcement as “passive,” that assertion has no basis in fact. On an average day, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrest approximately 816 aliens for administrative immigration violations and remove approximately 912 aliens, including 456 criminal aliens, from the United States. (Declaration of Daniel H. Rags-dale ¶ 5) (Attached for convenience as Appendix B). In 2010, immigration offenses were prosecuted in federal court more than any other offense. U.S. Sentencing Commission — 2010 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics 11-12 (2010). Of the 83,946 cases prosecuted under the federal sentencing guidelines, 28,504, or 34% involved immigration offenses. Id. In 2010, of 81,304 criminal cases prosecuted in federal court, 38,619 (47.5%) were non-United States citizens. It is true that there are thousands of illegal immigrants in Georgia that are here because of the insatiable demand in decades gone by for cheap labor in agriculture and certain industries such as construction and poultry processing. The federal government gives priority to prosecuting and removing illegal immigrants that are committing crimes in this country and to those who have previously been deported for serious criminal offenses such as drug trafficking and crimes of violence. (Declaration of Daniel H. Ragsdale ¶¶ 16-28.) To the extent that federal officers and prosecutors have priorities that differ from those of local prosecutors, those priorities are part of the flexibility that “is a critical component of the statutory and regulatory framework” under which the federal government pursues the difficult (and often competing) objectives, of “protecting national security, protecting public safety, and securing the bor der." United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d at 352. Further, whereas the Arizona statute in Whiting imposed licensing laws specifically authorized by a statutory savings clause, HB87 imposes additional criminal laws on top of a comprehensive federal scheme that includes no such carve out for state regulation. See Whiting, 131 S.Ct. at 1981 (noting that Congress “specifically preserved” states’ authority to enact licensing laws). Finally, unlike in De Canas and Whiting, HB87 does not address an area traditionally subject to state regulation. See Whiting, 131 S.Ct. at 1971; De Canas, 424 U.S. at 356, 96 S.Ct. 933 (“[T]o prohibit the knowing employment by California employers of persons not entitled to lawful residence in the United States, let alone to work here, is certainly within the mainstream of such police power regulation.”). Rather, unlike concurrent state and federal regulations in other areas, the movement of unauthorized aliens is not a traditional area of state regulation. Thus, “[a]ny concurrent state power that may exist is restricted to the narrowest of limits; the state’s power here is not bottomed on the same broad base as is its power to tax.” Id. at 68, 61 S.Ct. 399. Indeed, the same international relations concerns mentioned with respect to Section 8 apply equally to Section 7 [see Doc. 50]. Thus, “where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in [the immigration] field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation ... states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.” Hines, 312 U.S. at 66-67, 61 S.Ct. 399 (emphasis added). Unlike De Canas, Congress has expressed much more than “peripheral concern” with the transportation, harboring, and inducement of illegal aliens. See De Canas at 424 U.S. at 360, 96 S.Ct. 933. That concern is expressed in the text of § 1324. Section 7 seeks not only to replace and complement the text of § 1324 with its own criminal provisions, but to replace the discretionary and interpretive mechanisms of the federal government as well. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits as to their claim that Section 7 of HB87 is preempted. D. Fourth Amendment The Plaintiffs assert that Section 8 of HB87 violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. As discussed above, Section 8 authorizes state and local police officers to check the immigration status of suspects where there is probable cause that the suspect has committed another crime. O.C.G.A. § 17-5-100. Initially, the Court notes that this is a facial challenge to HB87. “Facial challenges are disfavored” in the law. Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 450, 128 S.Ct. 1184, 170 L.Ed.2d 151 (2008). “[A] plaintiff can only succeed in a facial challenge by ‘establishing] that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid,’ i.e., that the law is unconstitutional in all of its applications.” Id. at 449, 128 S.Ct. 1184 (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987)). “In determining whether a law is facially invalid, [the Court] must be careful not to go beyond the statute’s facial requirements and speculate about ‘hypothetical’ or ‘imaginary’ cases.” Id. at 449-50, 128 S.Ct. 1184. In Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 125 S.Ct. 1465, 161 L.Ed.2d 299 (2005), police detained the plaintiff during a search of her home. While detained during the search, the officers interrogated the plaintiff regarding her immigration status. The Court held that the interrogation did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Noting that “mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure,” id. at 101, 125 S.Ct. 1465, the Court reasoned that no reasonable suspicion was required because the questioning did not prolong the plaintiffs detention. Importantly, the Court “noted that a lawful seizure ‘can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission.’ ” Id. (quoting Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407, 125 S.Ct. 834, 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005)); see also United States v. Purcell, 236 F.3d 1274, 1277 (11th Cir.2001) (quoting United States v. Holloman, 113 F.3d 192, 196 (11th Cir.1997)) (“The traffic stop may not last ‘any longer than necessary to process the traffic violation’ unless there is articulable suspicion of other illegal activity”). Here, the Plaintiffs contend that Section 8 allows for seizures without probable cause while officers investigate a suspect’s immigration status. The Plaintiffs suggest that such investigations could take between 80 minutes and two days. Where, after processing a minor violation, police detain a suspect without probable cause while investigating the suspect’s immigration status, a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred. See Holloman, 113 F.3d at 196. Where, however, the officer conducts the immigration investigation while the suspect is lawfully detained based on probable cause, the Fourth Amendment is not violated. See Muehler, 544 U.S. at 101, 125 S.Ct. 1465 (finding no Fourth Amendment violation where police engaged in immigration investigation without reasonable suspicion while suspect was lawfully detained). Indeed, there are many “circumstances ... under which the [HB87] would be valid,” Washington, 552 U.S. at 449, 128 S.Ct. 1184 (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987)), including circumstances in which officers arrest a suspect based on probable cause and investigate the suspect’s immigration status while in custody. The scenarios posed by the Plaintiffs, although unconstitutional, are also “hypothetical” and “imaginary.” Id. at 450, 128 S.Ct. 1184. “The State has had no opportunity to implement [HB 87], and its courts have had no occasion to construe the law in the context of actual disputes ... or to accord the law a limiting construction to avoid constitutional questions.” Id. For these reasons, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim is granted. E. Right to Travel The Plaintiffs argue that HB 87 violates the constitutional right to travel. The right to travel is grounded in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution. See Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 169, 62 S.Ct. 164, 86 L.Ed. 119 (1941); U.S. Const, art IV, § 2, cl. 1. “A state law implicates the right to travel when it actually deters such travel, when impeding travel is its primary objective, or when it uses any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right.” Attorney Gen. of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 903, 106 S.Ct. 2317, 90 L.Ed.2d 899 (1986) (citations omitted). The Plaintiffs contend that HB 87 violates the right to travel because Georgia does not accept driver’s licenses issued by states that do not require confirmation of legal residence as proof of immigration status. Thus, Plaintiffs assert, that HB87 “facially discriminates against certain out-of-state drivers by denying them a presumption enjoyed by drivers from all other states.” (Pis.’ Br. in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, at 39.) HB87, however, does not facially discriminate against drivers from any particular state. HB87’s distinction is clearly related to investigating immigration status. Driver’s licenses issued by states that do not confirm legal presence in the United States have no bearing on immigration status. Georgia has not violated the Constitution by refusing to accept documents that have nothing to do with immigration status as proof of legal immigration status. Indeed, the federal government does not accept such driver’s licenses as proof of citizenship. See 42 C.F.R. § 435.407(4). Further, residents of states that do not confirm immigration status can produce any of the other forms of identification listed in O.C.G.A. § 17-5-100. Thus, HB87 is clearly related to the state’s interest in confirming immigration status and does not “penalize the exercise” of the right to travel. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs’ right to travel claim is dismissed. F. Fourteenth Amendment The Plaintiffs argue that HB87 violates the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1. Equal Protection The Equal Protection Clause “prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race.” Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). Where the law is facially neutral, the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit laws that impact one race more than another. Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 324 n. 26, 100 S.Ct. 2671, 65 L.Ed.2d 784 (1980) (quoting Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979) (“when a facially neutral federal statute is challenged on equal protection grounds, it is incumbent upon the challenger to prove that Congress ‘selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.’ ”)); see also Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 248, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976) (requiring discriminatory purpose to challenge facially neutral statute that has disparate impact on protected class). Here, the Plaintiffs do not contend that HB87 was motivated by racial discrimination. (Pis.’ Br. in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, at 40.) Rather, the Plaintiffs contend that HB87 restricts access to government services on the basis of national origin because Section 19 excludes consular identification cards from the definition of “secure and verifiable” documents. See O.C.G.A. § 50 — 36—2(b)(3). Although some countries issue consular identification cards, HB87 does not facially discriminate against citizens of those countries. The Plaintiffs must therefore show not only that Section 19 has an adverse effect on foreign nationals, but that the Defendants “selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” (Harris, 448 U.S. at 324 n. 26, 100 S.Ct. 2671 (quoting Feeney, 442 U.S. at 279, 99 S.Ct. 2282)). The Plaintiffs have not alleged facts showing that the Defendants did so here. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim is dismissed. 2. Due Process The Plaintiffs claim that HB87 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend that Section 19 of HB87 denies them the right to use Consular Identification Documents for any official purpose. This, the Plaintiffs claim, deprives them of a property interest protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. Property interests, however, are not created by the United States Constitution. Board