The Decatur Daily (Opinion): Alabama has an opportunity to recapture pride out of humiliation.
House Majority Leader Micky Hammon, R-Decatur, has said he is open to "tweaking" the immigration law he sponsored. Gov. Robert Bentley, who signed the law, has said the same, acknowledging he does not "want to be perceived as the face of illegal immigration bills in the country.
The main impediment to repeal or substantive changes in the immigration law came from state Sen. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale, the Senate sponsor of the law, whose position as chairman of the Rules Committee gave him the ability to block significant reforms. In the strongest signal yet that it understands that the mantle of leadership comes with responsibility, the state Republican Party removed Beason from his chairmanship. The move came as Sen. Gerald Dial, R-Lineville, had the courage to say what the state needed to hear.
"Let's step up and say we've made some mistakes," Dial said. "I made some mistakes in voting for the bill as it was, and I'm big enough to admit it."
The international perception is that the immigration law is a product of racism. Indeed, defenders of the law sound much like defenders of the "separate but equal" Jim Crow laws.
House Majority Leader Micky Hammon, R-Decatur, has said he is open to "tweaking" the immigration law he sponsored. Gov. Robert Bentley, who signed the law, has said the same, acknowledging he does not "want to be perceived as the face of illegal immigration bills in the country.
The main impediment to repeal or substantive changes in the immigration law came from state Sen. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale, the Senate sponsor of the law, whose position as chairman of the Rules Committee gave him the ability to block significant reforms. In the strongest signal yet that it understands that the mantle of leadership comes with responsibility, the state Republican Party removed Beason from his chairmanship. The move came as Sen. Gerald Dial, R-Lineville, had the courage to say what the state needed to hear.
"Let's step up and say we've made some mistakes," Dial said. "I made some mistakes in voting for the bill as it was, and I'm big enough to admit it."
The international perception is that the immigration law is a product of racism. Indeed, defenders of the law sound much like defenders of the "separate but equal" Jim Crow laws.
Simplified reality
While important as Alabama struggles for the economic benefits that come from burying its racist past, the global perception oversimplifies the reality. Many in the state are sincerely concerned about immigration reform. Many welcome any neighbor, provided the neighbor followed federal laws controlling immigration. For some, the resentment has little to do with ethnicity but much to do with frustration at a federal government that they perceive as being lax in enforcement of immigration laws.
The problem with this viewpoint is that Alabamians have a say in federal immigration law. We may not always get the officials we want, but we cast votes for presidential and Congressional candidates.
On most issues, we grumble when we are in the minority, but we don't abdicate the federal democratic process. We may think the president is wrong to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, but we don't send the Alabama National Guard to Kandahar to rectify the error. We may resent the federal tax code, but we don't pass a state law purporting to nullify it.
Why do we accept our role as a small part of a larger democracy in some areas, but reject it when it comes to immigration? Why does a non-border state that has a lower percentage of undocumented immigrants than 23 other states pass any law restricting immigrants, much less the toughest in the nation? It is hardly a surprise that a world familiar with our historical use of state laws to oppress blacks assumes we are at it again, this time with a Hispanic target.
While important as Alabama struggles for the economic benefits that come from burying its racist past, the global perception oversimplifies the reality. Many in the state are sincerely concerned about immigration reform. Many welcome any neighbor, provided the neighbor followed federal laws controlling immigration. For some, the resentment has little to do with ethnicity but much to do with frustration at a federal government that they perceive as being lax in enforcement of immigration laws.
The problem with this viewpoint is that Alabamians have a say in federal immigration law. We may not always get the officials we want, but we cast votes for presidential and Congressional candidates.
On most issues, we grumble when we are in the minority, but we don't abdicate the federal democratic process. We may think the president is wrong to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, but we don't send the Alabama National Guard to Kandahar to rectify the error. We may resent the federal tax code, but we don't pass a state law purporting to nullify it.
Why do we accept our role as a small part of a larger democracy in some areas, but reject it when it comes to immigration? Why does a non-border state that has a lower percentage of undocumented immigrants than 23 other states pass any law restricting immigrants, much less the toughest in the nation? It is hardly a surprise that a world familiar with our historical use of state laws to oppress blacks assumes we are at it again, this time with a Hispanic target.
Tough consequences
Whatever our motivations in supporting the concept of an immigration law, few Alabamians like the consequences. We are more economically dependent on undocumented immigrants than most realized. Few understood that many undocumented parents have children who are U.S. citizens, and even fewer approve of a law that separates families. It did not occur to us that a law penalizing undocumented immigrants necessarily requires Alabama natives to present proof of citizenship at every turn. We did not think through the fact that requiring every employer to enroll in the E-Verify program imposes a massive federal bureaucracy.
When the issue was slavery and then segregation, our state fought the federal democratic process to the bitter end. Then as now, we defended our battle as one of states' rights. Only as the years passed and our passions calmed did we recognize the awful stigma that came with our proud defiance.
Whatever our motivations in supporting the concept of an immigration law, few Alabamians like the consequences. We are more economically dependent on undocumented immigrants than most realized. Few understood that many undocumented parents have children who are U.S. citizens, and even fewer approve of a law that separates families. It did not occur to us that a law penalizing undocumented immigrants necessarily requires Alabama natives to present proof of citizenship at every turn. We did not think through the fact that requiring every employer to enroll in the E-Verify program imposes a massive federal bureaucracy.
When the issue was slavery and then segregation, our state fought the federal democratic process to the bitter end. Then as now, we defended our battle as one of states' rights. Only as the years passed and our passions calmed did we recognize the awful stigma that came with our proud defiance.
Transformed state
The removal of Beason and the stirring of statesmanship in the Alabama Republican Party give our state a chance not just to avoid the mistakes of our past, but to showcase a transformed state. Yes, racism played a part in the passage of the immigration law. Racism is not unique to Alabama, though. It infects all the states and nations that are now reveling in their condescension.
What can be unique to Alabama, however, is an ability to learn from our history. We support immigration reform, but few of us support the ugly mess that the Legislature dropped in our laps. Our motivations in supporting the law may not have been racist, but history tells us that failure to amend or repeal the law will leave us with a stain as indelible as the Jim Crow laws of our past.
The answer is not to once again wait for a federal court to demand change. We asked for immigration reform, but we did not ask for the cumbersome monstrosity our elected representatives gave us. Now that we understand the consequences, we can show the world -- and more importantly, ourselves -- that the label of racism no longer applies.
The removal of Beason and the stirring of statesmanship in the Alabama Republican Party give our state a chance not just to avoid the mistakes of our past, but to showcase a transformed state. Yes, racism played a part in the passage of the immigration law. Racism is not unique to Alabama, though. It infects all the states and nations that are now reveling in their condescension.
What can be unique to Alabama, however, is an ability to learn from our history. We support immigration reform, but few of us support the ugly mess that the Legislature dropped in our laps. Our motivations in supporting the law may not have been racist, but history tells us that failure to amend or repeal the law will leave us with a stain as indelible as the Jim Crow laws of our past.
The answer is not to once again wait for a federal court to demand change. We asked for immigration reform, but we did not ask for the cumbersome monstrosity our elected representatives gave us. Now that we understand the consequences, we can show the world -- and more importantly, ourselves -- that the label of racism no longer applies.
No comments:
Post a Comment