Alabama Tackled Illegal Immigration and Unemployment Started Dropping – Gina Loudon – Townhall Conservative Columnists

Alabama Tackled Illegal Immigration and Unemployment Started Dropping – Gina Loudon – Townhall Conservative Columnists.

Alabama politicians ran on the issue of reforming illegal immigration in the state, mostly in response to an outcry from citizens hurt or unemployed by the problem of Illegal Immigration. 

They kept their promise. 

Last session, the Alabama Legislature led by Senator Scott Beason (R-Gardendale) sponsored and passed House Bill 56 that essentially upheld the federal law already on the books.  Governor Bentley signed the bill.  The beast was loosed…

National social welfare advocates descended on Alabama like vultures on road kill and the stage was set for an ugly battle.  Self identified “religious groups” (whose faux religion is social liberalism) scared the “bejesus” out of unsuspecting (and under-informed) religious leaders who fell for the threats of arrest and worse if they were to comply with Alabama’s new law.  The main stream media, from NBC to Al-Jazeera, was more than happy to do the heavy lifting for the so-called religious groups opposing the bill.  Cries of racism, bigotry, and mayhem resonated with those who are generally susceptible to such rhetoric. 

Patriots rallied for the rule of law and held the politicians’ feet to the fire.  Speakers at the rally included mothers of Hispanic babies, victims of crimes of illegal immigration, and those exploited by the failed permissive policy on immigration.  Politicians, especially Alabama Senators, listened to the people, and stood firm on their promise to keep the law in place that upholds the rule of law.

The Department of Justice sued, but the bill was upheld in court.  

Immediately after the bill (HB 56) was passed, the unemployment rate began to drop.  Since the bill passed last legislative session, in some counties, unemployment has dropped dramatically. For example, unemployment has gone from 10%-6.9% in the former illegal immigrant hotbed of Marshall County, Alabama.

But social liberals don’t tire easily.  Fueled by the throngs of union-funded Occupiers, those opposed to the rule of law threatened that the crops would rot in the fields, because no legal workers would work under the conditions and for the pay that the illegal immigrants would.  

But they were wrong. 

In fact, Alabamians were starving for jobs and the supply was choked by a massive influx of illegals who swallowed up the jobs as they came available.  Legal Alabamians stood in line for blocks at job fairs hoping for their turn to work the job previously dominated by illegals. 

It worked.  Alabama went back to work.

Further, the same patriots who held the politicians’ feet to the fire with their rallies, local talk, and blogs, protected employees under the law, while the opposition supported the contention that people, any people, should sweat in the fields, with no protection from standard employment  law, or fair wages. In essense, we did the job that the unions wouldn’t do.   

Liberals had to face the irony and hypocrisy of their dichotomy that what they supported was a permanent underclass without the rights all men should enjoy. While conservatives championed the positive economic impact as the heavy social welfare burdens began to ease, the crowded emergency rooms thinned, and unemployment continued to drop. 

“In the last three months alone, we’ve seen an unprecedented drop of 1.7 percentage points,” said Alabama Republican Gov. Robert Bentley in a January 20 statement.

Alabama House Majority Leader Rep. Micky Hammon (R-Decatur) said the law is replacing illegal immigrant labor with Alabamians.

“Despite how desperately illegal immigrant sympathizers have tried to portray this law as somehow harmful to our state’s economy, the truth is more Alabamians are working today thanks in part to our decision to crack down on illegal immigration.”

Alabama’s unemployment rate has shrunk and they have added 35,400 new jobs since January of 2011. 

Other states should take notice.

KNIGHT: Left’s war on legal immigration and voter integrity – Washington Times

KNIGHT: Left’s war on legal immigration and voter integrity – Washington Times.

Democrats hope to make hay – and votes – from the mayhem

Anti-ACLU

By Robert Knight – The Washington Times

On Oct. 14, a federal judge blocked key portions of Alabama’s new immigration law after several groups, including the Obama Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), asked for an injunction. The Justice Department claims that states that assist in enforcing federal immigration laws are violating the constitutional separation of powers.

Really? If that’s so, I wonder if state police in Alabama are barred from arresting someone trying to pass counterfeit $100 bills because our currency is federal. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.” It doesn’t say anything about state troopers.

Likewise, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” State police arresting illegal aliens have nothing to do with deciding who can be naturalized.

“Does it really cause harm to the United States when a state informs the federal government of persons who are in violation of federal law and then leaves it to the federal government to decide whether to initiate deportation proceedings?” Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange wrote in the state’s response.

The attitude of U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s Justice Department in suing Alabama and Arizona and threatening to sue Indiana, is, “We’re not going to enforce the law, and you can’t, either, no matter what impact this is having on your state. And, we’re going to pitch the idea to Hispanics that only racists would want immigration laws enforced. By the way, here are directions in Spanish to your local polling place.”

It should be noted that a great many Hispanic Americans want border enforcement.

Aiding and abetting, as usual, is the ACLU, which seems to develop a nervous tic at the very thought of American sovereignty and has sued several other states over their immigration laws, including Georgia and South Carolina.

The ACLU’s immigrants rights Web page declares: “No human being is illegal.”

Well, of course no human being is illegal. This is nonsense – a straw-man argument. People are not illegal, just their actions are, such as entering the country illegally or knowingly employing someone who is here illegally.

The page states: “For more than twenty years, the Project has been … focusing on challenging laws that deny immigrants’ access to the courts, impose indefinite and mandatory detention and discriminate on the basis of nationality.”

Well, it’s true that illegal immigrants are entitled to fair treatment and due process. As the Bible admonishes, “Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were once aliens in Egypt.” (Deuteronomy. 10:19) However, stretching this to justify mass illegal immigration is, well, a stretch. If Israel interpreted it that way, it would shortly no longer exist. Neither would the United States of America.

Think about that last phrase in the ACLU’s statement – “discriminate on the basis of nationality.” Every nation discriminates between its own citizens and other people. Abolishing this distinction would mean that U.S. citizenship would be dead.

This is the legal equivalent of open borders. It also would turn legal immigration into a cruel joke, in which people who play by the rules are last in line.

The ACLU also has declared war on states trying to ensure that the people pulling levers at the ballot box are qualified and are whom they claim to be. The ACLU has threatened to file a lawsuit against a proposed Ohio photo-ID voting law and is suing to block a Missouri ballot amendment that would tighten voter ID.

The recently defunct ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), prosecuted in multiple states on voter-fraud charges, is ramping up under new guises.

Against obvious voter fraud like Al Franken’s car-trunk ballots in Minnesota in 2008 as well as the typically vigorous turnout from cemeteries in Chicago and other large cities, Republican legislators are trying to even the playing field or at least keep it from resembling the Dawn of the Dead.

Leftists claim that photo-ID requirements are akin to poll taxes and Jim Crow. Why? Because voters will have to purchase a photo or have a valid driver’s license or other photo ID. Georgia authorized free photo IDs, but that has not stopped the overheated accusers, who have stopped just short of calling it a form of lynching.

Not all Democrats have fallen for the demagoguery. Former Rep. Artur Davis, Alabama Democrat, wrote in the Montgomery Advertiser on Oct. 17, “I’ve changed my mind on voter ID laws – I think Alabama did the right thing in passing one – and I wish I had gotten it right when I was in political office. When I was a congressman, I took the path of least resistance on this subject for an African-American politician. Without any evidence to back it up, I lapsed into the rhetoric of various partisans and activists who contend that requiring photo identification to vote is a suppression tactic aimed at thwarting black voter participation. … it is chilling to see the intimidation tactics brought to bear on African-American, Democratic legislators in Rhode Island who had the nerve to support a voter ID law in that very liberal state.”

The left thrives on voter fraud, illegal immigration, billions in taxpayer money to cronies (Solyndra, etc.) and a “mainstream media” that look the other way.

The good news is that independents have had about enough. And the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations are supposed to rally President Obama’s base, but their base behavior is alienating millions. The New York Times and CBS won’t show the vandalism and the obscenity-laced signs and banners, but they’re available on the Internet.

With Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other liberals egging them on, the drugged-up demonstrators are becoming poster children for the Democrats’ metastasizing lawlessness. Are they to become the face of that once great political party?

Make a mess in the public square? “Yes, we can!” Obey the law? “No, we won’t!”

Robert Knight is a senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for The Washington Times.

Bama Boosts Borders: The Immigration Controversy

Bama Boosts Borders: The Immigration Controversy.

By Quin Hillyer

Note: I host a weekly radio show on Thursday nights on WAVH-FM in Mobile, AL. Last week’s topic was Alabama’s controversial new law against illegal immigrants. Below is my opening monologue, slightly shortened and adapted into a news-column format.

It’s time to ask the question: What part of the word “IL-legal” do some people not understand?

IL-legal. Unlawful. Against the law. Not allowed. Verboten. Forbidden.

I hate to do this, but I’m extremely frustrated, as should we all be, with my former colleagues in the Alabama media. The newspapers, news and editorial sides alike, have turned into virtual campaign organs against Alabama’s new law dealing with illegal immigrants.

Day after day after day come the stories. The horrors for the poor illegals. The fear experienced even by perfectly legal Hispanic immigrants. Even the legal ones leaving their jobs or leaving schools. The produce rotting in the fields. Oh, the humanity!

Give …. Me …. A …. Break!

Instead of reporting about how scared the perfectly legal immigrants might be, why not actually do the job of reporting that the new law does not affect legal residents? Rather than report the fear, how about reporting the facts to dispel the fear. The simple fact is that not a single legal resident has personal reason to fear this law.

Oh, sure, the media thinks even the legal ones might suffer because they’ll be ethnically profiled. Really? The law explicitly disallows such profiling. What’s the deal: Does the establishment media think Alabama cops will break the law? Do they think Alabama cops are irredeemably racist?

Well… If the law leads to actual instances of improper profiling, then report on it. Until then, stop crusading. The climate of fear, if it exists at all, exists only because of misinformation. It exists in large part because the establishment media isn’t just reporting the fear but fanning the flames. It’s alarmism, pure and simple.

As for those IL-legal residents who now are fleeing: Good. That’s the point.

Now, let me be clear. Like Ronald Reagan, I actually would welcome more immigrants, not fewer. I think work visas should be easier to acquire through legitimate means. I think more visas for skilled specialists should be awarded. I think the whole immigration and naturalization system should be streamlined, modernized and humanized.

If people want to come here and work hard and abide by the rules, more power to them. Welcome to the United States. Come make us a better nation.

But don’t – don’t you dare, ever – make your first act in the country an act of lawbreaking. I don’t care why you do it: If you break our laws, you deserve no hospitality, at least not from our government or our employers.

There are good reasons for immigration laws. They aren’t about keeping out people who look different from us. They aren’t about keeping out those we consider alien. But this is about ensuring that those who come to this land of ordered liberty will understand and respect both sides of the equation, both the liberty and the order. It’s about making sure that our melting pot of cultures still maintains a common culture, while ensuring that people who come here understand our laws, understand our customs and at least make efforts, yes, to understand and speak our language.

Italians came and learned our language. So did Poles. So did Germans. So have people of all nationalities always done. A society is bound by common understandings and by a common tongue.  There’s no reason new immigrants can’t be expected to acculturate, or at least try. Sure, bring your culture. We’ll celebrate it as an addition to our own. But not as a replacement for our own.

Those have been among the historic reasons for having rules and standards for immigration rather than just having totally open borders. But now they aren’t the only reasons. In the modern world, and especially after 9/11, patrolling our borders and keeping tabs on who enters here is absolutely essential for public safety. Every year, statistics show, hundreds of illegal aliens from nations that harbor terrorists come across our southern border.

To protect our citizens, we need to know who is coming in and why. It’s a perfectly legitimate requirement. And to violate that requirement, to violate those perfectly sensible laws, is not excusable. If Alabama’s law makes an illegal alien feel unwelcome, then thank goodness for the Alabama law.

This doesn’t mean Alabama’s law is perfect. It doesn’t even necessarily mean it is constitutional. If it actually violates the Constitution, then to whatever extent it does violate the Constitution, Alabama’s statute is itself unlawful.

But, really, it is absurd to read the Constitution in such a way as to say that states can’t pass laws that merely implement existing federal law. Just because a current president doesn’t like a law and doesn’t want to implement it does not mean that it’s not the law. It may not be his policy, but it’s still the law. If a state wants to act in concert with the law as written, no matter how much it might contradict what the president personally wants, the state has a constitutional right to do so. It is federal law, not a president’s whim, which is supreme in matters of immigration. Alabama is wise to insist on that distinction.

The law of intended consequences. – Tea Party Nation

The law of intended consequences. – Tea Party Nation.

If there is a good law or idea that benefits America and Americans, you can bet the Obama regime is not only going to not like the idea, they are going to actively oppose it and do everything in their power to kill it.

 Alabama recently passed a law to drive illegal aliens from the state.   This is not only a great idea, but the people of Alabama want their resources to go to American citizens and legal residents.

 So what did the Obama regime do?

 It filed suit to prevent enforcement of the Alabama law.

 Alabama passed a law this year to deal with a huge problem: illegal immigration.  Illegal aliens overwhelm schools, hospitals and other public services.  Illegals drive without driver’s licenses or insurance.  They commit crimes. 

 Alabama became fed up with the Federal government so it passed its own law that makes life very difficult for illegal aliens.  The intended consequence of the law was to drive illegals from Alabama. 

 Of course, if the Obama regime is given the choice between supporting Americans and supporting foreigners, particularly those interested in breaking American laws, it will come down on the side that is against America and Americans.

 The Obama regime Department of Justice filed suit to stop enforcement of the Alabama law.   On September 28th, Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn ruled that Federal law preempted a few provisions of the law and thus Alabama could not enforce them.  But she ruled that a majority of the law was enforceable and she refused to stop enforcement of the law.

 Among other things, the parts of the law that have been allowed to be enforce include requiring employers to use E-verify, requiring Elementary and Secondary schools to verify the immigration status of students and nullifying contracts entered into with illegal aliens.

 Not surprisingly, the Obama regime and the Party of Treason are offended that Americans want to see immigration laws enforced.  The Obama regime has now filed an appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 From the ABA Journal:

 In a filing today, the DOJ asked the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an emergency stay barring enforcement of the law until its constitutionality can be determined, according to CNN and Reuters.

“News accounts confirm that the law is having its intended but impermissible consequences of driving aliens from the state,” the DOJ said in its filing. The department contends that the state law unconstitutionally infringes on the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration.

Under the new law, at least as a practical matter, Alabama citizens and other legal residents who are stopped by police for any reason can be jailed if they can’t provide documentation to show they are in the country legally, according to news reports.

The law also denies business and driver’s licenses to those who aren’t legally in the U.S. and permits the state to require schools to determine the immigration status of students. Some parents are already keeping their children home, the DOJ says.

 D’oh!

 That is the purpose of the law. 

 Ronald Reagan once said, “A nation without borders is not a nation.”   Erasing our borders is a long-standing goal of the Party of Treason.  We have to keep pushing to make sure the Party of Treason is voted out of power in 2012 and is never allowed back into any position of power in this country again!

Surprise! It works! – Tea Party Nation

Surprise! It works! – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips on October 1, 2011 in Tea Party Nation Forum

This should not come as a surprise to anyone, but immigration laws at the state level work.   A Federal Judge refused to issue an injunction stopping the enforcement of a law in Alabama, which among other things, required school districts to check the immigration status of the children.

 From Fox News:

 BIRMINGHAM, Ala. –  Hispanic students have started vanishing from Alabama public schools in the wake of a court ruling that upheld the state’s tough new law cracking down on illegal immigration.

Education officials say scores of immigrant families have withdrawn their children from classes or kept them home this week, afraid that sending the kids to school would draw attention from authorities.

There are no precise statewide numbers. But several districts with large immigrant enrollments — from small towns to large urban districts — reported a sudden exodus of children of Hispanic parents, some of whom told officials they planned to leave the state to avoid trouble with the law, which requires schools to check students’ immigration status.

 Of course, the Educrats are working their way around the law, making television appearances, pleading for the illegals to come back and assuring them that nothing will happen.

 Unfortunately for America, Obama and the Party of Treason want illegal immigration.  They want to erase the border and cause as much damage to America as they can.

 From Fox News:

 After suing Arizona and Alabama over their strict immigration laws, the Obama administration is seriously weighing whether to legally challenge similar measures in four other states.

“To the extent we find state laws that interfere with the federal government’s enforcement of immigration law, we are prepared to bring suit,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa. “The department is currently reviewing immigration-related laws that were passed in Utah, Indiana, Georgia and South Carolina.”

“In reviewing these, the department is proceeding consistently with the process followed and the legal principles established in United States v. Arizona,” she said. “Based on that review and applying those principles, the United States will decide whether and when to bring suit challenging particular state laws.”

 Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees federal immigration policy, criticized the administration’s move.

“The administration should be working with states, not against them, to enforce our immigration laws,” he said. “This latest attempt to challenge a state’s efforts to enforce the rule of law, while turning a blind eye to cities and states that knowingly harbor illegal immigrants through sanctuary policies, is undermining the very same rule of law that our country was built on.”

Arizona set the stage last year for the epic battle between the states and the federal government over cracking down on illegal immigration. Arizona passed its law in April 2010 after years of complaints that the federal government hasn’t done enough to assist Arizona, the nation’s busiest illegal entry point, with border security. The legislation inspired protests, led to lawsuits seeking to overturn the law and sparked a debate about whether the law would lead to racial profiling.

A federal judge blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s law last year after the U.S. Department of Justice sued, arguing the law intrudes on the federal government’s exclusive powers to regulate immigration. A federal appeals court judge upheld the decision and Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 Grassley got it right.  The Obama regime is working against the state and against the American people.

 As we look to 2012, we need to make sure we elect Republicans who stand with America, not against her!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,553 other followers