Crimes and punishments; unlawful immigration; making certain acts unlawful; penalties; emergency.
HB1362 amends Oklahoma’s unlawful immigration statute to create and expand criminal penalties for certain noncitizens who enter or remain in the state without legal authorization. The bill defines an “impermissible occupation” as an alien willfully entering and remaining in Oklahoma without first obtaining legal authorization to enter the United States, and it sets misdemeanor penalties for a first offense and felony penalties for repeat offenses or offenses committed during another crime. It also adds a separate felony penalty for a person who is arrested for another criminal law violation and is later determined to be unlawfully present in the United States.
The bill authorizes a minimum cash bond of $35,000 for a person arrested under the section, bars probation or delayed sentencing, and allows a court in limited circumstances to dismiss the prosecution and order the person returned to their country of origin if the person agrees, has no prior violent-crime conviction, and is not facing another felony. It also directs the Department of Corrections to notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection within seven days to arrange transportation for repatriation. The bill includes affirmative defenses for people with lawful presence, asylum, or certain DACA approval, and it declares state preemption over local laws on the subject, prohibiting municipalities and other political subdivisions from adopting conflicting policies. An emergency clause would make the act effective immediately upon passage and approval.
HB1362 would significantly expand state criminal enforcement related to immigration status by creating new offenses, increasing penalties, and adding detention, bond, and removal-related procedures. It would affect criminal defendants, law enforcement agencies, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Corrections, and local governments by requiring status checks, biometric data collection, database cross-referencing, and coordination with federal immigration authorities. The bill also expressly preempts local regulation in this area, limiting municipal and county policy options.
The bill appears to have strong support among many House members, as reflected in its 73-16 third-reading vote and favorable committee votes in both the Criminal Judiciary Committee and the Judiciary and Public Safety Oversight Committee. The available record suggests the measure advanced with substantial backing from sponsors and committee majorities. At the same time, the recorded opposition in committee and on the floor indicates meaningful concern from a minority of legislators about the bill’s approach.
The main points of contention are the bill’s aggressive criminal penalties, its treatment of immigration status as a basis for prosecution, and its broad state preemption of local authority. Critics are likely concerned about due process, the size of the required cash bond, mandatory removal-related provisions, and the felony penalty tied to being unlawfully present after arrest for another offense. Supporters appear to view the bill as a public safety and state sovereignty measure, while opponents likely object to its scope, enforcement burden, and potential conflict with federal immigration policy.