

Alabama’s immigration law is proving too strict and too costly - JumpCrisscross
http://www.economist.com/node/21543541

======
motoford
I live in Alabama, and I can tell you that law enforcement is sabotaging this
law by taking it way beyond the intent and even the letter..

Examples:

1\. Police chief of the little speedtrap town of Glencoe, Al announces to
local paper that anyone in their town not carrying an Alabama drivers license
will be immediately taken to jail when caught.

2\. The incident cited with the German. He was stopped near the Mercedes
plant, it was obvious he was not here illegally, being a Mercedes executive
yet he was hauled in to make an example. Although I will admit this, he should
have had some ID, the article here is wrong, he had no license, no passport,
nothing.

3\. A Japaneese executive visiting the Honda plant in Lincoln, AL was ticketed
by police in a neighboring town for not having an AL drivers license. The
immigration law does not require an AL drivers license and makes no provision
for ticketing anyone for anything.

These are just the higher profile examples. Law enforcement is mad because of
the extra duties and are doing everything possible to make a mockery of the
law.

------
jballanc
This was also covered by "This American Life" this past week:
[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/456/r...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/456/reap-what-you-sow?act=1)

The most interesting point from that piece is regarding the way it may incite
bias. If it makes xenophobia even marginally more acceptable because "I'm just
trying to enforce the immigration laws", then the damage is done. I have
nothing against removing illegal immigrants, but if it is done in such a way
that legal immigration is also discouraged then economic harm is sure to
follow.

~~~
zmonkeyz
Spoiler alert: Two things that blew my mind: Citizens were empowered to sue
law enforcement who were caught not enforcing the immigration checks because
of language in the bill. The other thing was that you have national platforms
using states as petri dishes to see what laws gain any traction. I never even
thought of it that way.

------
pg
The legislative verson of "Be careful what you ask for, or you might get it."

~~~
yequalsx
That was funny. Nicely put.

Unfortunately side effects of legislation are rarely part of the public
debate. I don't know a cure for this though. Connecting dots is just not
something a lot of people have been trained to do.

------
batista
Surely the "economist" would say that.

They are all for more immigration, because they are all for what is good for
the rich guys hiring people for low end jobs (= labour surplus = low wages).

Is it bad for the average local worker too? Has there been a controlled study?
I don't see any here.

Oh, and:

 _They may be there illegally, but undocumented immigrants are still people_

Criminals are still people too, but they are nonetheless put in prison.

Does the economist suggest an "open borders" policy? No, because they know
that that would be silly.

So, they just suggest not being so hard on illegal immigrants, so they can
still be employed but they retain the illegal status (so they can be forced to
accept lower wages).

Oh, and the "we're all immigrants in the US" anyway, line of those pro-
immigration. Yeah, true. They conveniently forget that their arrival was the
end of the LOCAL population (native americans). So, "we're all immigrants" is
just a statement of fact. It's not an argument pro immigration.

~~~
comicjk
>Does the economist suggest an "open borders" policy? No, because they know
that that would be silly.

Can you explain why that would be silly - sillier than, for example, the open
borders between states in the US?

I'm glad you have such concern for the poorer citizens of the US. Throw in a
little sympathy for the poorer citizens of Mexico and I'll be really
impressed.

~~~
batista
_Can you explain why that would be silly - sillier than, for example, the open
borders between states in the US?_

Because the US is a single country. The states are just different
jurisdictions, but major economic, political, foreign affair, budget, etc
decisions are taken at the US level.

One reason you can not even think of the problems that open borders can bring,
is because the US is basically isolated geographically, besides Canada and
Mexico. Now, Canada is no threat to anyone, and Mexico you already had a war
with and stole some of their land IIRC. If you were next to 2-6 other
countries, with loaded historical issues between you, as most countries are
with the exception of places like Australia etc, the case would be very
different.

 _I'm glad you have such concern for the poorer citizens of the US. Throw in a
little sympathy for the poorer citizens of Mexico and I'll be really
impressed._

Oh, I have a lot. The thinking that migration, illegal or not, is the answer
to their problems is idiotic. For the vast majority, it's not like the
Nebraska waitress going to LA to become a movie star, or the Mexican geek
going to the Valley to be an entrepreneur. Most people don't migrate because
of a dream, but because of necessity. This, btw, is the reason poor Mexicans
migrate to the US, and not Americans to Mexico. They migrate with deep sadness
in order to find a better life. This life should be provided for them AT THEIR
HOME, not by having them go somewhere where they have no family, no friends,
and no support infrastructure (no society of their own), and no cultural
roots, in order to provide cheap labor. My people have been forced to migrate
en masse, as of lately, to other countries because of financial hardships.
It's no fun. And we'd rather not do it.

You care for the mexican workers? Support Mexico, don't have your corporations
piss on them, don't support local governments that f __c them over for your
profits, be they corporate or of foreign influence, and then we can see about
immigration.

