Make H.B. 1804 Great Again!

In the year of our Lord, 2007, I was a very busy man indeed. I had my construction business that I ran full time and then some, while maintaining a fairly high level of political activity at the same time. And I spent a significant amount of what “free time” was left me serving in the capacity of assistant coach of my (then) ten year-old daughter’s competitive gymnastics team to boot. Being almost twenty years older now, I seem to have lost a great deal of my former energy, and am therefore much less active in those several pursuits than I was then. My coaching days being pretty much completely over at this date.

It was at gymnastics practice in late November of the same year in fact when I received a call on my cell from a good friend of mine who wondered whether I would be willing to attend an upcoming meeting with him concerning a matter near and dear to us both. Our state’s newly-minted immigration law, H.B. 1804, was to be explained in detail by a partner in the OKC law firm that, at the time, was retained to advise our legislature per the “constitutionality” of the law as a whole, as well as of its individual provisions. My initial answer to my friend’s request was a suggestion that we ‘meet tomorrow and discuss it then.’ Not that rudeness was intended, but I was in the middle of gymnastics practice as I said, and therefore did not have time, had I been in the right frame of mind, to fully discuss the matter and/or commit to attend with him that evening.

Without getting too deeply into the “gory details” of our conversation per the matter the next day, I will inform you that I did ultimately agree to accompany my friend to the meeting, but only if he would agree to one condition of my own. Namely to, “let me do the talking if any talking needs doing.” If that condition of mine elicited a chuckle in you, and/or questioning of my apparent presumptuousness in laying it down as you read, permit me an explanation:

While my friend in question is a great guy and very patriotic, and is one of the “straightest shooters” I have ever had the pleasure of knowing, he nevertheless has a huge flaw in his character. Which flaw was and is his notorious inability to control his emotions and his tongue whenever he finds himself getting on the upper-most side of what we mean by the word “upset.”

Knowing this about him as I did, my intention in setting the condition was to address the potential of its being a problem preliminarily, and to at least attempt to “nip it in the bud” by way of securing his promise not to go there at the meeting. Like I said, he tends to be a man of his word in spite of his shortcomings, and it was therefore on his word that my final decision of whether or not to accompany him to the meeting in question rested.

Longer story shortened for brevity’s sake, my friend cheerfully agreed to my single term and condition, and we attended the meeting together two weeks later. Tagging along were my eldest son and my gymnast daughter aforementioned, the latter two of whom asked to come along for educational purposes (they can both also corroborate the veracity of my story in every detail, so there is that as well).

Fast forward with me if you please to the Q&A session of the meeting: there were a number of issues in the presentation that needed addressing and clarification, and, being the honorable gentleman that he is, my friend stuck to his earlier promise to allow me to address them one-by-one while he remained silent and more or less stoic.

A big one plucked from our host’s presentation was his assertion that the law was in fact “unconstitutional” in his firm’s learned collective opinion, with which opinion he agreed. I knew better, or at least I believed I knew better, so I asked him pointedly to explain *why* the law was unconstitutional in his/their estimation(s). Which question he failed to answer directly at first, so I in turn rephrased the question several times in hopes of getting a direct and more satisfactory answer. Eventually he answered something to the effect of, ‘Because no one can know for sure whether a person is here illegally or not.’ And that was his “final answer,” like on Who Wants to be a Millionaire?

By this point my friend had heard all he wanted to hear from our host, and he had simultaneously lost all patience with my calm demeanor and my method of questioning him. Now, I must inform you here that my friend has a deep, booming voice that one would think belonged to someone the size of Derek Wolfe, when in fact he is closer in physical stature to General Joseph Wheeler. That established, he suddenly announced, in his booming voice from his seat, “Well it’s pretty f*ckin’ obvious they’re illegal when they can’t speak a word of f*ckin’ English!”

This outburst might have riled me more than it did, except that my son had already prophesied days in advance that it would no doubt happen, and when it finally did, he literally burst into uncontrollable laughter, falling out of his seat and onto the floor. My friend and I only made things worse when I complained to this effect: “Dammit, Tom, you promised me you wouldn’t do that!,” and Tom in turn replied, “I know, Bubba, but he’s startin’ to piss me off!” I don’t recall there having been a “unless he pisses you off” clause in our previous agreement, but that’s another matter and I digress.

As funny as that story was, and is, for me to tell the hundredth time at least, I do so in the broader context of a serious debate concerning the constitutionality of State and local immigration legislation and enforcement. At that time, my State’s law was touted everywhere – from sea to shining sea – as the “strictest immigration law in the country.” And its authors certainly earned it that reputation by virtue of the language forming its comprehensive provisions. Not only that, but it also carried with it the (intentional) bonus of effectively strong-arming bordering states and/or their communities into crafting their own laws in anticipation of Oklahoma’s illegals fleeing to and taking up residence within their own jurisdictions.

In any case, the ruling of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals effectively gutting the legislation of its muscle and sinews was simply wrong on the merits and ideologically driven by activist federal judges who should be removed from the bench. Additionally, we had a weak executive branch at the federal level at the time, who took the opinions of the judicial branch as the “final word” on questions of constitutionality. I said many times after the court rendered its ruling (2010), that our governor and legislature should thumb their noses at the ruling and strictly enforce the law’s provisions in spite of the court. Put ol’ “Dubya” to the test; see if he had it in him to enforce a circuit court ruling by the use of force! But our intrepid leaders in Oklahoma ultimately caved under the mere thought of doing so, not that I necessarily blamed them.

All of which to say that, unless I be woefully mistaken, the situation as it now stands is much more favorable to us than it was in 2007. The provisions of 1804 are even more relevant and would be more effective now than they were or would have been nearly twenty years ago. And we have a strong executive dedicated to ridding the country not only of illegals, but also of the funding through USAID etc. of bad faith religious institutions (Catholic and Lutheran in particular) and advocacy groups, to back us up at the federal level to boot.

Therefore, I hereby recommend to Gov. Stitt, with all due respect to his person and his office, that he follow the president’s lead and make a public spectacle of signing his own Executive Order explicitly dedicated to:

“Make OK H.B. 1804 Great Again!” And to get on with the too-long-delayed business of enforcing its provisions to the letter forthwith.

Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas and New Mexico: it’s time y’all got back into the fight legislatively again as well! Lead, follow, or get the f*ck out of the way!

God save the Southland!