Alabama one ups Arizona with insane immigration law

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Republican Governor Robert Bentley on Thursday signed into law a crackdown on illegal immigration in Alabama that both supporters and critics consider the toughest in the nation.

The measure will require public schools to determine the citizenship status of students -- a provision not included in an Arizona law that has been at the forefront of actions by several states to curb illegal immigration.

Under the Alabama law, police must detain someone they suspect of being in the country illegally if the person cannot produce proper documentation when stopped for any reason.

It also will be a crime to knowingly transport or harbor someone who is in the country illegally. The law imposes penalties on businesses that knowingly employ someone without legal resident status. A company's business license could be suspended or revoked.

The law, which is scheduled to take effect September 1, requires businesses to use a database called E-Verify to confirm the immigration status of new employees.

"We have a real problem with illegal immigration in this country," Bentley said after signing the law. "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."

Read that highlighted portion than imagine this scenario: I, a white immigrant, walking down the street with my Latino friend Jose who is a U.S. Citizen.

Take one guess who the police would decide to "question" under this new law.

Obviously this, like the Arizona measure is unconstitutional and will be challenged in court, but I'm certainly shocked at how seriously some states are running with this thing.

[daleduke17]

[I]

It also will be a crime to knowingly transport or harbor someone who is in the country illegally. The law imposes penalties on businesses that knowingly employ someone without legal resident status. A company's business license could be suspended or revoked.



While I'm glad to see another state taking a stand against illegal immigration, don't we already have laws against harboring fugitives?

[Greenday]

The measure will require public schools to determine the citizenship status of students -- a provision not included in an Arizona law that has been at the forefront of actions by several states to curb illegal immigration.

Under the Alabama law, police must detain someone they suspect of being in the country illegally if the person cannot produce proper documentation when stopped for any reason.

It also will be a crime to knowingly transport or harbor someone who is in the country illegally. The law imposes penalties on businesses that knowingly employ someone without legal resident status. A company's business license could be suspended or revoked.

The law, which is scheduled to take effect September 1, requires businesses to use a database called E-Verify to confirm the immigration status of new employees.

At best the only part here I can sympathize with is the school one and that's only for those in high school or younger.

After that, I don't have problems with laws saying cops should do their jobs and arrest criminals, calling it illegal to harbor criminals, or requiring business owners not to hire active criminals.

[FArchivist]

At best the only part here I can sympathize with is the school one and that's only for those in high school or younger.

After that, I don't have problems with laws saying cops should do their jobs and arrest criminals, calling it illegal to harbor criminals, or requiring business owners not to hire active criminals.

Problems With The Law

I see a significant problem with the transportation issue. It doesn't make an exception for doctors, paramedics, or any other samaritan issue. So, if an illegal immigrant is shot and needs to be transported to a hospital, in accordance with the law those paramedics who do so are to be charged with a felony. Hmmm.

Ah well. It wasn't a problem for the sponsor of the bill, state Rep Mickey Hammon, who said that illegal immigrants "should not expect the same right to emergency medical care that American citizens have."

The rest of the bill, including the required documentation part, is being challenged under the same issues that the Arizona and Georgia laws are, so that pretty much takes care of that. I expect an injunction shortly.

[FArchivist]

Of course, it should be noted that my opposition to these illegal immigration laws is economic in nature. The one that GA passed is causing irreparable economic harm to our agriculture industry, which supports the state. The losses are going to be horrific (http://www.newscentralga.com/news/local/Immigration-Law-Puts-Georgia-Agriculture-at-Risk-115753809.html)and the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and the Georgia Farm Bureau Federation are screaming about the 61 billion dollar loss that's expected.

Some would say "Just hire locals." but the truth is that regular American citizens won't work the hours necessary to pick peaches and onions at the wages farmers can afford to pay. Look for GA peaches to be scarce this summer; most peach farms have already decided that the crop is mostly going to have to rot on the trees.

[Greenday]

I see a significant problem with the transportation issue. It doesn't make an exception for doctors, paramedics, or any other samaritan issue. So, if an illegal immigrant is shot and needs to be transported to a hospital, in accordance with the law those paramedics who do so are to be charged with a felony. Hmmm.

Funny, I didn't see anything in the exerpt from an article that was posted that stated this.

[FArchivist]

Funny, I didn't see anything in the exerpt from an article that was posted that stated this.

That's because I don't just rely on posted articles and I actually look up the bill and related articles. And assume everyone else also does their own research.

See here (http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/08/alabama-house-bill-56-the-immigrant-trespassing-law-explained/). And here. (http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/03/alabama_legislative_panel_dela.html) And the legislation itself as posted by the state of Alabama.

[Greenday]

That's because I don't just rely on posted articles and I actually look up the bill and related articles. And assume everyone else also does their own research.

See here (http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/08/alabama-house-bill-56-the-immigrant-trespassing-law-explained/). And here. (http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/03/alabama_legislative_panel_dela.html) And the legislation itself as posted by the state of Alabama.

Well, I guess I'll have to look up the bill since neither of those links have anything from the bill backing up their statements.

http://www.alhousegop.com/2011/04/05/hb-56-fact-sheet-combating-illegal-immigration/

There, I just countered your liberally biased articles with a probably conservatively biased article. And it specific states, "Prohibits the transport, concealment, harboring and housing of unauthorized aliens if a person recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is illegally in the U.S. This does not apply to persons acting in the capacity of a child or adult protective service worker, a first responder, an ambulance attendant, or an emergency medical attendant."

[FArchivist]

Well, I guess I'll have to look up the bill since neither of those links have anything from the bill backing up their statements.

http://www.alhousegop.com/2011/04/05/hb-56-fact-sheet-combating-illegal-immigration/

There, I just countered your liberally biased articles with a probably conservatively biased article. And it specific states, "Prohibits the transport, concealment, harboring and housing of unauthorized aliens if a person recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is illegally in the U.S. This does not apply to persons acting in the capacity of a child or adult protective service worker, a first responder, an ambulance attendant, or an emergency medical attendant."

*sigh* Your information is sadly outdated. That was Section 13(e) of the original bill as proposed by Rep. Hammon. It remained in the bill up to 04-25-2011, when it was removed from the bill in committee debate under the Beason Substitution. The final draft of the bill has 13(e) removed. You can verify this information by using the Alabama Legislative Database, which should be your primary source for the language of the law as it contains the most up-to-date information (http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/ACASLoginMac.asp?SESSION=null). I should not have to explain this in detail.

[Greenday]

The final draft of the bill didn't come up anywhere on google searches. That website is broken to hell too. Can't switch pages without it telling me to login and searches for anything come up with nothing.

[FArchivist]

The final draft of the bill didn't come up anywhere on google searches. That website is broken to hell too. Can't switch pages without it telling me to login and searches for anything come up with nothing.

You can't search because you're not logged in. Logins freely available from the office of the AL Sec. State.

[Greenday]

You can't search because you're not logged in. Logins freely available from the office of the AL Sec. State.

So why post a link no one can use?

[Sleepwalker]

I love how your sig says people shouldn't whine about things being too hard, and you're whining about having to register for free to view pertinent information. It's not a damn paywall, suck it up.

[Greenday]

I love how your sig says people shouldn't whine about things being too hard, and you're whining about having to register for free to view pertinent information. It's not a damn paywall, suck it up.

Maybe it's because I have restricted internet so I can't view every damn website I'd like to.

[the_std]

Maybe it's because I have restricted internet so I can't view every damn website I'd like to.

... Why get upset about that? Some of us know you're in Afghanistan, but how are we supposed to know which websites you can and cannot visit? I admit I was thinking the same thing as FArchvisit and Sleepwalker - it would have been easier at the outset of the 'website' argument to know that you simply could not access the webpage that FArchivist had linked to. He might have provided an alternative, otherwise, and we could have skipped this whole tangent.

[Greenday]

... Why get upset about that? Some of us know you're in Afghanistan, but how are we supposed to know which websites you can and cannot visit? I admit I was thinking the same thing as FArchvisit and Sleepwalker - it would have been easier at the outset of the 'website' argument to know that you simply could not access the webpage that FArchivist had linked to. He might have provided an alternative, otherwise, and we could have skipped this whole tangent.

If I could have, I would have. Thus the "the website doesn't work" replies.

[the_std]

If I could have, I would have. Thus the "the website doesn't work" replies.

Except "the website doesn't work" implies that the website is broken. FArchivist tried to help you by telling you how to make the website work for you. This became unnecessarily complicated because you didn't say, "I'm sorry, I have restricted internet access," and in hindsight, it seems that your phrasing was an "I'm right, you're wrong" lean. Not having access to the same resources as someone State-side is completely fine, so I'm not sure what the point of this whole exchange is.

[Boozy]

Let's drop the whole thing and get back to the actual debate.

In future, it's probably better to give links to websites that don't require registration, wherever possible. If it's impossible, please try to provide the link's information yourself, in your own words.

And despite this, if someone does provide a link that requires registration to read, don't make a federal case out of it.