State Level Immigration Laws

I've watched, over the last couple of years, both parties talk about illegal immigration without saying very much. It seems that this is radioactive issue for most federal government officials and those that are running for federal office. However, the state level politicians have started to take sides and craft legislation to fill the vacuum created by the lack of federal government leadership. Now my own state has taken a stand and has passed its own legislation in reaction to this problem:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/us/04immig.html

Click the link for the full story

In Alabama, a Harsh Bill for Residents Here Illegally
By JULIA PRESTON
Alabama has passed a sweeping bill to crack down on illegal immigrants that both supporters and opponents call the toughest of its kind in the country, going well beyond a law Arizona passed last year that caused a furor there.

The measure was passed by large margins in the Alabama Senate and the House, both Republican-controlled, in votes on Thursday. Governor Robert Bentley, a Republican, is expected to sign the bill into law.

“Alabama is now the new No. 1 state for immigration enforcement,” said Kris Kobach, a constitutional lawyer who is secretary of state in Kansas. He has helped write many state bills to curtail illegal immigration, including Alabama’s.

“This bill invites discrimination into every aspect of the lives of people in Alabama,” said Cecillia Wang, director of the immigrants’ rights project of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has brought legal challenges against several state immigration-control laws. Calling Alabama’s bill “outrageous and blatantly unconstitutional,” Ms. Wang said, “We will take action if the governor signs it.”

The Alabama bill includes a provision similar to one that stirred controversy in Arizona, 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. Federal courts have suspended most of that Arizona law.

Alabama’s bill goes beyond Arizona’s. It bars illegal immigrants from enrolling in any public college after high school. It obliges public schools to determine the immigration status of all students, requiring parents of foreign-born students to report the immigration status of their children.

The bill requires Alabama’s public schools to publish figures on the number of immigrants — both legal and illegal — who are enrolled and on any costs associated with the education of illegal immigrant children.

The bill, known as H.B. 56, also makes it a crime to knowingly rent housing to an illegal immigrant. It bars businesses from taking tax deductions on wages paid to unauthorized immigrants.

“This is a jobs-creation bill for Americans,” said Representative Micky Hammon, a Republican who was a chief sponsor of the bill. “We really want to prevent illegal immigrants from coming to Alabama and to prevent those who are here from putting down roots,” he said.

Here you can find the actual legislation:

PDF Format:
http://www.curbaea.com/misc/hb56text.pdf

Perhaps an easier to read version:
Text Of Alabama Immigration Law, HB 56 | Latin America News Dispatch

My question is simple. Do you agree or disagree with state initiated legislation as a response to the illegal immigration problem? As it applies to my state I will come out and say I love it. If it is enforced by agencies across the state specifically targeting employers it will work without me having to arrest/transport one singe illegal in my patrol car.

I look forward to a respectful back and forth on this. I have allowed multiple choice in the poll voting. I realize that some will wish to voice their ideas on how to solve this problem.

I'll go ahead and tell you I voted for options 2 and 4. I will happily discuss why once this gets involved a bit.

States have more of a vested interest in protecting their own borders. Individual states would likely handle the task more efficiently and with less wasted money than the Federal Government ( given a lack of Federal funds of course ).

I am not totally opposed to Federal enforcement along the Mexican border, Canadian border, and ports; but within the states themselves, the legal residents should have the say.

The United States of America is composed of 50 individual states, with a widely varied makeup of people. No single entity can make the correct decision on every single social issue for each area.

I see nothing in Article I Section VIII which allows Congress this power and nothing in Section X which forbids the states to do it. So... Amendment X seems to reserve this power to the States.

I'm happy to see it. If local law enforcement took action against an illegal everytime they had contact with one it would start solving the problem. In my old area im convinced the crime rate would have dropped by at least 30%. Our vehicle and health insurance rates would drop also. That was the biggest reason that I saw in CA for the high rates.

I took options 2 and 3. I believe that it should be the Federal Government's job, since illegal immigration knows no state border, especially when the Mexican/Canadian borders and other ports of entry are concerned. I think that the Federal Government is in the best position to effectively enforce these laws. The problem is that there is no serious effort on their part to do so. I'm not deriding the Border Patrol and those with boots on the ground, but they can only do what they are funded for and SUPPORTED in doing.

So, therefore since our Federal Government has blatenly made obvious there deriliction in protecting the country and her citizens, there is no other option then to take action at the next level, even if it is not as effective.

It is a waste of time and resources to investigate and deport illegals. I'd rather see a serious effort at preventing the illegal entry in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 213th

I took options 2 and 3. I believe that it should be the Federal Government's job, since illegal immigration knows no state borders. I think that the Federal Government is in the best position to effectively enforce these laws. The problem is that there is no serious effort on their part to do so. I'm not deriding the Border Patrol and those with boots on the ground, but they can only do what they are funded for and SUPPORTED in doing.

So, therefore since our Federal Government has blatenly made obvious there deriliction in protecting the country and her citizens, there is no other option then to take action at the next level, even if it is not as effective.

---

Well said.

I was inspired to post this because I was asked by a guy, while I was in uniform, what I thought about this law. He was shocked when I said I am in full support of it. (1 out of 11 so far that was shocked mind you). He went down the same road of:

it will never work
it will cost too much
we don't have the man power
this will hurt business
This will lead to profiling

That last one stuck in my saddle just a bit. We had a back in forth that I had to play nice nice with since I was in uniform. He was not expecting to run into someone that could spout off court cases to back up his arguments (Thank you U.S. Cop) along with Constitutional and political theory. I did find out that he owns a landscaping company. I also found out something about myself......I want these laws to effect asshole employers like this this guy that don't give a damn about people, but really only car about cutting their overhead to pad their own pockets. The illegals have more to fear by being victimized by those that prey on them than they ever will from law enforcement(in this country). I want this legislation to put people like this guy I talked to out of business or force him to operate within the laws that existed before HR 56.