creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Phyllis Schlafly
Phyllis Schlafly
22 May 2012
Buy American to Eat Safe

The globalists and the lobbyists are lining up to promote another so-called free-trade agreement that gives … Read More.

15 May 2012
Defeat Law of the Sea Treaty -- Again

The stunning repudiation of Sen. Richard Lugar's, R-Ind., bid for a seventh term has sent shock waves through Washington'… Read More.

8 May 2012
Steve King Stands up to the ‘War Against Women'

The abortion industry racks up profits by dumping expensive procedural complications on hospitals, legitimate … Read More.

States Deal With Illegal Alien Problems

Share Comment

Alabama has suddenly become the leader in comprehensive immigration reform, passing up Arizona, whose laws have had so much news coverage. By large margins, the Alabama state legislature passed a bill, known as HB56, which covers most areas of abuses by illegal aliens.

HB56 requires proof of citizenship or residency before voting, a giant protection against vote fraud. It prohibits aliens not lawfully present in the United States from receiving state or local financial benefits.

Like the Arizona law upheld on May 26 by the U.S. Supreme Court, Alabama's HB56 requires employers to verify the legal status of their employees by using the federal government's E-Verify program. That Arizona law, which has been kicking around in the courts since 2007, was signed by then-Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, who is now director of the Department of Homeland Security.

E-Verify, which was created by the federal government for voluntary use, can be made mandatory by state law. E-Verify instantly checks workers' Social Security numbers to make sure they are eligible to work, and is so easy and inexpensive for employers to use that more than 99 percent of lawful workers receive positive verification within seconds.

Opponents of the Arizona law that made E-Verify mandatory tried to get supremacist judges to knock it out on the argument that it was pre-empted by federal law. They lost big-time when the Supreme Court ruled that the Arizona law is OK as a business license statute, which is an ordinary power of the states and expressly allowed by federal immigration law.

The employer doesn't commit a crime if he fails to use E-Verify, but he could lose his business license, which the state government has the authority to revoke. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the leading expert in this area of law, observed that "Alabama is now the new No. 1 state for immigration enforcement."

Kobach added: "I have worked closely with Senate and House leadership to ensure that the Alabama law is drafted carefully. It will pass judicial muster if the ACLU and the open-borders crowd decide to take Alabama to court."

The Alabama law has several other provisions that the Arizona law lacks.

HB56 requires public schools in Alabama to ascertain students' immigration status, giving parents of foreign-born children the opportunity to confirm lawful status by providing a sworn statement.

It also compels Alabama's public schools to inform taxpayers, who are footing the costs, of the total cost of educating illegal aliens in the schools.

HB56 bars businesses from taking state tax deductions on wages paid to illegal aliens and makes it an offense to knowingly rent living quarters to an illegal alien. HB56 bars illegal aliens from enrolling in any state-funded public college in Alabama.

The law's sponsors, Sen. Scott Beason and Rep. Micky Hammon, properly related the illegal alien problem to our unemployment problem. Hammon said, "This is a jobs-creation bill for Americans."

Three other states also make E-Verify mandatory. A half-dozen others require the use of E-Verify for state employees or contractors.

The Supreme Court decision in the Arizona E-Verify case was a tremendous victory for the right of the states to have a greater say about immigration issues. Kobach explained that the decision said that "as long as the state relies upon federal definitions of immigration status and relies upon federal determinations of any particular alien's status, then that state is not in conflict with federal law," and that is "exactly" what the Arizona law does.

Last month's Supreme Court ruling about Arizona's E-Verify law did not rule on Arizona's other controversial immigration law, which grants police broader power to check the status of persons they suspect of being illegally in this country. That case is still in the courts.

However, the May 26 decision did touch on many of the same issues of federal versus state authority and seemed to show an openness to action by the states. Kobach said the Supreme Court's decision signaled that it will set a high threshold before ruling that a state law conflicts with federal law.

In an unrelated decision issued on May 23, the Supreme Court ordered California to release up to 46,000 of the state's 140,000 prisoners because of overcrowding and unsanitary conditions. One way to deal with the Court's order would be to deport the estimated 19,000 prisoners who are illegal aliens, costing California a billion dollars a year to incarcerate.

That might put pressure on the government to build a secure fence on the border so the deportees don't come back. The illegal alien drunk driver who killed a policeman in Houston last month had been deported twice, then came right back into the United States.

Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and author of 20 books. Her latest, written with co-author Suzanne Venker, is "The Flipside of Feminism" published in March by WorldNetDaily. She can be contacted by e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org. To find out more about Phyllis Schlafly and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
"HB56 requires proof of citizenship or residency before voting, a giant protection against vote fraud." A giant protection against a non-existent problem. The Bush administration made finding "voter fraud" the focus of US Attorneys across the nation during that failed administration. The finding? Almost no voter fraud, especially voter fraud involving illegal aliens. Why do right wingers such as Mrs. Schlafly keep insisting on solving an almost non-existent problem? Because the real agenda is to disenfranchise legal voters who tend to not dependently vote republican: the young, the poor, students. Note that in Texas, the new anti-voter fraud laws exempts two groups, the elderly and gun owners; both tend to be dependable republican voters. Mrs. Schlafly and her ilk think that if they just repeat the big lie ofter enough that the voters may be manipulated into allowing for the massive effort to disenfranchise democratic voters. That is true voter fraud.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Mark
Mon Jun 6, 2011 9:07 PM
Mark...What have you been smoking. There have been at least convictions pertaining to voter fraud in the last election. Your comment makes no sense pertaining to disenfranchisement!
Comment: #2
Posted by: Linda Bechler
Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:55 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Phyllis Schlafly
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

28 Dec 2010 Re-evaluating Free Trade With China

24 Aug 2010 Obama Versus Majority Public Opinion

7 Sep 2010 State Attorneys General and Violent Video Games