Alabama Gov. Rob Bentley signed into law Thursday an immigration bill that many say makes the Arizona law that raised such a ruckus look soft.
Court challenges abound to a rash of state immigration laws, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently made two decisions that do not seem to bode well for those who oppose the tougher state standards.
On Monday, justices vacated a federal appellate court decision that declared a Hazleton, Pa., illegal immigration ordinance unconstitutional.
The court rejected a challenge to a California rule that allows colleges and universities to offer in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. Nebraska and 11 other states have similar policies.
Last week, a civil liberties group filed a lawsuit seeking to block a Georgia law that cracks down on illegal immigration.
Meanwhile, back in May the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-3 ruling backed a provision of the Arizona law that punishes businesses hiring illegal immigrants. Key provisions of the Alabama law include:
- authorizing state and local police officers to ask about the immigration status of anyone they stop based on a "reasonable suspicion" the person is an illegal immigrant. But federal courts struck down most of that provision in the Arizona law.
- prohibiting illegal immigrants from enrolling in any public college after high school.
- requiring public schools to determine the immigration status of all students.
- requiring parents of foreign-born students to report the immigration status of their children.
- requiring Alabama’s public schools to publish figures on the number of immigrants - both legal and illegal enrolled and to report costs associated with the education of illegal immigrant children.
- requiring all Alabama employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal status of all workers.
- making it a state crime for an immigrant to fail to carry a document proving legal status.
- making it a crime for anyone to transport an illegal immigrant.
- making it a crime to knowingly rent housing to an illegal immigrant.
- prohibiting businesses from taking tax deductions on wages paid to unauthorized immigrants.
The Alabama law, known as House Bill 56, easily passed in the Republican-controlled Legislature and Bentley, a Republican, was expected to sign it.
As court battles continue — and so far with a few exceptions the legality of the state immigration laws is being upheld — I expect more states to mirror this new breed of laws aimed at stemming the immigration tide.
Resources:
- http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/09/…
- http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20110608/…
- http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/…
- http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/06/03/…
- http://www.whnt.com/news/whnt-read-alabamas-immigration/…
Alabama is probably the most recent state to start very stringent immigration control. Sections of the regulation have already been stopped, however. The larger constitutional questions of the law, however, could take months to address. Some parts, Portions of Alabama immigration law blocked by injunction .
Mac,
The federal government does not have the resources to sift through immigrants state-by-state in search of the illegal variety. What is the problem with states enhancing their laws to legally confront this problem in their communities?
Regarding Arizona and California giving in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, I think it is wrong. There are several thousand qualified, brilliant students trying hard--and whose parents are willing to sacrafice everything--to have a chance at oppourtunity in the United States. Why we charge them international student rates while those who are cheating the system, or whose parents cheated the system, get to pay the same tuition as a citizen is perplexing. Citizenship is something that should be appreciated and earned if someone is migrating to this country, and I don't say that for xenophobic reasons. I say that because it is the same standard expected of immigrants to any other modern western nation. That goes without saying that in some eastern nations, there is no migration; someone might be allowed to work in, say, Saudi Arabia, but unless they were born there to a family which included at least one Saudi citizen they would have no chance of becoming citizens.
MIke: Thanks for the post. I have no problem with states getting into the immigration game as long as they do not pass laws that conflict with federal law, and as I wrote, that's what the courts are sorting out now. My other caveat is that if the states want to get into the game, then they need to pay for it. For years, the states have bemoaned "unfunded mandates" from the feds, and I understand that. But the gate swings both ways from my view. If the states want to regulate immigration, then the taxpayers in those states will need to pony up. I live in Kentucky and similar legislation to that passed by Alabama and Arizona is floating about in the statehouse. It will come at a cost and Kentucky, like most states including Alabama and Arizona, is broke. Hope to see you back to the site soon. Best- Mac
Will people boycott Alabama like they did Arizona? If not, I'd say we're over the immigration issue and on to the economy.
Thanks for the post! I was beginning to wonder if this site really existed. It's been very quiet for a while, but it seems immigration does get peoples' attention. As for your question, I doubt Alabama will be the target of a boycott, and I doubt the Arizona boycott amounted to much. But I'll do some research on that. Yes, it's all about the economy these days. But immigration will not go away. However, I think the states taking on the issue, and the apparent support for that in the courts is an interesting turn of events. Maybe leaving the feds out of it might work — and take federal lawmakers off the hook when it comes to doing something rather than talking about it. Keep visiting! Mac
Post new comment