Alabama’s Strict Immigration Law Upheld In Large Part

Judge upholds key parts of Alabama immigration enforcement law

Ah, I can feel the construction jobs coming back to Alabama as I type, reserved for Americans and/or legal residents.

One of the provisions upheld by Judge Blackburn is the section requiring that the immigration status of students be checked. While I personally don’t regard this as the most important provision, I put it at the top of this post specifically to draw a distinction between the kinds of Republicans who wrote, passed and signed this law into effect, and the kind, like Rick Perry, who think illegal aliens ought to not only be allowed to enroll in state colleges, but should enjoy the same discounts as Texas residents do by paying in-state tuition rather than the higher out-of-state prices that non-Texan American citizens and legal residents must pay. Our new law, for as long as it survives the appeals, will prevent, or at least vastly reduce, illegals from enrolling in state colleges at all.

Just for a little background for those who don’t know, this law is the direct result of Alabamians putting the legislative and executive branches of state government in the hands of Republicans for the first time in 136 years in last year’s election. Generally-speaking, the Republicans elected here are reasonably described as true conservatives, and not RINOs. I think this law is the first of many more to come that reflects that bit of smart scrutiny applied by our citizenry last November.

From the Michelle Malkin piece linked to above:

Also upheld: The provisions authorizing local police to inquire about detainees’ immigration status.

Alabama didn’t wait for the feds to do the job they should be doing. Before the ruling, they implemented “AL-Verify:”

Monday Governor Robert Bentley unveiled a new development in the illegal immigration debate. It’s a state-developed computer system that can verify citizenship as quickly as you can show your driver’s license.

It’s called AL-Verify. Some say this isn’t needed until a judge rules on Alabama’s new immigration law.

John McMillan, with the Alabama Commission of Agriculture and Industries says he will definitely be watching.

“Some of our farmers have been in talks with legislators. I have been involved in some of those meetings, and my role is going to be keeping legislators informed of what I see out there on the ground,” said McMillan.

McMillan, and many others are waiting to see what an up or down vote for Alabama’s immigration law means, or if there will be any provisions.

While many people wait, the governor and his cabinet members are moving forward, and they’re doing it through the AL-Verify program.

“We provided an automated way to be compliant so the process for getting a title or a tag hasn’t really changed but because of the immigration bill we had a compliance issue. Now with this technology we’ve solved the compliance issue,” said Julie Magee, the Commissioner for the Department of Revenue.

Magee said she didn’t know how much the technology cost, but the program is live, and here’s the way it works: You put your driver’s license info in and AL-Verify tells you whether it’s valid.

Cries of “heartless!” in 3, 2, 1…

First time since we moved here 20 years ago that we’ve had a friend in the Department of Revenue!

Meantime, Mr. Irascible — our thin-skinned commander-in-chief — gets peeved over an illegal alien student’s carping about lack of DREAM Act passage…and then doubles down by telling Latino leaders to quit complaining.

Heal thyself, whiner.

Here’s the only place I disagree with Michelle in this piece. No, Michelle, we do not need to count on Obama or his ilk to heal thyself, we need to heal the country ourselves by ousting every last one of them. Even if we did that in one fell swoop, true healing is still a long-shot. Still, Alabama has shown the way towards restoring the ideal of America being  for Americans. It’s a good sign. I just hope other states and the .fedgov follow suit in 2012 the way us Alabamians did in 2010.

CC

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    Checking student enrollment is fine but the “show us your papers” provision is still a problem for me. The Constitution is clear that immigration is the Federal government’s business. Even if they’re not doing their job (and Obama has massively increased deportations) the place to fix that is the federal level, not the state level.

    The GOP support for this shows just how selective their federalism and originalism is. If the State of California decided the were going to impose a millionaire’s tax on the Fed’s behalf, I doubt they would get much sympathy from the “the Feds aren’t doing their job taxing people enough” argument.

    Going to be interesting, also, to see how Alabama deals with the sweet potato crop this year. Georgia agriculture was hit hard by the crackdown on illegals.

    Thumb up 0

  2. CzarChasm *

    Checking student enrollment is fine but the “show us your papers” provision is still a problem for me.

    And what do you think they’re doing at the “border” check points? “Show us your papers” is alright as long as it’s the .fedgov doing it, and they’re pulling everyone over for no reason other than traveling on a highway within 100 miles of the border? At least with this new law, the “show us your papers” provision only kicks in if there’s a legal contact made that has nothing to do with race or profiling or whatever. I have my own problems with the shit house excuses cops are allowed to use to make “legal” contacts these days, but it’s not like Bama didn’t consider the potential for abuses based only on race or no-probable-cause suspicion of being an illegal. The probable cause clause of the 4th Amendment is enhanced and enshrined in this law, something which the .fedgov hasn’t seen fit to do since 9/11.

    The Constitution is clear that immigration is the Federal government’s business.

    “Business” or responsibility? Either way, I don’t see where it’s “clear” that states have no enforcement authority. The only thing mentioned about immigration issues is one short line that talks about naturalization, not immigration, in the list of enumerated powers of Article 1 – Section 8. The words are related, but not the same. And even if you consider them synonymous, where does it say that states are precluded from helping the .fedgov enforce the “uniform Rule” that they come up with anyway?

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    I just don’t see it there. Perhaps there are SCOTUS rulings reserving the “business” of immigration to the .fedgov, but it’s hardly the case that, “The Constitution is clear” on that issue.

    The GOP support for this shows just how selective their federalism and originalism is.

    What the??? Federalism is the condition of the federal government not interfering with the states in their making laws that aren’t specifically precluded from doing so in the Constitution. Clearly, the Constitution doesn’t “clearly” preclude the states from passing laws that aid the .fedgov in enforcing the uniform rules that the Constitution holds it accountable for creating. Federalism is upheld in this law, as is originalism. I have no idea what you think the two words even mean in this context, but it does not appear that you understand what either are supposed to mean.

    If the State of California decided the were going to impose a millionaire’s tax on the Fed’s behalf, I doubt they would get much sympathy from the “the Feds aren’t doing their job taxing people enough” argument.

    Umm….states are allowed to tax, as well as aid in the enforcement of federal tax-evaders. Under your theory of the mention of naturalization rules being the responsibility of the .fedgov, and requiring a hands-off restriction on the states, the 16th Amendment would likewise require a hands-off approach to tax enforcement and preclude them from writing their own taxation laws. Utterly absurd.

    The only thing you say here that makes a lick of sense is the last bit about the problems farmers are going to have. This is true, they will have problems, and those problems will likely contribute to slightly higher food prices in the not-too-distant future. Not nearly as much of a contributing factor as many of those sweet potato fields being replaced by corn as an “energy crop” because of the idiotic global warming dictates of this country, but yeah, increased labor costs will indeed cause increased food costs. Too bad, so sad for all those salt-of-the-Earth, traitorous farmers who have forsaken their fellow Americans for the Almighty Buck for far too long now. Same with the construction industry, the food service industry and the hospitality industry. The problems with farming that are exposed or exacerbated by this new law will work themselves out though, and Americans, instead of lawbreakers on both sides of the equation, will benefit. I’m OK with that. Are you Hal?

    CC

    Thumb up 1

  3. Hal_10000

    Federalism works both ways. Just as the federal government can’t interfere with the states, the states can’t interfere with federal matters, such as currency or treaties. This is a matter of both federal and SCOTUS precedent. It’s the reason, for example, states can’t ban the importation of wines from other states to protect their own growers. Only the feds can regulate interstate commerce.

    Again, if states started encroaching on federal areas in ways you didn’t like, you’d be opposed. Suppose California refused to turn over terror suspects. Suppose Iowa announced they would shield illegals from DHS. To clarify my earlier point, suppose Jerry Brown announced that the federal government should raise taxes on the rich. Btu since they won’t, California will go ahead and raise taxes on Millionaires for the federal government and send it to the IRS. Would you say, “Well, the states have that right!” I doubt it.

    Traitorous farmers? That’s nice. Because they won’t agree to lose money on their goods, because they’ll hire illegals in place of people who won’t work, they’re traitors. This country had open borders for the first century of its existence. Were they all traitors too?

    There’s law-breaking and there’s law-breaking. And it’s ridiculous to act like breaking immigration law is the equivalent of bank robbery. Immigrants — legal and illegal — are less likely to be on the dole than native-born, less likely to commit crimes and more likely to pay taxes (http://reason.org/news/show/122411.html). This problem could be solved overnight by creating an easy immigration system, where coming to this country to work didn’t involve mountains of forms, thousands in fees, years of waiting so that … maybe … you can come here. But no one wants to do it. They’re too busy hiring illegals to build a stupid fence that the illegals will scale in about ten seconds.

    Thumb up 0

  4. Mississippi Yankee

    Once again we see Hal’s premise the Good is the enemy of Perfect.

    Either that or he’s hinting that the spouse’s papers may not be in order and their planed trip to Mobile is now on hold.

    Thumb up 0

  5. sahrab

    for example, states can’t ban the importation of wines from other states to protect their own growers. Only the feds can regulate interstate commerce

    No your right that may not be a valid reason to prevent the importation of wines.

    BUT

    The States do ban the importation of wines, liquor, tobacco from other states into their own based on Tax Revenue.

    The justification may be different but States are still interjecting in Federal Matters (inter state commerce)

    *Note before (the Constiutionalist) CzarChasm tries to claim I’m for federalism, I’m not I’m just citing an example

    Thumb up 0

  6. Hal_10000

    She’s got a green card, which has specific instructions to carry it around at all times. So we’re fine. She is doing work Americas won’t do because Americans are too lazy to get degrees in genetics.

    Thumb up 0

  7. CzarChasm *

    *Note before (the Constiutionalist) CzarChasm tries to claim I’m for federalism, I’m not I’m just citing an example

    Couple of things here sahrab:

    I have never described myself as a “constitutionalist.” Before you go ape looking for where I said that, let me save you the trouble. I refer to myself as a constitutional originalist. It may be a minor distinction, but there is a point to it. I read and adhere to the Constitution as closely as I can discern its original intent to be. I use historical writings to make those discernments. I accept as proof of original intent the writings of people like Jefferson, Madison, Adams and other of their contemporaries over SCOTUS decisions made years after they were dead. I definitely accept the same proofs over the rantings of blog participants.

    And two, I have never tried to claim that you are a constitutionalist. That would be Tool, not me. It was the only mistake I ever saw him type so far, at least in the context in which I believe he intended it.

    The distinction I draw between “constitutionalist” and “constitutional originalist” is that I presume anyone who considers themselves law-abiding and supportive of legal law enforcement to be constitutionalists. It takes little thought or study to claim that status.

    Being a constitutional originalist requires the ability to back up one’s point of view with founding-era documentation, however. Or, if one is scrutinizing the original intent of amendments that were years subsequent to the founding, the ability to research, document and base one’s opinion on the original intent of the authors and legislators of said amendment through scrutiny of debates, speeches and other valid historical documentation that might be available.

    Don’t worry, I would never claim you are a constitutional originalist. I have not been exposed to the abilities required to legitimately regard you as such, if you indeed possess them at all.

    While being a “Constitutionalist” as you put it, is not an insult as far as I’m concerned, it does seem to be used in a mocking way when you say it. It has seemed so since the first post you addressed to me. Do you have a problem with folks who attempt to gain knowledge of, and adhere to, the Constitution? That would be a very strange problem to have, indeed.

    CC

    Thumb up 0

  8. blameme

    So far, you are for more taxes without seeing the cuts necessary on the spending side (you mention it, but you seem much more happy to give those more who got us in this damn spot) and against states being able to handle their out of control immigration issues due to the fed not doing their part.

    Right thinking indeed.

    Thumb up 0