Wednesday, July 4th, 2007...9:46 am
Correspondence From Y’all, My People
I got a missive from a frequent correspondent wondering why I haven’t taken the governor to task for signing the employer sanctions bill. The writer apparently didn’t notice that except for a post about the death of Mayor Jim Corbett and a quick and dirty posting about Mika Bzezinski, I haven’t posted anything all week.
I don’t like the bill. The only upside (and it ain’t much of one) is that the bill, unlike so much of what has come out of Russell Pearce and crew, goes after the employers that exploit migrant workers rather than the workers themselves. Although, I’m taking bets on how long it takes for Joe Arpaio and Andrew Thomas to arrest undocumented workers for conspiring to get themselves hired. I probably shouldn’t be giving them ideas.
The governor should not have signed this bill. Unfortunately, most of the people in this state supported the bill (despite the fact that it included no money for enforcement, not only is it a bad law, but will have little effect), so she succumbed to ugly political realities. I don’t like it, and I hope for her sake she took a long shower afterward.
The writer, a supporter of the bill, wanted to know why I didn’t call Napolitano “hateful” for signing the legislation. Well, I checked, and I have only used the word “hateful” three times on this blog. One was in reference to Ann Coulter, one was in regards to a City Councilperson’s attempt to use Karin Uhlich’s advocacy of the working poor against her and the third was about alarmist stories on local television about the Muslim community (although that was in the context of a story about the Minutemen).
Now, I did critcize members of the buisiness community for begging Napolitano to veto the bill while at the same time they have been shovelling money to the campaigns of people who supported this bill. I didn’t call Pearce hateful or racist in that piece, I called him monomaniacal. Of course, Pearce’s other statements and legislation leave me with…well, let’s just say I have doubts about his love for the diverse peoples of our state, to say the least.
I have enough friends and relatives (on my Mexican side even) who are angry about illegal immigration to know that concerns about it doesn’t always come from racism. However, when I read the rhetoric and watch the attitudes toward migrants (and heck, immigrants in general) from folks like Pearce, Randy Graf and Chris Simcox, I have to wonder if their trouble is simply over policy. When I question the motives of these folks, it’s because I hear code words like “threat to our culture” and “invasion” that would make Pat Buchanan proud. Heck, they go beyond codewords sometimes.
I’ll say it again: I wish she didn’t sign the bill. I think the idea of a special session to “fix” the bill is a pipe dream and I don’t think it will stop a planned initiative drive to pass an even worse law. With the public support for the bill, this is one of those compromises that even a great leader has to make once in a while, and it sucks.
7 Comments
July 4th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Ted is wrong that this bill provides “no money” for law enforcement. It actually does, but it provides so in a rather cynical way.
Specifically, the bill appropriates $2.5 million to County Attorneys to enforce the provisions of the new law. Most of this money ($1.5 million) goes to Andrew Thomas, with the Pima County Attorney getting $500,000 and other County Attorneys receiving the remainder.
I asked around to find out if there was any particular logic behind this appropriation and got no answers. In some ways these lopsided sums resembled the suspiciously round and seemingly arbitrary figures appopriated in the gang bill a little earlier this year. In that particular case, it turned out that the numbers bore little resemblance to what law enforcement told us that they needed.
I already know that someone is going to write back and say “Tom’s whining about Pima County not getting it’s fair share again, doesn’t he know that Maricopa County is going to need more money because it is so much bigger than everyone else?” Well, there is something to be said for that. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Maricopa’s needs in this regard are necessarilly three times larger than Pima’s, or for that matter, three times larger than those of the thirteen rural counties, nor did anyone ever bother to calculate what the costs of enforcement might be in various parts of the state. These numbers were strictly made up.
If it really was based on potential work load, then why does Attorney General Goddard’s office get a paltry $100,000? He’s responsible for the whole state. It will be very difficult for his office to enforce this law without the resources to do so, which will inevitably lead to criticism from Mr. Pearce and others.
Because I am a member of the House, I should refrain from ascribing cynical motives to my coleagues. I think I can, however, provide enough information to allow folks to come to such conclusions on their own.
July 4th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Actually, it provides the money to the county attorneys, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will get to the level of law enforcement itself.
Then there is the matter of $100,000 to maintain the database and actually to help enforce it, and $70,000 to educate employers– both apallingly low figures.
Here is my own take– the governor was brilliant. This bill was written on the assumption she would veto it. Hence it really does give the GOP leadership some tough choices in a special session.
For example, public schools have no business license so they won’t be subject to the same sanctions as some of their for-profit private competitors. Expect that opponents of private schools will use the new law as a bludgeon against them, so they will be pressuring the GOP leadership to ‘fix’ their problem.
As for the lack of funding, the Governor can declare this year’s budget (already signed) off limits. She can point to the decline in housing to suggest that revenue projections in the near term will be down, and wall off accounting tricks. She can point out that bonds for things like construction are in effect being used for real assets and refuse to back bonds. She can point out the potential downturn as a reason not to go into the rainy day fund. Then tell the legislature they have to find their own revenue within those parameters.
She never has to say the three letter ‘t’ word. But if they want to fund it, she can close all the other doors and let them choose their poison.
Bloody brilliant, if you ask me.
July 5th, 2007 at 9:50 am
I dont see how the money will get to law enforcement at all. Prosecution and police are two entirely different sets of organizations.
I am sure the thought is to provide a bit of money to prosecutor’s office, which is strained from processing all the laws we have, plus the tightened ones on illegal immigration.
Problem is this, yet again, nada for public and legal defenders offices who also bear this burden and are far underfunded than co. attorney offices. Nothing additional to police who are forced to arrest, and nothing for our court administrative system that bears a huge cost of processing these cases at the federal and state level.
July 5th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Where have all the leaders gone?
July 5th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
I dunno George, why don’t you tell us?
July 5th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Overall, I’m a big fan of Janet’s, especially because she is good as a check against the excesses of the GOP legislative leadership. However, signing this bill is another example of how she often behaves like a Clintonesque triangulator and is reluctant to push her chips into the center of the table and use her extensive political capital to take a stand. Other than full-day kindergarten, I can’t cite a core value of our governor’s. I know what she is against and I know what she has prevented. I’m grateful as hell for what she has done for schools and kids…but she has also compromised in some pretty critical areas (not rolling back tax loopholes and cuts, allowing more tax cuts, vouchers, etc.) and the smell of crass political calculation designed to benefit her and her image is always prevalent.
I’m happy Janet is in office beacuse who knows what this state would be like with a GOP guv…but she is not someone who takes risks, even when principle requires that she do so. As a result, I have always viewed her as a skilled and cunning politician, but not much of a dynamic leader. Phil Lopes gets my vote as the best example of truly principled Democratic leeadership in Phoenix.
July 5th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Clare-certainly not anywhere to be found in this state!
Leave a Reply