PROPONENTS of the state's new immigration reform law are counting the days until it officially becomes a state statute on Nov. 1. But they may be counting for a lot longer after a promised legal challenge to quash the law or at least postpone its enforcement was filed in federal court this week.
Unfortunately, opponents of the law refused to bite their tongues and let the legal claims speak for themselves. Instead, hateful rhetoric overshadowed legitimate worries about the law and whether it's enforceable.
The Rev. Miguel Rivera, leader of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy that filed the lawsuit, proclaimed supporters of the immigration law "guilty of ethnic cleansing.” What a detestable statement.
We're no fans of the law. It has the potential for wide-ranging and even devastating effects on families, health care, education, business and law enforcement. And those tasked with enforcing it will be challenged to do so without engaging in racial profiling. Still, many reasonable Oklahomans frustrated about lax immigration enforcement and congressional avoidance are passionate that the state must do something to combat the problem. They aren't promoting, nor do they want, "ethnic cleansing” or anything of the sort.
This isn't the first time we've chided one side of the argument for speaking irresponsibly. Those on both sides of the law should be able to make their case without name-calling and stereotyping those with whom they disagree.
Particularly for the law's opponents, their best public opinion argument is the testimony of those likely to suffer the most fallout. The Oklahoman'sDevona Walker captured that well in a story about immigration enforcement problems that already exist in Guymon. A police captain estimated illegal immigrants account for about half the town's population.
"This law is one of those things where it sounds good when you're banging your fist against a desk. And say this is what we're doing about it,” Texas County Sheriff Arnold Peoples. "But it doesn't fix anything. It just creates a bigger problem.”
We can't help but picture state Rep. Randy Terrill, the law's principal author, banging his fist in demanding the law's passage. Despite concerns such as Peoples' and the legal protests, Terrill remains convinced the law is a good thing for the state and is proud to proclaim it as one of the nation's toughest immigration reform laws.
We'll have to agree to disagree with him on the former. This law — whether it's promulgated next month or sometime thereafter — is a quagmire that's likely to be ineffective and sure to be expensive for all involved. But until the court rules, both sides would be wise to take the high road and not let the debate devolve into a playground spitting mat
