prole Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 You know, apart from Wiener's weiner, Palin's bus tour, etc. Alabama enacts anti-illegal-immigration law described as nation's strictest Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley signs a bill that, among other things, bars illegal immigrants from enrolling in or attending college; prohibits them from applying for or soliciting work; and makes it illegal to rent them property. The ACLU says it will sue to try to overturn the law By Richard Fausset, Los Angeles Times June 10, 2011 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. Opponents here, perhaps predictably, often refer to that history in denouncing new laws they deem to be not only unconstitutional but motivated by bigotry. The 72-page legislation known as HB 56 also touches on issues as diverse as contract law and voter registration. It makes Alabama the fourth state, after Georgia, Utah and Indiana, to follow Arizona's lead in enacting significant statewide immigration laws, potentially mollifying those voters frustrated with Washington's perceived failure to deal with the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. Other states, including California, Florida, Nevada and Texas, have seen SB 1070-style bills fail during this year's legislative sessions, and portions of the Arizona law — including the provision requiring police to check the immigration status of those they stop and suspect are in the country illegally — have been blocked by a federal judge and may land before the Supreme Court. 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." Inside and outside Alabama, however, proponents of a more robust immigration policy praised the law, whose main legislative sponsors included a construction company owner and an electrical contractor. "We have a real problem with illegal immigration in this country," Bentley, a first-term Republican governor and Southern Baptist deacon, said after signing the law, according to wire service reports. "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." Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, said he expected the law to be effective in curbing illegal immigration. "I think this shows one more case of states moving to do what the Obama administration is unwilling to do," Krikorian said. "This wouldn't be happening if the administration were credible on enforcement, but it's just not." 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. It deems invalid any contract to which an illegal immigrant is a party if the legal party in the contract has "direct or constructive knowledge" that the other person was in the country illegally. And it requires a citizenship check for people registering to vote. 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. "At the end of the day, for a teacher to be required to act as an immigration agent and ask a student for their immigration status will have a chilling effect on immigrant families, and it will lead to discrimination," he said. Krikorian, whose group supports stricter laws against illegal residents, said many of the Alabama provisions were entirely new. Others are similar to immigration enforcement efforts by state and local governments. Last month, the Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law that required businesses to use the federal E-Verify database. Based on that decision, the high court this month ordered a lower court to reconsider its rejection of a much-publicized law in Hazleton, Pa., that would have denied illegal immigrants business permits and penalized landlords who rented property to them. The wave of Latino immigration in recent decades has not transformed Alabama as dramatically as it has other states, but the presence of the new arrivals has been felt. People of "Hispanic or Latino origin" currently make up about 3.9% of Alabama's population of 4.8 million, according to Census Bureau figures. The state was home to about 120,000 "unauthorized immigrants" in 2010, up from an estimated 5,000 in 1990, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.--from here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chirp Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) Edited June 10, 2011 by jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 the guy pointing at the corpse is totally rawking the hitler 'stache hey chirp, you're not billcoe! part of becoming a citizen is learning about american history, no? aliens will get a quick handle on part of it from living in 'bama, and then either leave the country entirely or at least choose a more enlightened state to reside in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Turn your brain on before you post again, Chirp. You too, Ivan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Turn your brain on before you post again, Chirp. You too, Ivan. i'm not so sure it wasn't germane to the subject, jon - alabama, historically, is intolerant of dark-skinned folks - a picture of a lynching explains that better than words, but hey, you da'boss mon 'round here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Who's families were brought here against their will and forced to work in poor conditions without pay and were abused and murdered. They weren't immigrants. Should we post images of piles of bodies at the Dachau to remind all the Jewish posters here of their painful history? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share Posted June 10, 2011 Ivan, this would be a nice little package to see through your tired-ass, one size fits all "same-as-it-ever-was" goggles, but these Arizona-type measures are being introduced in disparate states across the nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Latinos who vote historically tended to vote conservatively - I suspect that will be changing in 2012 and many Latinos who never bothered to vote will be voting in droves. It's really a pretty stupid indignation issue for republicans to push, but they're pretty much out of gas on the gay thing so clutching onto anything that reminds voters the president isn't white probably seems like a good idea to them. Problem is it doesn't really get them much in the way of new voters or independents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Ivan, this would be a nice little package to see through your tired-ass, one size fits all "same-as-it-ever-was" goggles, but these Arizona-type measures are being introduced in disparate states across the nation. you seem to understand me better than i do meself tell me, what else do i think? how is this new law NOT a continuation of alabama's glorious history? were you thinking i'm in favor of the law? uh, no, nor of alabama or the south in general (that's why i left!) the problem, as i see it, is there are 2 classic polar views of "hey, immigrants are cool - you can exploit the shit out of them and they don't mouth off much - come on in if you can get here!" and "fuck immigrants - we should build a laser shield wall and murder every one of their little bitch babies that manage to crawl through it" - the problem then is some compromise is needed between the two groups, but there's little room to do that - meanwhile, the eternal pattern continues to unfold for all living things, including mexicans - life moves about the earth as a response to a host of factors - fighting immigration is like fighting gravity then - sure, it can be done for a time, but only with effort and expense, and ultimately gravity (or immigration, legal or otherwise) will win i am sympathetic to states though - the gridlock on the issue at the federal level leaves them having to clusterfuck their way through the associated problems - my old coach said "shit flows downhill" - the feds shit on the states shit on poor illegals - simple to understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Latinos who vote historically tended to vote conservatively - I suspect that will be changing in 2012 and many Latinos who never bothered to vote will be voting in droves. It's really a pretty stupid indignation issue for republicans to push, but they're pretty much out of gas on the gay thing so clutching onto anything that reminds voters the president isn't white probably seems like a good idea to them. Problem is it doesn't really get them much in the way of new voters or independents. which is the main reason behind their widespread low-income/minority voter suppression efforts across southern and mid-western states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share Posted June 10, 2011 These are polar views? For whom? Talk about sticking to the script! Apparently, conservatives have gotten so good at defining the parameters of debate that what immigrants, children of immigrants, experts on the subject, and activists working within and on behalf of those communities think, say and do is irrelevant. The "if the feds won't do something, we will" is a gimcrack soundbite designed to appeal to the pre-existing anti-gubmint teabag mindframe. There is no immigrant "problem". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 These are polar views? For whom? Talk about sticking to the script! Apparently, conservatives have gotten so good at defining the parameters of debate that what immigrants, children of immigrants, experts on the subject, and activists working within and on behalf of those communities think, say and do is irrelevant. The "if the feds won't do something, we will" is a gimcrack soundbite designed to appeal to the pre-existing anti-gubmint teabag mindframe. There is no immigrant "problem". gawd, you're a whiny bitch. Ivan is about as far from conservative as you can get, but just because he doesn't toe your pathetic inflexible progressive shit-head line, you have to spew more of you ridiculous disdain. As for immigrants, the poor, etc, they're all "beneath" you anyways, so quit pretending you care about - rather than disdain - them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Me thinks it comes down to money for the states. Who do you think is educated using state paid teachers at the schools? Immigrant children--yet I don't know how much % wise. How much in taxes are their parents paying these states? There is commerce, so there is some money going on to contribute to the coffers. How many of you know teachers in rural Eastern Washington towns? I know a couple...and both grade school teachers have trouble teaching their english speaking children as it is with 40% immigrant children. And these families are using up local funds for health care. Not always state funds, but county funds too. They are contributing to commerce like I said, so there is movement of some money but it is not direct. Like I said, I think it comes down to money, and the media is just hyping it to be something else. Less immigrants means less money for the state to spend on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share Posted June 10, 2011 ...your pathetic inflexible progressive shit-head line... Namely, pointing out that the range of immigration debate or the voices worth listening to isn't limited to xenophobes on one end and exploiters on the other? That the immigration "problem" is mostly a fiction? Please be more specific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 ...your pathetic inflexible progressive shit-head line... Namely, pointing out that the range of immigration debate or the voices worth listening to isn't limited to xenophobes on one end and exploiters on the other? That the immigration "problem" is mostly a fiction? Please be more specific. Only you and progressives are smart enough to define the valid parameters of discussion. Leave that narrow range and it's the same bullshit from you about how we're all dumb, duped, whatever. You and j-bot should just go find a closet somewhere for your endless circle-jerks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Me thinks it comes down to money for the states. Who do you think is educated using state paid teachers at the schools? Immigrant children--yet I don't know how much % wise. How much in taxes are their parents paying these states? There is commerce, so there is some money going on to contribute to the coffers. How many of you know teachers in rural Eastern Washington towns? I know a couple...and both grade school teachers have trouble teaching their english speaking children as it is with 40% immigrant children. And these families are using up local funds for health care. Not always state funds, but county funds too. They are contributing to commerce like I said, so there is movement of some money but it is not direct. Like I said, I think it comes down to money, and the media is just hyping it to be something else. Less immigrants means less money for the state to spend on. indeed, and i can agree from 1st hand experience teaching in rural north carolina - maybe its a semantics game - call it a problem or an issue if you want - increasing the size of your population, legal or illegal, immigrant or native, comes w/ consequences i think our border should be more or less wide open - that doesn't appear to be the view of a big enough chunk of the population to make it a reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share Posted June 10, 2011 ...your pathetic inflexible progressive shit-head line... Namely, pointing out that the range of immigration debate or the voices worth listening to isn't limited to xenophobes on one end and exploiters on the other? That the immigration "problem" is mostly a fiction? Please be more specific. Only you and progressives are smart enough to define the valid parameters of discussion. Leave that narrow range and it's the same bullshit from you about how we're all dumb, duped, whatever. You and j-bot should just go find a closet somewhere for your endless circle-jerks. No, it's about broadening the range to include more voices and recognizing that what passes for a broad spectrum on any number of issues (economic policy, foreign policy, energy, etc. ) has actually been quite limited. How many examples do you need? If we're to go about solving problems and getting out of the various ruts we're in (don't worry, I know you don't personally give a fuck so nobody's asking you to think about anything), then we should try and identify the narratives that dominate our media space, how they're produced, and who benefits from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 ...your pathetic inflexible progressive shit-head line... Namely, pointing out that the range of immigration debate or the voices worth listening to isn't limited to xenophobes on one end and exploiters on the other? That the immigration "problem" is mostly a fiction? Please be more specific. Only you and progressives are smart enough to define the valid parameters of discussion. Leave that narrow range and it's the same bullshit from you about how we're all dumb, duped, whatever. You and j-bot should just go find a closet somewhere for your endless circle-jerks. No, it's about broadening the range to include more voices and recognizing that what passes for a broad spectrum on any number of issues (economic policy, foreign policy, energy, etc. ) has actually been quite limited. How many examples do you need? If we're to go about solving problems and getting out of the various ruts we're in (don't worry, I know you don't personally give a fuck so nobody's asking you to think about anything), then we should try and identify the narratives that dominate our media space, how they're produced, and who benefits from them. "narrative"? You don't think that your lexicon evinces a very specific progressive group-think, and narrow-minded, homogenized world-view? Hint: the only two posters who use the term "narrative" on this site - repeatedly, I will add - are you and j_bot. Thanks for the laugh "meme"-bro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Namely, pointing out that the range of immigration debate or the voices worth listening to isn't limited to xenophobes on one end and exploiters on the other? historically, those were the 2 main responses - at no point in our history have new populations of immigrants been particurarily welcomed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share Posted June 10, 2011 Yes, those are two responses, but that's a rather narrow framework from which to understand something as densely complex as 'immigration in America'. Outside of that official, mostly white, nativist historiography, immigrants themselves never had opinions worth hearing or acted in ways that made a contribution to changing the parameters of debate or the conditions of their existence? Are those experiences, voices, and agency something that we should be taking into account now, or are we just going to pay tribute to and reproduce the xenophobe/exploiter version of events? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share Posted June 10, 2011 "narrative"? You don't think that your lexicon evinces a very specific progressive group-think, and narrow-minded, homogenized world-view? Hint: the only two posters who use the term "narrative" on this site - repeatedly, I will add - are you and j_bot. Try reading a book, ya fucking meathead! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Yes, those are two responses, but that's a rather narrow framework from which to understand something as densely complex as 'immigration in America'. Outside of that official, mostly white, nativist historiography, immigrants themselves never had opinions worth hearing or acted in ways that made a contribution to changing the parameters of debate or the conditions of their existence? Are those experiences, voices, and agency something that we should be taking into account now, or are we just going to pay tribute to and reproduce the xenophobe/exploiter version of events? "white" - race card, par for the course for progressive scum "nativist historiography" - more progressive sheeple talk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 "narrative"? You don't think that your lexicon evinces a very specific progressive group-think, and narrow-minded, homogenized world-view? Hint: the only two posters who use the term "narrative" on this site - repeatedly, I will add - are you and j_bot. Try reading a book, ya fucking meathead! or, more specifically, a set of narrow-ranged books using similar terminology, and drawing similar conclusions. Ur so smart, Prole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share Posted June 10, 2011 ELITIST!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Yes, those are two responses, but that's a rather narrow framework from which to understand something as densely complex as 'immigration in America'. Outside of that official, mostly white, nativist historiography, immigrants themselves never had opinions worth hearing or acted in ways that made a contribution to changing the parameters of debate or the conditions of their existence? Are those experiences, voices, and agency something that we should be taking into account now, or are we just going to pay tribute to and reproduce the xenophobe/exploiter version of events? 19th century immigrants views have been saved fairly well and are definetly part of a basic history class - their narrative is not lost -however, their views were often no more enlightened then the natives - i'm sure you're aware of the irish hatred of blacks in new york, for example? i am not paying tribute to the 2 poles i mentioned - i also would like to live in a compassionate land that makes up for its historical evils by continuing to welcome new people - nevertheless, i would be a great fool if i did not acknowledge that, historically, the vast population of our fair republic falls into 1 of the 2 camps i described, and thus we have a situation that is unlikely to change or get better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.