Talk:Alabama HB 56

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Alabama HB 56 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 October 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that most of the provisions of Alabama HB 56, considered the toughest anti-illegal immigration law in the United States, recently went into effect after surviving a legal challenge?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alabama HB 56.

Wikipedia

Permissions

No permission is needed to be sought when referencing or using information produced from the Alabama state legislature. Please stop deleting this page. This information is free to be viewed by the public. And is public property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6749174639201elephant (talk • contribs) 29 Sep 2011

Not true – works of the federal government are public domain but not works of state governments. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both above statements are wrong. State publications are not necessarily public domain, but laws are. Also, the short excerpts used in a Wikipedia article will usually be fair use even if the publication is protected by copyright. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-Benz Executive

The Mercedes-Benz executive being arrested story here has been whitewashed to protect a xenophobic law. Not surprised its Alabama and the South. --JLAmidei (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You and another editor both added material on this and no one has removed anything. If you think it deserves additional treatment, add more yourself. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployment vs job growth

The reference to supporters' statements that the law helped reduce unemployment is contrasted here with an academic analysis of the sectors experiencing job growth. If, as supporters believe, the law opened up jobs in construction, agriculture and poultry processing to previously unemployed non-immigrants, then no "job growth" would be necessary to reduce unemployment. --Dystopos (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuremburg law

I removed the listing for Nuremburg laws from the list of see also. The Nuremburg laws were designed to target people of a specific ethnicity, regardless of their citizenship status. HB 56 is designed to target people who are in the state illegally. You can argue that the law is institutionalized racism and theres plenty of reason to think this. Wikipedia is not the place to do this. --Arm (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. People kept trying to add it as a 'See also' entry in the Arizona SB 1070 article too. It's just another manifestation of Godwin's law. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Illegal" or "Undocumented"

I noticed this article has used the terms "legal" and "illegal" and "documented" and "undocumented" at various times. Is there are reason why it's universally legal/illegal right now? I know this is a point of contention for some, but it makes sense to me that legal/illegal describes a crime and documented/undocumented describes a person. Also, less contentious or biased reading. Dronthego (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is a place in the talk page archives where this has been discussed, but there are a number of reasons why I think "illegal" is better.

"Illegal" is used in the Arizona law, not "undocumented", thus its meaning is better defined.
"Undocumented" is a politically-correct term invented by those sympathetic to those who are, or might be, illegal aliens. Unlike the governments of the US and the several states, these groups are not in a position to create a clear definition of what "undocumented" means.
"Undocumented" could refer to people who are US citizens, but who lack documentary proof of their status. Since US citizens are not required to carry, or even have, documentary proof of their status, these citizens are not illegal in any sense.

Also, "illegal" is different from "criminal". A person could be deported, or otherwise penalized, without necessarily being convicted of any crime. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... Thanks for your thoughts.

As an aside, since writing last I noticed on the SB 1070 page both terms are used.

Re: "politically-correct" – both terms have political implications and in my eyes just using the illegal terminology implies a side is being taken.

All terms – illegal, criminal, and undocumented – are not ideal descriptors. If I trespass, I am a tresspasser, not an illegal passer. If I shoplift, I am a shoplifter, not an illegal shopper. I just question the use of using only one less-than-ideal set of terms when those terms also has political implications.

Hope that makes sense. -- Dronthego (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the political implications comes in if the term "illegal alien" is applied to a person who has not been finally determined by the competent authorities to be present in the US illegally. There are also political implications to applying that label to a group with identifiable members, not all of whom have been finally determined by the competent authorities to be present in the US illegally. I think it is unwise to apply the term "undocumented alien" as a synonym of "illegal alien" because these are two different groups, although many will belong to both groups.

Then there is the abstract concept of illegal alien, that is, we know there are a significant number of people present in the US who are present in violation of the law, but we do not know the identities of most of these people. So the terminology is difficult. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alabama HB 56. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date

This law has been mostly struck down in court in 2013, but some parts remain.[1] -- ke4roh (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]