The Gadsden Times (by Dana Beyerle): A state senator said the Legislature should wait to revise Alabama's anti-illegal immigration law until after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the federal government's challenge of a similar law in Arizona.
Sen. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, last week said that while he favors state immigration control, he agrees with Attorney General Luther Strange that the Legislature should wait on the Supreme Court's interpretation of Arizona's law that was a blueprint for Alabama's.
"I do think that it's premature," Allen said of possible Senate action this week. "My thought has always been let's wait and see what the Supreme Court rules on and have the governor call us into special session to deal with those issues that have been brought up."
Allen said the Supreme Court will "give us some guidelines to go by."
"There may be some parts of the bill that need to be tweaked," Allen said. "I do think they're going to be very clear on what we need to do."
The bill the Senate could take up this week, House Bill 658 by Rep. Micky Hammon, R-Decatur, attempts to revise the 2011 anti-illegal immigration law sponsored by Hammon and Sen. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale. HB 658 has passed the House and a Senate committee.
The Supreme Court last week heard arguments in the Arizona challenge, but a decision isn't expected until later this spring or summer.
"If the court has a decision that causes us to want to change parts of the bill, we can," Hammon said.
A federal judge in Alabama stayed parts of the 2011 law and the decision is on appeal to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hammon said it's no big deal to address the 2011 law a second time.
"We have changed parts of those that have been stayed," Hammon said. "We hope they will release the stayed portions so we can start enforcing it."
Victor Spezzini, an organizer for Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama who attended an Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice rally at the State House last week, said the Legislature ought to repeal the 2011 law.
"With the exception of e-verify, it pretty much is unconstitutional and bad for Alabama," Spezzini said. "We believe all these proposals create new and unintended consequences."
Spezzini said many undocumented immigrants originally come with documents but overstay. "For most people, there is no way to come here with papers," he said.
Support for and opposition to the immigration bill pretty much falls along party lines. Hammon's bill passed last year due to Republicans holding a majority of House and Senate seats.
The conference committee report passed the House 67-25 and the Senate 25-7. Three Democrats voted for the bill in the House and four in the Senate. Not one Republican voted against it.
Sen. Bobby Singleton, D-Greensboro, opposes the law itself.
"I think there is no fixing the immigration bill," Singleton said. "We believe all these proposals create new and unintended consequences."
He said he supports a bill by Sen. Billy Beasley, D-Clayton, that simply repeals the 2011 law.
"It's a federal issue, and we need to continue to let the federal government do that," said Singleton. "We aren't equipped to do that."
Singleton said he believes the anti-illegal immigration law backed by Republican legislators is all about opposing President Barack Obama. "It's very political," he said.
"We as Democrats said to Republicans who are trying to push this that you're going to have some legal consequences, and our attorney general is going to end up in court again," Singleton said.
Strange in December suggested several revisions to bring the 2011 law in line with federal court questions. After attending oral arguments at the Supreme Court, he said that the Legislature ought to wait until the court rules before proceeding with revisions.
"The court, in this landmark case, will provide guidance on the validity of Arizona's immigration law which will impact Alabama's immigration law along with those of several other states," Strange said.
Sen. Phil Williams, R-Rainbow City, said he opposes a delay because he believes questions by Supreme Court justices at Wednesday's oral arguments indicate support for the portion of Arizona's law that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they stop.
"Based on indications from the court, I don't think we'll have to do anything different on our bill," Williams said. "The states are being left to defend themselves and guard their own citizens from the lack of the feds following procedures and laws."
Spezzini countered Williams' contention.
"As far as enforcement, the Obama administration has shattered every deportation record of any administration," he said. "(The 2011) law has interfered with that rather than help it."
Whether Senate action on his bill is successful, Hammon said the 2011 law has had a desired effect, at least in his mind -- illegal immigrants fearing Alabama's law are leaving or simply not coming to the state.
It's called self-deportation.
"I was surprised that happened." Hammon said. "We've had a lot of that and will continue to."
Sen. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, last week said that while he favors state immigration control, he agrees with Attorney General Luther Strange that the Legislature should wait on the Supreme Court's interpretation of Arizona's law that was a blueprint for Alabama's.
"I do think that it's premature," Allen said of possible Senate action this week. "My thought has always been let's wait and see what the Supreme Court rules on and have the governor call us into special session to deal with those issues that have been brought up."
Allen said the Supreme Court will "give us some guidelines to go by."
"There may be some parts of the bill that need to be tweaked," Allen said. "I do think they're going to be very clear on what we need to do."
The bill the Senate could take up this week, House Bill 658 by Rep. Micky Hammon, R-Decatur, attempts to revise the 2011 anti-illegal immigration law sponsored by Hammon and Sen. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale. HB 658 has passed the House and a Senate committee.
The Supreme Court last week heard arguments in the Arizona challenge, but a decision isn't expected until later this spring or summer.
"If the court has a decision that causes us to want to change parts of the bill, we can," Hammon said.
A federal judge in Alabama stayed parts of the 2011 law and the decision is on appeal to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hammon said it's no big deal to address the 2011 law a second time.
"We have changed parts of those that have been stayed," Hammon said. "We hope they will release the stayed portions so we can start enforcing it."
Victor Spezzini, an organizer for Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama who attended an Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice rally at the State House last week, said the Legislature ought to repeal the 2011 law.
"With the exception of e-verify, it pretty much is unconstitutional and bad for Alabama," Spezzini said. "We believe all these proposals create new and unintended consequences."
Spezzini said many undocumented immigrants originally come with documents but overstay. "For most people, there is no way to come here with papers," he said.
Support for and opposition to the immigration bill pretty much falls along party lines. Hammon's bill passed last year due to Republicans holding a majority of House and Senate seats.
The conference committee report passed the House 67-25 and the Senate 25-7. Three Democrats voted for the bill in the House and four in the Senate. Not one Republican voted against it.
Sen. Bobby Singleton, D-Greensboro, opposes the law itself.
"I think there is no fixing the immigration bill," Singleton said. "We believe all these proposals create new and unintended consequences."
He said he supports a bill by Sen. Billy Beasley, D-Clayton, that simply repeals the 2011 law.
"It's a federal issue, and we need to continue to let the federal government do that," said Singleton. "We aren't equipped to do that."
Singleton said he believes the anti-illegal immigration law backed by Republican legislators is all about opposing President Barack Obama. "It's very political," he said.
"We as Democrats said to Republicans who are trying to push this that you're going to have some legal consequences, and our attorney general is going to end up in court again," Singleton said.
Strange in December suggested several revisions to bring the 2011 law in line with federal court questions. After attending oral arguments at the Supreme Court, he said that the Legislature ought to wait until the court rules before proceeding with revisions.
"The court, in this landmark case, will provide guidance on the validity of Arizona's immigration law which will impact Alabama's immigration law along with those of several other states," Strange said.
Sen. Phil Williams, R-Rainbow City, said he opposes a delay because he believes questions by Supreme Court justices at Wednesday's oral arguments indicate support for the portion of Arizona's law that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they stop.
"Based on indications from the court, I don't think we'll have to do anything different on our bill," Williams said. "The states are being left to defend themselves and guard their own citizens from the lack of the feds following procedures and laws."
Spezzini countered Williams' contention.
"As far as enforcement, the Obama administration has shattered every deportation record of any administration," he said. "(The 2011) law has interfered with that rather than help it."
Whether Senate action on his bill is successful, Hammon said the 2011 law has had a desired effect, at least in his mind -- illegal immigrants fearing Alabama's law are leaving or simply not coming to the state.
It's called self-deportation.
"I was surprised that happened." Hammon said. "We've had a lot of that and will continue to."
No comments:
Post a Comment