Regardless of the constitutional argument, giving free education to illegals is harmful economically to federal and state governments as well as the taxpayers. Adding illegals and their children to education is costly and places burdens on education systems because of their special needs. In a case over educating illegals, attorneys for Tyler Independent School District in Texas argued, “It will cost Texas over $62 million per year to educate the estimated 20,000 children of undocumented immigrants now living in the state” (History Lesson 10). Those that argue against HB 56 say that school enrollment is trending down and absences are up. If the statistics are that noticeable, then it proves the bill is working and is a direction in which states should pursue to follow. The issue with benefits for illegals is that “if you subsidize something or give people incentives, you get more of it” (Ron Paul on Immigration). A large reason that many immigrants come here illegally is for benefits such as free education or health care. If benefits to illegals are cut, the flow of illegals will slow because the incentives of free handouts are gone and the problem is solved.
Other proponents of HB 56 are harmful because of unconstitutionality and the economic consequences that will follow. The biggest issue is that HB 56 gives the government the unconstitutional authority to violate the personal privacy of an individual. The Bill of Rights says it is a right of the people to, “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” (Bill of Rights Transcript Text). According to the bill, employers now have the responsibility to help enforce immigration laws, “Beginning April 1, 2012, every business must use the federal E-Verify system to verify employment eligibility” (Summary of Basic Provisions of The New Alabama Immigration Law). Other provisions of the bill make it illegal for an employer to fire or fail to hire a legal applicant or employee while retaining an illegal employee. It also allows the legal employee or applicant to sue the employer for this act and encourages any resident with knowledge of the act not being followed to petition the Attorney General to bring an enforcement action against that business. This hardly makes sense; citizens are not responsible for enforcing laws in any situation and can’t be fined if they fail to assist, but it’s possible now for enforcement of immigration laws. Tea Party groups argued in a letter to representatives that these provisions will prove to harmful to the economy because of the further stress it puts on businesses to expand, “employers will need armies of expensive attorneys to safeguard against criminal prosecutions at a cost that small business can ill-afford even in a good economy” (Tea Party). A better solution to the issue of illegal immigration would be to not look at private businesses as the problem, which will further slow economic growth in a state of recession, but fix the failures of the federal government to enforce its borders to prevent illegals from coming to begin with.
The Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act will have a very negative effect on this country in aspects of individual rights. Similar to the immigration bill in Arizona, one provision is that, “local police who lawfully stop a person are required to verify their immigration status if the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that the person may be in the nation unlawfully” (JURIST - Forum: Alabama Highlights Civil Rights Concerns in State Immigration Laws). Putting the responsibility on the local police has several negative impacts including the enforcing of a police state philosophy and the racial profiling that will inevitably follow, and the costs to actually enforce the new laws. When this provision of the law in Arizona, there were massive protests against it. The prospect that the police could stop anyone, anywhere and they would have to present proof that they are not here illegally is a step towards a national ID card and is very frightening. Also, the issue with the reasonable suspicion clause is that there is no way to actually suspect someone is illegal other than through racial profiling which is not right nor allowed this country by the Constitution. The privacy of individuals should not be violated, but protected by the government. A similar case where it wasn’t, was when Americans of Japanese decent were forced into internment camps during WWII.
A serious problem with enforcing HB 56 is the extra costs that it will require as can be seen in the documentary 9500 Liberty. Opposition to the new bill argue, “Police officers already stretched with tight budgets are being forced to add additional duties to their workload without any added support” (Alabama's Immigration Law A Summary and Status Update). The costs to enforce these laws cost taxpayers more to support various changes such as required new training for all police and more policemen to enforce these laws effectively. A better option is to not question someone on their legal status when they are being stopped, but to question it after they have been arrested. This method of questioning still punishes illegals breaking the law, but also prevents police officers from having to deal with problems using reasonable suspicion. Overall, it’s not a burden that should be put mostly on police when the responsibility is that of the federal government to enforce the border.
The newly passed immigration bill in Alabama has repercussions, some good, more bad. The provisions related to education are good because educating illegals may make moral sense, but it doesn’t make economic or logical sense nor is it constitutional. Where the bill fails to be beneficial is the provisions regarding businesses and the questioning of legal status. Government should not be intruding on private businesses and make it their responsibility to enforce immigration because, first it isn’t, but second it slows down economic growth. Government should also not be intruding on personal privacy. The reasonable suspicion clause makes it impossible to not racially profile and people should not be required to have their “papers” on them everywhere they go. It would be costly to implement this and harmful to everyone. The roots of the issues all lead back to the federal government and the solution for illegal immigration would be for the federal government to end birthright citizenship and the handouts to illegals and to take responsibility for enforcing its own immigration laws and borders without violating the rights of Americans.
Works Cited
"Bill of Rights Transcript Text." National Archives and Records Administration. Web. 11 Dec. 2011.
<>.
"The Constitution of the United States: Amendments 11-27." National Archives and Records Administration. Web. 16 Nov. 2011.
<>.
"History Lesson 10: Plyler v. Doe: Can States Deny Public Benefits to Illegal Immigrants?" Home [CRF: Educating About Immigration]. Web. 11 Dec. 2011.
<>.
"JURIST - Forum: Alabama Highlights Civil Rights Concerns in State Immigration Laws." JURIST - Legal News and Research. Web. 18 Nov. 2011.
<>.
Myers, Amy K., and Ben M. Slaughter. "Alabama's Immigration Law A Summary and Status Update." Haskell Slaughter. Web. 18 Nov. 2011.
<>.
"Ron Paul on Immigration." OnTheIssues.org - Candidates on the Issues. Web. 11 Dec. 2011.
<>.
"Summary - Plyler vs. Doe - 1982." American Patrol Report © -- Citizenship - Sovereignty - Law. Web. 16 Nov. 2011.
<>.
"Summary of Basic Provisions of The New Alabama Immigration Law." Burr & Forman LLP, 10 June 2011. Web. 18 Nov. 2011.
<>.
"Tea Party: E-Verify Is “anathema” to Limited Government and Free Enterprise. « Keating's Desk." Keating's Desk. Web. 11 Dec. 2011.
<>.
