"The 2011 (Alabama) Legislative Session yielded an avalanche of socially conservative legislation."

[pampango]

Paramount on the list was a sweeping new law cracking down on illegal immigration.

This particular illegal immigration legislation received significant howls of outrage from the dissident Democrats as they were being run over. They argued that the bill trampled basic rights such as free speech and free travel. They told their GOP colleagues that this act could not possibly withstand constitutional muster and that it would be very costly in legal fees to the state’s beleaguered general fund to futilely defend. It looks like they may be right on both counts.

It is in Arizona where the state’s efforts to address the problem of illegal immigration began. Other states followed suit. Our law was set to go into effect on Sept. 1. In late August U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn issued a temporary restraining order blocking our act from going into effect. She said she will issue a ruling by Sept. 28. There has been a hue and cry from liberal groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and some church groups against Alabama’s law. The same scenario exists in the other states.

The lawsuits against our immigration law have been brought by the U.S. Justice Department, the ACLU and leaders of the Episcopal, Methodist and Roman Catholic churches. These groups argue that the law violates federal supremacy on immigration matters and would lead to racial profiling.

Even if the state loses in federal court it appears that our state leaders are determined to pursue a vigorous appeal, which will last years and be very costly to the state. Both Gov. Robert Bentley and Attorney General Luther Strange are zealous advocates of the law. They are not in the minority. Polling indicates that 68 percent of Alabamians favor the act.

http://www.andalusiastarnews.com/2011/09/21/law-will-be-costly-for-state/

[salin]

1. 1 word: ALEC