SB 56

  • March 20, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Tomas Lopez, Law Fellow, Southern Poverty Law Center. Mr. Lopez will be the featured speaker at a March 21 event on the state of Ala.’s anti-immigrant law.


    Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Arizona v. United States, the case challenging Arizona’s SB 1070, the “attrition through enforcement” law that seeks to drive undocumented immigrants from the state.

    Many people will pay attention, but few will do so more closely than those of us in Alabama. Here, SB 1070’s ideas metastasized into HB 56— a law that goes even further than Arizona’s in making the state simply inhospitable for undocumented immigrants. The law acutely harms the state’s most vulnerable people, its economy, and its reputation. Alabama’s experience exposes the reality of the anti-immigrant laws now at issue in Arizona and elsewhere: they largely fail to deliver on their promises and instead render needless damage and suffering.

    I’m a part of a team at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which along with our co-counsel and allies, is challenging HB 56’s constitutionality. There is a lot for us to challenge. Alabama’s law reaches both more broadly and more deeply than its counterparts from other states. Like SB 1070, HB 56 criminalizes the failure to carry alien registration papers and authorizes law enforcement officers to verify the immigration status of any individuals stopped. However, it also includes provisions that:

    • Prohibit and criminalize “business transactions” between undocumented immigrants and state agencies;
    • Instruct courts to regard any contract to which an undocumented person is a party as unenforceable;
    • Denies bail to detained undocumented immigrants; and
    • Requires schools to inquire into the immigration status of every newly enrolled student and his or her parents.
  • March 8, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Portions of one of the nation’s harshest immigration laws, Alabama’s HB 56, were invalidated today by a federal appeals court, Brian Lyman reports for the Montgomery Advertiser.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Lyman writes, blocked provisions of the anti-immigrant law that would void contracts involving undocumented workers and bar government officials from “doing business” with undocumented immigrants.

    The Eleventh Circuit had been urged by the Alabama officials to wait on issuing any decision on the law until after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of Arizona’s SB 1070, another harsh immigration law.

    The U.S. Department of Justice, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the ACLU and the National Immigration Law Center lodged the lawsuit against Alabama, lambasted nationally for crafting an an over-the-top, even cruel law in a state where less than 4 percent of the population is foreign-born. The lawsuit argued, in part, that Alabama’s law undermines the federal government’s power to implement immigration policy.

    Not long after the law’s enactment, The New York Times editorial board said the “drafters of Alabama’s harsh immigration law wanted to turn their state into the country’s most hostile territory for illegal immigrants. They are succeeding, as many of Alabama’s most vulnerable residents can attest.”

    The sweeping law encouraged state officials, working at public schools, hospitals and other state institutions to report on people they suspect of being undocumented residents.

    Late last month, the SPLC issued a report detailing harassment and discrimination of Latinos in the state following enactment of HB 56, which helped create a “xenophobic climate.” The report details people being “cheated out of wages, being denied medical treatment and facing a growing hostility,” since the law’s passage.

    Tags:
    Civil rights,