This bill changes that. The state of Alabama is saying that they, and not the priests decide.
I’m rather disappointed that a crappy bill is the best that can be done. There’s absolutely no need for this unconstitutional bill.
What is needed is actual enforcement by the party that the constitution charges with the office of immigration, which is the federal government.
They need to get their ducks in a row. This bill won’t change anything except to deprive people of their liberties.
I need a copy of the offending text in the bill.
The link above goes to the text of Alabama House Bill 56.
I can find no provision in it that applies to the religious practices of churches at all.
Nor can I find one that could be stretched to apply to the religious practices of churches.
The bishops might say that they are "business entities" because they have articles of incorporation, but none of the sections of the law would apply to religious practices such as communion. Communion and worship would have nothing to do with hiring, traffic stops, public education, testifying in court, etc.
All Immigrants are lawfully present and have an immigration visa. Any person who is not lawfully present cannot be here as an immigrant.
If you carefully read the 14th Amendment to the Constitution it does not restrict the states from regulating the conduct of those who are not here lawfully.
When it comes to citizens, who are all here lawfully, the 14th requires that they be treated identically to the way a state's own citizens are treated and, in fact, declares that an American citizen is a citizen of the state where he is a resident.
The second protected class consists of "the people" and a state is required to provide equal treatment.
Which means, of course, that the immigration authority derives from some other part of the Constitution ~ the 14th just doesn't do the job (other than that questionable "birth" thing.)
The Constitution does require Congress to provide uniform regulation regarding NATURALIZATION.
Note that closely ~ NATURALIZATION ~ and that does not say admittance to the nation, nor even to a state, nor even to the District of Columbia. The Congress is given power to restrict the "importation of such people"...... and that's right in the heart of one of those sections making slavery and the slave trade lawful in the states where practiced at the time.
So, where does the federal authority over illegal aliens come from? Or is that a state power that's simply been usurped in violation of the 10th Amendment?
Recalling that up to 1865 "The United States" was used in the plural sense, not the singular, one of the reasons for the strange/strained language about "uniform regulation" had to do with the fact that the nation itself had no boundaries apart from the boundaries of the sovereign states.
It still doesn't ~ sure, there's a Boundary Lines Commission ~ but that's just one of those "treaty deals" ~ we need one because "they" (other countries) want us to have one, but I doubt anybody would claim that a state boundary is subject to federal jurisdiction! Disputes over boundaries between states can be dealt with in the Supreme Court but there's no Executive or Congressional authority over those boundaries once a state is admitted.
Try as you might there's nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that excludes a state from dealing with persons not here lawfully!