|Written by R. Cort Kirkwood|
|Monday, 08 August 2011 09:56|
Sixteen nations, all of them sources of illegal aliens who cross Mexico’s border into the United States, have filed briefs concurring with the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit against Alabama to block the enforcement of the state’s newly passed immigration law. The briefs claim the law, HB 56, impedes the relations between the United States and those nations, the Montgomery Advertiser reports.
Along with the Justice Department’s attack on Alabama, another challenge to the law came from the usual coalition of open-borders advocates, including Mobile's Roman Catholic archbishop, who has used the issue to press the case that tough immigration laws are inherently racist.
A federal judge has consolidated the lawsuits.
According to the Advertiser, the briefs say the law threatens the rights of the illegals. Leading the charge, unsurprisingly, is Mexico, whose brief stated, "Mexico has an interest in protecting its citizens and ensuring that their ethnicity is not used as a basis for state-sanctioned acts of bias and discrimination."
As for the other countries, they’re just interested in fair treatment, their lawyer says. Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay joined in one brief, the paper reported.
Alabama passed HB 56 in June. As The New American reported, the law is matter of fiscal self defense for the state. Illegals cost Alabamians $298 million annually, the Federation for American Immigration Reform reports.
Addressing those costs, the bill ends public welfare and some public education benefits for illegals. Schools must collect information on illegal-alien children. Employers must verify the eligility of employees to work in the United States. The bill punishes anyone who harbors or tranports illegals.
The bill also requires the state Attorney General to negotiate a memorandum of understanding about immigration law between Alabama and the Departments of Justice or Homeland Security. Voters must prove they are citizens before casting ballots.
The codicil that upset the radical left, however, is that which mirrors Arizona’s law, which a federal judge invalidated. Alabama police are required to check the immigration status of anyone arrested for an offense that requires bail. Police must detain anyone whose immigration status they doubt.
Local governments and officials must help enforce federal or state immigration laws by notifying federal authorities when criminal illegals are in custody, HB 56 says, and it forbids state and local officials from refusing to cooperate in the enforcement of state and federal immigration laws.
Leftists Go Ballistic
After Gov. Robert Bentley signed HB 56 into law, opponents quickly counterattacked with a lawsuit to stop the bill from taking effect. The widely discredited leftist Southern Poverty Law Center claimed the law “perpetuates bigotry.”
The American Civil Liberties Union fretted that it legalized racial profiling.”
In its lawsuit, ACLU argued that HB 56 is flatly unconstitutional and trespasses, for instance, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Obama administration joined the attack this month. The Justice Department argues the same as what it argued in its successful lawsuit against Arizona’s tough immigration law: that Alabama is usurping federal authority.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder insisted that immigration enforcement is his job, not Alabama’s:
DOJ argues that “that various provisions of H.B. 56 conflict with federal immigration law and undermine the federal government’s careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives.” As well, DOJ complained,
The question is whether the federal judge who hears this case will concur that Alabama has no power to protect itself from the fiscal, cultural, and criminal depredations of the illegal alien horde that costs state taxpayers $300 million annually.
How did Denmark finally decide to handle this problem that was crushing her? To find our, go here.