Thread: Alabama's law called 'sweeping attack' on immigrants

Alabama's law called 'sweeping attack' on immigrants


Measure bars giving illegal residents a ride, will require schools to check kids' status


MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- Alabama vaulted past Arizona on Thursday with what is being called the most restrictive law in the nation against illegal immigration, requiring schools to find out whether students are in the country lawfully and making it a crime to knowingly give an illegal immigrant a ride.

Advocacy groups promised to challenge the sweeping measure, which, like Arizona's law, also allows police to arrest anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant if the person is stopped for some other reason. In addition, it requires all businesses to check the legal status of workers using a federal system called E-Verify.

"It is clearly unconstitutional. It's mean-spirited, racist, and we think a court will enjoin it," said Mary Bauer, legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

It takes effect Sept. 1.

Republican Gov. Robert Bentley, who signed it into law Thursday, expressed confidence it would withstand any legal challenges.

"We have a real problem with illegal immigration in this country," he said. "I campaigned for the toughest immigration laws, and I'm proud of the Legislature for working tirelessly to create the strongest immigration bill in the country."

Alabama has an estimated 120,000 illegal immigrants, a nearly fivefold increase from a decade ago, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Many of them are thought to be working on farms, at chicken processing plants and in construction.

The Alabama Business Council has not taken a public stand on the law.

The Alabama measure instantly puts the state at the forefront of the immigration debate. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center agreed that it is the nation's toughest crackdown on illegal immigration.

Linton Joaquin, general counsel for the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles, said the Alabama law covers all aspects of an immigrant's life.

"It is a sweeping attack on immigrants and people of color in general. It adds restrictions on education, housing and other areas. It is a very broad attack," Joaquin said.

Among other things, the law makes it a crime for landlords to knowingly rent to an illegal immigrant.

Another provision makes it a crime to transport a known illegal immigrant. Arizona's law appears narrower: It includes language against human smuggling and makes it illegal to pick up laborers for work if doing so impedes traffic.

Alabama's law also goes further in requiring schools to check the immigration status of their students. The measure does not prohibit illegal immigrants from attending public schools; lawmakers said the purpose instead is to gather data on how many are enrolled and how much the state is spending to educate them.

Jared Shepherd, an attorney for the ACLU, warned that because of that provision, some immigrant parents might not send their children to school for fear of arrest or deportation.

Activists such as Shay Farley, legal director of Alabama Appleseed, an immigrant advocacy group, said the bill invites racial profiling not only by law enforcement officers but by landlords and employers.

"It's going to make us profile our neighbors and our church brothers and sisters," Farley said.

Alabama's Hispanic population more than doubled between 2000 and 2010 to 186,000, or 3.9 percent of the state's nearly 4.8 million people, according to the census.

Some farmers and other small-business owners had hoped to be exempted from having to verify the immigration status of employees, fearing the database would be too costly and add too much red tape.

Alabama's measure was modeled on Arizona's. A federal judge blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's law last year after the Justice Department sued.

That includes the provision that required police to check people's immigration status while enforcing other laws if there was reason to think the person was in the country illegally. The case appears headed for the U.S. Supreme Court.
http://www.indystar.com/article/2011061 ... /1001/NEWS

In Plyer v. Doe ( 1982); SCOTUS by a 5-4 decision overuled a 1975 Texas statute withholding funds for education of children who had not legally been admitted to the United States. The court ruled it was a violation of the 14th Amendment in that illegal children are people in any ordinary sense of the term , and therefore had protection from discrimination unless a substantial state interest could be shown. The court through dissenting opinions argued the law was not so objectionable to be unconstitutional and was probably better handled through legislation. A related case, Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Children was decided with Plyler. This regarded the charging of " Tuition" for Illegal Alien Children. It seems as though at the time no attempt was made to show" substantial state interest." With the huge burden to all state services occurring now due to the use of those services by Illegals and their children A substantial state interest argument could be put forth in defense of laws restricting education for children of illegals. Text of Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) is available from: Justia · Findlaw · LII · Google Scholar

How in the world can this law be deemed, racist?

Sounds like an EFFECTIVE way to deal with ILLEGAL immigrants. Let's see how long it will stand or how many illegals will leave Alabama for other
sanctuary States like Utah, California and others.

Note how the topic heading reads "sweeping attack on "immigrants"? I am so sick of the PC langauge used depicting illegal aliens as immigrants.