Obviously, this is causing certain people to freak out and use their typical language. The BBC goes with the substance of it being raaaaacist. Let’s see what the LA Times has to say
Alabama set a new national standard for get-tough immigration policy Thursday with Gov. Robert J. Bentley’s signing of a law that surpasses Arizona’s SB 1070, with provisions affecting law enforcement, transportation, apartment rentals, employment and education.
The new law, combined with legislation passed in May by neighboring Georgia, has arguably made this swath of the Deep South the nation’s hottest immigration battleground, with the region’s troubled racial history fueling the fire.
Oops. Raaaaacism. Funny how liberals always go back to that same well, instead of discussing law and order.
The American Civil Liberties Union declared its intention Thursday to file a lawsuit opposing HB 56, arguing that it would invite racial profiling and require police to “demand ‘papers’ from people they stop whom they suspect are not authorized to be in the U.S.”
“This draconian initiative signed into law this morning by Gov. Robert Bentley is so oppressive that even Bull Connor himself would be impressed,” said Wade Henderson, head of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, referring to Birmingham’s notorious segregationist public safety commissioner from the civil rights era. “HB 56 is designed to do nothing more than terrorize the state’s Latino community.”
Well, Democrats would know about racism, since they were the primary drivers behind those policies, while Republicans worked to stop racist policies, even deciding to go to war over it.
In an echo of the Arizona law, the Alabama legislation requires that police, in the course of any lawful “stop, detention or arrest,” make a reasonable attempt to determine a person’s citizenship and immigration status, given a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is an immigrant, unless doing so would hinder an investigation.
It outlaws illegal immigrants from receiving any state or local public benefits, bars them from enrolling in or attending public colleges, and prohibits them from applying for or soliciting work.
It forbids the harboring and transport of illegal immigrants, and outlaws renting them property or “knowingly” employing them for any work within the state. It also makes it a “discriminatory practice” to fire, or decline to hire, a legal resident when an illegal one is on the payroll.
The law criminalizes “dealing in false identification documents” and, beginning April 1, will require every business in the state to verify employees’ immigration status using the federal E-Verify system.
Kudos to Alabama for taking a tough stance. Expect the Obama administration to take the state to court shortly.
For opponents, one of the most disturbing provisions is a requirement that officials in K-12 public schools determine whether students are illegal immigrants. It will not ban the students from schools, but rather require every school district to submit an annual report on the number of presumed illegal immigrants to the state education board.
But Ali Noorani, head of the National Immigration Forum, fears that simply asking parents about their children’s immigration status will cause them to pull their kids from school.
Good. They shouldn’t be there, Mr. Noorani. Apparently, Los Parents will have to show their snowflakes’ birth certificates or proper proof of citizenship. Personally, I remember having to provide (or parents having to) documents such as my certificate of live birth for grade school, boarding school, and college. I had to provide said COLB to get my NJ and NC drivers licenses.
Anyhow, this law is a good mixture of measures, including law enforcement and making it difficult and expensive to employ illegals, all designed to drive them from Alabama.
One problem I see with this is that a person can receive up to a year in jail for transporting a known illegal, but a business would only lose their license for 10 days. They need to make the penalties on business, and the specific people who hire illegals, stricter and tougher.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Roll Tide !!!
One problem I see with this is that a person can receive up to a year in jail for transporting a known illegal, but a business would only lose their license for 10 days. They need to make the penalties on business, and the specific people who hire illegals, stricter and tougher.
I would hope the “transporting” is tied into the safety of the people being transported. A truck carrying 40 illegal immigrants in an non-air conditioned trailer is totally different to me than a person who gives a friend a ride to work.
I agree that the business penalty should be higher, but I can see areas of difficulty in that as well. Imagine if you will a company with 50 employees, 49 of whom are legal and hard working with the remaining one who is hard working but here illegally. The business gets it’s license suspended for 10 days which would put the 49 people who have done nothing wrong out of work.
The concept is right, but in practice it loses something. I would hope that the business would be able to terminate the person that hired the illegal immigrant despite any contract or union agreement. Conspiring to break the law should be met with swift justice.
As to the “racist” cry, this really needs to be turned around and thrown back at the people who launch it. Why are they assuming that only Hispanics or Latinos are being “targeted?” Are they saying that only Hispanics and Latinos are here illegally? Doesn’t that mean they believe that only Hispanic and Latinos break the law?
Racist bastards.
Quote:
arguing that it would invite racial profiling and require police to “demand ‘papers’ from people they stop whom they suspect are not authorized to be in the U.S.â€
ummmm… HELLO?!!?!? They do that already. Every cop that has stopped me over the course of my lifetime has asked for my “papers”. It is common practice and required to conduct warrant checks… omg why am i trying to make a reasoned sound discussion of idiots who have no reason!!!!!!!!!!
AAARRGGHH!!!!!
The law criminalizes “dealing in false identification documentsâ€
Wait, that wasn’t illegal already?!?! Can’t argue with that being in there.
will require every business in the state to verify employees’ immigration status using the federal E-Verify system.
Which is buggy and has a 30% failure rate if I recall correctly. But, it is a start. And to answer one of GC’s concerns, I would say that there needs to be a policy put in place that if you submitted a request to E-verify with what you know to be proper requests, then that business should be off the hook completely if one of those workers then turns out to be illegal. Put the onus back upon the Feds.
For opponents, one of the most disturbing provisions is a requirement that officials in K-12 public schools determine whether students are illegal immigrants. It will not ban the students from schools, but rather require every school district to submit an annual report on the number of presumed illegal immigrants to the state education board.
Wait, then what’s the point of checking? The easiest way is to not provide services to an illegal. If they can’t rent an apartment, if they (shouldn’t) are not allowed to get loans and bank accounts, if they can’t (shouldn’t) get a driver’s license, then how can they prove that they are valid residents of the school district?
Boggles my mind.
I had to show ID to get my utilities turned on because they do minor background checks to help determine deposits. If I am illegal and don’t have a license.. then how are utilities being turned on?
And to answer one of GC’s concerns, I would say that there needs to be a policy put in place that if you submitted a request to E-verify with what you know to be proper requests, then that business should be off the hook completely if one of those workers then turns out to be illegal.
I am not sure what concern you think I have, or maybe you are remembering previous discussions. I have always said that there is difference between hiring and knowingly hiring a illegal immigrant. As long as the company makes the effort, and the check comes back that the person is here legally, then the company should not be held liable if they are.
If I am illegal and don’t have a license.. then how are utilities being turned on?
There are two states that currently allow people to get licenses without proof of residency. Last year alone, one of those states, New Mexico, gave out 50,000 new licenses, 1/3 of which were to people with area codes outside of the state. Once a person has a license, the rest of the documents fall into place. Also there is a tremendous markets in fake documents. I don’t mean to prop my own little world, but you can see more about this here: http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/2011/06/07/1618/
I really am for this bill but it is difficult to ascertain the fine points of the law based on a 12 inch column from the Times.
I really hope the law limits the damages or at least takes into consideration what legal citizens suffer because of the illegal actions of illegal immigrants.
Umm.. “should not be held liable if they aren’t
PIMF!
Sorry!
Hi GC. I was referring to your 3rd paragraph above. I was postulating a possible scenario for a better outcome of a business. Should a business submit a E-verify request and the answer is either unknown or legal, then the business should be off the hook. As you state, this only makes logical sense. However, logic never runs in government circles.
If a state wants to ruin its economy by handing out licenses and services galor to illegals. More power to them. They just shouldn’t throw a huge legal fit when another state wants to limit and disallow the same to illegals in their state.
Quote:
or at least takes into consideration what legal citizens suffer because of the illegal actions of illegal immigrants.
well, according to nearly half this country, there is no damage done. Of course, these people hire those people to trim their hedges.
We’re here and in this nation discussing the free-flow of our limited resources to illegal felons, while at the same time keeping legal immigration limited and filled with huge blocks and gates.
well, according to nearly half this country, there is no damage done. Of course, these people hire those people to trim their hedges.
I have always been worried about the person who hires some gardener and the guy turns out to be illegal. Should the homeowner really get a huge fine or sentence if they have no way of verifying the eligibility of a worker? What happens if as a home owner, you hire a company to cut your grass and the guy brings illegal immigrants with him? Technically, you have hired them. I don’t think that the homeowner should be held accountable for that.
The same way with a business TO SOME EXTENT. (and the caps are deliberate.) Assume for a moment that you work for a fishing company that has 15 boats. The boats go out, catching fish and while you are out, the office hires an illegal immigrant to do some computer repair as a contract job.
The state of Alabama finds out and then shuts down the fishing fleet, offices, processing plant, etc for 10 days. The guys out on the boats that had nothing to do with the hiring or even interacted with the illegal immigrant are going to get slammed in the paycheck because they aren’t working for 10 days. That is what I am talking about when I say “consequences of the illegal actions by the illegal immigrants” in this discussion.
I understand, but I have to believe that reason works out. That the “penalty” will be directed at the person or business that DIRECTLY hires the illegal.
Thus, the responsibility lies with the EMPLOYER of that illegal. Not the client who purchases or contracts with the business.
Now, should a business decide to BUY another business.. then that new business will take on the responsibility… just like any other illegal aspects that they will take on.