Alabama immigration law challenged in federal court
The state's new crackdown includes bans on renting to and driving illegal immigrants and requires police to check residency status during arrests or stops if they suspect a person is an immigrant
Alabama's new law cracking down on illegal immigration, widely considered the toughest such law in the nation, was challenged in federal court Friday by opponents who argued that many of its provisions — including bans on knowingly driving illegal immigrants and renting them property — were unconstitutional.
The law signed by Republican Gov. Robert Bentley last month is one of a number of recent bills approved by state lawmakers frustrated by what they say is Washington's failure to address the presence of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.
Thus far, however, federal courts have temporarily suspended portions of laws in Arizona, Utah, Indiana and Georgia, including those sections giving police broader immigration enforcement powers. Courts have blocked a Utah law in its entirety.
Civil rights groups have vowed to sue to stop a similar law signed June 27 by South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.
At issue is the extent to which states may set immigration policy, traditionally a federal prerogative. Fresh answers may soon come from the U.S. Supreme Court: In May, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said her state would ask the high court to lift a temporary injunction preventing parts of the state's controversial law, known as SB 1070, from taking effect.
The broader immigration issue, meanwhile, continues to roil even those parts of the country where lawmakers have taken a more conciliatory approach. This week in Maryland, a recent law to grant illegal immigrants in-state college tuition breaks was suspended after opponents gathered enough signatures to place the matter before voters in a 2012 referendum.
The Alabama measure requires police, in the course of any arrest or traffic stop, to try to determine a person's residency status, given a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an immigrant — unless doing so would hinder an investigation.
Friday's lawsuit, whose plaintiffs include unions, individuals, and social service groups, alleges the law would result in racial profiling, subjecting many to "unlawful interrogations, searches, seizures and arrests" — a throwback to "the worst aspects of Alabama's history."
Among other things, the suit argues the law will hinder due process and violate the Constitution's contracts clause by deeming invalid civil contracts knowingly entered into with an illegal immigrant.
One plaintiff, the AIDS Action Coalition, would be barred from "harboring" illegal immigrants in its buildings, taking them to medical appointments, and helping them find rental housing, the suit said.
Another plaintiff, an Alabama-born man named Matt Webster, is in the process of adopting two young orphans who are in the country illegally. He and his wife plan to apply for the boys' citizenship after the adoption goes through. But in the meantime, the suit notes, the new law will make it illegal for him to drive the boys anywhere.
"Lawsuits have been filed in every state that has passed a strong immigration bill," Bentley's spokeswoman, Rebekah Mason, said in a statement. "...Gov. Bentley supports having a strong Immigration law in Alabama."
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. Memorandum: America’s Collection of Quasi-Amnesties
2. Radio: Steven Camarota Debates Immigration Issues on the Diane Rehm Show
3. Radio: Mark Krikorian Discusses the Case of Jose Antonio on NPR
4. Video: Steven Camarota Gives Senate Testimony on DREAM Act
5. Blog: Immigration News: Some Good, Some Bad, Some Really New
6. Blog: State Dept. Policy: No Mexican Left Behind
7. Blog: Napolitano Is Releasing a Border Strategy Tomorrow; Does Anyone Care?
8. Blog: As U.S. Gets More Like Mexico, More Mexicans Stay in Mexico
9. Blog: On Turning E-Verify 'Sprinkles' into 'Icing'
10. Blog: H-1B Cluelessness in the Shadow of Lady Liberty
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment