Speaking Different Languages
BRIAN ERVIN
Urban Tulsa
Mar 28, 2007
"Inhumane," "harsh" and "heavy-handed" are some of the words being used by community and Hispanic groups in Tulsa and from across the state in condemning the "comprehensive and sweeping" immigration reform legislation under consideration this year at the state Capitol.
Sound familiar?
For those who follow the exploits of the state Legislature, this scenario probably seems like a replay of last session's events leading up to the demise of Rep. Randy Terrill's "Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2006" and, with that, the end of that season's considerable sound and fury over illegal immigration.
After several appearances in the national news media and much deliberation among fellow lawmakers during the interim, Terrill, R-Moore, is back this year with another version of the act, and a similar controversy is ensuing.
To the alarm of critics and the welcome of supporters, however, several key differences might just lead to a different outcome this time around.
One major difference is that the political environment at the state Capitol is now much less hostile to the bill's survival. The Senate in which the bill died last year is no longer controlled by the opposing party, but split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.
Also, the measure has a new sponsor in the Senate: Tulsa's own District 35 Republican Sen. James Williamson.
Williamson said he decided to sign on as the bill's principal author in the Senate this year because "it's been an interest of mine for many years, and my constituents have indicated concern over the lack of action by the federal government."
Another key difference to this season of illegal immigration hullabaloo, according to Rev. Victor Orta of Tulsa's Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, is that this year's proposed legislation has "got more teeth to it" and is "more severe."
"This is pretty dramatically different," said Williamson of his bill.
House Bill 1804 has been endorsed by two Washington, D.C.-based immigration reform advocacy groups--the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI)--as "the most meaningful immigration reform bill in the nation."
While it still retains many of the features of its previous incarnation, the 2007 version has indeed evolved somewhat, for better or for worse.
Terrill said the bill is substantially the same as last year's version, but its language has been tweaked for precision.
"Topical-wise, it's virtually identical, but it's a much more carefully drafted and calibrated piece of legislation," he said.
Like last year's miscarried House Bill 3119, this package of proposed reforms contains provisions intended to prevent identity theft by illegal immigrants by making proof of citizenship or legal residence a condition of receiving government-issued identification cards, as well as a condition to receive public services, such as welfare, food stamps and non-emergency medical care.
The measure would also modify Oklahoma's laws to mirror federal immigration laws, thereby giving state and local law enforcement agencies the authority to enforce them. Through the use of funds Terrill hopes they will receive in a federal grant, state and local law enforcement agencies would also cooperate with federal authorities in the enforcement of immigration laws.
Also like last year's attempt, the new law would penalize employers of illegal immigrants.
"Illegal aliens won't come here if the jobs aren't here for them," said Terrill.
One of the main provisions touted by its authors is that the bill would require public employers to use the federal government's Basic Pilot Program to verify the citizenship status of newly hired employees.
The BPP involves verification checks of federal databases, and can be used by employers free of charge.
Opponents of immigration reform proposals like Terrill and Williamson's have historically called them "discriminatory," sometimes even going as far as alleging that they spring from racist attitudes against Hispanics.
However, Terrill said mandatory use of the BPP would actually serve to reduce instances of discrimination by distinguishing between those who are in the U.S. legally and those who are not, without employers being able to take skin color or accents into account.
"This system provides a quick, fair and streamlined way for employers to check on the legal status of new hires, and it ensures that all new hires are treated equally, without regard to things like ethnicity," the lawmaker said.
Of course, not everyone agrees with his assessment of his proposal's fairness.
"The system Representative Terrill's bill legislates that we use has a notorious track record for inaccurately flagging people as illegal residents when it is not true," exclaimed Rep. Rebecca Hamilton, D-Oklahoma City, when the bill was heard on the House floor in early March.
"Any one of us can run afoul of these verification systems and end up having to defend our freedoms because of this unjust law," she continued, adding that enforced use of the BPP "would endanger all of us and our freedoms."
The "notorious track record" to which the impassioned lawmaker referred is a 2004 report to Congress by the Department of Homeland Security on the performance of the BPP.
According to the DHS evaluation, the most serious problem with the program's verification systems is that "they too frequently resulted in work-authorized employees receiving tentative nonconfirmations" and that "employers, employees and the federal government incurred costs in the process of resolving these erroneous findings."
Based on other findings within the report, Hamilton's warning that use of the Basic Pilot Program will "endanger everyone's freedom" might be a bit of an overstatement, but so might Terrill's assurances that it will guarantee freedom from discrimination.
"Since foreign-born employees were more likely to receive erroneous tentative non-confirmations than were U.S.-born employees, these accuracy problems were also a source of unintentional discrimination against foreign-born employees," the report reads.
However, Terrill explained that the language of his bill takes the systems' flaws into account so that only positive non-confirmations, rather than tentative, would work against the potential employee.
Sound, Fury and Partisanship
While Hamilton and others, rightly or wrongly, have no shortage of criticism for specific elements of Terrill and Williamson's bill, the bulk of their disapproval is for what they perceive to be the spirit behind it.
"As it now stands, House Bill 1804 is a hateful measure from the first sentence," asserted Hamilton. "It starts with language scapegoating one segment of our population and holding them responsible for all the ills of our society."
"We must not ever equate citizenship with personhood and use it as a way of violating human rights, endangering lives or practicing unjust discrimination," she continued.
"This is in direct contradiction of everything America stands for. Human beings are always human beings, whether they are American citizens or not," added Hamilton.
