State high court upholds Oklahoma's anti-illegal immigration bill

[Jeanfromfillmore]

State high court upholds Oklahoma's anti-illegal immigration bill
The author of House Bill 1804 said he is pleased his measure for the most part survived a ‘multipronged attack.” The attorney who filed the lawsuit calls the state Supreme Court's opinion a political decision.
The state Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a lower court's decision that determined virtually all of the state's anti-illegal immigration law is constitutional. Rep. Randy Terrill, the author of House Bill 1804, said he was pleased the high court has validated virtually all of the measure. The law makes it illegal to knowingly transport illegal immigrants, creates state barriers to hiring illegal workers and requires proof of citizenship before a person can receive government benefits.
For the most part, the multi-pronged attack that was initiated against House Bill 1804 has failed,” said Terrill, R-Moore. “This Oklahoma Supreme Court opinion has validated virtually all of House Bill 1804 with just a couple of exceptions.”
James C. Thomas, a Tulsa attorney who filed the lawsuit, said he is disappointed with the ruling.
“They still said the Legislature's free to treat people that the Legislature is fearful of in a draconian manner,” said Thomas, who recently retired as a University of Tulsa law professor. “I think it's a political decision and not a legal decision.”
The high court in an 8-1 vote did strike down a provision of HB 1804, which took effect in 2007, which denies bail to illegal immigrants arrested on felony counts or driving under the influence complaints.
The Supreme Court ruled it should be left up to the courts to decide on bail.
“Whether a particular defendant is a flight risk is a determination to be made by the trial judge in that case,” the ruling states.
Chief Justice Steven Taylor dissented in that part of the ruling. He said he found HB 1804 “to be constitutional in all respects.”
Terrill said he plans to introduce legislation next year that would address the flight risk issue. He said he is considering seeking a proposed constitutional amendment that would be up to voters to approve that would deny bail for illegal immigrants arrested for misdemeanors, felonies and driving under the influence offenses.
Key parts of HB 1804 validated in the ruling, Terrill said, include:
• Illegal immigrants cannot get an official government-issued form of identification, such as driver's licenses or occupational licenses.
• Illegal immigrants are ineligible for most forms of state taxpayer-funded public assistance or entitlement benefits.
• . State and local law enforcement officials can cooperatively enforce federal immigration law. They can't decide who gets to come into the U.S. and how long they get to stay.
• States can require employers to check the legal status of their employees.
Terrill said the opinion cited a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld an Arizona law penalizing businesses for hiring illegal immigrants, which is a key provision of HB 1804 that has been tied up in federal court. That ruling says federal immigration law gives states the authority to impose sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers.
“This opinion when you couple it with the previous U.S. Supreme Court opinion ... seems to suggest that the state does in fact have a great deal of latitude to further crack down against illegal immigration if it chooses to do so,” said Terrill, R-Moore.
The legal challenge to HB 1804 was filed in 2008 by Michael C. Thomas, of Tulsa, who worked for a local mental health association. He filed his lawsuit in Tulsa County District Court against then-Gov. Brad Henry, the state of Oklahoma and Tulsa County's board of county commissioners.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Tulsa County judge's ruling that one part of HB 1804 was unconstitutional because it didn't deal with immigration issues. That section dealt with denying resident tuition for higher education to illegal immigrants who successfully completed the General Education Development test.
http://newsok.com/state-high-court-u...rticle/3577093