GOV. Brad Henry's veto pen hasn't gathered much dust in recent weeks. He's vetoed a budget deal, an abortion measure and lawsuit reform. Now, it's time for him to reject a bill targeting illegal immigrants.
Advertisement
There's little doubt immigration reform is needed, but it's an issue best left to the federal government. We share the frustration that federal officials have been slow to act on illegal immigration. Trading political barbs has been far more popular than action, and so the people wait.
We don't fault lawmakers for drawing attention to an issue that bothers their constituents. But each state — and even some cities — passing its own immigration laws will only add to the confusion and probably do little to help the problem.
The bill Henry must consider is better than previous versions. The authors watered it down in negotiations, but if the bill becomes law, it wouldn't be surprising to see some of the most restrictive language reappear this time next year.
The proposal before Henry would establish penalties for harboring illegal immigrants and severely restrict their ability to receive public benefits. Some businesses also could be banned from doing business with the state if they don't follow new procedures for checking employee residency.
Illegal immigrants wanting to attend college at in-state tuition rates would have to provide proof that they're seeking citizenship or they could be forced to pay out-of-state rates.
Supporters of the bill already are hailing it as one of the nation's toughest illegal immigration bills. Henry shouldn't get caught up in that competition. If enacted, the law would put a much higher burden on local law enforcement to detain illegals without a clear idea of how much time that will take away from other crime fighting and at what cost.
Rejecting the bill may not be the most popular decision, but it would be the right one.
