We Don't Want to Be Alabama
Alabamians have worked for fifty years to erase the reputation the state earned for itself during the Civil Rights Movement--the darkest time in Alabama's history. The indelible images of firemen literally knocking people off their feet with fire hoses and police dogs jumping to attack high school students burn an all-too-familiar picture in the minds of Alabamians. In less than one year, the state has managed to undo much of the progress that was made over the last fifty years and rewrite itself as a leader in denying basic civil rights to its residents. Alabama leaders were able to lure foreign investment into the state as three major auto manufacturers built and currently maintain plants in the state. Since the enactment of H.B. 56, state officials have arrested or stopped executives from two of those plants who had legal immigration status to interrogate them in accordance with H.B. 56. Alabamians merely need to look at their past to know that denying people basic civil rights, such as equal protection under the law, due to the color of their skin is wrong. March 7, 2012, marked forty-seven years since Bloody Sunday, a day when many protestors were brutally beaten and injured during a civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery. The reenactment of the march was heavily attended and included multiple speakers on rights being denied to Alabama residents due to H.B. 56. If Alabamians do not learn from their mistakes of the past century, they dishonor those who fought and died so that this one would be better for mankind.
Prior to enacting H.B. 56, Alabama possessed a crystal ball by which its residents could see the future it faced if the state passed a law similar to those in Arizona, Utah, and Georgia. Aiabamians had the opportunity to see the billions of dollars lost by the economies of other states due to boycotts, lost investments, and a gross shortage of immigrant labor to pick crops. Despite these alarming events, Alabama's elected officials decided to create an even more egregious immigration law than those states could muster. Prior to passing H.B. 56, Senator Beason suggested that Alabama should do everything it could to combat illegal immigration in the state. Using Senator Beason's words, instead of heeding the warnings of its neighbors, Alabama decided to empty the clip.
Many states considering passing immigration laws steered clear of provisions directly relating to education, such as Alabama's controversial section 28. State legislators have stuck to provisions that have been upheld, such as the mandatory use of E-Verify, an employment authorization system sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. States such as Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Tennessee have begun requiring the use of E-Verify. Alabama now requires E-Verify for new public employees and contracts, and will begin mandatory use of the program for all other new employees by April 1, 2012. One exception to states avoiding immigration laws aimed at education is Missouri's S.B. 590. State Senator Will Kraus proposed the bill, which would require schools to ask students for birth certificates when enrolling in school. The bill includes provisions for data collection on immigration status and enrollment in ESL classes.
In Ana's case, her parents have always been very adamant about their kids' education. However, over fear of H.B. 56, they kept Ana and Celina home for a week after the law took effect. Her father was able to keep his job at the poultry plant, but he saw many other coworkers leave without even picking up their paychecks. Ana and Celina will be able to graduate from high school due to the right of all students to elementary and secondary education. However, because Celina crossed the border without a visa, she will not be able to attend college in Alabama because section 8 of the act states that all undocumented immigrants are ineligible for enrollment in post-secondary education. She is also ineligible for scholarships to attend college.
The U.S. Congress and some state legislatures have discussed passing DREAM Acts, which would allow certain undocumented students who meet attendance and grade requirements to apply for financial aid to attend college. For Celina to have such an opportunity, she would have to leave Alabama. One common misconception that I hear in my law practice is that a U.S. citizen child can file for permanent residence for his/her parents and siblings. While a U.S. citizen can file for parents and siblings, he/she cannot do so before the age of twenty-one. In twelve years when Ana turns twenty-one, she can file for her parents and sister. However, Celina would have to wait an additional eleven years to become a permanent resident due to the immigrant visa waiting period for siblings. Also, due to their unlawful entry into the United States, once Ana applies for her relatives, they would have to return to Guatemala and ask for 1-601 waivers based on extreme hardship. Under our current immigration system, obtaining some form of lawful status is a very long road for immigrant families.
Some state representatives, such as Senator Kraus from Missouri, explain that state immigration bills are merely temporary solutions and attempt to force the Obama administration to address the issue at the federal level. In my experience, most people on both sides of the issue favor federal immigration action, but the contents of such legislation would be hotly contested.
