We have been reading about the employer sanctions legislation and I've noticed that the history of the bill seems to be getting lost in the coverage.
Conventional wisdom is that Governor Napolitano was forced to sign the Employer Sanctions bill because Rep. Russell Pearce--flush with the success of five initiative victories--was going to the ballot with an even more Draconian version than the legislation that landed on her desk.
The conventional wisdom could not be more wrong. Employer sanctions were a pawn, offered up as a sacrifice to gain strategic advantage in the broader chess game of immigration reform. Employer Sanctions began as a Democratic strategy to derail Republican efforts to toughen immigration laws. The sanction strategy was a bold gambit that simultaneously made the Legislative Democrats and Governor Napolitano look tough on illegal immigration while driving a wedge into the Republican caucus.
It was a brilliant move but it was overplayed. Much to the shock of Democrats, the media and the local chambers of commerce, the gambit was accepted.
This is the story of how Arizona adopted the toughest Employer Sanctions law in the nation--approved by two thirds vote in each House and signed by a Democratic Governor.
Let me set the stage: In late 2003, immigration issues are coming to a boil. The Republic runs a 10 part editorial series on illegal immigration and concludes with this call to action.
We need new immigration reform. To be successful, that reform will have to:
1. Regularize the current undocumented workforce and assure a future supply of labor.
2. Give employers an easy and reliable way to verify immigration status.
3. Involve rigorous enforcement of sanctions against hiring the undocumented.
We know what didn't work. We can use that knowledge to design something that will.
In November of 2003, Elias Bermudez, executive director of Centro de Ayuda, a non-profit agency in Phoenix that advocates on behalf of immigrants raised the sanctions issue, albeit in a federal context.
"If the federal government were serious about stopping human smuggling and the violence it has spawned, it would target employers who hire undocumented workers, Bermudez said."
Republicans strategy involves limiting benefits for illegal aliens and calling on the federal government to secure the boarder. Efforts focus on a ballot initiative called Proposition 200 which limits certain welfare benefits and requires voters to show ID at the polls. The Proposition is opposed by every newspaper, the state's entire congressional delegation and all but a few state legislators. In November of 2004, Prop. 200 passes overwhelmingly.
In the 2005 legislative session, Republicans, led by Russell Pearce continued their efforts to deny benefits to illegal immigrants. However, Democrats developed an effective tactic to shut down the Republican efforts. Here's how the Republic covered the issue in April of 2005.
Democratic lawmakers may have found a way to kill or slow down two bills aimed at undocumented workers in Arizona.
On Monday, the Senate postponed action on House Bill 2030, which would deny immigrants child-care subsidies, literacy classes and other government-funded benefits.
The decision came after Republican senators were forced to vote for a provision that would suspend the business licenses of employers who hire undocumented immigrants.
Sen. Bill Brotherton, a Phoenix Democrat who offered amendments to both bills, said lawmakers must go after employers if they are serious about curbing illegal immigration.
"This is a supply and demand issue," said Brotherton, who offered the amendment that would require six-month business licenses suspensions for employers caught hiring immigrants seeking contracts with the state.
When Brotherton asked for a formal vote, the amendment passed overwhelmingly, but then his Republican colleagues opted to postpone action.
It was a brilliant stroke. Republicans were in meltdown. The Brotherton amendment had 20 votes comprised of all the Democrats and the Conservative Republicans. The only hope that Republicans had was to try to strip the amendment off in a conference committee.
Later in May, Rep. Steve Gallardo tried a procedural move to eliminate the Republican's ability to move the bill into a conference committee. Gallardo moved that the House concur in the Senate (Brotherton) amendments and send the bill directly to the Governor.
The Gallardo motion failed; the bill was sent to conference committee and the Republicans stripped out Sen. Brotherton's Employer Sanctions Language.
Here's how the Republic described events on May 12.
Arizona businesses caught hiring undocumented immigrants would no longer face the loss of their licenses and hefty state fines under a legislative decision made Wednesday. A committee assigned to smooth versions of two immigration measures, House Bills 2030 and 2592 removed the employer sanction provisions from the bills.
Democrats appointed to the conference panel to smooth versions of the bills opposed removing the employer sanctions."We must send a message to both the business community and the federal government," said Rep. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix.
"Employers have to assume some degree of responsibility," said Rep. Pete Rios, D-Hayden, saying private businesses in general are enticing illegal immigration.
Here's the Republic's Linda Valdez in a May of 2005 "Quick Hit."
The hypocrisy meter exploded at the Legislature when state lawmakers tinkering with the federal problem of illegal immigration removed the only sensible part of their plan: penalizing employers who hire the undocumented. Democrats supported employer sanctions. What is it about cause and effect the GOP doesn't understand?
Governor Napolitano vetoed the bill.
If I may switch metaphors from Chess to Bridge, I will argue that it was at this point that the Democrats overplayed their hand. After Democrats forced Republicans to vote on the sanctions language, attempted to prevent the removal of the sanctions, vetoed the bill for being too weak--Governor Napolitano used her 2006 State of the State address to call for new Sanctions language.
Then, on January 15th of 2006, the Latino Caucus announced its top legislative priorities--among them Employer Sanctions. Here's how the Republic covered it.
ISSUE: Illegal-immigration workplace enforcement.
AT STAKE: Businesses could be sanctioned for hiring undocumented immigrants. Democrats have proposed stiff sanctions, including yanking business licenses of employers caught hiring undocumented workers. Employers have to assume some degree of responsibility for the immigration problem, Latino legislators say, and employer penalties could be their best answer.
PROSPECTS: Toss-up. In her state of the state speech, the governor proposed that employers who intentionally hire undocumented workers be hit with "substantial fines and penalties." Some Republicans and the powerful business community have opposed employer sanctions, with some saying it should be left to the federal government.
QUOTABLE: "We're frustrated by the fact the business community has not stepped to the front and taken a more assertive role with regards to influencing the kind of anti-immigrant legislation that has popped up," said Rep. Ben Miranda, D-Phoenix. "The only way that many of us see to bring (Republicans) to the table is to support employer sanctions."
In the 2006 session, the Republicans passed an immigration bill, but it didn't have a strong enough Sanctions component. The Governor vetoed it calling it "Amnesty for Employers." That powerful phrase signaled the end of a crushing debacle for Republicans. But it's a phrase that would come back to haunt the Democrats.
Eventually, the pressure was too much for Republicans. In 2007, Republican leadership put a full-blown sanctions bill on the Governor's desk. House Majority Leader Tom Boone explains why.
Boone said lawmakers feel compelled to act, especially after Napolitano vetoed a GOP immigration bill last year, lambasting it as providing "amnesty" for employers who are found to have hired undocumented workers.
The accusation, which Republicans argue was false, hurt some of their members in last fall's elections and unfairly painted the Legislature as soft on immigration, he said.
The Latino Caucus, stunned by the turn about, urged the Governor to veto the bill.
Opponents say the bill could lead to discrimination as employers avoid hiring legal workers and Latinos to avoid the possibility of hiring an illegal worker.
"Businesses will be very reluctant to hire anyone who is even perceived to be an immigrant. Any person of color will be subject to (discrimination)," said Democratic state Rep. Steve Gallardo.
"I will make a prediction that sanctions will never be imposed because they can't ever become workable," said Rep. Ben Miranda, D-Phoenix. "It will never be implemented properly. It will never function."
Later that month, Napolitano put the speculation to rest.
Gov. Janet Napolitano signed a bill Monday that will create some of the toughest sanctions in the country for companies that hire illegal immigrants, breaking from some of her political allies who have opposed the measure.
End Game
So who won? I've asserted that the Democrats overplayed their hand and ended up supporting the toughest sanctions bill in the nation. That's clearly the case for the Latino Caucus. They made employer sanctions a priority and fought hard for them, and then they were stunned when they became law. I have spoken to an Hispanic activist who claims that the Hispanic Community is very unhappy with way the Latino Caucus mishandled the issue.
But what about Napolitano? Don't be naive. She's a brilliant politician with national ambitions. She didn't lose this battle. She didn't paint herself into a corner. This was classic triangulation; it was Bill Clinton on welfare reform. Napolitano has always been on record supporting sanctions legislation, she called for sanctions legislation and she got sanctions legislation. In fact, she got a bipartisan bill that passed each house with over two-thirds vote.
She drove a wedge between Republicans and the business community, signed a bill that is widely supported but opposed by her base, teamed up with Russell Pearce on a controversial issue and managed to call for the bill and sign the bill without really having her fingerprints on the bill.
The Chamber is furious at the Republicans. Democratic activists are furious at the Latino Caucus. Russell Pearce is exploring a congressional bid.
Steve Gallardo is wondering what the hell happened.
Bill Brotherton? Napolitano just appointed him to the Superior Court .
And Napolitano? She's perhaps the most savvy politician that the state has ever seen. She is clearly the most powerful piece on the board. Queen's Gambit Accepted.
Checkmate.
Recent Comments