Immigration law to take effect
Immigration law to take effect
By Devona Walker
Comments 
349
Published: October 31, 2007
TULSA — A new immigration enforcement law, arguably one of the nation’s toughest, is effective Thursday.
An 11th hour request for an injunction to block the implementation of HB 1804 was denied by U.S. District Judge James Payne about 7 p.m. tonight after a hearing that happened just hours before the law’s Nov. 1 implementation. “In light of the plaintiffs’ failure to introduce evidence in support of their motion, and in light of plaintiffs’ limited argument in support of their motion, the court cannot conclude the plaintiffs’ right to a preliminary injunction has been clearly and unequivocally established,” Judge Payne wrote. Payne said the plaintiffs, which included the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Religious Leaders, did not prove the law would cause irrevocable harm, that the harm it would cause outweighed any injuries the injunction would have caused, or that the injunction was in the public’s interest. “We appreciate the judge’s consideration of our argument,” said Attorney General spokesman Charlie Price. “Now we will set about the task of amending our motion to dismiss the whole complaint.” Payne did not weigh in on whether the plaintiffs’ lawsuit would succeed once its merits are argued. State seeks dismissal The Attorney General’s defense team has filed a motion, which will be heard Tuesday, to dismiss the lawsuit entirely. That motion will be heard Tuesday. “We are very disappointed in the judge’s decision,” said plaintiff attorney William Sanchez. “But now, we will concentrate on arguing the case.” HB 1804 requires local and state law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone arrested for felonies and DUIs, and then coordinate with the Department of Homeland Security to have those individuals deported. It also requires state agencies to verify citizenship before dispersing public benefits or funds. In addition, it stops illegal immigrants from obtaining driver’s licenses. The decision was issued about 7 p.m. — just hours before the law takes effect Thursday. In a cramped Tulsa courtroom, immigrant opponents and advocates evenly divided the room, listening to the arguments that would clench the fates of thousands of illegal immigrants across the state. “Congress was very, very clear when they wrote the Immigration Reform and Control Act. They did not want states to be involved in immigration,” said plaintiff attorney William Sanchez, of Miami Beach, Fla. The plaintiffs pointed to three areas where HB 1804 entered into federal jurisdiction: job discrimination, criminalizing immigration violations, and depriving those arrested of their rights by requiring them to be mandatorily detained without a hearing. But state lawyers argued those assertions were not true. “Their argument is that Oklahoma is enacting immigration regulations, when in fact it is not,” said Dan Weitman, an assistant attorney general. State lawyers pointed to several issues within the lawsuit, such as the plaintiffs’ standing, its ability to prove damages and the fact that the wrong defendants were named in the lawsuit. At one point, they even accused the plaintiff attorney’s of “bad faith” conduct. What was the reaction? Outside the Tulsa courtroom, immigrant advocates and opponents verbally sparred. Members of the Tulsa Minutemen and Dan Howard, Outraged Patriots founder, argued against the injunction request. “We will not be intimidated by illegal aliens invading our country and dictating to us how are government should be conducted,” Howard said. “I’ll be damn if I sit here patiently while Mexico moves here.” “The front line for this immigration war is the Red River,” Howard added. On the other side of the argument, the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Religious Leaders accused the Tulsa mayor, police chief and Tulsa County Sheriff’ Department, as well as state Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, of “ethnic cleansing.” “We are afraid of your words. We are afraid of your actions,” said Miguel Rivera, president of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders. “If this bill goes into effect midnight tonight, it will be open season on Latinos.” One minuteman wearing a shirt fashioned to look like an American flag stood near Carmelite nuns of Hispanic descent. The minority on Wednesday were people who didn’t feel passionately about the subject, from one side or the other. Solomon Dionicio, a Tulsa bail bondsman, listened and soaked up the debate, shrugging his shoulders. “I don’t feel about it either way, good or bad,” Dionicio said. “I just want to know. It’s history.” Dionicio says the current immigrant system clearly is broken. About 30 percent of his business comes from Hispanic criminals, who go underground and change their names and jobs. They are the toughest to find. On the other hand, he said, if the consequences weren’t so severe, maybe they would be more likely to step forward and pay their fines. “I’ve chased undocumenteds for about five years now. Obviously, we do have a huge problem,” Dionicio said. “But we shouldn’t try to solve it Hitler style.” At a Mexican restaurant in east Tulsa, Hispanic community members and advocates were visibly shocked when news spread that the injunction had been denied. “This is horrible,” said Guillermo Rojas, a Tulsa businessman and member of the Governor’s Advisory Concil on Latin American and Hispanic Affairs. He is from Venezuela. “But this has woken us up. We are many, the Hispanic people, and we will be heard,” Rojas said. “This has given us a reason to show our power and political influence.”
Related Topics:
U.S. State Government, U.S. Government, Domestic Policy, Social Policy, Political Policy, Special Interest Groups, Politics, Immigration Policy, Civil Trials, Trials, Hispanic and Latino Issues, Immigration
Prev
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).
If I were unlucky enough to have been born in a poor country that's turned its back on me and my family (through no fault of my own or my parents), and I had an opportunity to cross the border to the USA to prevent myself or my family from starving, yes, I might do it. -----
****But, knowing what I know as an American****
I wouldn't live in the new country as if it were mine.
I would behave as if I were a guest in someone's home, and the worst kind--an uninvited one. In other words, I would make sure my behavior was impeccable.
I wouldn't take liberties that are not mine to take.
I would be extremely careful to take care of the property where I live.
I wouldn't make demands of the people or the government that are not mine to make.
I would make sure that I toed the line in terms of every ordinance and law.
I would have a contingency plan for myself and my family if any of us were to get deported, and if that occurred, I would acknowledge that such an occurrrence is our responsibility and no one else's.
I would realize and acknowledge that in this new country where I'm working and living, I'm taking advantage of all the things I didn't have in my own country:---------------
**access to free medical care if I need it and can't pay for it
**public education for my children
**welfare for my American-born children, if I should foolishly or accidentally have any and they should need it
**free public representation in court if I stupidly commit a crime, language translators in court, and every other due-process protection during criminal and civil proceedings
**consistently clean and safe water
**vaccinations and control of diseases (including ones I might have brought with me)
**indoor plumbing
**affordable public transportation
**a sympathetic local government that has acknowledged it will shield me with sanctuary if necessary
**good roads
**reliable electricity
**public parks for our weekend parties and cook-outs
**police protection where no one is allowed to ask my immigration status
**garbage pick-up and sanitation services
**free ESL classes courtesy of local school districts or churches
**graffiti abatement if my children are so stupid as to deface public property
**abandoned grocery cart retrieval if I can't afford a car or a baby stroller
**basic traffic and pedestrian training programs since I don't know all the rules about walking in busy city traffic, or driving without a license, registration or insurance
*(*I would not be so stupid as to alienate myself any further from my American hosts by calling them names, disrespecting their customs, or calling them racists, bigots and hatemongers. If I want to succumb to the temptation to do so, I will understand that I am not the kind of permanent resident or citizen they want in their country. I will understand their anger and resentment of me.*)*
---------------
All the things listed above that I'm now enjoying took a lot of money, time and effort and ongoing civic and personal responsibility to build and maintain.
----
In other words, under the circumstances, they have the upper hand, and we don't.
~~
She interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting Denver last week. Hernandez said,
"They (illegal aliens) pay rent, buy groceries, buy clothes...what happens to your country's economy if 20 million people go away?"
That's a good question – it deserves an answer. Over 80 percent of Americans demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But what would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America? The answers may surprise you!---------------------------------
In California, if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupted hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English became the dominate language again.--------------------------------
In Colorado, 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and grand-kids – would move back "home," mostly to Mexico. That would save Coloradans an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 BIL) annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration costs. It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone.----- Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.---------
Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67 percent drop out/flunk out rate via thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our gridlocked cities in Colorado. Denver's four percent unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.----------
In Florida, 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to America, the rule of law and English.---------
In Chicago, Illinois, 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals, schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free experience.---------
****If 20 million illegal aliens returned "home" -****
If 20 million illegal aliens returned "home," the U.S. economy would return to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a living wage. Everyone would pay their fair share of taxes because they wouldn't be working off the books. That would result in an additional $401 billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for local state and city coffers.-----
No more push '1' for Spanish or '2' for English. No more confusion in American schools that now must content with over 100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids. Our overcrowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches.------
We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country. In cities like L.A., 20,000 members of the "18th Street Gang" would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!-------
Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways and gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by illegal aliens! ---------
**Drain on America's economy; taxpayers harmed, employers get rich**
Over $80 billion annually wouldn't return to their home countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further drains America's economy – which currently suffers an $8.7 trillion debt---------------
At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in California, Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupted out of existence because illegals pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act. Americans wouldn't suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our country—brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders.-------
Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our cities. It would also put the "progressives" on the horns of a dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11 percent of our greenhouse gases--------
Over one million of Mexico’s poorest citizens now live inside and along our border from Brownsville, Texas to San Diego, California in what the New York Times called, “colonias” or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta where grinding poverty, filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean water, streets, electricity, roads or any kind of sanitation. The New York Times reported them to be America’s new “Third World” inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of those colonias. (I’ve seen them personally in Texas and Arizona; it’s sickening beyond anything you can imagine.) By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back to Mexico. -----------
**** High integrity, ethical invitation ****
We invite 20 million aliens to go home, fix their own countries and/or make a better life in Mexico. We invite a million people into our country legally more than all other countries combined annually. We cannot and must not allow anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our borders and growing lawlessness at every level in our nation.--------
`
It’s time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization and our way of life.
---
Here is a better link to the article:
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/bio-ethics/americanbreedpage.cfm
Here is a link to an article that makes connections to the Pioneer Fund and Hitler. Remember that the Pioneer Fund provided in excess of 1.2 million dollars to F.A.I.R., the organization that wrote the language for the legislation that we are discussing. Kinda of weird isn't it. This legislation was indirectly funded by a bunch of Nazis.
Federation for American Immigration Reform
www.fairus.org
Founded in 1978 by Michigan activist John Tanton of U.S. Inc. (see below), the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) blames immigrants for a host of social problems including crime, poverty, disease, urban sprawl, traffic jams, school overcrowding, racial tensions and potential terrorism.
Between 1985 and 1994, FAIR accepted some $1.2 million from the racist Pioneer Fund*, until bad publicity apparently convinced its leaders to desist. Another Pioneer Fund grant recipient, Garrett Hardin, was for years a FAIR adviser and remains a "board member emeritus." Hardin has opposed sending food aid to Africa because, he argues, that only encourages overpopulation. "Tragically, flights of food that save lives increase fertility — which increases the mistreatment of the environment." He also told OMNI magazine, "Looking at history with an open mind, you'll see that infanticide has been used as an effective population control."
FAIR has run ads that attacked then-Sen. Spencer Abraham (R.-Mich.), an Arab American, for supporting more visas for those with high-technology skills. The ads said Abraham's proposal would make it easier for Middle Eastern terrorists to strike, sparking widespread condemnation of what was seen as a race-based attack. On FAIR's board of advisors is Pat Choate, who helped white nationalist Patrick Buchanan take over the Reform Party prior to Buchanan's run for president in 2000.
Direct link to this page:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=106#14
"We are drafting our own legislation patterned after Oklahoma," said Utah Sen. Bill Hickman.
"We're developing two different groups in society - those that have to obey the law and those that don't. Society can't function very well that way."
January 4, 2007 (Washington, DC) – After numerous refusals over three and a half years, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has released the first known public copy of the U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement. The government made the disclosure in response to lawsuits filed under the Freedom of Information Act by TREA Senior Citizens League, a 1.2 million member nonpartisan seniors advocacy group.
The Totalization Agreement could allow millions of illegal Mexican workers to draw billions of dollars from the U.S. Social Security Trust Fund.
A loophole in current Social Security law could allow millions of today's Mexican workers to eventually collect billions of dollars worth of Social Security benefits for earnings under fraudulent or "non-work authorized" Social Security numbers, putting huge new pressures on the Social Security Trust Fund.
If an illegal worker working in the United States today gets a "work authorized" Social Security number through guest worker immigration legislation, the Totalization Agreement, or perhaps just over time, that worker could eventually apply for Social Security benefits once he or she has met eligibility requirements.
In addition, that worker could be able to claim credits for work performed while in the U.S. illegally. The SSA maintains an "earnings suspense file," which tracks wages that cannot be posted to individual workers' records because there is no match for a name and Social Security number. Once an immigrant gains access to a work authorized Social Security number – whether a legal citizen or not – wages earned while in the U.S. unlawfully could be reinstated to the worker's new Social Security account.
The Congressional Research Service reports the earnings suspense file currently stands at approximately $520 billion. According to the congressional testimony of SSA Inspector General Patrick P. O'Carroll in February 2006, "We believe the chief cause of wage items being posted to the earnings suspense file instead of an individual's earning record is unauthorized work by non citizens."
Here are the US State Department figures. http://travel.state.gov/passport/services/stats/stats_890.html