Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Issue of the Week: Unconstitutional ALEC-Written Immigration Bill Rebuked
The dangerous agenda of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) was partially rebuked by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, when the justices decided that three of four contested portions of an Arizona immigration law were unconstitutional. The most controversial part of the bill—the “show me your papers” mandate—is intact but is hanging by a thread.
Those familiar with ALEC's antics know that the alleged free-market think tank promotes a for-profit corporate agenda by pairing state legislators with conservative corporate representatives to write “model legislation” that is introduced in statehouses throughout the country. Arizona's immigration law, known as SB 1070, is one such law. According to investigations by NPR and the Madison-based Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), the bill was written with the blessing of the National Rifle Association (NRA), the for-profit prison company Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and the for-profit bail bond industry. These entities stand to gain from the increased detention of immigrants, since it would be a way to boost revenues.
Unfortunately for these corporations, their legislation is unconstitutional because the justices ruled that state law cannot trump federal immigration law and state law enforcement cannot do the work of federal immigration agents.
That said, we cannot breathe a sigh of relief now that the majority of the justices have pushed back against ALEC's agenda.
First off, the “show me your papers” portion remains for now. But the justices opened the door to legal challenges based on evidence of racial profiling. Since the law hasn't been implemented, there's no evidence to present right now. When it does go into effect, we'll see whether local law enforcement officers are using the law to harass and detain people who just don't look sufficiently “American.”
Another reason to worry is that the fingerprints of the ALEC bill can be found in other state laws around the country. In Wisconsin, state Rep. Don Pridemore (R-Hartford), a member of ALEC, has authored a bill that CMD has argued is influenced by the same ALEC model legislation that supported Arizona's now largely unconstitutional law. Pridemore's bill requires local law enforcement to obtain someone's proof of lawful residency once that person has been arrested—not convicted of a crime, but arrested. If the person under arrest cannot produce that information as soon as he or she is arrested or charged with a crime, that person “may be held in secured custody for up to 48 hours to allow the person to obtain documentation of his or her lawful presence.” If that documentation doesn't materialize, law enforcement “must” transport that person to a federal immigration or border patrol agency.
Pridemore's bill states that officers may not consider a person's race, color or national origin when asking for identification and that local law enforcement must get the authorization of the feds to verify the person's lawful presence.
But these “protections” are pretty shaky.
Pridemore's bill contains provisions that sound dangerously close to the portions of Arizona's ALEC-written bill that were declared unconstitutional.
His bill didn't get a committee hearing in the last legislative session.
For the sake of our state, and the health of our constitution and communities, let's hope that un-American bills like this don't see the light of day in the next session.
Those familiar with ALEC's antics know that the alleged free-market think tank promotes a for-profit corporate agenda by pairing state legislators with conservative corporate representatives to write “model legislation” that is introduced in statehouses throughout the country. Arizona's immigration law, known as SB 1070, is one such law. According to investigations by NPR and the Madison-based Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), the bill was written with the blessing of the National Rifle Association (NRA), the for-profit prison company Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and the for-profit bail bond industry. These entities stand to gain from the increased detention of immigrants, since it would be a way to boost revenues.
Unfortunately for these corporations, their legislation is unconstitutional because the justices ruled that state law cannot trump federal immigration law and state law enforcement cannot do the work of federal immigration agents.
That said, we cannot breathe a sigh of relief now that the majority of the justices have pushed back against ALEC's agenda.
First off, the “show me your papers” portion remains for now. But the justices opened the door to legal challenges based on evidence of racial profiling. Since the law hasn't been implemented, there's no evidence to present right now. When it does go into effect, we'll see whether local law enforcement officers are using the law to harass and detain people who just don't look sufficiently “American.”
Another reason to worry is that the fingerprints of the ALEC bill can be found in other state laws around the country. In Wisconsin, state Rep. Don Pridemore (R-Hartford), a member of ALEC, has authored a bill that CMD has argued is influenced by the same ALEC model legislation that supported Arizona's now largely unconstitutional law. Pridemore's bill requires local law enforcement to obtain someone's proof of lawful residency once that person has been arrested—not convicted of a crime, but arrested. If the person under arrest cannot produce that information as soon as he or she is arrested or charged with a crime, that person “may be held in secured custody for up to 48 hours to allow the person to obtain documentation of his or her lawful presence.” If that documentation doesn't materialize, law enforcement “must” transport that person to a federal immigration or border patrol agency.
Pridemore's bill states that officers may not consider a person's race, color or national origin when asking for identification and that local law enforcement must get the authorization of the feds to verify the person's lawful presence.
But these “protections” are pretty shaky.
Pridemore's bill contains provisions that sound dangerously close to the portions of Arizona's ALEC-written bill that were declared unconstitutional.
His bill didn't get a committee hearing in the last legislative session.
For the sake of our state, and the health of our constitution and communities, let's hope that un-American bills like this don't see the light of day in the next session.
2) I'll tell you why there is this wave of illegal immigrants, and work permits to legal immigrants does not work. There are rules that say the work visa cannot be granted unless the hiring company cannot fill that job with a US Citizen. I know, I've been to job interviews where the interviewer told me that my interview was just a front for that purpose. They had to interview some Americans and find them unqualified. Yeah, like I am unqualified because I am used to a higher pay grade than they are offering for this immigrant who has no idea what it costs to live here.
Now, tell me that the unskilled illegals crossing the border have skills that cannot be filled by an American? There is your Business Case on both angles.
On ALEC inspired "Show me your papers", and you think racial profiling is not going to happen anyway? I look at all the Wisconsin people who have all sorts of reasons to say no to a person of color, and not one of them will explicitly call out race. They work overtime to to hide their racist intentions, except when they are in like company that they know will not squeal on them, like a south-side bar-stool, or a country club locker room.
Down in one Atlanta suburb, the cops just pulled over some Mexicans if they are commiting any minor infraction. No papers, they deport them. Fast and quick. Dad doesn't show up for dinner because he's on a bus to the border. Pretty soon none of the are driving and have to take cabs. Vacancy rates rise in the low rider complexes as many just move away. The men hangng out in the Home Depot parking lot looking for day work, the crowd gets smaller.
I would also make any student in public schools who is not a US citizen to pay tuition.
Seriously, I think if I just showed up in Canada and expected them to educated my kids and provide health care if I'm on a work or visitors visa, they would probably send me back.
And Mexico, don't look for them to do you any favors being a US citizen.
More of the wacky from Waukesha.
1) You wouldn't know the purpose of a bill (((mentioned in the article))) if it "shook your hand" -sanitized for your protection. So you speak for ALEC now , as well as all Wisconsonites. Wow!! How do you get through doors? No, not Door County.
2)"I'll tell you why there is this wave of illegal immigrants, and work permits to legal immigrants does not work. " - sez you. You're trying to say something. I can feel it through the computer monitor. In any event, no, as in negative, there are very few white US citizens clamoring to pick produce in the hot sun nor to slice up raw sections of farm animals in unsanitary/septic , hazardous conditions for less than minimum wage. To even consider spewing that much alreeady refuted blather is delusional at best.
3) Hey, everyone does it, so let's overlook it too, is the excuse you're peddling??? Seriously??? More low-effort BS. By that prodigeous lack of logic, crimes are committed every day, so let's just stop arresting criminals. Murder happens daily, so why bother to arrest them? It'll save on all that pesky paperwork won't it?
This article wasn't even about ACA / Obamacare. But for many of you, that decision just poured a tanker of gasoline onto this immigration fire. - In the JS articles, not much being written on the Arizona decision, but the articles on ACA are just non-stop!
Bottom line on the ACA... I know that YOU want the right to personally PREJUDGE and DISCRIMINATE on who you choose to do business with, but should a business or someone else be able to discriminate on YOU, especially regarding your pre-existing conditions (or genetic pre-disposition, as will be demanded someday by private health insurance providers, just like every business today already demands our Social Security number, that identifying fingerprint into our financial past)
We had this Federal Supremacy battle over 200 years ago, and it is not over yet. Should states be allowed to go their own way, get DC out of their own people's "business"? Or should DC be empowered to force all states (private businesses too) to play by the same rules, deal with each other with fairness, not take advantage of another state's consumers. (Like selling health insurance across state lines without also being regulated to deliver the same level of service)
Any time you want a rule imposed on someone else, are you ready to have that same rule imposed on you? That's called being fair and a good sport, something we all value.
But if you would rather be like a Muslim, and deem non-muslims to not be human, or be like an Aryan Nazi and deem the "swarthy" east Europeans and Jews to be less than human... do you see such attitudes in your own life? If laying down with them (for good or bad) makes a baby that can grow up and make more babies, then they are human!