Another Oklahoma Update: Regulating Migration Through Finance

*Updated March 15 3:30PM*

On Wednesday, I told y’all about Oklahoma’s efforts to criminal the presence of undocumented migrants in the state.

In today’s Oklahoma update, I bring you H.B. 3071, “An Act relating to public finance; restricting use of state revenues for benefit of persons present in state or United States illegally…” Here is the meat of the proposed law:

Except as otherwise provided by this section, no state revenues, whether derived from taxes, fees, assessments or any other source or means shall be used knowingly to provide benefits of any kind to a person who is not authorized pursuant to federal immigration law to be present in a state or in the United States. As used in this section, “benefits” shall not be deemed to include any costs incurred for:
1. Incarceration of a person or transportation of a person to an out-of-state destination;
2. Law enforcement agencies or personnel to investigate incidents involving domestic violence;
3. Law enforcement agencies or personnel to investigate incidents involving human trafficking; or
4. Providing education to children from pre-kindergarten through the twelfth grade.

Let’s tackle number (4) first: public education. This exemption clearly makes sense in light of the fact that Plyler v. Doe is still good law. It’s nice to realize that our state legislators are clued into that point.

It’s great to see the exemptions (2) and (3) — that’s good policing. Though you, like me, may be wondering why the exemption isn’t stated more broadly as “law enforcement agencies or personnel to investigate incidents involving or affecting a person who is not authorized pursuant to federal immigration law to be present in a state or in the United States.” Do these legislators really think the only crimes that are relevant to undocumented migrants are DV and trafficking?

Finally, (1). Clearly the state was not going to back down on incarceration. We love locking people up!

But what falls outside of these exemptions? What kind of behavior might fall afoul of this rule? As drafted, it seems broad enough to pull into its grasp:

• A community food pantry that receives state funds
• A community soup kitchen that receives state funds
• A “free-to-shop” thrift store that receives state funds
• Shelters–including shelters for DV and trafficking survivors–that receive state funds
• A gym that offers sliding scale membership fees based on income, if it receives state funds
• Public libraries
• A company that receives tax benefits from the state for operating in OK but provides occasional free goods to community members (think: a Baskin Robbins free cone on your birthday)
• A city that sponsors a community festival and provides free food/drink/face-painting/music
• A city that subsidizes just about anything: parking, parks, bus rides
• Fire stations

Apparently, at least one legislator has argued that the “knowingly” provision saves the bill from such a wide reach. I would caution that “willful blindness” has not impressed the Supreme Court.

HB 3017 is only 25% of the way through the legislative process–exactly as far along as HB 4090, the bill I talked about on Wednesday. I’ll keep you posted.

-KitJ