Shocked, shocked we are. Apparently, the federal government thinks parts of Oklahoma’s immigration law, the once-titled House Bill 1804, go too far.
By now, surely, everyone would know that HB 1804, touted by its “author,” state Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, was passed into law last year by both houses and Gov. Brad Henry, purported to be the “toughest immigration law in the country.”
But according to a recent story in The Oklahoman, a federal judge has blocked enforcement of employer-related provisions of the law, saying the measure probably interferes with federal regulations regarding the workplace.
U.S. District Judge Robin Cauthron agreed to halt enforcement of a provision ” set to go into effect July 1 ” of the new law that would require companies to verify the citizenship status of all new employees.
Heck, this is before the lawsuit has even gone into court, raising the question as to whether there might be more “chingaderas” waiting for 1804 before this whole deal is over.
The lawsuit in question was filed Feb. 1 by the National Chamber Litigation Center on behalf of a harmonic convergence of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, The State Chamber, the Oklahoma City and Tulsa chambers, and the Oklahoma restaurant and hotel and lodging associations.
“We applaud the court’s decision to delay enforcing these portions of Oklahoma’s immigration law,” said Robin Conrad, the center’s executive vice president. “Through harsh civil penalties, the Oklahoma law unfairly shifts the burden of immigration enforcement from government onto the backs of businesses. “¦ Piecemeal state legislation is not the answer to our nation’s immigration problems.”
It doesn’t help that the attorney who has to represent the interests of the state ” Attorney General Drew Edmondson ” has acknowledged some negatives 1804 has caused state government. Upon Cauthron’s ruling, Edmondson issued this statement:
“This is a preliminary injunction, not a final ruling. In her order, the judge writes that ‘the court finds plaintiffs have established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case.’ We will attempt to overcome this hurdle when the matter is set for hearing on the permanent injunction.”
As for Terrill? He was so livid, he was moved to speak in the royal “we” and use the “L-word.”
“Obviously the outcome is not what we had hoped for,” Terrill said. “But she is perhaps the most liberal judge sitting in the Western District. This is the most blatant act of judicial activism. She is clearly acting more like a legislator than a judge.”
“We?” To quote a famous American Indian, “What do you mean, ‘We,’ Kemo Sabe?”
This article appears in Jun 11-17, 2008.