We publish the objective news, period. If you want the facts, then sign up below and join our movement for objective news:


Latest News

Judge Halts OK Law Targeting Illegal Immigrants in Wake of Federal Challenge

 July 1, 2024

In a significant legal development, a new measure intended to make illegal immigration a state crime has been halted by federal court intervention.

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Oklahoma law that sought to criminalize illegal immigration at the state level, citing conflicts with existing federal policies, as the Daily Wire reports.

The legislation, which was passed earlier this year with notable majorities in both the state senate and house, sought to enable local law enforcement to arrest and prosecute individuals solely for illegal entry into the United States.

Labeling such entry as "impermissible occupation," the law aimed to treat a first offense with up to a year in jail and a $500 fine, escalating further penalties for subsequent offenses.

Judicial Reaction to Oklahoma's Immigration Law

U.S. District Judge Bernard M. Jones issued the temporary injunction against the Oklahoma law on Friday.

In his ruling, he pointed out that state-driven immigration policies could not supersede the comprehensive federal framework established for managing immigration. Judge Jones emphasized the importance of a unified federal approach to such sensitive matters.

This judicial block was the result of a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department. The federal entity argued that Oklahoma's attempt was unconstitutional, stepping over boundaries that are typically maintained between state and federal jurisdictions over immigration enforcement.

The response from the state was swift, with Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond expressing disappointment but a firm resolve to challenge the ruling.

He suggested that the strict enforcement of federal immigration laws by the Biden administration was insufficient, branding the state legislation as essential for combating crime attributed to illegal immigration.

Oklahoma's Legislative Intentions and Federal Pushback

The implications of the blocked legislation were considerable, allowing for severe penalties for those convicted under the new law. Specifically, a second offense under the state law would upgrade the charge to a felony, with possible imprisonment of up to two years and a $1,000 fine. Convicted individuals would also be required to leave Oklahoma within 72 hours of their conviction or release.

The law was part of a broader trend observed in several states, including Texas and Iowa, where local governments have been attempting to take greater control over immigration enforcement in response to what they perceive as a surge in illegal activities tied to lax federal control under the current presidential administration.

Amidst this tense backdrop, Judge Jones's decision underscores a significant judicial pushback against state attempts to independently regulate immigration, which traditionally falls under federal oversight as per the U.S. Constitution.

Continued Advocacy and Legal Challenges

Despite the temporary halting of the law, Drummond's comments indicated that the state is prepared to intensively fight the ruling. "I will not stop fighting for Oklahoma and our right to protect our borders," he affirmed. He further criticized the federal administration's approach to immigration, labeling it as ineffective.

Judge Jones, however, maintained a clear stance in his ruling. He reiterated that immigration policy, being inherently linked to national sovereignty and international relations, should be handled with a singular, unified federal approach, rather than through disjointed state efforts.

As Oklahoma prepares to appeal the decision, the legal dispute underscores a larger national debate over the scope and limits of state versus federal powers regarding immigration policy.

Ongoing Legal Implications and National Debate

The outcome of Oklahoma’s appeal and similar actions in other states could have profound implications for the future of immigration enforcement across the United States. This case may set precedents for how state and federal powers are balanced, especially in policy areas that affect national security and foreign relations.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration continues to face challenges from various states advocating for more stringent local control over immigration issues, signaling ongoing national contention in this policy arena.

Ultimately, the temporary injunction against Oklahoma’s proposed immigration law is a reminder of the complex interplay between state initiatives and established federal policies on immigration. This case continues to unfold, reflecting broader national debates and the continuous evolution of immigration policy in the United States.