What’s Wrong With Alabama’s HB 56?
A Resource for Advocates
Men and women, old and young, have “a right to live with their family [that] cannot be denied by any law,”
Pope John Paul II said.i But our nation’s immigration laws – and now Alabama’s laws – split families apart.
Currently, about 5 million U.S. citizen children have at least
one undocumented parent.ii If one of these parents is deported,
the emotional and financial damage to the family members left
behind can be devastating. 108,000 foreign-born parents of
U.S. citizen children were deported between 1998 and 2007
alone.iii An October 2011 report from the University of
California, Berkeley shows that 39% of people identified for
removal through ICE’s controversial Secure Communities program report having a U.S. citizen spouse or
child.iv
HB 56 actively encourages
the breakup of families.
Parents in immigration detention can lose their parental rights while incarcerated since they may not receive
notice of court proceedings, may not have adequate legal counsel,v cannot comply with the terms of family
reunification plans mandated by the child welfare system, and are often not even told where their children are.vi
Perhaps the Catholic Bishops of the state of Florida said it best: undocumented immigrants in America “are not
so much breaking the law, as being broken by the law.”vii
The fear of being taken away from children and from loved ones makes victims as well as neighbors much less
likely to report crimes. Law enforcement leaders from Texasviii to Californiaix to Utahx to Massachusettsxi have
spoken out about the damage that immigration enforcementonly approaches can do to the community. Fear erodes the
HB 56 makes everyone,
important element of trust between the police and the
citizen and non-citizen, less
communities they serve. This impacts immigrant women
safe.
particularly harshly.xii It renders them helpless in the face of
domestic violence.
One CLINIC affiliate currently represents a spousal abuse
victim in Maryland who is in removal proceedings. This victim is the mother of five children. Early in the
morning one Sunday, her eldest daughter called the police when her father physically attacked her mother for
spending $20 on gas. The mother was not again able to communicate with her children for days while she was
incarcerated, until she was transferred to ICE custody in Baltimore and released with an ankle bracelet.
Another CLINIC affiliate represented a domestic violence victim in a particularly egregious case of ICE
collaboration with aggressive state officials. The immigrant woman’s abusive partner called the local DMV to
alert them to the fact that she had (lawfully) obtained a driver’s license though she was undocumented. The
DMV worked with the local police to set a trap for her at the DMV office when she arrived, and they arranged
for an ICE officer to be present. Sadly, her ordeal so terrified her that she cut off the ankle bracelet ICE made
her wear. She is now on the run with her infant child.
Every human being possesses inherent dignity, regardless of his or her immigration status. Pope John Paul II
spoke forcefully on the human rights and dignity of every undocumented migrant. “His irregular legal status
cannot allow the migrant to lose his dignity,” he warned, “since
he is endowed with inalienable rights, which can neither be
HB 56 labels basic,
violated nor ignored.” “The first way to help these people is to
essential actions taken by
listen to them … and, whatever their legal status with regard to
men and women everyday
State law, to provide them with the necessary means of
subsistence.”xiii
to sustain themselves and
their families as
“criminal.”
Criminalizing the act of asking for work. Criminalizing the act
of asking for a ride in a car. Criminalizing the act of renting an
apartment. Criminalizing everyday interactions with the court
system. Taking away the right of contract. Such blatant
attempts to make everyday life so impossible for an entire group
of people that they “deport themselves” flies in the face of our Christian duty. They also have made humble
efforts to obtain the most basic services impossible. For example, residents of a housing complex in Allgood,
Alabama faced this posted sign: “Attention to all water customers: To be compliant with new laws concerning
immigration you must have an Alabama driver's license… or you may lose water service.”xiv In another
example, a victim of theft could not renew her license plate after it was torn off her car. Finally, several probate
judges have used the law as an excuse to deny marriage licenses to immigrants who cannot provide
documentation of their status. This behavior is currently being challenged in federal court.
“The Church considers the problem of illegal migrants from the standpoint of Christ,” Pope John Paul II said.
“Today the illegal migrant comes before us like that ‘stranger’ in whom Jesus asks to be recognized. To
welcome him and to show him solidarity is a duty of hospitality and fidelity to Christian identity itself.” xv
Undocumented migrants challenge our duty to all our brothers and sisters: “You shall treat the alien who resides
with you no differently than the natives born among you; have the same love for him as for yourself; for you too
were once aliens in the land of Egypt.” (Leviticus 19: 33 – 34).
While the parts of HB 56 relating to transportation and housing have been temporarily blocked by a federal
court, the other provisions mentioned above have not. And litigation continues, so even blocked provisions may
go into effect in the future if different judicial decisions are made.
The federal-state enforcement partnerships (such as the 287(g) and the Secure Communities programs) into
which HB 56 requires state officers to enter: (1) undermine community good will and policing efforts and (2)
deport large numbers of immigrants who have no criminal
history whatsoever or who have committed only traffic
HB 56 requires state
offenses.xvi
officials to partner with the
federal government on
programs that have serious
flaws.
Do these enforcement programs catch mostly serious criminals?
Not at all. The success rate of these programs at catching
serious criminals is low, and varies greatly by jurisdiction.
Nationally, through May 2011, more than half (59%) of all
immigrants arrested by ICE through the Secure Communities
program had either no criminal convictions or were guilty only
of misdemeanors and traffic offenses; fully one-third had never
been convicted of anything.xvii But the rate of non-criminals deported through Secure Communities is much
higher than 1/3 in several jurisdictions. In fact, more than 80% of the individuals deported through Secure
Communities were non-criminals in some jurisdictions between 10/08 and 06/10.xviii Rates of removal of noncriminals for the 287(g) program are equally as variable, with one recent study finding a range of rates from
70% in Las Vegas to under 10% in Colorado. xix
The Secure Communities program has a critical design flaw. There is a serious disconnect between the stated
goal of the program – to remove truly dangerous criminals – and the operation of the program – to catch anyone
arrested by local police, regardless of whether a charge is made, the nature of the charge, or the existence of a
conviction. That is why people who have never been convicted of any crime will continue to be deported
through this program. But the problem goes beyond the fact that non-criminals get caught up in Secure
Communities at alarming rates. The program also appears to operate with racial bias. An October 2011 study
from UC Berkeley demonstrates that Latinos make up 93% of individuals detained through Secure Communities
while they only account for 77% of the undocumented population in the U.S.xx
Under Alabama’s HB 56, the state will now incarcerate people based solely on their ability to provide
documentation of their citizenship or immigration status. For example, individuals who are stopped while
driving and cannot immediately provide a driver’s license or
other documentary proof of citizenship or immigration status
HB 56 restricts a person’s
will be jailed until they can provide those documents, or until
freedom based solely on his
the federal government confirms their status. In another
ability to show identity
example, individuals determined to be undocumented will
automatically be denied bail, regardless of any other extenuating
documents.
factors (including whether the immigrant is a single mother or
father). In still another example, if you have been convicted of
any state or local crime, and you are about to be released from
jail in the normal course of justice or are able to pay the requisite fine in lieu of incarceration, the state must
continue to detain you simply because you are undocumented.
These provisions of HB 56 will harm citizens and lawful permanent residents as well as undocumented
immigrants, making everyone’s safety more precarious. Homeless, poor, rural, and elderly citizens, as well as
citizens who have been victims of natural disasters, may find it difficult to locate and produce documentation of
their citizenship, including birth certificates. If one of these individuals has never before had cause to be
fingerprinted, it may be time consuming or, indeed, impossible for the federal government to locate adequate
proof of that person’s citizenship. In fact, the first person arrested by state police pursuant to HB 56 was
detained in jail all weekend before the police were able to determine that he was in fact present in the U.S.
lawfully. He was a Yemeni man.xxi
HB 56 requires local officers to check the immigration status of anyone they lawfully stop – even for a violation
as minor as jaywalking, littering or loitering – when the officer claims to have a “reasonable suspicion” that the
person is undocumented. Many legal immigrants, and even
citizens, may look, talk, or associate with others in public in
HB 56 requires the state to
such a way that leads an officer suspect that the person might be
pay for extensive
undocumented. Policing based on any of these factors is a
immigration and civil
federal civil rights violation.
rights training and opens
the state up to costly
lawsuits.
While the “reasonable suspicion” portion of HB 56 does state
that an officer may not consider race, color or national origin,
even District Judge Blackburn thought it likely that, down the
road, this law would be applied by some officers in a
discriminatory manner because these officers would not receive
adequate training.xxii The state of Alabama must assume the
difficult responsibility of both funding and providing such training, Sheriff Todd Entrekin of Etowah County
explained, not the federal government. And adequate training would “not [be] a trivial process,” he said. He
testified that he is “concerned that any training provided by the State regarding the meaning of the federal
immigration laws, or the new state immigration law, will not equip our deputies with the necessary knowledge
and expertise that would allow them to reasonably suspect when someone is in the country unlawfully.”xxiii
Furthermore, the litigation sparked by HB 56 will likely cost the state millions. The state of Arizona spent $1.9
million in just over one year, defending itself in lawsuits that are far from over.xxiv
HB 56 places NO privacy limitations on what is done with the information on lawful presence gathered by
schools. Rather, anyone empowered by this bill to inquire into a student’s lawful presence is free to pass this
information on to local law enforcement or federal immigration
authorities. Undocumented children in Alabama public schools
HB 56 frightens children
would – rightly – be afraid that their presence and participation
who try to exercise their
in the school system would leave their parents open to detention
basic constitutional right to
and deportation. This is an impermissible burden to place on any
an education.
child.
In the immediate aftermath of Judge Blackburn’s decision to let
this part of the law go into effect, 7% of Hispanic children in the
state — about 2,300 students — did not show up for classes. On October 12, when Hispanic businesses and
workers across the state staged a mass protest, more than 5,100 Hispanic students stayed home from school on
that one day alone.xxv The Birmingham News recently reported that one rogue school called Hispanic students
into the cafeteria and asked them to publicly disclose the immigration status of their parents.xxvi
While this part of HB 56 was temporarily blocked in October by a federal appeals court, litigation continues,
and these provisions may go into effect in the future if different judicial decisions are made.
Undocumented immigrants in Alabama are not responsible for any generalized “lawlessness” in our
communities, as HB 56 claims.
HB 56 is driven by
stereotypes rather than by
facts.
Fact: Almost 30% of Alabama’s roughly 169,000 immigrants
are naturalized U.S. citizens. xxvii
Fact:
Simply residing in the United States without an
immigration status is not a crime. It is a civil violation.
Undocumented immigrants in Alabama are not “causing
economic hardship” in the state, as HB 56 claims. To the contrary, “attrition through enforcement” has had and
will continue to have a devastating effect on Alabama’s economy, forcing consumers, business entrepreneurs,
property owners, and taxpayers out of the state.
Fact: The 2010 purchasing power of Alabama’s Hispanic consumers totaled $3.7 billion. xxviii
Fact: Immigrants make up 4.9% of the state’s workforce. xxix
Fact: Even unauthorized immigrants pay taxes – a lot of taxes – despite being ineligible for almost all federal
and state benefits. Unauthorized immigrants in Alabama paid $130.3 million in state and local taxes in 2010:



$25.8 million in state income taxes.
$5.8 million in property taxes.
$98.7 million in sales taxes.xxx
Fact: Undocumented immigrants contribute more to the U.S. economy than they take out. If all unauthorized
immigrants were removed from Alabama, the state would lose $1.1 billion in the state’s GDP, and
approximately 17,819 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time. This result is supported by
estimates done in other states. In Texas, for example, the absence of 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in
the state would have meant a loss of $17.7 billion in the state’s GDP. In fact, the difference between what these
immigrants brought into the state and what they took out in terms of services amounted to $424.7 million.xxxi
Fact: Even high-profile critics of comprehensive immigration reform admit that it is simply not true that
deporting one unauthorized worker results in the employment of one U.S. citizen.xxxii Rather, the economy as a
whole – including available jobs – contracts when consumers, taxpayers, and employers leave.xxxiii
Fact: HB 56 has already cost businesses in Alabama a pretty penny: “The Associated General Contractors of
Alabama estimate that about one-fourth of the entire construction work force has already left the state. The
agriculture industry is faring even worse: it’s harvest time, and their crops are rotting in the fields. One family
farmer told CBS News that the labor shortage would cost his family around $150,000 this year.”xxxiv
Fact: A plan to recruit unemployed U.S. citizens in Alabama to work in tomato fields, giving them free
transportation and paying them to pick the fruit and clean the fields, fell flat.xxxv
Fact: Far more states rejected immigration enforcement bills in the 2011 session than passed them. The cost of
these bills could not be ignored. In Kentucky, for example, a fiscal-impact analysis done by the state Senate
found that passing S.B. 6 (legislation similar to Arizona’s infamous SB 1070) would cost $40 million a year. xxxvi
In Tennessee, legislators rejected a similar anti-immigrant bill costing $3 million in the first year and $2 million
each subsequent year.xxxvii
i
Undocumented Migrants, Message of Pope John Paul II for World Migration Day, 1996.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/migration/documents/hf_jpii_mes_25071995_undocumented_migrants_en.html
ii Women’s Refugee Commission, Torn Apart by Immigration Enforcement: Parental Rights and Immigration Detention [“WRC Report”]
(December 2010): 1 http://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/programs/detention/parental-rights.
iii Ibid.
iv Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy, University of California, Berkeley Law School, “Secure Communities By the
Numbers: an Analysis of Demographics and Due Process” (October 2011)
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Secure_Communities_by_the_Numbers.pdf
vvNational Immigrant Justice Center, Isolated in Detention: Limited Access to Legal Counsel in Immigration Detention Facilities
Jeopardizes a Fair Day in Court (September 2010): 8-10. The report found that several factors contributed to inadequate counsel for
those in immigration detention including the geographic isolation of many detention facilities, inadequate phone access, and
inadequate legal aid resources.
vi WRC Report, at 1 http://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/programs/detention/parental-rights.
vii Florida Catholic Conference, Florida Bishops’ Statement on Immigration, January 1, 2011
http://www.justiceforimmigrants.org/documents/florida-bishops-immigration-statement-2011.pdf
viii A. Elena Lacayo, “One Year Later: A Look at SB 1070 and Copycat Legislation,” National Council of La Raza (April 18, 2011) [“Lacayo,
“One Year Later”]: 5 (quoting Sheriff Richard Wiles of El Paso, TX: “if the people who live in our community are afraid to talk to us, they
won’t report crimes when they’re victims or witnesses.”).
ix The San Jose, CA Police Department released a statement approving the San Jose City Council’s policy of putting community policing
before immigration enforcement. Here is the selection of the City Council’s policy quoted and approved by the Police Department:
The City of San Jose has a strong interest in assuring that legal and undocumented immigrants do not fear interacting with their local
governmental authorities. In past years, the City has seen how the reluctance of immigrants to interact with local authorities can
critically undermine the health and safety of our community. For example, the failure of victims to report crimes, the reluctance of
witnesses to cooperate with the police, or the unwillingness of parents to take children to school or to a health clinic, can have grave
impacts on the well-being of all of San Jose's residents, including U.S. citizens.
http://www.sjpd.org/inews/viewPressRelease.asp?ID=430
x
Lacayo, “One Year Later,” at 5 (quoting Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff: “local law enforcement resources should focus on
criminal activities, not civil violations of the federal code.”)
xi Immigration Policy Center Special Report: Debunking the Myth of “Sanctuary Cities:” Community Policing Policies Protect American
Communities (April 2011): 6
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Community_Policing_Policies_Protect_American_042611_update.pdf
xii Witness, for example, the February 10, 2011 testimony of Antonia Peña, a volunteer with Casa de Maryland, before an Ad Hoc
Congressional Hearing hosted by Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ). Ms. Peña recounted the story of her friend, Maria, a Salvadoran
mother living in Maryland who is now in removal proceedings because she called the police for help against a domestic attack. See U.S.
Congress. Ad Hoc Congressional Hearing hosted by Representative Raúl Grijalva. “Emerging Issues in Ending Violence Against Immigrant
Women.” Testimony of Antonia Peña, Volunteer with Casa de Maryland. February 10, 2011. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-raulgrijalva/immigrants-need-the-viole_b_822424.html; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuLHUJa6Pf0 Such stories of victims being
further victimized by the immigration system are not hypothetical. They are real and documented.
xiii Undocumented Migrants, Message of Pope John Paul II for World Migration Day, 1996.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/migration/documents/hf_jpii_mes_25071995_undocumented_migrants_en.html
xiv
America’s Voice, “Ten Things to Know about Alabama’s New Immigration Law,”
http://americasvoiceonline.org/blog/entry/ten_things_to_know_about_alabamas_new_immigration_law/
xv Undocumented Migrants, Message of Pope John Paul II for World Migration Day, 1996.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/migration/documents/hf_jpii_mes_25071995_undocumented_migrants_en.html
xvi Migration Policy Institute, Delegation and Divergence: A Study of 287(g) State and Local Immigration Enforcement (January 2011)
[“MPI, Delegation and Divergence”] http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/287g-divergence.pdf ; National Day Laborer Organizing
Network et. al., Restoring Community: A National Community Advisory Report on ICE’s Failed “Secure Communities” Program (August
2011) [NDLON, “Restoring Community”] ; Benjamin A. Cardozo School of Law, Briefing Guide to Secure Communities
http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/uploadedFiles/Cardozo/Profiles/immigrationlaw-741/NDLON_FOIA_Briefing%20guide.final.pdf
xvii NDLON, Restoring Community, at 5.
xviii Cardozo School of Law et. al., Briefing Guide to Secure Communities,
http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/uploadedFiles/Cardozo/Profiles/immigrationlaw-741/NDLON_FOIA_Briefing%20guide.final.pdf
xix
MPI, Delegation and Divergence, at 19.
Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy, University of California, Berkeley Law School, “Secure Communities By
the Numbers: an Analysis of Demographics and Due Process” (October 2011)
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Secure_Communities_by_the_Numbers.pdf
xxi “First alleged violator or Ala. Immigration law is legal.” Associated Press (Oct. 4, 2011).
xxii HICA v. Bentley, pp. 76-77.
xxiii Ibid.
xxiv
The Center for American Progress, Your State Can’t Afford It: The Fiscal Impact of States’ Anti-Immigrant Legislation (July 2011): 7
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/pdf/state_immigration.pdf
xxv USA Today, “Fear in Ala. towns over tough immigration law” October 18, 2010 http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-18/immigrantsleave-alabama-town-over-immigration-law/50819276/1
xxvi America’s Voice, “Ten Things to Know about Alabama’s New Immigration Law,”
http://americasvoiceonline.org/blog/entry/ten_things_to_know_about_alabamas_new_immigration_law/ ; Birmingham News,
“Opponents of Alabama's immigration law say it has created 'humanitarian crisis',” October 6, 2011
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/10/opponents_of_alabamas_immigrat.html
xxvii Immigration Policy Center, New Americans in Alabama, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/new-americans-alabama
xxviii Immigration Policy Center, New Americans in Alabama, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/new-americans-alabama
xxix Immigration Policy Center, New Americans in Alabama, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/new-americans-alabama
xxx All of the above economic data is provided by Immigration Policy Center, New Americans in Alabama,
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/new-americans-alabama
xxxi Ibid. at 4.
xxxii
Testimony of Steven Camarota, Director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies, at U.S. House of Representatives Committee
on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement Hearing: “New Jobs in Recession and Recovery: Who Are
Getting Them and Who Are Not” http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_03102011.html
xxxiii
Testimony of Heidi Shierholz, Economist, Economic Policy Institute, at U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary,
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement Hearing: “New Jobs in Recession and Recovery: Who Are Getting Them and
Who Are Not” http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_03102011.html
xxxiv
America’s Voice, “Ten Things to Know about Alabama’s New Immigration Law,”
http://americasvoiceonline.org/blog/entry/ten_things_to_know_about_alabamas_new_immigration_law/
xxxv Associated Press, “Efforts to replace immigrant workers in Alabama fields coming up short,” October 17, 2011
http://blog.al.com/wire/2011/10/state_program_to_replace_immig.html#incart_hbx
xxxvi The Center for American Progress, Your State Can’t Afford It: The Fiscal Impact of States’ Anti-Immigrant Legislation (July 2011): 2
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/pdf/state_immigration.pdf
xxxvii Ibid.
xx