More than 130 Alabama public school superintendents received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) by Nov. 1 asking the school districts to report any student who is turned away from school, other than for a disciplinary problem.
The letters request records of enrollment by race and lists of students who have withdrawn since the beginning of the year, broken down by race, national origin, and whether they are classified as English Language Learners. DOJ also wants a list of unexplained absences since Alabama's draconian immigration law took effect on Sept. 27.
"(Superintendents) want to know if this is part of collection of data for the Justice Department's case against the state, or if the Justice Department is collecting information to develop actions against school systems," said Eric Mackey, director of School Superintendents of Alabama.
Section 28(a) of Alabama's new immigration law took unequivocal action to prevent undocumented children and U.S. citizen children of undocumented parents from attending school.
Section 28(a) requires "[e]very public elementary and secondary school ..., at the time of enrollment in kindergarten or any grade in such school, shall determine whether the student enrolling in public school was born outside the jurisdiction of the United States or is the child of an alien not lawfully present in the United States[.]" It requires educators and teachers to presume that the student is an alien unlawfully present in the United States if the student cannot produce proof of lawful presence within 30 days.
While it is true that the cost of public elementary and secondary school to educate unlawfully present children or the children of unlawfully present alien parents is the single biggest cost of illegal immigration, it is also true that states are required to educate these children in accordance with federal law. To fail to do so will very likely cost the state of Alabama Department of Education, which funds local school boards, around $100 million. My source is the FY2011 Fiscal Stabilization Fund that comes not from Alabamians' tax money, but from the federal government. The feds could pull the money out if Alabama educators and teachers are deemed to be violating federal education policy.
The U.S. Court of Appeals of the Eleventh Circuit blocked section 28, pending the DOJ's appeal of a U.S. district court judge rulling, allowing section 28 to go into effect.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Appeals court blocks enforcement of two key parts of Alabama immigration law
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has restored my faith (somewhat) in applying the words in the United States Constitution to Alabama's stupid immigration laws. Section 28 was blocked Friday (Oct. 14). That provision made Alabama schoolteachers immigration police, requiring them to check students' immigration status, as well as their parents'.
The chilling effect, of course, is that parents, whether here legally or not, are withdrawing their children from elementary, middle, and high school or not allowing them to attend.
And the appeals court blocked section 10 from being enforced. This is the Nazi-era "show me your papers" provision of the Alabama law. The last country to successfully enforce a "show me your papers" law was Nazi Germany. Prior to World War Two, when a Jew was encountered in public "without his papers", he was arrested and sent to a labor camp, transferred to a concentration camp, and later incinerated.
I regret to inform my readers that Alabama is no better than Nazi Germany.
I say again that we need smart immigration reform. What Alabama has done is Kris Kobach stupid.
Oh, you don't know Kris Kobach? He is writing Alabama's laws, but he is the secretary of state of Kansas. Winner of Phyllis Shlafly's Eagle Award in 2008. Now there's something he can be proud of.
The chilling effect, of course, is that parents, whether here legally or not, are withdrawing their children from elementary, middle, and high school or not allowing them to attend.
And the appeals court blocked section 10 from being enforced. This is the Nazi-era "show me your papers" provision of the Alabama law. The last country to successfully enforce a "show me your papers" law was Nazi Germany. Prior to World War Two, when a Jew was encountered in public "without his papers", he was arrested and sent to a labor camp, transferred to a concentration camp, and later incinerated.
I regret to inform my readers that Alabama is no better than Nazi Germany.
I say again that we need smart immigration reform. What Alabama has done is Kris Kobach stupid.
Oh, you don't know Kris Kobach? He is writing Alabama's laws, but he is the secretary of state of Kansas. Winner of Phyllis Shlafly's Eagle Award in 2008. Now there's something he can be proud of.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Dream Act now the law in CA, TX and NM
The Dream Act is now the law in California. Gov. Jerry Brown signed it into law Saturday, Oct. 8.
The new law allows illegal immigrant college-age children to qualify for state financial aid. Only two other states -- Texas and New Mexico -- have similar laws. California is one of about a dozen states that allow illegal immigrant students to pay in-state tuition, based on attendance and graduation from a state high school.
"The Dream Act benefits us all by giving top students a chance to improve their lives and the lives of all of us," Brown said. Last July, Brown signed into law a companion bill to allow illegal immigrant children to qualify for privately funded college scholarships.
Opponents of the California Dream Act have argued that public funds should not be used to help illegal immigrants, especially as California faces deep budget woes that have prompted cuts in education and higher tuitions at the state's public colleges and universities.
A federal Dream Act that would have created a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who attend college or serve in the military failed in the U.S. Senate last year, but Sen. Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.) couldn't even bring the bill up for debate in the summer of 2007. Some members of Congress actually believe the children are criminals even though most -- if not all -- did not have the capacity to break the law (a misdemeanor) when their parents brought them across the U.S.-Mexico border without inspection.
The new California law would affect 3,633 students, or less than one percent of the 440,000 students enrolled in the current school year. Of the nearly 2.9 million community college enrollees in California, 34,057 would be affected, or one-tenth of one percent.
The new law allows illegal immigrant college-age children to qualify for state financial aid. Only two other states -- Texas and New Mexico -- have similar laws. California is one of about a dozen states that allow illegal immigrant students to pay in-state tuition, based on attendance and graduation from a state high school.
"The Dream Act benefits us all by giving top students a chance to improve their lives and the lives of all of us," Brown said. Last July, Brown signed into law a companion bill to allow illegal immigrant children to qualify for privately funded college scholarships.
Opponents of the California Dream Act have argued that public funds should not be used to help illegal immigrants, especially as California faces deep budget woes that have prompted cuts in education and higher tuitions at the state's public colleges and universities.
A federal Dream Act that would have created a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who attend college or serve in the military failed in the U.S. Senate last year, but Sen. Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.) couldn't even bring the bill up for debate in the summer of 2007. Some members of Congress actually believe the children are criminals even though most -- if not all -- did not have the capacity to break the law (a misdemeanor) when their parents brought them across the U.S.-Mexico border without inspection.
The new California law would affect 3,633 students, or less than one percent of the 440,000 students enrolled in the current school year. Of the nearly 2.9 million community college enrollees in California, 34,057 would be affected, or one-tenth of one percent.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Alabama schoolteachers are now immigration police
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn inexplicably blocked section 8 of Alabama's new immigration law, but left the chilling and controversial section 28 in place, which may prevent many legal immigrant and U.S. citizen children from going to elementary, middle, and high school.
Section 8 prohibits “[a]n alien who is not lawfully present in the United States” from attending or enrolling in an Alabama “public postsecondary education institution in this state,” and requires any alien attending such an institution to possess either “lawful permanent residence or an appropriate nonimmigrant visa," pending issuance of the court's final judgment. That was blocked. Why she didn't block the more discriminatory and unconstitutional section 28 regarding elementary and secondary school students is not clear.
Section 28 basically makes schoolteachers immigration police and requires them to collect information about students' parents. That's the chilling effect. I don't think, as conservative as the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is, the court will give effect to section 28, arguably the most harmful provision in Alabama's immigration law. To quote a former federal judge and law school dean, "That's a quantum leap in nastiness."
The judge enjoined the state from enforcing the last sentence of sections 10(e), 11(e), and 13(h) of the immigration bill, so-called "HB 56" wherein a court of this state shall consider only the federal government’s verification in determining whether an alien is lawfully present in the United States.”
Fnally, the judge enjoined the state from enforcing section 11(f) and (g) of H.B. 56 – “(f) It is unlawful for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway, or highway to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic,” and “(g) It is unlawful for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and to be transported to work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic."
That surprised me. But what really surprised me was the "driving while Latino" provisions, which, in my humble opinion, are blatantly unconstitutional. Sections 10 and 12 should have been struck down, given the legislative history when HB 56 was passed by the Alabama Legislature.
The judge's rulings pertain to the Hispanic Coalition lawsuit. Earlier she blocked portions of HB 56 in connection with the lawsuit filed by the U.S. attorney general and threw out the so-called "bishops' lawsuit", which challenged HB 56 on First Amendment issues regarding free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association.
But most of all, Alabama's new immigration law does not come from a conservative political position; it comes from Republicans who are not at all conservative. In fact, these Republicans are burdening Alabamians with new unfunded state mandates, which is not an action true conservatives take in order to enact public policy. Republicans as liberal do-gooders who force us to spend our money to enforce their laws? Believe it.
Another conservative principle the Alabama immigration laws violate is the concept of limited government. HB 56 is a huge state government intrusion into the lives of Alabamians.
The third conservative principle the Alabama immigration laws violate is the creation of an activist judicial system in which tort reform becomes a Republican joke. HB 56 actually created causes of action for failure to enforce HB 56, unleashing what may be a torrent of lawsuits across the state.
The only conservative principle the Alabama immigration laws did not violate is "no wars of opportunity or adventure". I'm sure if these neo-liberals could have figured out a way to start a war with HB 56, they would have. They certainly got a bunch of other countries riled up.
Is this stupid immigration reform or what? Get used to it, Alabama.
Section 8 prohibits “[a]n alien who is not lawfully present in the United States” from attending or enrolling in an Alabama “public postsecondary education institution in this state,” and requires any alien attending such an institution to possess either “lawful permanent residence or an appropriate nonimmigrant visa," pending issuance of the court's final judgment. That was blocked. Why she didn't block the more discriminatory and unconstitutional section 28 regarding elementary and secondary school students is not clear.
Section 28 basically makes schoolteachers immigration police and requires them to collect information about students' parents. That's the chilling effect. I don't think, as conservative as the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is, the court will give effect to section 28, arguably the most harmful provision in Alabama's immigration law. To quote a former federal judge and law school dean, "That's a quantum leap in nastiness."
The judge enjoined the state from enforcing the last sentence of sections 10(e), 11(e), and 13(h) of the immigration bill, so-called "HB 56" wherein a court of this state shall consider only the federal government’s verification in determining whether an alien is lawfully present in the United States.”
Fnally, the judge enjoined the state from enforcing section 11(f) and (g) of H.B. 56 – “(f) It is unlawful for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway, or highway to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic,” and “(g) It is unlawful for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and to be transported to work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic."
That surprised me. But what really surprised me was the "driving while Latino" provisions, which, in my humble opinion, are blatantly unconstitutional. Sections 10 and 12 should have been struck down, given the legislative history when HB 56 was passed by the Alabama Legislature.
The judge's rulings pertain to the Hispanic Coalition lawsuit. Earlier she blocked portions of HB 56 in connection with the lawsuit filed by the U.S. attorney general and threw out the so-called "bishops' lawsuit", which challenged HB 56 on First Amendment issues regarding free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association.
But most of all, Alabama's new immigration law does not come from a conservative political position; it comes from Republicans who are not at all conservative. In fact, these Republicans are burdening Alabamians with new unfunded state mandates, which is not an action true conservatives take in order to enact public policy. Republicans as liberal do-gooders who force us to spend our money to enforce their laws? Believe it.
Another conservative principle the Alabama immigration laws violate is the concept of limited government. HB 56 is a huge state government intrusion into the lives of Alabamians.
The third conservative principle the Alabama immigration laws violate is the creation of an activist judicial system in which tort reform becomes a Republican joke. HB 56 actually created causes of action for failure to enforce HB 56, unleashing what may be a torrent of lawsuits across the state.
The only conservative principle the Alabama immigration laws did not violate is "no wars of opportunity or adventure". I'm sure if these neo-liberals could have figured out a way to start a war with HB 56, they would have. They certainly got a bunch of other countries riled up.
Is this stupid immigration reform or what? Get used to it, Alabama.
Judge blocks parts of Alabama's new immigration law
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn blocked four key parts of Alabama's new immigration law, often referred to as "HB 56".
The judge enjoined the state from executing or enforcing section 11(a) of HB 56 – “It is unlawful for a person who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public or private place, or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state,” – pending issuance of the court's final judgment.
Alabama may not enforce section 13, which prohibits concealing, harboring, transporting, etc., of unlawfully present aliens, nor section 16, which concerns the taking of a state tax deduction for wages paid to an unauthorized alien employee.
Finally, the judge enjoined the state from executing or enforcing section 17, which creates a state “discrimination” cause of action based on the retention or hiring of an unauthorized alien.
Of great interest to my clients was whether the judge would block enforcement of section 15, which is basically the E-Verify part of the new immigration law. I had already told my clients it would very likely survive a challenge to its constitutionality or to interference with contracts, so I was not surprised that the judge did not block enforcement of section 15.
Section 15 says that no business entity shall knowingly employ or continue to employ an unauthorized alien and orders all Alabama businesses to enroll in E-Verify no later than April 1, 2012, and verify their employees' eligibility for employment. It's going to be expensive and a burden for my small business clients. But they can't complain if they didn't complain to their Republican legislative representatives and senators during last spring's legislative session.
And I've said it before: This federal database is dirty. Sure, it will catch a few guys named Pedro Gonzalez, but think how many Susan Smiths were born in Alabama and got married and divorced a few times and whose name entered into E-Verify will be kicked out of the system like a football.
The judge enjoined the state from executing or enforcing section 11(a) of HB 56 – “It is unlawful for a person who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public or private place, or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state,” – pending issuance of the court's final judgment.
Alabama may not enforce section 13, which prohibits concealing, harboring, transporting, etc., of unlawfully present aliens, nor section 16, which concerns the taking of a state tax deduction for wages paid to an unauthorized alien employee.
Finally, the judge enjoined the state from executing or enforcing section 17, which creates a state “discrimination” cause of action based on the retention or hiring of an unauthorized alien.
Of great interest to my clients was whether the judge would block enforcement of section 15, which is basically the E-Verify part of the new immigration law. I had already told my clients it would very likely survive a challenge to its constitutionality or to interference with contracts, so I was not surprised that the judge did not block enforcement of section 15.
Section 15 says that no business entity shall knowingly employ or continue to employ an unauthorized alien and orders all Alabama businesses to enroll in E-Verify no later than April 1, 2012, and verify their employees' eligibility for employment. It's going to be expensive and a burden for my small business clients. But they can't complain if they didn't complain to their Republican legislative representatives and senators during last spring's legislative session.
And I've said it before: This federal database is dirty. Sure, it will catch a few guys named Pedro Gonzalez, but think how many Susan Smiths were born in Alabama and got married and divorced a few times and whose name entered into E-Verify will be kicked out of the system like a football.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Judge temporarily blocks Alabama immigration law
A federal judge has temporarily blocked Alabama's new immigration law from going into effect on Sept. 1.
The brief order of U.S. District Court Presiding Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn says she is not ruling on the merits of the motions filed by the parties in court, but will issue an order so ruling no later than Sept. 28.
The injunction is in effect until Sept. 29 or when the judge rules on the motions, whichever comes first.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
U.S. Justice Department sues Alabama over law
The U.S. Department of Justice has sued the State of Alabama over a restrictive immigration law called the toughest in the nation.
http://media.al.com/bn/other/U.S.%20Justice%20Department%20lawsuit.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)