Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Alabama Revisits Immigration and Resurrects Roy Moore
Old Times There Are Not Forgotten
Dixie, Old American Song
It’s hard to keep Alabama out of the news. Two of its recent newsworthy events deserve attention. The first is its attempt to improve on the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, a 76-page statutory creation as remarkable for its length as for its content that was designed to rid the state of illegal immigrants.
As drafted, the Act prohibits anyone from giving an illegal immigrant a ride to church (or any other place for that matter). In addition, illegal aliens may “not be permitted to enroll in or attend any public post secondary education institution.” Both of those provisions, among some others, were blocked by a federal court whose decision is being appealed. The proposed revisions slightly soften some of the harsher provisions. Among those softened is the protocol to be followed when a law enforcement officer stops someone. Whereas the original legislation required a law enforcement officer to determine the immigration status of anyone stopped by the law enforcement officer for any reason, the determination is now only required if a person is “lawfully arrested or is issued a traffic citation. . . .” Mysteriously, the amendment adds a provision that says when an arrest or citation is issued to the driver, the officer may also inquire as to the citizenship of everyone else in the car even though none of them has been issued a citation or been arrested. Someone smarter than I can explain the logic of that.
Another change is to the provision that requires that schools determine the citizenship status of all children when they enroll. As originally enacted, that determination was not satisfied by asking the children on the first day of school to raise their hands if they were illegal immigrants. The law required proof of the child’s status together with detailed provisions. All those will be replaced by a requirement that the Alabama State Department of Education “compile a report that calculates the estimated annual fiscal impact of providing free public educational services to those Alabama public school students who are the children of, or in the custody and control of, aliens believed to be unlawfully present in the United States.” A student of the legislation could be forgiven for failing to understand how the State Department of Education can figure out the “annual fiscal impact to the state” of educating illegal immigrants without finding out who is and is not an illegal immigrant. Lest the illegal aliens become nervous, however, the legislation tells them they need not be. It specifically says that: “Under no circumstance does the Legislature intend to deny anyone the opportunity to receive a free public education in Alabama’s public educational system. Nor does the Legislature intend for the provisions of this section to discourage anyone from accessing a free public education in Alabama’s public educational system.” There are a number of other changes made but since the Bill is now 83 pages long those who want more information should read it for themselves. The other event of significance is the return to the judicial scene in Alabama of Roy Moore. Roy is the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.
Roy first gained notoriety in 1997 when he was a state circuit court judge. In his courtroom he hung a hand-carved wooden plaque of the Ten Commandments because, one assumes, he could not remember what they said without prompting from the plaque. He refused a higher court’s order to remove the plaque and then-Governor, Fob James, said he would call out the national guard, if necessary, to prevent the removal of the plaque. The plaque remained. In 2001, Judge Moore was elected Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Within 6 months of his election he supervised the construction and installation of a 5,280-pound granite monument to the Ten Commandments in the central rotunda of the State Judicial Building. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling ordering removal of the monument. When Chief Justice Moore refused, the Alabama Court of the Judiciary removed him. The monument left the rotunda and was placed in a back room. That was in 2003.
The news from Alabama in March that accompanies revisions to the immigration bill is that unless the unexpected happens, Roy will soon once again be the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, having won the Republican primary in that state. Jurisprudence in Alabama has lots to look forward to. During his prior tenure he wrote a concurring Alabama Supreme Court opinion in a custody battle involving a lesbian mother in which he said that homosexuality is “abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature’s God. ” Homosexuals in Alabama were “presumptively unfit to have custody of minor children.”
It is too soon to say whether or not Roy will be elected. His opponent is Harry Lyon, a criminal defense lawyer who has reportedly unsuccessfully run for office 10 times. He is also said to have once publicly joked that illegal immigrants should be publicly executed. Were that to become Alabama law the Beason Hammon Act would be superfluous. Whichever candidate becomes the new Chief Justice Alabamans won’t have much to brag about.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Broccoli as Humor
Among animals, one has a sense of humor.
— Marianne Moore, The Pangolin
It is always refreshing when folks who are charged with dealing with really serious subject matter bring a note of levity into the proceedings so people don’t get too depressed. Of course, sometimes the levity may seem out of place but that is a reflection on the observer and not the speaker. The observer should not take things so seriously. Two examples were offered last week, one in the United States Supreme Court and the other in a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee.
For the first three days of the week of March 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of legislation enacted in 2010 commonly known as “Obamacare”. Although the Court has many questions to answer in considering the question, the central issue is whether a law that compels individuals to buy health insurance is constitutional. In 2010, roughly fifty one million Americans were without health insurance. In 2011, the number had gone up to approximately fifty two million. Once Obamacare is fully implemented it is anticipated the number of people without health insurance will drop to 26 million. If that part of the law is unconstitutional questions will arise as to whether other parts of the law, such as requiring insurance companies to insure those with “pre-existing” conditions, are also unconstitutional. (Houston Tracy can tell you about that. He was born March 15, 2010 with a defect in his arteries and needed immediate corrective surgery. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas explained to his parents that newborn Houston had a pre-existing condition and was not insured under their policy. After news of Houston’s condition spread around the world and people had time to mock Blue Cross’s crabbed approach, Blue Cross added Houston to his parents’ policy.) The foregoing shows how terribly serious the discussion in the Supreme Court was and puts in perspective the really funny thing Justice Tony Scalia said in trying to explain why forcing people to buy health insurance was bad.
Justice Scalia likened requiring people to buy insurance so that more Americans could have health coverage to a requirement that people buy broccoli. It is unlikely that the Justice was thinking of President George H.W. Bush who famously once said he disliked broccoli. It was simply a really clever way of getting a few laughs and getting everyone to think that forcing people to buy broccoli was the same as forcing people to buy health care. It was a really funny comparison and everyone enjoyed the moment of levity it produced. Justice Scalia is reputedly a very funny man and this is just one of those rare moments when we all get to enjoy it. Justice Scalia was not the only person to introduce levity into a serious matter. Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) was another.
Just as the Supreme Court hearings were drawing to a close, the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Smith, began an oversight hearing to review the administration’s policy with respect to the detention of undocumented immigrants. He named the hearing “Holiday on ICE” after the popular ice-skating group of that name that tours the world and features really good ice skaters. By picking up that name Rep. Smith showed a whimsical streak not always associated with Republican legislators. The matter the Judiciary Committee was considering had nothing to do with ice-skating but with immigrants who have often been subject to horrific abuse while in the custody of ICE. (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.) Those descriptions of abuse are documented in numerous places including an October 19, 2011 Front Line Report and a 2011 report by the Arizona ACLU
The hearings coincided with the opening of two new ICE facilities and the issuance of a new detention manual addressing the treatment of detainees. Lamar Smith, chairman of the Committee said the manual “reads more like a hospitality guideline for illegal immigrants.” He also complained that the new facilities were a waste of taxpayer dollars although they were paid for by the company operating them as Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)pointed out. She also said she was “deeply disappointed” that her colleagues referred to the Judiciary Committee hearing as a Holiday on Ice. She said that “immigrants are people who deserve respect by virtue of our common humanity. They deserve not to be raped. Not to be tortured, whether through physical or mental abuse or through gross medical neglect. They deserve not to be shackled when they give birth.” Rep. Steve King of (R-IA) disagreed saying: “I can’t think of a more descriptive name for the hearings. I thought it was right on point. . . . All they need to do to avoid that ‘holiday on ICE’ is put themselves back in the condition they were in before, which is go to their home country.” The only thing the committee could have done that would have made things more amusing would have been to announce that on a date certain every illegal immigrant in detention would be forced to eat a plate full of broccoli. That would have been really funny.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Broccoli as Humor
Among animals, one has a sense of humor.
— Marianne Moore, The Pangolin
It is always refreshing when folks who are charged with dealing with really serious subject matter bring a note of levity into the proceedings so people don’t get too depressed. Of course, sometimes the levity may seem out of place but that is a reflection on the observer and not the speaker. The observer should not take things so seriously. Two examples were offered last week, one in the United States Supreme Court and the other in a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee.
For the first three days of the week of March 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of legislation enacted in 2010 commonly known as “Obamacare”. Although the Court has many questions to answer in considering the question, the central issue is whether a law that compels individuals to buy health insurance is constitutional. In 2010, roughly fifty one million Americans were without health insurance. In 2011, the number had gone up to approximately fifty two million. Once Obamacare is fully implemented it is anticipated the number of people without health insurance will drop to 26 million. If that part of the law is unconstitutional questions will arise as to whether other parts of the law, such as requiring insurance companies to insure those with “pre-existing” conditions, are also unconstitutional. (Houston Tracy can tell you about that. He was born March 15, 2010 with a defect in his arteries and needed immediate corrective surgery. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas explained to his parents that newborn Houston had a pre-existing condition and was not insured under their policy. After news of Houston’s condition spread around the world and people had time to mock Blue Cross’s crabbed approach, Blue Cross added Houston to his parents’ policy.) The foregoing shows how terribly serious the discussion in the Supreme Court was and puts in perspective the really funny thing Justice Tony Scalia said in trying to explain why forcing people to buy health insurance was bad.
Justice Scalia likened requiring people to buy insurance so that more Americans could have health coverage to a requirement that people buy broccoli. It is unlikely that the Justice was thinking of President George H.W. Bush who famously once said he disliked broccoli. It was simply a really clever way of getting a few laughs and getting everyone to think that forcing people to buy broccoli was the same as forcing people to buy health care. It was a really funny comparison and everyone enjoyed the moment of levity it produced. Justice Scalia is reputedly a very funny man and this is just one of those rare moments when we all get to enjoy it. Justice Scalia was not the only person to introduce levity into a serious matter. Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) was another.
Just as the Supreme Court hearings were drawing to a close, the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Smith, began an oversight hearing to review the administration’s policy with respect to the detention of undocumented immigrants. He named the hearing “Holiday on ICE” after the popular ice-skating group of that name that tours the world and features really good ice skaters. By picking up that name Rep. Smith showed a whimsical streak not always associated with Republican legislators. The matter the Judiciary Committee was considering had nothing to do with ice-skating but with immigrants who have often been subject to horrific abuse while in the custody of ICE. (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.) Those descriptions of abuse are documented in numerous places including an October 19, 2011 Front Line Report and a 2011 report by the Arizona ACLU
The hearings coincided with the opening of two new ICE facilities and the issuance of a new detention manual addressing the treatment of detainees. Lamar Smith, chairman of the Committee said the manual “reads more like a hospitality guideline for illegal immigrants.” He also complained that the new facilities were a waste of taxpayer dollars although they were paid for by the company operating them as Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)pointed out. She also said she was “deeply disappointed” that her colleagues referred to the Judiciary Committee hearing as a Holiday on Ice. She said that “immigrants are people who deserve respect by virtue of our common humanity. They deserve not to be raped. Not to be tortured, whether through physical or mental abuse or through gross medical neglect. They deserve not to be shackled when they give birth.” Rep. Steve King of (R-IA) disagreed saying: “I can’t think of a more descriptive name for the hearings. I thought it was right on point. . . . All they need to do to avoid that ‘holiday on ICE’ is put themselves back in the condition they were in before, which is go to their home country.” The only thing the committee could have done that would have made things more amusing would have been to announce that on a date certain every illegal immigrant in detention would be forced to eat a plate full of broccoli. That would have been really funny.