During the first of two public hearings before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday, a member of the public argued vociferously against HB7, one of the major anti-immigration bills being considered by the state legislature this session.
Sponsored and introduced by Rep. Ernie Yarbrough, R-Trinity, the bill would require Alabama law enforcement to work more closely with federal immigration authorities and maintain information about individuals’ immigration status “as reasonably needed for public safety purposes.”
“I know the person who put this bill, he wants to fix a lot of problems. I understand. Like I said, I’m a mother who worries about my daughter’s safety. I want you to remember about HB56,” the speaker implored the committee members.
“I was here,” she said. “And many, many of my friends left because they were afraid. Many stayed here to fight. A lot of people, we stay here and fight, but many couldn’t stay because they were afraid and they left.”
Passed by the state legislature in 2011, HB56 mandated that police officers verified immigration status during traffic stops, placed significant restrictions on employing undocumented immigrants, and made “harboring” unauthorized aliens a crime. Large parts of the bill, though, were eventually shot down in the courts due to being found unconstitutional.
The House Judiciary Committee also heard speakers argue for and against HB8, a bill that would expand the ABC Board’s ability to regulate vaping devices and other “alternative nicotine products.”
HB8’s sponsor in the House, Rep. Barbara Drummond, D-Mobile, highlighted that the bill is “identical to what we had in session that passed out of this committee on last session and got on the Senate’s floor,” referring to HB65.
Several representatives of vaping trade organizations said the bill would make it harder for people to quit smoking traditional cigarettes and that it unfairly targeted their industry.
Molly Cole of the Alabama Hemp and Vape Association said passing the bill before FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments is decided would be premature. Currently before the Supreme Court, the case concerns the FDA’s decision to strengthen regulations on flavored vaping products.
Another critic with the AHVA, Amy Albers, claimed that HB8 is “not a public health bill, it is a corporate protection bill.”
On behalf of the Vapor Technology Association, one speaker singled out a clause that would only give automatic approval to select, non-single use vaping devices as being “intended to protect the tobacco industry and its combustible cigarette.”
“I don’t think that this bill gives an unfair advantage to tobacco companies,” Drummond retorted. “If you had them here, they could tell you they’re not happy with the bill.”
“We’re not trying to hurt small businesses. We’re trying to save the lives of our children,” she emphasized.
Neither HB7 or HB8 were actually voted on yesterday; both will be officially considered by the House Judiciary Committee during their next meeting.
After the public hearings, the committee considered and favorably reported several bills, including the Senate version of the Speedy Trial Act and HB42, a bill introduced by Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, that would allow judges to accept partial payment of bail.
