Thread: OK: HB1804 foes pin hopes on courts

By The Associated Press

OKLAHOMA CITY - Legislative efforts to repeal a contentious anti-illegal immigration law never got much support, so opponents are pinning their hopes on getting the courts to stop implementation of provisions affecting businesses.

"It looks like we are stuck with it unless we can get it thrown out by the federal court in Oklahoma City," said Sen. Harry Coates, R-Seminole, who has tried unsuccessfully to push legislation to repeal the law or provisions taking place July 1 that put new requirements on employers.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, including chambers of commerce in Oklahoma City and Tulsa, have asked a federal court in Oklahoma City to intervene.

The business groups contend the Oklahoma law interferes with federal immigration law. They argue immigration regulation is the purview of the federal government and should not be left to a patchwork of uncoordinated state procedures.

Both sides are awaiting a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Robin Cauthron in the federal lawsuit. Cauthron could dismiss the suit, as requested by Attorney General Drew Edmondson, hold a hearing on the merits or issue an order blocking implementation.

Oklahoma Chamber official Mike Seney said he anticipated the judge will schedule a hearing "shortly."

No matter what the judge rules, an appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is expected.

"Whatever happens, it is going to be appealed, but maybe we can get a little relief short term," Coates said.

Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, who introduced the legislation, said even if the judge issues an order delaying implementation of the employer provisions, he believes the law will be eventually be upheld.

Meanwhile, a state judge in Tulsa heard oral arguments on Friday on another lawsuit that contends the law violates the Oklahoma Constitution. The judge did not issue a ruling.

Michael C. Thomas filed the lawsuit in district court in Tulsa. James Thomas, a law professor and father of the plaintiff, argues the state Constitution forbids the appropriation of money to establish a bureau of immigration.

Terrill said is a misnomer to argue the legislation created a state immigration agency.

The law prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving tax-supported services, requires employers to verify the immigration status of their employees through a federal online program and exposes employers to legal action for hiring unauthorized immigrants in place of U.S. citizens.

It makes it a state crime to transport or harbor illegal immigrants, a provision causing concern among social agencies that work with the immigrant population.

Earlier challenges to the law filed in Tulsa were thrown out because the plaintiffs lacked legal standing.

Most of the provision of the law took effect last Nov. 1.

http://newsok.com/article/3228766/1207951720

Terrill said is a misnomer to argue the legislation created a state immigration agency.

The law prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving tax-supported services, requires employers to verify the immigration status of their employees through a federal online program and exposes employers to legal action for hiring unauthorized immigrants in place of U.S. citizens.

It makes it a state crime to transport or harbor illegal immigrants, a provision causing concern among social agencies that work with the immigrant population.




I really have never understood how the pro-illegals think they can successfully argue that states are overstepping their bounds.

Since all of the things contained in these laws are against the law, or required of employers, as prescribed by the feds, aren't individual states simply affirming their obligation to uphold, enforce, and otherwise act in accordance with federal law?

Would the illegals, their advocates, businesses, etc. ever really have a legitimate case....providing, of course, that the state laws are well thought out and drafted to work in unison with federal law.....to have these laws thrown out?