Posted on April 7, 2011

Alabama Lawmakers Adopt Arizona-Style Immigration Laws

Daily Mail (London), April 6, 2011

The Arizona-style crackdown on illegal immigration looks set to be brought to Alabama after the state’s House of Representatives passed the measure.

Despite opposition from Democrats and civil rights groups, it was passed by 73 votes to 28 on Tuesday and will now go to the Alabama Senate for a vote.

The bill gives state and local police broad powers to check the immigration status of people detained on other charges.

It would also require businesses in the state to run checks on new employees through a federal computer database, and use a state verification program to deny public services to illegal immigrants.

Republican Micky Hammon, who sponsored the bill, told the House: ‘We cannot allow Alabama to become a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants.’

The law is similar to the controversial anti-immigration measure passed by Arizona last year that sparked a legal fight and a confrontation with the federal government.

During a vigorous debate, legislators voiced concerns over the additional cost the crackdown would place on already strained state and civic budgets.

Rights groups said they were concerned that it would lead to racial profiling in the state, which has a long history of civil rights violations, and infringe the federal government’s duty to enforce immigration laws.

When Arizona passed the new immigration laws last year it sparked a legal fight and a confrontation with the federal government for a variety of reasons

Legal director of the non-profit Alabama Appleseed organization Shay Farley said: ‘This is 100 per cent the responsibility of the federal government and states cannot usurp that power.

‘It will cause more problems that it solves.’

Alabama is not the only state which will adopt the Arizona-inspired immigration measures, similar proposals are proceeding through legislatures in Georgia, Indiana, Oklahoma and South Carolina.

Lawmakers in Arizona, Nebraska, Kentucky and Kansas have ditched or killed off tough immigration measures in recent weeks, amid concerns over potentially costly litigation, economic boycotts and the practicality of enforcing the laws.

Mark Jones, a Rice University political science professor, said: ‘At one level, a lot of people realized that many of these reforms are more symbolic than anything else.

‘Some will get blocked in the courts because immigration is really a federal prerogative, and others because they are viewed as unconstitutional due to the discriminatory or racial profiling aspect.’

13 responses to “Alabama Lawmakers Adopt Arizona-Style Immigration Laws”

  1. highduke says:

    Good move and a blow to anti-govt types on the right. WNs need to grasp that you have to work step by step protractedly toward liberation, just like the left did for their goals. If the GOP/TeaParty ain’t White enough for you, then log-off your computer, become their activist and spread pro-White sentiment covertly. Be as motivated with your good intentions as Leftists are with their evil ones.

  2. Anonymous says:

    The latest census makes it perfectly crystal clear that the US is splitting into two, maybe three separate nations, based on race. You can see some pretty clear borders ALREADY IN PLACE, just looking at that census data on a population map.

    Interesting how there are two types of states developing….those that tolerate, even encourage, unlimited immigration plus unlimited non-white welfare. And those that do not.

    And what a coincidence that the federal government is being put on notice that it WILL slash its spending to the bone….or it will be shut down (we’ll see what tomorrow morning brings).

    What does this mean except a fundamental difference of opinion, fueled by race, has manifested. The states that have filled themselves to the brim with non-whites expect the white states to pay for it. The white states refuse and the manner by which they have been forced to in the past (federal spending) is breaking down.

    I think every white person should take a close look at that census map. It may become VERY important in the VERY near future, what side of those VERY real borders you live on.

    Lest a modern day iron curtain go up.

  3. Memphomaniac says:

    Bank robbing is a Federal crime. So is kidnapping/ransom. So is counterfeiting the currency. But I never heard the FBI tell the local police to not apprehend people who do such things. The FBI also has (still) a Ten Most Wanted list. Why is that? So the public and local law enforcement can ASSIST in their capture.

    There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says no one can assist the Federal government in fighting the criminal element. It does say that CONGRESS will make uniform rules for immigration and naturalization for all of the states. They do that. Says nothing about the Feds ignoring those laws when they feel like it….nor can anyone else.

  4. Tom S. says:

    *During a vigorous debate, legislators voiced concerns over the additional cost the crackdown would place on already strained state and civic budgets.

    I’m no economist – BUT – what about the additional cost that thousands of illegals would place on those budgets? Common sense tells me that in the short AND long term, this “crackdown” would SAVE money.

    *and infringe the federal government’s duty to enforce immigration laws.

    Couldn’t they get around this by sending thoses caught to New York? I mean didn’t Gov. Cuomo just say that they would welcome them there? That way they wouldn’t actually be “deporting” them from the country, they would be sending them where they were “needed”.

  5. Question Diversity says:

    3 Memphomaniac:

    It’s even more than that. If you witness a Federal crime and refuse to tell a law enforcement officer of any jurisdiction (truthfully) what you saw, and the U.S. Attorneys can prove that you knew but held back, that itself is a Federal crime — Obstruction of justice.

    If you are a member of a city council, and you pass a local ordinance that disallows your city’s cops from participating in FBI investigations of “civil rights” violations, (or most other Federal crimes), thereby creating a “sanctuary city” for those given Federal crimes, the U.S. Attorneys can charge the city council members who vote for such an ordinance and the city cops who followed such an ordinance in the face of an FBI investigation for obstruction of justice.

    I was not aware of this until after he died, but the late Yankees owner George Steinbrenner was a convicted Federal felon from 1974 until Reagan pardoned him in 1989. His crime was that he ordered several of his employees in the Yankee organization to lie to the FBI when they came asking about potentially (and what were really) illegal monetary contributions on his part to Richard Nixon’s re-election campaign. The employees wound up telling the FBI the truth, and that Steinbrenner wanted them to lie, so the FBI popped Steinbrenner for not only the illegal campaign contribution, but also the attempt to obstruct justice.

    The only field of Federal law where this seems to break down is immigration.

  6. Grob Hahn says:

    “We cannot allow Alabama to become a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants.”

    Until our lawmakers quit calling them “immigrants” I’m going to have a hard time taking them seriously. People who illegally cross borders are NOT immigrants. Calling them immigrants is nearly the equivalent of calling rapists gynecologists. This is a tough issue that doesn’t need lawmakers hiding behind frivolous language. Not calling the issue what it is trivializes it and makes it easy for opponents to dismantle it the way it is being sectioned in Arizona. And everyone who says it is too expensive to kick interlopers out needs to be flogged, their agenda is too obvious.


  7. Ben says:

    @ Memphomaniac

    “I’m no economist – BUT – what about the additional cost that thousands of illegals would place on those budgets? Common sense tells me that in the short AND long term, this “crackdown” would SAVE money.”

    Well there is a cost. The additional cost lie within the law enforcement and the justice department in general (meaning courts, public lawyers, etc). Cost to house detainees waiting for deportation or court. The cost of deportation, etc.

    There is additional cost for this course of action, no doubt.

    The question is which option will cost more and/or have long term negative effects? Allowing them to stay or deportation?

  8. underdog says:

    The best example of “concurrent enforcement” of state and federal laws is to be found in taxation law (income, fuel, liquor, tobacco, dope, gambling) related enforcement and investigations. Another example is state wildlife cops who can drag you into federal courts for certain hunting violations. Fraud against financial institutions, political campaign activities and finance also come to mind as areas of concurrent enforcement. Also boating laws. The last time I was reported for buzzing a residential neighborhood in a light plane, it was local cops who came out to the local airport looking for a plane with a general layman’s description (they had no numbers) of mine. That was an FAA matter and there was not a single state criminal statute on the books about buzzing houses with airplanes. Their investigation lead nowhere.

  9. underdog says:

    As this recent Vdare piece sugests, I’m of the mind that a lot of this state Republican legislative activity is just Glenn Beck style bread and circus “White pandering noise” for popular sound bite re-election campaign purposes.

  10. John says:

    Ok now!!! I read all the comments so far, I agree with the most. The most important part of this law will that of protecting what is ours. The law will protect the welfare of American people, white, black, yellow,etc. Think about this, if most of the illegal immigrants will be deported, new jobs will arise. Having open jobs on the market, people who are on unemployment compensation will have a chance to get a job. All of us know that moat of the illegal immigrants have a job, that’s they are here.

    I do agree with this law, to enforce immigration law is easier/cheaper than chasing a murderer.

  11. Anonymous says:

    “The only field of Federal law where this seems to break down is immigration.” — QD


    Well then, that reveals (if anything does) just how immensely important the issue of immigration is to certain powerful groups among us. This is the one issue on which they will not compromise.

    And some naive whites think the movement is led by just a few lefty loonies and some low-IQ mestizos!

  12. Anonymous says:

    It’s not enough to be rid of the current interlopers. We must create conditions where defacto and real amnestied foreign individuals are not allowed to participate in a continuing welfare system where they are permanent transfer payment beneficiaries at the cost of working whites.

    We must also face up to the reality of finding replacement sources for the lost, cheap, labor. Whites work well together when they perceive a dire need or a reasonable degree of self benefit.

    Getting people to assume positions in the landscaping, home and child care markets and some construction is going to mean understanding what the costs of PAYING whites to fulfill those lower social roles are.

    Including training an entire new generation of replacement workers now that those working class whites have been divested and disenfranchised from such positions for 20+ years.

    I personally believe the only way to get whites to invest in the concept of mutualism is a fivefold approach:

    1. To pay them outside the normal salaried level.

    With housing benefits. With vehicle loans. With education for their children. i.e. With all the things that are now going to non-whites. I am all for getting people a lifestyle change which provides them with assured housing and food. But only for our own.

    2. To give them the benefits of ‘company ownership’.

    Even at a small scale level. We are now at the point where robotics are within 5 years of allowing ONE MAN to gain the sum profits from a working crew of 5 laborers.

    Be it house painting, lawn mowing or trash removal.

    If you pay robots 15,000 dollars each and their owner 25,000 dollars each, taxing the sum earnings of the company effort by _50%_ would still leave you with 5X15 + 25 X.5 = 50,000 dollars, free and clear. Which is more than U.S. autoworkers got at the height of their union days and more importantly _can do more labor_ for the payment.

    3. Create separate labor rewards programs.

    For prison populations (.25/year sentence lowering per work season). For college students (10,000 dollars/season). For the elderly/maternal (part time, expertise driven). For those limited, seasonal, specialist ethnies that will sign up to ride a combine or stoop to pick veggies. And then go home.

    4. Remove federal taxes.

    It is absurd to tithe a person’s productivity, twice. It is also highly Unconstitutional. We should and CAN control the Federal deficit by taxing the profits of industry and individuals COMBINED. Leaving property tax out of it. And then having a fixed percentage of that total take be delegated to a limited federal oversight of parks, education, defense and science research.

    This way, if a State has a period of bad years, it can retain those levels of taxation necessary to remain solvent and fiscally responsible to it’s local residents. While the Feds can choose to either invest or spend money, on a yearly basis, but cannot take more than what the States need to the point where (as now, with the GWOT) they are driven into bankruptcy.

    Obviously, poorer states would have to be charged less and ones already in default would have to ‘buy their way out’. For basket cases like California, this would be a firm driver towards proper immigration control overall as it would limit State welfare during a bailout process.

    5. We need to reexamine the ‘equalities’ issue.

    If someone doesn’t want to work or cannot work at a level where they are able to satisfy their needs, they should be put on a dole rather than compromising the integrity of the work and educational systems with ‘equal access’ as quotas. OTOH, they should also be sterilized, until their social position or work ethic changes.

    Similarly, we should _seriously_ consider doing what Hitler did in PAYING women to pull out of the work force and sending them home to create families with continuing financial incentives (personal stipend) and promises of later work training to return if they so desire. As compensation for their loss, we should reraise male wages to increase their attraction as partners and streamline as much of our economy away from a ‘gender neutral’ job market as possible, reinvigorating home manufacture for one.

    It is better to sustain a 2.14 TFR and not be overrun by alien ethnies than it is to disable patriarchy for it’s own ‘evil white males’ sake.

    If this is not possible for reasons of ‘social change’ then we need to look into exogenics in a BIG WAY so that having 2-3 children does not disrupt a family’s work plan. And so that we can apply genomic therapies without risk to the mother in correcting the worst of birth defects in high risk populations while overall raising our intelligence and physical capabilities.

    It’s not just the war on illegals people. It’s having a plan for what comes after that doesn’t make us all look like ninny’s for wanting what was bad for us.

    The aftermath of victory is where we prove we were right all along.

  13. chapina says:

    Please people stop it. They are only here to work not like us. Have you ever seen a hispanic homeless asking for money on the street no right I only see Americans people. They love to work only and not like us we just hate working and we are lazy to work. Think about when yall go to their country do you think they will kick yall out like what yall doing to them. Think about your families.Please we are humans and they are too.