Last month, I noticed this piece on the Bloomberg web site highlighting the practical effect of Alabama’s “strictest in the Nation” state-level immigration law on Alabama’s citizens.  The article vividly illustrates what it takes to enact what Kris Kobach and other anti-immigration advocates call “attrition through enforcement” – or what Mitt Romney recently called “self-deportation” – the idea that 11 million immigrants without status can be convinced to leave the US voluntarily, if only we make it hard enough for people without status to live in the United States.

As the article makes clear, the only way to make life too difficult for immigrants without status to bear is to turn every “transaction with a citizen,” in the words of Alabama’s HB56, into an immigration checkpoint.  In other words, the only way to make life in the US difficult for those immigrants is to make life equally difficult for ordinary Americans:

In one month, [Mobile County License Commissioner Kim] Hastie’s office handed out 332 temporary vehicle registrations to legal Alabamians without proper paperwork. There were 152 in all of 2010. Fewer than five people in the country illegally were turned away, she said.

Thwarted citizens got mad: “They’d say, ‘I’m not a Mexican. Do I look Mexican to you?’”

One World War II veteran had no birth certificate, an expired driver’s license and a military identification that the county couldn’t accept, she said.

“He was so mad he was yelling,” Hastie said. “He said, ‘I served my country and I can’t register my car?’”

Alabama’s requirement that any person prove his or her legal status in order to do business, of any kind, with the state government has proven to inconvenience Alabama’s US citizen residents almost as much as it inconveniences the 2.5 percent of the population who live there without authorization – probably more, in fact, since Alabama’s US citizen residents are required to transact business with the government much more often than the relatively few unauthorized immigrants do.

It wasn’t until I heard this week’s edition of This American Life, however, that I really began to appreciate what “self-deportation” will really require.  Transacting business with the government, after all, is hardly a daily event,  whether we are here legally or not.  Merely requiring ID and proof of legal status to license a dog or get water service for a new house is unlikely to make life hard enough that someone without status will want to leave.

What self-deportation is going to require, if it is to work as its proponents say it will, is for all of us, every day, being willing to cut ourselves off – economically and socially – from our neighbors.  We will have to ask everyone we need to deal with for their papers before we sell them groceries or even offer them the sign of peace in church.  And, if we are Latino, or speak with an accent, we will have to prove our legal status every day to everyone we meet.  Jack Hitt, who authored the piece, put it this way:

Every Latino person, legal or illegal, whom I spoke to noted at some point that there’s just something hateful in the air now. Before the law, they felt accepted. They had American friends. They didn’t feel out of place.

Now when they go to a store, every single one of them told me they feel that people are looking at them weirdly, like, what are you still doing here? When the law changed to make them less welcome, they actually became less welcome, in a day-to-day, “passing you on the street” sort of way.

When considered in terms of tax dollars, “self deportation” would, indeed, cost less than having the government arrange deportation of 11 million people (around $285 billion).  The human and economic costs on the communities in which these immigrants live – splitting up families, disrupting businesses whose workers and customers leave, destroying whole towns – are the same.  The human cost to all of us, however, as we must harden our hearts and demand “papers” from every one of our Latino fellow-citizens, from every person we encounter who “looks foreign” to us – that is a price I pray our country decides it never is willing to pay.

When it comes to immigration, 2011 will be remembered as the year Alabama enacted HB56, the most mean spirited state immigration law in U.S. history. It targets Latinos and other people of color and effectively mandates racial profiling by state law enforcement agents. Since it went into effect last Fall, Alabamans have been victimized by due process violations, acute shortages of essential workers, and the creation of a climate of fear which has led many Latinos—legal and illegal—to flee the state. The media has been full of graphic images of produce rotting in unattended Alabama fields and idle machinery abandoned amid the flight of terrified workers. Alabama officials have been repeatedly embarrassed by the shocking arrests of foreign auto executives detained by local law enforcement for failure to produce immigration papers. As 2011 draws to a close, Alabama politicians, including Governor Robert Bentley, who signed HB56 into law, are seriously considering dropping its most draconian sections.

If Alabama’s HB56 dominated the immigration developments in 2011, Arizona’s SB1070 will be sure to dominate in 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the Obama Administration’s constitutional challenge to Arizona’s immigration law, enacted in 2010 but temporarily blocked by the courts. The effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling on immigration policy—and beyond—should not be underestimated. Should the Court strike down SB1070 it will reaffirm, in a loud and clear voice, that immigration policy is exclusively a federal matter, inextricably tied to the idea of the United States as a sovereign nation. However, should the Court uphold SB1070 other states will certainly follow Arizona’s and Alabama’s lead, resulting in a disparate patchwork of state immigration laws throughout America. The challenge then may no longer be limited to the federal government’s plenary power to regulate immigration, but to the very idea of the United States as an indivisible nation. Stay tuned.

2011 will also be remembered as the year of immigration enforcement. Nearly half a million people were deported from the U.S., undercutting those that claim the Administration has not enforced the law. To the contrary, President Obama—for better or worse—has deported more illegal aliens than any president before him, including his predecessor, George W. Bush. But amid all the removals in 2011, Obama tried a new, potentially very effective tool—common sense immigration enforcement. In a policy announced in June, the Administration directed ICE to focus its energy on the deportation of violent criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists. And while Obama cannot grant citizenship to any undocumented immigrant, he can certainly direct immigration agents to use their common sense in enforcing the law.

As 2011 draws to a close the big question remains: When, if ever, will Congress overhaul America’s broken immigration system; or even pass the DREAM Act, which would help promising undocumented youth earn their way to lawful status. But 2012 is an election year, and the reality is that the politicians in Washington will not touch an issue as explosive as immigration reform.

In the meantime, Americans can only hope that whomever they send to Washington in November will roll up their sleeves and get to work on an immigration policy that creates American jobs, protects American families, restores due process, and ensures America’s competitiveness in a global economy.

It happened again yesterday.

A foreign worker—this time from Honda—was arrested in Alabama and cited under the state’s new immigration law.

Sound familiar? It should.

The same thing happened a couple of weeks ago to Detlev Hager, a German executive from Mercedes-Benz, who was in Alabama to check on the company’s plant in Vance. This time the unlucky scofflaw was a Japanese employee of Honda. Like the unlucky German before him, he was arrested by Alabama cops after he forgot his visa in his hotel room.

In a blog posted last week I made the point that the hate ridden immigration law does little more than crush civil rights, wreak havoc on the state’s economy, and sully Alabama’s reputation. I also pointed out that a foreign company (or any company for that matter) would have to be nuts to locate in a state like Alabama that enacts a law which so flippantly subjects foreign managers and workers to arrest.

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Exactly what result do Alabama politicians expect by continuing to enforce HB56?

You can’t make this stuff up.

A foreign executive from Mercedes-Benz gets arrested in Alabama and charged criminally under the state’s new immigration law. Was he alien smuggling? Drug trafficking? Committing a violent crime?

Nope. He left his visa in his hotel room.

Under Alabama’s new immigration law that’s a crime. The 46-year-old German manager—or, as they call him in Alabama, the suspected criminal—was quickly thrown into jail by local police when he couldn’t produce his immigration papers after he was stopped on his way to the Mercedes-Benz plant in Vance, Alabama. Imagine the scene at the Mercedes-Benz headquarters in Germany as the top brass scurried about trying to find someone to post bail for the luckless manager who suddenly found himself sitting in some rural Alabama lock-up.

Much has been written about the horror of Alabama’s hate-infested immigration law and how it has wreaked havoc upon the state. There was the heart wrenching report of the 4^th grade Latina girl who was asked by her teacher to produce her immigration papers, the photos of ripe produce left to rot in worker-less Alabama fields, and the media reports of the difficult and dirty jobs left open by the flight of undocumented workers.

And despite the unquestionable havoc the law has wreaked upon the good citizens of Alabama, the lobbyists and politicians who enacted it have had the audacity to suggest that the chilling due process violations, the acute shortages of essential workers, and the climate of fear it has created  throughout the state is merely a temporary bump on the road to an illegal alien free Alabama. But the fundamental economic assumption upon which they have pushed their mean spirited law—that U.S. workers will fill the void created by the fleeing immigrants—has proven false. In fact, as was reported recently in Bloomberg Businessweek, the exact opposite is true. In the wake of the mass exodus of undocumented immigrants from Alabama, many difficult, unpleasant jobs—the tough and dirty ones like picking vegetables, gutting fish, washing dishes, and cleaning beds—remain open in Alabama, unfilled by American workers.

In this economy—or in any economy for that matter—most states do whatever it takes to attract economic development. That’s why, back in 1993 when Mercedes-Benz announced it would open a plant to build sport utility vehicles in their state, Alabama officials rejoiced. Since then other foreign automakers have followed suit including Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai, fueling Alabama’s economic growth.

But would Mercedes-Benz or any other foreign company make that same decision today? What were the Alabama politicians thinking when they enacted this law? Did they really think they would secure Alabama’s economic future by passing a spiteful immigration law which, among other things, so easily puts a foreign corporate manager at risk of arrest and prosecution during a business trip?

Alabama development officials beckon employers to the state with an online brochure promising a “favorable business climate”, “effective workforce training”, “attractive tax incentives”, and “excellent logistics”.

What about “reasonable bail”?

Written by: Peter Ashman, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

Recently in Salt Lake City, Utah, a diverse group of government and business leaders held a press conference to commemorate the one year anniversary of the Utah Compact. The compact was the result of a collaboration of business, religious and elected leaders in Utah to articulate a broad statement of shared values designed to guide decision makers “as they address the complex challenges associated with a broken national immigration system.”

What is significant about the Compact is that Utah has a legacy as one of the most conservative states in America and in recent years turned out incumbent Senator Bennett and Congressman Cannon for being “soft” on immigration. Yet the Compact resonates with a pragmatic tone that sounds nostalgically Reganesque in its lofty aspirations of keeping families together and acknowledging the economic contributions of immigrants. It acknowledges that immigration is a federal, not state, issue and that “local law enforcement resources should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code.” The Compact concludes with “[t]he way we treat immigrants will say more about us as a free society and less about our immigrant neighbors. Utah should always be a place that welcomes people of goodwill.” The full text of the Utah Compact is available here.

One year after the Compact was written it is being credited for changing the tone of the immigration debate not only in Utah, but in the entire country.  At the press conference was recently elected Arizona State Senator Jerry Lewis, who ousted S.B. 1070 architect and restrictionist poster child, Russell Pearce. Senator Lewis credited the Utah Compact with having an impact on Arizona politics, including his election over fellow conservative Republican Pearce, and cited an Arizona poll with 78% of Arizonans supporting comprehensive solutions of immigration laws, not just the “enforcement only” policies of S.B. 1070. Utah’s Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, a self described conservative Republican, indicated that in the past year the Compact has received the support of conservatives who want real solutions and not just harsh rhetoric. He pointed to the election of Lewis as an example, and warned against pandering to the far right extremists.

So as we watch our current crop of presidential candidates talk about electrical fences and boots on the ground, and as Alabama’s agricultural bounty spoils unpicked in the field, a new voice is being heard. It appeals to all political views because its values are apolitical and universal. It is a growing voice that speaks of moderation, and inclusion and reminds us of our heritage as a nation of immigrants. It is a voice that is coming from, of all places, Utah.

Written by: Palma Yanni, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

On November 10, 2011, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and the American Immigration Council (AIC) issued a report chronicling the implementation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton’s June 17, 2011, guidance on “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens.” The report is remarkable. In a large majority of offices, ICE personnel stated either that the guidance didn’t change anything, or that it would not be implemented until further guidance is received.

The memorandum “provides U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel guidance on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to ensure that the agency’s immigration enforcement resources are focused on the agency’s enforcement priorities. The memorandum also serves to make clear which agency employees may exercise prosecutorial discretion and what factors should be considered.” The memorandum lists nineteen factors to consider, and instructs that decisions should be based on the totality of the circumstances, with the goal of conforming to ICE’s enforcement priorities. Certain positive and negative factors are highlighted for particular consideration.

How then can ICE personnel almost universally claim they need more guidance?

Every cop on every beat exercises prosecutorial discretion daily. Anyone who has received a warning instead of a ticket for rolling through a stop sign or speeding has benefited from prosecutorial discretion. Recently in my county, a Sheriff responded to a disturbance at an unoccupied house and saw people – likely many underage kids – scattering on foot from a Halloween party leaving behind lots of alcohol. The Sheriff admired a Reno 911 costume and called the shocked owner of the house, so she could pick up her son who organized the party, and lock up the house. There were simply more important things to do, and more serious threats to public safety than the fleeing partiers presented. The common sense of law enforcement officers at all levels regularly trumps what would be futile efforts to enforce every law in every jurisdiction every day. It just isn’t that hard.

ICE agents are enforcing civil, not criminal, laws. The Department of Homeland Security’s priorities have been clearly set forth in a March 2, 2011, memorandum as well as the June 17^th memo, namely the promotion of national security, border security, public safety, and the integrity of the immigration system. Only by sensible use of limited resources can those priorities be effectuated. The union representing ICE agents and other employees has clearly stated its opposition to the enforcement priorities and the guidance on prosecutorial discretion, and the AILA/AIC document reports on multiple direct refusals to follow instructions, such as “the ICE union told [ICE personnel] to ignore the June 17 memo.”  “A decision was made not to follow the memo.” ICE “does not consider the memo binding.” In many workplaces, this is called insubordination and results in termination of employment.

These employees do not need further guidance on the substance of the memorandum; they need a lesson in the chain of command.

For more information, read AILA’s press release on the report.

Certain politicians owe soon-to-be former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce a big “Thank You.” He just single handedly proved that the politics of hate, in particular the politics of hating Latino immigrants, is a sure ticket to the dustbin of history. A year out from the 2012 elections there still may be time to re-tool their extremist anti-immigrant politics and start thinking about what Americans really want—solutions, not hate filled anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Pearce, working closely with Washington, DC-based restrictionist lobbyists, including current Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, was the chief author of Arizona’s infamous SB1070, more commonly known as the “Show Me Your Papers” law. The most draconian parts of the law, including the provision which would have created a police state by forcing local law enforcement to target people who look “illegal,” were immediately thrown out by a federal judge and are now winding their way up to the Supreme Court.

A year ago Pearce was on top of the anti-immigrant restrictionist world. His political ally, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer who signed SB1070 into law, was returned to the state house by a wide margin and copy cat anti-immigrant legislation was metastasizing all over the country in states like Utah, Georgia, and Alabama. Pearce’s restrictionists allies—some of whom are members of designated hate groups—ran around the country pushing more state sponsored anti-immigrant legislation in a cynical effort to take advantage of the void in policy created by Washington’s failure to hammer out a national immigration policy which serves the needs American families and businesses. The most horrific example is Alabama’s HB56, a law similar to the one Pearce wrote in Arizona, which took effect in September. It has created a repressive climate of fear which has emptied Alabama schools of Latino children and its farms of essential workers.

Luckily for America the voters of Pearce’s state senate district are smarter than Pearce and his restrictionist friends. They know when they’ve been had by a self serving politician foolish enough to do the bidding of hate mongering Washington lobbyists. Unlike Pearce, who was blinded by an extremist agenda, the voters have a clear vision of what they want their state government to do—improve Arizona’s economy, create jobs, and restore the state’s image which was left in tatters by Pearce’s law.

It’s significant that in replacing Russell Pearce with Republican Jerry Lewis the voters did not switch political parties. What they did was make it crystal clear that it was Russell Pearce and his anti-immigrant agenda that had to go.

And politicians who fail to heed this lesson —be they Republican, Democrat, or Independent—do so at their political peril. The Republican presidential primary has thus far been devoid of meaningful discussion of immigration policy. In debate after debate the candidates have done little more than offer the voters inane blabber about “boots on the ground,” electric fences, “illegal alien” invasions, and the evils of instate tuition for undocumented students. Candidates like Governor Rick Perry have been vilified for daring to suggest immigration be handled with compassion.

Yet, the polls show that American voters want something more.  They long for a fair, safe, and orderly immigration policy which will get the nation out of the economic doldrums, create American jobs, and keep America competitive into the 21^st century. Americans overwhelmingly long for solutions, not hate laws.

Written by: Tony Weigel, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

What it “is” is becoming more clear. We pro-immigration advocates have a lot of work to do.

Our country has had an ongoing policy war over immigration since its inception. This history includes both positive and negative periods, each influenced by the day’s politics, economics, and the varying attitudes this “nation of immigrants” has harbored towards its more recent immigrants.

For some, the current debate is helplessly and hopelessly fixated at the border. Candidates for public office talk of “front door” and “back door” immigration policies without acknowledging they are both attached to the same “house.” Our country has failed to fundamentally address the immigration needs of our economy, yet many of our leaders have embraced the flawed logic that walling ourselves in from the world and adopting and vigorously enforcing draconian laws at the federal and state levels will end unauthorized immigration. These efforts have not only failed to spur federal legislative action, they have paralyzed those with the legitimate responsibility and ability from acting. For example, since 2007, Congress has twice failed to pass the DREAM Act by only a handful of votes.

Among those seeking our country’s highest office in 2012, there is little serious discussion about reasonable immigration policy solutions. The current administration has failed to affect significant, positive reforms, legislatively or administratively, has steadfastly advanced programs like Secure Communities and indiscriminately ramped up enforcement. Republican contenders have failed to effectively defend or advance positive solutions. In the words of former political strategist for George W. Bush and ABC News political consultant, Matthew Dowd, “You can’t have a thoughtful conversation about it in the Republican Party right now. You’re either [former U.S. Rep. and anti-immigration advocate] Tom Tancredo, or you’re for sanctuary cities.” The failure of Republican debate participants to speak out against a proposed policy of electrocuting human beings reflects that tragic, political reality.

We as AILA members are all participants in the current chapter of our country’s immigration history. The good news is that we have several shining examples of the kinds of work that can and should be done to change the storyline.

• AILA leader Laura Lichter recently served on a prominent, ICE Advisory Task force.
• DC-area member Paromita Shah, Associate Director of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, has been engaged at a high-level in opposing Secure Communities.
• A group of 13 members: Debbie Smith, Vikram Badrinath, Stephen Manning, Russell Abrutyn, Cynthia Aziz, Aaron Tarin, Kimberly Herrera, Rebecca Sharpless, Farrin Anello, Socheat Chea, Eli Echols, Mark Barr, and Andres Benach, have worked tirelessly on amicus briefs in opposition to state laws in Arizona, Utah, Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina.
• 135 AILA members in 31 states have volunteered to represent young adults through the AD2 program.  A group of 9 senior AILA members, organized by Mo Goldman, serve as mentors to the group.
• Iowa member Lori Chesser has served as a leader in the Iowa Immigration Education Coalition, which has brought together a broad coalition in support of positive immigration policies.

The opportunities to make a difference are out there and the resources to help write the rest of the present chapter are at our fingertips. AILA offers a variety of great tools to advocate for better policies. Additionally, the Immigration Policy Center develops and maintains a wealth of information and critical analyses of the misinformation driving today’s bad policy decisions. Changing the tone and tenor of today’s debate requires reaching out to our communities, making meaningful connections, and helping educate those in the media and others about facts to counter the tide of fear.

We all have things we must do to pay the bills, but it simply makes me sick to read stories like those coming from Alabama, and it incenses me to hear the top leaders of a major political party recklessly use the bigoted words “illegals” and “anchor babies.” The time to act is now.

Please do.

Written by: Ally Bolour, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

A new attitude seems to have taken hold in American society these days – one that appears to be spreading through every medium and every social group. I see it on television, in newspapers, and on the internet; I hear it on the radio and in everyday conversations. Alienating and dehumanizing any group that is “different,” starting of course with immigrants. If the immigrants are undocumented – we call them illegal. If they are U.S. citizen children, but have undocumented parents – we call them the children of illegals! We pass laws in Alabama to demand that children bring proof of the “legality” of their parents to the classrooms. We no longer exhibit pride in the American melting pot; we try to explain it away and hyphenate it instead.

We give police officers the power to ask for papers from people who look different – perhaps they wear traditional clothing, or speak with an accent, or have darker skin than the next person. We even debate the “true” meaning of the 14^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and plant seeds of doubt regarding the rights to birthright citizenship in America.

Just recently, the House of Representatives proudly presented a bill for markup which would have given protection against civil lawsuits to those who report “suspicious activity” and would have designated yet another federal czar – this time to counter homegrown violent Islamist extremism. The bill is notably silent on reporting non-Islamic violent extremism. The proposed law reminds me of another congressional action which created the House Committee on Un-American Activities circa 1938-1975, which destroyed countless lives and families.

This marginalization extends beyond the immigration debate. To date, we’re still attacking President Obama for not being black enough. Herman Cain, a Republican presidential contender, declared the President of the United States of America to be of the “other” camp – specifically that he has “never been part of the Black experience.” The President’s father was Kenyan, so it has been open season to insult Mr. Obama as a non-American and to actually demand the original of his birth certificate. Prominent persons of influence have declared President Obama to be a Moslem. When cornered by reporters, they cowardly make non-committal statements such as “I take him at his word that he is a Christian!”

And that is yet another group to marginalize. Pundits define “Christianity” to include only Evangelicals; certainly not Mormons. A few days ago, the conversation on every news channel was whether or not Mormonism is a cult. Pundits proudly pronounce that Americans “tolerate” Jews, Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems and persons from other faiths and even non-believers. The caveat being that though these tolerated folk may stick around, they are not equals and therefore can’t hold certain positions, thereby ignoring the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

But then we have yet another group to marginalize, because Evangelical Christians can’t be gay, but if they insist that they are, then they also go in the tolerance category. Additionally, they will have the extra burden of going to church every Sunday and repent ad nauseam for who they are. Still, they shouldn’t be able to serve in the military because they’d be taking showers in close quarters; and marriage for them is categorically out of the question! To make sure of that, Congress will spend at least $1.5 million of public funds to defend a law – DOMA – which President Obama, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, the very author of that discriminatory bill, former Georgia Congressperson Robert Barr, have all called unconstitutional.

You see, once you start removing groups from our American society the way it has become customary to do so in the public arena, we end up with a hard-core minority who will do anything and everything to hold onto their narrative in order to control the debate, thereby leaving the majority out in the cold.

We can’t just tolerate the cultural mosaic that is America; we must embrace, love, and cherish it just as we have done throughout our history. As part of that, we must reintroduce the notion of the melting pot society in the classrooms of Alabama, Arizona, Utah, and beyond. We need to pass a Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) bill to bring millions of families out of the shadows and into our fold. The definition of families under CIR must be all encompassing. LGBT families have long suffered from this lack of recognition and are still battling discriminatory laws in America. As such, DOMA must be repealed so bi-national couples have the option of immigrating to the U.S. All of these families will create jobs, pay taxes, and attend schools; they will apply for loans, and then buy homes and cars; they will travel, book hotels, buy tickets and go to the movies, therefore stimulating our depressed economy.

At the same time, we can relieve the Department of Homeland Security from issuing endless memos on how their various dragnet policies are color-neutral. Resources will be freed up to secure our borders. Congress can retreat from passing laws that target any particular segment of our society. Local law enforcement will once again gain the trust of every community and thus be able to go after criminals amongst us – documented or otherwise. Only then will the national debate be able to move forward on how to improve life for every American, not just the selected few. Under this vision, no one – whether majority, minority, or any sub-group in the middle – is marginalized or dehumanized.

This week a federal judge in Alabama enjoined key sections of that state’s radical “make life miserable for the undocumented and so what if others get caught up in it too” law. However, she let stand some other provisions of the statute, including the “papers please” provision for traffic stops and the requirement that schools check the immigration status of schoolchildren and their parents.

I will leave for the constitutional scholars the legal analysis of the judge’s decision. Instead, I’d like to focus on the utter silliness of the provision requiring a check of children’s immigration status.

How is it silly? Let me count the ways:

First, the cost. At a time when school budgets are being slashed, impacting the quality of education, schools all over Alabama are being asked to set up a bureaucracy to check all its students’ papers and maintain elaborate recordkeeping of what they find.

Second, the so-called reasoning. Alabama maintains that this is to gauge the cost of educating the undocumented (or the children of undocumented—their line gets fuzzy). But there is an assumption here that makes this whole premise ridiculous. They are counting only costs, but not counting the immigrants’ contributions. Overlooked is the fact that Alabama schools are funded by property and sales taxes. Everyone but the homeless pay property taxes, either directly or as part of their rental payments to landlords who in turn pay the taxes. And, anyone who buys anything pays sales tax. So how is Alabama going to tally how much immigrants are paying into the system?

Third, the inaccuracy of the figures this process will collect. Because of the way the law is written, if the documentation or information about status is not forthcoming, the student will be presumed to be undocumented. Anyone who has ever dealt with American citizens being asked for immigration status documents can tell you that many are outraged at the very idea of producing papers:  “Isn’t is apparent that I’m American?” Not to mention, the outright unfairness of the law is compounded immeasurably when you consider that Alabama is home to many military families. It’s not hard to imagine a child who was born outside the U.S. registering for school. Nor is it difficult to imagine an Alabama child who has one U.S. citizen parent (perhaps even a military parent) and one undocumented parent. So, many citizens will simply shrug off these demands, resulting in a much higher count of undocumented than is the reality.

Fourth, the impact on the children. Demands for immigration papers are intimidating to undocumented or mixed families. The temptation for some in the school to “turn them in” will be great, and even if families are aware of the law’s prohibitions against this, they will know about that temptation. Children will be taken out of school by their parents for the protection of the family. This will result in citizens (since the U.S. citizen children of undocumented parents are covered) and residents of the U.S. lacking education. Plus, if English is not spoken at home, these children will grow up unassimilated, as they will be denied the setting where English is learned most rapidly.

Fifth, the impact on society. The whole point of this provision is to discourage getting certain children educated. An uneducated populace hurts us all. That is why people like me, with no children, have willingly paid all these years to have other people’s children educated. We all benefit in the end.

But, in the end, Alabama loses here. Unfortunately, so does the rest of America.