Oklahoma law on illegal aliens stopped by federal injunction

Terry Morris writes:

Two key provisions of Oklahoma’s immigration law, H.B. 1804, have been barred by federal court injunction, and state senator Harry Coates (R) is on record as saying that it’s the job of the federal government to enforce immigration law, not of businesses, in support of the federal injunction. The implied meaning of his statement (which I’ve heard in the same terms countless times from others as well) is false. H.B. 1804 in no way compels Oklahoma businesses to enforce immigration law. But if something is repeated often enough, people begin to believe it, and begin to repeat it instinctively themselves. According to the Coateses of the world, the people of the United States are relegated to waiting for hell to freeze over, or for their communities, towns and states to be taken over by hordes of invading third-worlders, whichever comes first. For it’s the job of the federal government, and only of the federal government, to craft, debate, review, debate, pass and scrutinize immigration law in this nation, even to the remotest locations.

But that’s the all-destroying nature of liberalism for ya.

LA replies:

The defense of the nation’s borders and the admission and naturalization of immigrants is, of course, a federal matter. But it would be interesting to know what is the federal basis for barring states and localities from making their own laws pursuant to federal law, for example, a law stating that the state or local government will not employ illegal aliens, or a law prohibiting employers from hiring illegal aliens.

We know that lots of cities have their own laws mentioning federal immigration law, because the sanctuary cities specifically bar city employees from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. None of these “sanctuary city” statutes that seek to inhibit the purposes of federal law has been challenged in federal court as far as I am aware. So, by the same token, why would it be unconstitutional for a city to declare that it will help carry out the purposes of federal law?

Terry Morris sends further information on the Oklahoma bill and the federal injunction:

Here is the June 6 Tulsa World story containing Coates’s statement, as well as an explanation of the court’s decision,

and here and here are back-to-back entries I posted at Webster’s on the subject:

And here’s a blog entry I wrote on May 18th in anticipation of federal intervention respecting these key provisions, which contains the language of the provisions now under federal suspension:

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 18, 2008 02:11 PM | Send