|
Middle of the Road Scott Wright is the managing editor of The Post and the author of "A History of Weiss Lake" and "Fire on the Mountain." Phil Williams is the Republican state senator for Alabama Dist. 10, which includes Cherokee County.
Alabama's new immigration law Scott Wright: Sen. Williams, first of all let me tell you that it is an honor to have you with us in the “Middle of the Road.” For the uninitiated, the goal here is to discuss a relevant topic from the news and hopefully increase its understanding for our readers. By the time we reach the end of our discussion, it is my hope that you and I will be able to reach some “common ground” on our topic, which this time around is Alabama's new immigration law.Senator, you were a co-sponsor of the state's new immigration bill and have been a strong supporter of the law since its passage last year. Several weeks ago you wrote an editorial in which you decried the myriad complaints about the law's alleged shortcomings. But last month Gov. Robert Bentley and the leaders of your party seemed to admit in a joint statement that sections of the law need to be amended and/or clarified. Let me get the debate started with this question: Do you remain as steadfast in your support the bill as you were before Bentley, Rep. Mike Hubbard and Sen. Del Marsh released their statement; or do you, too, see room for improvement? Sen. Phil Williams: Hello Scott, good to be with you and thanks for the opportunity. I do steadfastly support the illegal immigration reform law, and that support was not something I took lightly. Aside from personal study on the matter I took time to meet with local officials from northeast Alabama to talk about the negative impact of unimpeded illegal immigration in their communities. I believe strongly that the law was needed and that it will be upheld by the courts. You are correct that there are likely to be some administrative amendments to the law during the upcoming 2012 session, which begins in February. That is nothing unusual. In fact, the majority of laws that are enacted each year are merely amendments to previous laws. The government leaders you referred to were very clear that the Legislature will make necessary amendments for the purpose of clarification, increased enforceability, or ease of application. There is no intent on the part of the majority to repeal the law. I would personally be opposed to that and I know I am not alone. Wright: We're off to a good start, Sen. Williams. I agree with you, and the vast majority of Alabamians, that there is a distinct need for the state to tackle the issue of illegal immigration when our lackadaisical federal government won't. But how far is too far? Because too little time was spent perfecting the language of this law, federal courts will ultimately have to decide if the state Legislature overstepped its constitutional boundary. I believe the court system's participation in this process could have been made unnecessary if only the Republican majority had done a better job from the get-go. Why the “pass it now, fix it later” mentality? As a result of that attitude, the state of Alabama has taken it on the chin, from a public relations standpoint. It didn't have to be this way, Sen. Williams. It seems to me that a more thorough, well-conceived effort from the party in power in Montgomery would have resulted in a law that could have been just as effective as the current, pared-down version, without conjuring images of Bull Connor, attack dogs and fire hoses in the eyes of the rest of the nation. Is there any hope for the people of Alabama that their elected representatives have learned from this public relations disaster and will not repeat their performance in 2012? Williams: Wow, Scott. Did you really just conjure images of the days of legalized racism? I'll be honest, we're not going to have much middle-of-the-road dialogue if your positions are that far to the left of what I believe is reality. The law is clear that those here illegally should be asked to account for their status. That's all. And no law officers are allowed to profile or even question a person as a primary cause. Questions on immigration are only to arise as a secondary matter, meaning an illegal alien would have to be approached or detained for another illegal activity before immigration status becomes an issue (i.e., in the course of being detained for a DUI, a person who provides no documentation and cannot speak English is likely to be questioned as to their immigration status.) This is federal law, and the Legislature simply provided enforcement mechanisms since the federal government either cannot or will not do so. As for your assertion that the immigration law was poorly written, nothing could be further from the truth. This bill was written, re-written, researched and debated, for years before even making it to the floor. The fact that the Obama administration wishes to challenge it, that the ACLU does not like it, and that other activist groups have rattled there sabers should be an indication to the vast majority of conservative Alabamians that the Legislature is on the right track. Those of us who sponsored the bill, and the bipartisan members of the Legislature who voted for it, are certainly not living in fear of a liberal backlash. What's right is right. Wright: We agree in principle, Sen. Williams, just not in practice. Absolutely, you and your colleagues were right to establish a mechanism for enforcing illegal immigration laws in light of the fact that the federal government hasn't done its job for decades. But even one of your own colleagues, Sen. Gerald Dial of Lineville, has said publicly that he and his fellow legislators failed to do their jobs properly when they allowed this bill to fly through the Senate in the closing minutes of the 2011 regular session with hardly any debate at all. “The bill has created undue hardships for Alabama citizens,” Dial told me in December. “We made a mistake.” There's no shame in admitting a mistake. I only hope that legislators in Montgomery will endeavor to learn from this one. Hopefully, Sen. Williams, the result will be that, going forward, you and our other elected representatives will do a better job of taking into consideration the “undue hardships” that you may be inadvertently placing on all of us by trying to over-grease the slow-turning wheels of government. That is what concerns me most about the way the state's immigration bill became law. Senator, I wish you safe travels, wisdom and patience as you begin your second tour in the Statehouse next month. I hope you'll rejoin me and our readers again soon in the Middle of the Road. The final word is yours, sir. Williams: Thank you, Scott. You are correct that something had to be done about illegal immigration. I look back at the reduced unemployment figures and anecdotal evidence of less strain on medical and educational entities and believe that, in the end, the record will reflect that this law was a great benefit to Alabama and its legal citizens. I can't speak for Sen. Dial, but I do recall seeing his quote in a different context in which he stated more clearly that the Legislature is willing to clear up any ambiguities if they exist, but that the substantive law is not going to be changed. The crux of the matter is that Alabamians, and all Americans, have a right to expect that the laws of our nation should be respected by those who want to come here. I have several friends who have gone through the process to become U.S. citizens. In fact, my own sister-in-law is a naturalized citizen. Each of those friends and family members is evidence to me that there is a legal process that works; if someone wants to bypass that process they should not expect to be received with open arms. In the final say, whether or not elected officials could “do a better job” is very subjective. I feel very comfortable that this law was given thorough due diligence and was carefully crafted. We'll let the U.S. Supreme Court decide if the liberal challenges have merit. I for one am confident in the law's validity. Take care, Scott. See you next time. |