Editorial: Tulsa leaders were right to reject political stunt preying on illegal immigrant fears
Tulsa Mayor G.T. Bynum and the majority of the Tulsa City Council deserve praise for fighting fear-mongering and keeping the focus on actual city problems that they can address.
National rhetoric has resurfaced on immigration during this presidential election year. The vitriol is emotional and meant to divide Americans. State and local political opportunists are using it for their own gain.
Put City Councilor Jayme Fowler in this category. He is pushing a local anti-immigration proposal that is unenforceable and unnecessary. He's running for mayor.
Thankfully, other councilors saw through this partisan distraction and threw it out. They have more pressing matters to discuss and get done.
Fowler brought forth a proposal in early February that would have banned using city funds, either directly or indirectly, to "house, accommodate, or benefit illegal immigrants." He later added asylum seekers.
Federal and state laws already prohibit illegal immigrants from obtaining public services such as food stamps and housing subsidies. Contractors follow federal labor laws in hiring legal residents, and the city already has mechanisms to pull support from nonprofits found to be breaking immigration laws.
Tulsa immigration workers say the city hasn't experienced an influx of illegal immigrants. Fowler has not presented local data, including financial information from Tulsa, showing that his proposal is needed.
He argues that it's meant to be preemptive — another way of saying it's a solution looking for a problem.
Many people share the belief that we shouldn't reward people who don't follow immigration laws. They are frustrated with the outdated federal system and scenes from the U.S. border, especially since national leaders are at a stalemate.
City services are largely in infrastructure and public safety. Fowler argues that the 14th Amendment provides illegal immigrants basic services such as utilities and police services. But a lot remains in doubt, including his interpretation of that amendment.
Bynum and the council majority rightfully question how such an ordinance would be enforced and how far it could be applied.
Do city officials stop runners along the River Parks to check for immigration status? How about kids swimming in city pools? Does the city post guards at public restrooms to check ID? Do public transit bus drivers check for residency?
Because the proposal includes city-supported nonprofits, homeless shelters would be forced to leave illegal immigrants on the street, and those feeding the hungry would have to let them go hungry.
The notion behind these measures is to make America unattractive to illegal immigrants. But creating inhospitable cities harms all residents.
After being presented with councilors' concerns, Fowler came back with a worse proposal. This version added "asylum seekers," which includes those being resettled in Tulsa from war-torn places like Afghanistan and Ukraine. By federal law, those seeking asylum are in the country legally because they are working through the immigration court process.
Frustrated, City Councilor Laura Bellis moved to reject the measure and was backed by Councilors Christian Bengel, Jeannie Cue, Vanessa Hall-Harper, Phil Lakin and Christa Patrick.
[Editorial / Tulsa World]
