Thread: N.C.: Illegal immigrant bill was diluted before passing Hous

Illegal immigrant bill was diluted before passing House

By TRAVIS FAIN | Special correspondent
Published: June 12, 2011

RALEIGH --
Legislation initially meant to track illegal immigrant children in North Carolina schools was watered down before it passed the N.C. House of Representatives last week.

Now the bill simply requires principals to ask for proof of age and immunizations, something state law already suggests they do.

House Bill 744, sponsored by state Rep. Dale Folwell, R-Forsyth, initially required school principals to ask the parents of new enrollees whether their child is a U.S. citizen. The idea was to track the fiscal impact of illegal immigrants, not to deny anyone enrollment, according to the original bill.

Pro-immigrant activists disagreed, saying the measure would intimidate families. The issue led to a tense confrontation last week between Folwell and a young activist, but the bill that passed the House drops the citizenship language. Now it tells principals to look at a birth certificate or one of a number of other records showing a child's age.

It doesn't appear schools can legally deny enrollment to children even if families don't have those records, based on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that deals specifically with education access for illegal immigrants. North Carolina's own state constitution also seems to guarantee enrollment, stating "the General Assembly shall provide that every child of appropriate age and of sufficient mental and physical ability shall attend the public schools, unless educated by other means."

Folwell said his "intent is still there" in the bill, and he plans to seek changes as the bill moves through the Senate. He did not have answers about the constitutionality of the legislation even as it passed the House on Wednesday, 77-27. But those questions have been addressed by broadening the type of documents that principals are supposed to request, said state Rep. Rick Glazier, D-Cumberland, an attorney who spoke against the bill Tuesday.

"Rep. Folwell worked with everyone to make the bill much less restrictive," Glazier said. Principals can accept any document the families have — "anything that's verifiable other than mom coming in and saying, 'He's 6.'"

The bill is still somewhat controversial, and many Democrats voted against it, including Forsyth state representatives Earline Parmon and Larry Womble and former Speaker of the House Joe Hackney.

House Bill 744 is one of at least two immigration-related bills moving through the statehouse. House Bill 36 includes new requirements that businesses use the federal e-verify system to check workers' immigration status. The legislature's Republican majority has made immigration reform a priority this session but has not made a strong push for more sweeping changes that have passed in other Southern states in the last year, including Georgia and Alabama.

Both of those states patterned their new laws, at least in part, after a controversial illegal immigration crackdown in Arizona, where employers can have their business licenses suspended or revoked for hiring illegal immigrants.

"My reasons for filing this bill have multiplied because of the actions of other states," Folwell said in an email Friday. "North Carolina will become even a larger magnet for illegal activity."

A population shift might may already be showing itself. Some 46 percent of Georgia farmers surveyed told the Georgia Agribusiness Council that they have a labor shortage, according to the council's June report. Thirty-seven percent said their workers "are concerned" about Georgia's new law, which goes into effect July 1.

Folwell said he will continue pushing to make North Carolina's immigration rules tougher.

"Every dollar spent on an illegal is a dollar not spent on the priorities and core responsibilities of the state," he said. "And if the federal government wasn't so incompetent, I wouldn't be having this conversation."

www2.journalnow.com

Pro-immigrant activists disagreed, saying the measure would intimidate families.

Why do they describe themselves as "pro- immmigrant" when it has nothing to do with immigrants? This law is about lawbreakers (Illegal Aliens) not immigrants. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

Originally Posted by jean

"And if the federal government wasn't so incompetent, I wouldn't be having this conversation."

AMEN to that!!