Alabama’s Immigration Law Threatens Federal, Individual Rights

By Christopher Rangel

In June of 20122, Governor Robert J. Bentley signed Alabama’s HB 56, also known as the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, into law. The first day of August, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint to block the various controversial sections of the law that targets undocumented persons. At issue here is whether federal (immigration) law supersedes state laws, and whether states can decide to eliminate individual rights (access to education).

The DOJ’s August complaint stated  the department would to continue to sue the state over any law that sought to bestow federal immigration powers on state officials. The injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn blocked four out of ten provisions, including:

• making it a misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to apply for or perform work;
• making it unlawful to harbor, conceal, or transport undocumented immigrants;
• prohibiting of businesses to take tax deductions for wages paid to unauthorized immigrants;
• and the ability for a legal immigrant or citizen to sue if they lose a job held to an unauthorized immigrant.

Provisions not blocked, that’ve been blocked in other states or would be considered a Constitutional right by the U.S. Supreme Court were: the ability for a law enforcement officer to ask for a person’s immigration status based on “reasonable cause,” and the requirement of the state to determine the status of children in elementary and secondary schooling. After an appeal by civil rights groups, however, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals added two more provisions to those already blocked. These provisions include: the ability to require parents to show proof of their children’s’ status for school matriculation, and the requirement for legal residents to carry their alien resident card.

Conflict with federal law and education is the larger issue here.

On one side the federal government believes the law to be unconstitutional due to the fact that the law disregards federal law, conflicting with set rules and regulations regarding immigration. As with South Carolina’s lawsuit, the federal government maintains the Supremacy Clause (states interfering with federal law) is violated when states enact immigration laws. Also, civil rights groups believe it violates the Constitution, since the law could promote racial discrimination.

More to the point, Alabama’s immigration case is important not only because of federal law being superior to state law, but also because of individual rights. In the unique case of Alabama, the issue of whether the state has a compelling interest to decide who may attend public schools. Undocumented children are protected by the 14th Amendment (birthright citizenship) and the Supreme Court already concluded that education is a constitutional right — even for undocumented students. Thus, denying education funding to undocumented students does not show a “substantial” state interest.

While the issue of discrimination, and which government has authority over immigration law, are important parts of this case, the issue of education regarding undocumented students is also critical. We need to only look at the DREAM Act and the implications it has for students wanting higher education as an example. As with other state immigration laws, Alabama’s HB 56 will not move forward on these issues until the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of Arizona’s immigration law.

Christopher Rangel is a student at the University of Texas at Austin.

[Photo By Ltljltlj; Illustration By NewsTaco]