Arizona and California sit on opposite sides of a great divide.
The liberal element in California – admittedly a very big element – believes the divide is about immigration. They feel they are winning the public relations side of the battle. They smirk in this direction. They swell up in their righteousness. The only problem is that it is very difficult to figure out what their position really is. One has to look under the covers and that is where you find the real divide between the two states. And it isn’t immigration.
Immigration is what is getting the focus. Illegal immigration is what most Americans label the issue. Mexico’s president simply calls it “migration.” In California they must call it the status quo – as in no steps are necessary to align law with reality or vice versa. The Democrats – which control that state to its very core – are frozen in place on the issue.
It is a very complicated issue with matters of law, economics, human dignity, civil rights and just plain civility all playing a part. It is pompous to believe the answers are simple and dangerous when a politician or organization wants to paint any group of people – by religion, race or otherwise – as villains.
On the other side of immigration is Arizona. The majority of its voters want something done on the flow of illegal immigrants coming across the state’s border. They worry about the strain on public resources. They worry about taxes and they worry about the long-term economic implications by continuing to allow the status quo.
So the game was officially on with the passage of SB1070. When Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill she said she hoped it would bring pressure to bear on the federal government to begin to enforce its own rule of law. She and the majority of the state’s legislature thought that looking the other way on illegal immigration was wrong. They felt the federal government had let them down by failing to effectively deal with the issue.
Instead of getting federal sympathy, the Obama Administration sought legal action against the state of Arizona. And then, oddly, liberal groups and politicians in California took SB1070 as an opportunity to make Arizona a whipping boy on the immigration issue. They called Arizonans racists. They demanded that California businesses – and Californians -- boycott Arizona. And they called for the rest of the country to join in.
Okay, fine. Those outraged folks in California were then and are now entitled to their opinion about what is obviously a divisive issue. After all, California is also a border state. What makes our country great is that people can differ in their views on laws – immigration laws and other laws.
But to label a state and its citizens as racists because they don’t share your view is extreme. One very liberal California congresswoman even claimed Arizona was the pawn of white supremacy groups and that such groups were really to blame for the passage of SB1070. To suggest that everyone in Arizona and its political leaders were being manipulated by extremists was irresponsible.
One could suppose that was the only answer the congresswoman could come up with after polls consistently showed most people in Arizona – and nationally – support doing something about the illegal immigration issue.
But maybe all that finger pointing and name calling helped some in California forget just for a short time their own state’s prodigious list of ills and issues. You know, like being broke. And businesses being so highly taxed that 1 in 5 say they do not plan to be doing business in the state within 3 years. Many of those businesses said in a poll they plan to relocate to Texas, Nevada and, yes, Arizona.
California’s legislature further painted that reality when Governor Jerry Brown signed this past week the next phase of the California Dream Act that provides state financial aid to illegal immigrants provided they graduate from a California high school.
There are many people that see that action as being the right thing to do for students who were brought here illegally by their parents and have grown up in this country. Their view is that those young people are guilty of nothing and should not be deprived of educational opportunity.
There are also some in California who think such a policy is irresponsible during an economic crisis that sees California on the brink of financial ruin. They are ignored.
It is estimated by the state’s department of finance that only about 2,500 students will qualify when the bill is effective in 2013. The estimated cost is $14.5 million. They point out that this dollar amount represents only 1 per cent of the total Cal Grant funding.
Of course, that means higher taxes in California or kids that are American citizens being excluded from receiving Cal Grants because the field was widened. In California, you can bet on more taxes. You’ve heard the military expression, “no man left behind.” The California Legislature must have the mantra that “there will be no entitlement that we won’t expand or introduce.”
California’s state revenue is now projected to be a half billion dollars or so under budget projections. The economy is still rocked by plummeting home values and an overtaxed population and a very nervous business community.
The California Dream Act is just the latest symptom of a state out of control regarding its finances. This is actually the more important divide between California and Arizona. Arizona taxpayers won’t tolerate being taxed to death due to the immigration issue or any other issue. Californians, on the other hand, are likely doomed to their state falling into financial ruin as their governor and legislature continue to entitle everyone and everything.
The smart money is on Arizona when it comes to how taxpayers in the two states fare in all of this. That is a pretty important divide between the two states.
And about that other issue, Arizonans are not racists but they are realists. That is why the state will continue to grapple with the illegal immigration issue and will likely lead the way to the eventual solutions adopted in other states and the federal government.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 8:20 am on Sun, Oct 16, 2011.
I never thought that in a million..zillion years that I would be saying this but....
Great Editorial.
Accuracy posted at 3:43 pm on Sun, Oct 16, 2011.
Good Tribune editorial: "And about that other issue, Arizonans are not racists but they are realists. That is why the state will continue to grapple with the illegal immigration issue and will likely lead the way to the eventual solutions adopted in other states and the federal government."
---------------------------------------
The Obama administration has been criticized for suing over illegal immigration laws in Arizona and Alabama. But now, the Justice Department lawyers are reviewing four new state laws targeting illegal immigrants in a move that signals an escalation in the Obama administration’s battle with the tough illegal alien laws. The other four immigration laws under scrutiny are from Utah, Georgia, Indiana, and South Carolina.
But if and when the U.S. Supreme Court accepts the State of Arizona's petition to review the Obama administration's lawsuit against SB 1070 (Arizona's illegal immigration enforcement law), the arguments concerning illegal aliens will change drastically in many other states.
samkat posted at 3:50 pm on Mon, Oct 17, 2011.
EV Tribune: You could give lessons in realistic journalism to the Arizona Republic (aka the Arizona Daily Liberal). Thanks for recognizing the pitfalls of illegal immigration.
PatrioticPerson posted at 6:55 pm on Mon, Oct 17, 2011.
Will it take 49 states to pass Immigrations Laws before the current elected officials will realize Immigration Reform is what the people want?
Rich posted at 10:56 pm on Mon, Oct 17, 2011.
The reality, if you care for the future, is the more educated people the better. The higher the quality of that education, the better. And if you're really into reality, check out Alabama, after this harvest tanking so badly California looks like brilliant economic managers. Of course this is Arizona and Pearce and Brewer will save our economy as soon as she sobers up. About the only people who you can be relatively sure are wrong are the ones who take extreme positions.
chatmandu002 posted at 12:00 pm on Tue, Oct 18, 2011.
Rich says: "About the only people who you can be relatively sure are wrong are the ones who take extreme positions." Extreme positions are in the eye of the beholder.
But look what has happened to our country over the decades with all this "so called common sense and compromise". Social programs out of control, deficit budgets and a $14+ Trillion debt. How can you fix this situation through compromise? You can't. So it looks like it will take an "extreme" position on one side or the other.
My choice is small government capitalism. You can cancel my vote, the democratic way, by voting for the other "extreme" position.
RationalHuman posted at 5:33 pm on Tue, Oct 18, 2011.
Nice article, but just one issue (and I'm surprised Leon let this slide):
"...dangerous when a politician or organization wants to paint any group of people – by religion, race or otherwise – as villains."
People who commit crimes are criminals. Period.
Would you argue that convicted child molesters...a "group of people" are not villians?
One would hope not!
Same with illegal invaders...or what Californians refer to as "undocumented immigrants".
Cerulean posted at 11:34 am on Wed, Oct 19, 2011.
Realism based on selective racism!
VofReason posted at 1:19 pm on Thu, Oct 20, 2011.
No it will take all 56 states to pass illigal immigration laws and still the Obama administration will fight them. Is it racism if you are against all illegal immigration? If you are really about allowing more people to come to America, wouldn't you spend all your efforts to get the laws changed- not ask people to not enforce the existing laws? Or is there really a differnt goal here? Great editorial and speaks for the real 99% as shown by voting results.......
Accuracy posted at 8:56 am on Fri, Oct 21, 2011.
VofReason’s question: “Is it racism if you are against all illegal immigration?”
Maybe by the middle of November the U.S. Supreme Court will decide if they are going to hear the State of Arizona's petition filed, with the Supreme Court, to review the Obama administration's lawsuit against SB 1070. And maybe judgment about racism through illegal immigration law enforcement will be discussed.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:38 am on Fri, Oct 21, 2011.
Yes, Bob Romantic [Editor in Chief]
There are a whole lot of issues tied to illegal immigration. And the political and demographic differences between Arizona and California can explain some of the differences in approach to these issues. But there are few if any answers short of comprehensive immigration reform, now a "dirty phrase." So let's take a quick look as some:
The main issue: Illegal immigration and the federal response [or alleged lack thereof] to it.
Arrests and deportations are at an all time high. And due to a declining economy, illegal crossings norrthward are on the decline. So is this "doing nothing?" Not hardly! But critics of the Federal response avoid addressing this irrefutable statistic. Why? Because it's impossible to critisize it rationally.
Impact on the local economy [all states, not just border states]. Even professionals are coming north. But only the poorest workers are not paying taxes, neither payroll taxes or income taxes. And most of these come without families and make no demands upon education or medical treatment facilities. And many of those lowest level jobs are not being taken when offered to legal residents. Ever picked strawberries in CA or lettuce in the lower Gila River Valley? US sales of corn in Mexico but grown under US government subsidies in the midwest are destroying that element of domestic agriculture in Mexico and sending poor domestic farmers up here. So isn't turn about fair play? Many illegal alien workers are paying taxes. Their negative impact on the economy probably is way overstated.
State action in response to the perceived inaction by the Feds, i.e. Pearce's SB1070, etc. Elements of SB1070 have been ruled unconstitutional at the trial court level. At the appelate court level, a final ruling has yet to issue but the injunction against enforcement has been sustained. Alabama has a similar if not more draconian law in place. Eventually sufficient states' laws will be appealed in different Federal District Courts that the Supreme Court will take the matter up on appeal. It is anyone's guess as to what this divided Court will rule. My guess is that both Alabama's and Arizona's laws will be trimmed back significantly due to decisions that portions are unconstitutional. And there is nothing about either California's or Arizona's or Ababama's politics which make various sets of words constitutional or unconstitutional. Under the Constitution the Feds must be given the lead on enforcement of federal law.
Taking the Lead on Enforcement of Federal Law. At one time the Feds did allow Sheriff Joe to enforce federal law. But perceiving that Joe was going over board, using techniques which smacked of ethnic profiling, Joe lost his right to help enforce Federal law. Now Joe's actions are being reviewed for possible [but unlikely] Federal action. More likely Joe will get dragged down under the Andrew Thomas affair.
Impact on local politics. We might see the demise of Andrew Thomas [quite likely], Russell Pearce [the SB1070 champion - every wonder who paid the bill for the group who actually drafted SB 1070 for Pearce? Is sure was not the Citizens of Mesa District 18!] , and even Arpaio [Thomas and Arpaio made a lot of enemies in high places]. But we might see nothing lasting beyond the demise of one of two of these politicians.
Border Crossing Enforcment: Even Presidential candidate Cain has gotten dragged into the Border Fense controversey. And Paul Babou and John McCain have engaged in politicing about building some "dang fense." McCain celebrates the pending arrival of "preditor drones." We have have prey along the border for such drones to prey upon? Apparently McCain believes so. Where crossing the border illegally is a crime worthy of only deportation, has getting caught become worth of death? Hope not. Hopefully these preditor drones will be used only for spotting, and Federal and State troops will be used to help pen up those crossing illegally. However a rather old and will established law prevents both state and federal troops from engaging in law enforcement. Wonder how John McCain plans on getting arround that? Illegal immigration is not a problem in the "war on terrorism."
Comprehensive Immigration Reform: the real hot issue.
Where innitially Governor George W Bush [Rick Perry, his successor] and most other border state governors backed a broad based approach to immigration law, law enforcement, and dealing appropriately with the more than 20 million undocumented people living in the US, suddenly such elements of comprehensive reform have been placed on the Conservative hit list. Deportation has become the only remedy to having come here illegally. Stiff alternative pathways to citizenship have been being "soft on crime" and unfair to the few how may have come here legally. Those children who accompanied their parents here and who due to academic excellence otherwise could be excellent students receiving financial help, are being made to pay for the sins of the parents, [ever heard of the seven generations rule?] As the Conservative mind set shift to the right [and being a Conservative who considers himself on the "right" in the right, calling that shif "right" is insulting.] it would appear that doing something sensible and workable will be impossible.
So are we ethnic racists? No. Those who characterize us weakminded, cullable, simpleton Arizonans as ethnic racists just don't know what they are talking about. We are Neo-cons and proud of it! [beam]
samkat posted at 2:10 pm on Tue, Oct 25, 2011.
Cerulean: Look into the mirror and you will find a selective racist. As for the rest of us, we want our immigration laws enforced at the local, state and federal level regardless of ethnicity, color or religion.
PS: Dale, I made my contribution to the SB 1070 cause and would do it again if the need should arise. I will also contribute to the cause to defeat Obama in 2012.
k33j88 posted at 7:31 am on Fri, Oct 28, 2011.
How many more children will be left fatherless? Is air-born TB something we all should embrace? How many more hospitals will close? Why should laws be implemented to make ENGLISH a priority? How much higher will taxes go to house, feed, and provide health care to those incarcerated? What about the "OTM'S". Do we, as a nation, have a handle on those disguised as "hard-working immigrants" whose main agenda is nothing less than imposing Jihadism? Is sharia now the norm? Can anyone here on this forum point out the Islamic terrorists among us? Immigration reform-----gimme a break!
Cerulean posted at 9:03 pm on Sat, Oct 29, 2011.
Samkat,
I agree that immigration needs to have limits, those limits should have been set a long time ago. Now is not the time to enforce punitive measures on people who have lived here for decades or more, unless they break our laws.
Also, I adore this sentiment spoken by historian and author Gordan Wood “To be an American is not to be somebody it is to believe in something.” What he meant is that America is a nation of immigrants, not a nation of kindredship and it was founded on a set of institutions defined by our founding documents; the Declaration of Independence, Constitution the Bill of Rights etc. I have lived in Arizona for half of her life as a State and this is a State of immigrants.
I do not believe the argument that we cannot afford to allow in-state residents (of ten years or more) in-state tuition just because they do not have documents. I do not believe that. I think it is a highly selective excuse for racism.
BillRichardsonMesa posted at 10:40 pm on Thu, Nov 10, 2011.
The author of this article apparently buys into that grand canard that citizenship or legal residency should be bell weather for participation in American society. While there is a superficial attractiveness to that line of thought (they shouldn't be here), closer examination suggests that there is a certain level of hypocrisy to this line of thinking. Many who are here "illegally" actually entered legally with a visa. Overstaying a visa is a civil offense not unlike the fine one would get say, for filing one's taxes beyond time. Those who are here "illegally" more often than not, pay taxes (income tax withheld from checks, SSI and medicare, rent and property taxes). To somehow assert that they are somehow taking something that they shouldn't receive is truly facile thinking. Until our recent statues denying instate tuition to illegal immigrants, RESIDENCY was the only requirement. It would make as much sense to say illegal red light runners, or those illegally intoxicated should have their in state tuition raised. While there are those who have crossed without identification and have therefore committed a crime, it is not a felony, at least the first time around. We need to give great though to whether the misery we are foisting on our fellow human beings for a minor "illegal" act, is worthy of us as an historically immigrant society. Seemingly, there is no "give me your tired, your poor" when it comes to our southern neighbors.
Secondly, there is a large amount of hypocrisy when one takes the position that anyone who breaks the law is an "illegal." Under that standard, we are probably a nation of "illegals." For example, ever shared your prescription meds with someone with a sore throat or a tooth ache? If so, you have just violated federal law which is punishable by a long term of imprisonment and a large fine. See 21 U.S.C sec. 844(A). How about all the other laws people seemingly ignore such as contracting without a license, or even violating city codes by building sheds in the back yard, altering plumbing or construction additions to a home without a proper permit or inspections. Why focus on immigration crimes more than all the other ones that are routinely broken. Why not deny the drug sharers a driver's license? Why not deny a license to those who attempt to fraudulently modify a driving record?
That being said, nobody advocates simply opening the doors and letting folks in. But it does bear consideration that when we deport parents of American children, there is a consequence. When we refuse a reasonable opportunity to educate oneself, there are consequences. To me the danger of maintaining such an underclass is far greater than taking steps to allow all segments of society to progress. For example, reverting back to a simple "residency" requirement for college like at least 13 other states have done makes common sense. We don't need to give anyone amnesty, and that includes all the American law breakers we have next door. There has to be a reasonable middle road. Absent a willingness to find a reasonable, moral and rational solution that does not necessarily lead to citizenship, I must conclude that there are forces at play that should have been squelched during the 1960's.
Thanks Dale Whiting for your comments. Also, contrary to what has been bandied about, only four states have adopted anything like SB1070 and approximately 30 states have REJECTED it. Moreover, as noted, at least 13 states have adopted policies allowing for in state tuition for undocumented students. Thus, the suggestion that California is out of step is unsupported by the simple fact that more states are adopting in state tuition for undocumented students, than are adopting anything like SB1070.