Latest threat to Alabama?
Alabama passed its own immigration law, HB 56, the "Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act" . It stinks. Parts of it
recently survived an initial court challenge. Of the surviving sections are school enrollment procedures. Section 28, summarized by the "learned" judge, provides:
H.B. 56 § 28, which requires every public elementary and secondary school in Alabama to determine if an enrolling student was born outside the jurisdiction of the United States or is the child of an unlawfully present alien and qualifies for assignment to an English as second language class or other remedial program.
Four fear-stricken white men target Hispanic
children. Scott "They're aborigines" Beason
looks on at far left. (Alabama Governor Offc)
What this is however is a device to intimidate minorities into not placing their children into the public schools.
It should not surprise anyone that one of the racists behind this law was Scott "They're aborigines" Beason, whose sterling feats of statesmanship include wearing a wire during an FBI investigation into bribery of legislators by gambling interests:
Transcripts of conversations show him denigrating black people at the Greenetrack gambling hall.
But, don't worry, according to Huffpo:
Republican Party Chairman Bill Armistead says Beason is an honorable man who doesn't have a racist bone in his body.
If you want to understand how bad Alabama's law is, just on the school children alone, you have to get right of next to it and get a good whiff of this rotting carcass of racism, and I give you the opportunity below the fold.
In relevant detail, here's what Scott "Not a Racist Bone in his Body" Beason has crafted in Section 28 (edited for brevity).
Section 28. (a)(1) Every public school at the time of enrollment shall determine whether the student was born outside the jurisdiction of the United States or is the child of an alien not lawfully present in the United States and qualifies for assignment to an English as Second Language class or other remedial program.
(2) The public school shall rely upon the student’s birth certificate.
(3) If it the student was born outside the jurisdiction of the United States or is the child of an alien not lawfully present in the United States, or where such certificate is not available, the parent shall notify the school within 30 days of the date of the student’s enrollment of the actual citizenship or immigration status of the student under federal law.
(4) Notification shall consist of both of the following:
a. Official documentation establishing the citizenship and, in the case of an alien, the immigration status of the student;
b. Attestation, under penalty of perjury, that the document states the true identity of the child. If the parent has such documentation but still maintains that the student is either a U.S. citizen or an alien lawfully present in the U.S., the parent may sign a declaration so stating, under penalty of perjury.
(5) If no such documentation or declaration is presented, the school official shall presume the student is an alien unlawfully present in the U. S.
(b) Each school district submits a report to the State Board of Education, which then is to prepare a report.
(2) The report shall provide data, aggregated by public school, regarding the numbers of U.S. citizens, of lawfully present aliens by immigration classification, and of aliens believed to be unlawfully present in the U.S. enrolled at all primary and secondary public schools in this state. The report shall also provide the number of students in each category participating in English as a Second Language Programs enrolled at such schools.
(3) The report shall analyze and identify the effects upon the standard or quality of education provided to students who are citizens of the United States residing in Alabama that may have occurred, or are expected to occur in the future, as a consequence of the enrollment of students who are aliens not lawfully present in the United States.
Equal protection of the laws?
Alabama's big problem is
Plyler v. Doe where the Supreme Court, in a fit of sanity, held that it violated equal protection of the law for a state to refuse to provide public K-12 education to children who were not lawfully present in the United States, typically as a result of having been brought to this country by their parents. There are many ways that this legislation violates equal protection of the laws, but I think the key is that although the state must enroll the student in the school, regardless of immigration status, obviously the schools are being set up to act as intimidation mechanisms to discourage enrollment by anyone who fears being identified, rightly or wrongly, as unlawfully present.
Attack on "birthright" citizenship?
Notice the curious phrase "born outside the jurisdiction of the United States", which it seems is an invitation to invoke the wingnut's favorite theory that a child born in the United States but of parents not legally present, is not a citizen under the 14th Amendment because the child is not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." It's not surprising to learn that at a convention of state legislators devoted to ending "birthright" citizenship Pennsylvania Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R) said that he expected Alabama, among other states, to be introducing anti-birthright citizenship legislation.
It's typical for these bullies to feel particularly threatened by small children, whom they call "anchor babies". From earlier this year:
“This country has a malady, and it is costing her citizens dearly,” added South Carolina State Sen. Danny Verdin (R). He added that the rise in number of what he called “anchor babies” – children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants – had created a problem of epic proportions. “It’s just as bad to be poisoned over time as to have a sudden lethal dose.” (source)
Attack upon non-English speaking children.
Also note that Alabama wants to know if a child born in the United States, but who has illegal immigrant parents, is in remedial English. This is of course an invitation to inquire into the immigration status of the parents, even if the child has a U.S. birth certificate. How else does one explain the language born outside the jurisdiction of the United States or is the child of an alien not lawfully present in the United States and qualifies for assignment to an English as Second Language class or other remedial program. It is twice repeated in the statute. Clearly the legislature contemplates targeting children for the intimidation this statute will bring based on the language of their parents
Invitation to intimidation and vigilantism?
Then we see the curious requirement that the state publish a breakdown, school by school, of how many citizen, lawful resident, and unlawfully present children there are in each school. What possible purpose can that serve? Would it not be sufficient to give a statewide total? No, the obvious purpose is to single out schools, for disapproval, those who have "too many" of the wrong kind of children. One could readily see protestors organized outside such schools, waving signs, maybe even shouting, at parents perceived as foreigners who might be dropping off or picking up children. It wouldn't take long for people to pack up and leave the state under those circumstances, and of course that would be the true purpose of the law.
The main goal: kick the Hispanic kids out of school.
Now, over at the normally looney National Review a few days ago there was an unusually sympathetic article written by Kevin D. Williamson in favor of Governor Perry's (then) immigration position, in that case, favoring in state tuition for illegal immigrant children who have graduated from high school. Among the disdainful comments there, was one from "afavish" who posted a recipe for dispensing with ''Plyler v. Doe'', the short version of which is that if the state could show what a bundle of money it's costing to educate K-12 children here in violation of immigration laws, they could cut off the education without running afoul of Plyler.