More Republicans push to criminalize bringing immigrants in the US illegally across state lines
The legislation given final approval Wednesday protects 'not only the citizens of Alabama but also the people that are immigrating here legally and doing everything the right way,' said the bill's Republican sponsor, Sen. Wes Kitchens.
The measure carves out exemptions for medical professionals such as ambulance drivers and employees for law firms, educators, churches or charitable organizations carrying out 'non-commercial' tasks. The bill also outlines a process for law enforcement to determine whether a person who is arrested is in the country legally. It now goes to Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, who has 10 days to sign the legislation or else it fails by a pocket veto.
Alabama joins at least nine other states that have considered legislation this year that would create crimes of transporting immigrants who are unlawfully in the U.S., according to an Associated Press analysis using the bill-tracking software Plural. It's one of many recent bills passed by conservative statehouses seeking to aid President Donald Trump 's crackdown on immigration.
Activists say Alabama could end up ensnaring people who provide transportation across state lines for essential services, such federal immigration court hearings in New Orleans and Atlanta, mandatory trips to out-of-state consulates and visits to family.
Jordan Stallworth, 38, works as a civic engagement coordinator for the Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice and lives in Wedowee, Alabama, a rural town of about 800 people that is just a 20-minute drive from Georgia. His wife has relatives living without legal status in both states and he often assists family members and other immigrants in the community with transportation.
Recently, he drove a family member lacking legal status to the maternity ward in Carrollton, Georgia, 35 miles (56 kilometers) away, since the local hospital doesn't have one. Stallworth worries that similar trips will be criminalized.
'I'm not gonna sit here and somebody's dying in front of me just to have a baby — I'm not gonna sit here and just let her die, family or not,' Stallworth said.
Federal law already makes it a crime to knowingly transport someone who is in the U.S. illegally. That law has been used in border areas against drivers picking up people who illegally cross into the U.S. But it has not historically been used for minor things like giving someone a ride to the grocery store, said Kathleen Campbell Walker, a longtime immigration attorney in El Paso, Texas.
But immigrant advocates are watching to see whether that changes under Trump.
'The likelihood of that being enforced is higher now because of the focus on removing undocumented people from the United States,' Walker said.
Alabama's legislation is similar to a 2023 Florida law, which made it a state crime to knowingly transport someone who entered the U.S. illegally. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the Florida law last year, noting it's preemption by federal law. But in March, the judge narrowed that injunction to block the law's enforcement only against some who sued, including several individuals and members of The Farmworker Association of Florida.
Democratic Rep. Phillip Ensler testified against the Alabama bill, saying the crime already exists under federal law. He conceded that exemptions made the bill better but said, 'It just seems very cruel and overly broad that we're going to criminalize people doing innocent things.'
Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, signed a law last week that criminalizes harboring, transporting or hiding individuals without legal immigration status 'for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain.'
Texas also has toughened its immigration laws. Last year, it increased prison sentences under a state anti-smuggling law that prohibits transporting individuals with the intent to conceal them from law enforcement.
Some of the similar measures considered by legislatures this year would apply more narrowly than the Florida and Texas laws. An Idaho law signed in March by Republican Gov. Brad Little creates a felony crime of 'trafficking a dangerous illegal alien,' defined as knowingly transporting someone in the country illegally who has been convicted of a felony or certain sex offenses. The new crime is punishable by up to two years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
____
Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Missouri.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Republicans propose bill to rename the Kennedy Center to the Donald J. Trump Center for the Performing Arts
Republican Representative Bob Onder has proposed a bill to rename the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., after President Donald Trump. The proposed legislation, titled the 'Make Entertainment Great Again Act,' cites President Trump as a significant cultural icon and patron of the arts. This bill follows a separate amendment, introduced by Republican Representative Mike Simpson, to rename the Kennedy Center's Opera House after First Lady Melania Trump, which passed the House Appropriations Committee 33-25. President Trump recently replaced members of the Kennedy Center's board and became its chairman, stating his intention to ensure the institution was 'not going to be woke.' John F. Kennedy's grandson, Jack Schlossberg, has criticized these renaming efforts, suggesting President Trump is 'obsessed with being bigger than JFK.'
Daily Mail
5 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
PETER VAN ONSELEN: UN climate boss makes LUDICROUS claim about daily habit Aussies will be forced to give up because of warming - turning off the very people he needs to win over
When Simon Stiell, the UN's top climate official, warns Australians that unless we lift our game on emissions, fruit and veggies will become 'a once-a-year treat', you know he's jumped the shark. That kind of rhetoric may stir applause from activists who are already won over to the climate cause, but it risks turning off the very people who weigh up what practical action should look like. You don't have to be a climate change denier to fall into that category. Climate change is real, most people accept that. The science is sound, people know that too. The dangers posed by a warming planet are therefore not to be underestimated. But packaging the argument in short term apocalyptic headlines doesn't strengthen the cause, it weakens it. It sounds like activism, not expert analysis, and that distinction matters. When the debate becomes saturated with worst case scenarios and doom-laden predictions, most people dismiss those who deliver inflated rhetoric as lacking credibility. Stiell might believe he's spurring governments into action, but for mainstream voters, the ones who decide elections, this sort of messaging can feel more like an old fashioned guilt trip. It becomes counterproductive to the cause. Australia is preparing to update its 2035 emissions reduction target right when the Labor government has ambitions to co-host a global climate summit. And the UN's climate tsar seems to think fresh alarmism will spur Labor into more action. But that will not be the case if his sensationalising makes the government look like its plans are rooted in activism. Younger voters tend to be more inclined to listen to the alarmism, but the electorate is broader than one generation still finding their feet in life. The case for serious emissions reduction is strong, but it must be made with rigour. Suggesting fresh produce will become a luxury good - or that living standards are set to collapse without dramatic policy shifts in Australia - makes for a good headline but is poor public engagement. It risks framing climate policy as a punitive exercise rather than an economic and technological opportunity. It also ignores the reality that Australia is a very small emitter on the global stage even if our per capita emissions are too high. What we do, or don't do, matters little if the likes of China and India don't do much more than they currently are. There are plenty of nations in greater need of lectures than we are. Australians aren't oblivious to climate risks, but they are wary of poor policies, broken promises and emissions targets that are often costly and don't get met anyway. Voters want action that's credible, not utopian and dreamy. They also want costed plans, not alarmist lectures, especially in the context of rising energy prices and concerns about reliability. The Coalition is already highlighting the economic burden of the government's major emissions reduction policy - known as the safeguard mechanism - and other net zero policies. The public will want proper answers to a problem - not simplistic fear mongering. The credibility of climate action depends on public trust. That means being transparent about costs and benefits, about timelines, trade-offs and targets. It means avoiding exaggerated claims that can't be sustained if the short-term doesn't mirror the long-term projection. Just because opponents of climate action use fear and verbosity is no reason for advocates who claim to be on the side of science to dash their credibility by returning fire. If the government wants to be taken seriously at home and abroad, it should focus less on emotionally charged appeals and more on policy design that builds confidence. There's merit in the idea of setting ambitious targets with built-in flexibility, allowing for adjustments as new technology develops and economic conditions change. That's the kind of thinking that builds consensus and keeps momentum going. Those urging rapid decarbonisation, net zero within a decade, or 65 per cent emissions cuts by 2035 need to ground their calls in practical pathways. Without them, they risk pushing the conversation to the fringes. There's nothing wrong with urgency, but it should be channelled into persuading the undecided rather than trying to pressure them. If Stiell wants Australia to lead, avoid the junk threats. After all, science is already on his side.
Reuters
35 minutes ago
- Reuters
Oil climbs on EU trade deal, potential US-China tariff truce extension
July 29 (Reuters) - Oil extended gains on Tuesday, lifted by hopes of improved economic activity after the U.S.-EU trade deal, a potential U.S.-China tariff truce and President Donald Trump's shorter deadline for Russia to end the Ukraine war. Brent crude futures were up 24 cents, or 0.34%, to $70.28 a barrel by 0000 GMT, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude was at $66.93 a barrel, up 22 cents, or 0.33%. Both contracts settled more than 2% higher in the previous session, and Brent touched its highest level since July 18 on Monday. The trade agreement between the United States and the European Union, while imposing a 15% import tariff on most EU goods, sidestepped a full-blown trade war between the two major allies that would have rippled across nearly a third of global trade and dimmed the outlook for fuel demand. Oil prices were also supported by news of a possible extension of the trade truce between the U.S. and China, with top economic officials from both countries having met in Stockholm on Monday for more than five hours of talks. The discussions are expected to resume on Tuesday. Meanwhile, Trump set a new deadline on Monday of "10 or 12 days" for Russia to make progress toward ending the war in Ukraine or face sanctions. Trump has threatened sanctions on both Russia and buyers of its exports unless progress is made. "Trump's comments reignited fears that Russia's oil flows would be impacted," ANZ senior commodity strategist Daniel Hynes wrote in a note. "This also comes on the back of the latest sanctions package by the EU against Russia, including a lower price cap on the country's crude and the import of refined products made from Moscow's oil in other countries," Hynes added.
