Matt Webster of Alabama: used by far-left to support illegal immigration (ACLU, SPLC lawsuit)

A series of far-left groups recently sued Georgia over that state's new anti-illegal immigration law, and they engaged in a cute trick: they found a Republican shill to support their suit. The shill in that case is Uvalda, Georgia mayor Paul Bridges (CNN guest editorial from him: link).

Many people will see through the use of shills and tokens, but for others it might be effective: "look, someone on my team is helping the ACLU support illegal activity, so it must be good."

The same groups from the Georgia lawsuit are now suing Alabama, and that state has its own GOP shill/token. From aclualabama.org/News/PressReleases/Highlights/070811.html:

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit reflect the far-reaching and devastating impacts HB 56 would have if allowed to be implemented even for a single day. Plaintiff Matt Webster and his wife are in the process of adopting two boys. These children do not currently have federal immigration status but are in the process of acquiring it based on their U.S. citizen adoptive parents. Alabama’s immigration law will criminalize these youths and make it illegal for Webster to transport and provide for these children.

"I will be considered a criminal for harboring, encouraging and transporting my own sons," he said. Webster added, "I am furious that our state representatives have wasted and will continue to waste taxpayer money with this law. I am a Republican and probably agree with many of our Republican legislators on most issues. On this one, however, I do not."

Webster's case is no doubt rare and could be dealt with in other ways: a special ruling, or a minor change to the law, or so on. Instead of pushing for that, Webster would throw out the whole law and would enable further illegal immigration in his state. While he no doubt disagrees, the world does not revolve around Matt Webster. Instead of joining with far-left supporters of illegal activity, Webster should contact those Republican legislators and push for changes to the law to deal with the small number of edge cases such as his.

The "tell" in Webster's comment is the part about "wast[ing] taxpayer money". Why didn't Webster raise the issue of the costs associated with illegal immigration in his state? Where is Webster's concern for the costs of educating the children of illegal aliens, incarcerating some number of illegal aliens, and various forms of welfare (broadly defined) for illegal aliens and their children? It's odd that he didn't mention that, isn't it?