This week, Republican Speaker Mike Hubbard conceded at least part of the law is probably unconstitutional.
“It’s about illegal immigrants, and I have said in the media what part of the word ‘illegal’ do people not understand?” he said. “That’s what it is about. . . ”
“Some of the parts of it may be stricken down and we may have to come back and revisit it.”
At another forum, Hubbard said:
“Some parts of that law may be struck down,” Hubbard said. “I hope not, but it may be. We knew going in we would probably have to come in and tweak it.
He did not explain why they passed legislation likely to be declared unconstitutional subjecting the state to millions in legal fees. For instance, Arizona has expended over $2 million so far. Or why they didn’t narrow the extremity of the legislation, as other Republican Legislatures had done.
But what did he learn from the error of the Legislature? Nothing.
“I’m proud of what we passed. We did it for the right reasons. We have more bills like that coming. We’re just getting started.“
These laws violate the Constitution; these laws are illegal enactments. To borrow Hubbard’s own words: “what part of the word ‘illegal’ (or unconstitutional) do people not get? That’s what it is about.”
These admissions that the law was constitutionally suspect by Hubbard were followed, however, by continued denials by Senator Scott Beason, the sponsor of the bill.
“State Sen. Scott Beason, a sponsor of the immigration law, also defended it, and “said he believed it would stand up to legal challenges, since legislators adopted it with previous court rulings in mind after challenges to similar laws in other states. “Of course, there’s no telling what a judge might do,” Beason said.
“Previous court rulings in mind?” Did they miss the cases in Arizona and Utah? “No telling what a judge might do?” I think we have a pretty good idea what a judge is going to do when seven out of seven other judges have struck laws down that were less extreme than the one passed in Alabama.