Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Governor Pressured Into Signing Bill

This immigration deal ain't over yet by a long shot. But in the meantime while the federal Congress regroups and recollects its thoughts on the late nightmarish attempt to impose its 'comprehensive' will on the governed whose consent is THE prerequisite for its authority (DoI), concerned citizens at the local and State levels are demanding their Legislatures and their Governors impose their will on illegals, and on those who assist them in breaking the law.

Case in point? Border State, Arizona, whose Legislative and Executive branches have apparently been embroiled in a three-year-long battle over tough legislation intended to make the State less inviting to illegal mexican immigrants. Below are some excerpts from the AP story which you may read in full here: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Employer-Sanctions.html


Arizona's governor signed a bill Monday that prohibits people from hiring illegal immigrants and requires businesses to verify applicants' employment eligibility, saying Congress was apparently ''incapable'' of helping.

The bill's approval by Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, marks the end of a three-year fight at the Republican-controlled Legislature to create state-imposed employer sanctions. The goal is to weaken the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak across the border and to lessen Arizona's role as the busiest illegal gateway into the nation.

But the governor said that the bill she signed had major flaws, and that she was willing to call a special legislative session to address them.

''Immigration is a federal responsibility, but ... it is now abundantly clear that Congress finds itself incapable of coping with the comprehensive immigration reforms our country needs,'' the governor said in a statement. ''I signed it, too, out of the realization that the flow of illegal immigration into our state is due to the constant demand of some employers for cheap, undocumented labor.''

I guess the 'major flaws' inherent to the bill Gov. Napolitnano signed Monday are what kept her from signing earlier, but apparently those flaws don't rise to the same level that they once did when she thought our saviors at the federal level were going to get her off the hook. Apparently the legislation has been sitting there prepared and waiting for the governor's signature for some time now, if I read the story right. But the governor was withholding her signature in hopes that the feds would release her from the responsibility.

Like so many others, Governor Napolitano is working under the false impression that 'immigration is a federal responibility,' in exclusion of any independent responsibility from the States which make up this federal union of ours. But even if her view were the correct one, it wouldn't take away from the fact that it is a flawed and an improper view, which ultimately leads to improper manifestations thereof. Speaking of which, I reckon that at least some of the flaws contained in the bill she signed would be more rightly denominated 'perceived flaws' based on her incorrect view of the subject.

On the one hand it's worrisome that we have governors of States who fallaciously believe as Napolitano does. On the other, I'm encouraged that despite their reticence to sign the appropriate legislation into law, we've been given yet another example, in the State of Arizona, of representative government working as it should.

Don't be surprised when the feds, the pundits, and the talking-heads start throwing a fit about the dangers inherent with 'allowing' the States to decide the question of immigration reform. And don't let that influence you. You can chalk it up to one of two things; either they're simply misinformed, or they fear a diminution of the federal government's power and influence over the States. In either case they should be called on the carpet at the very moment they begin shouting their declamations.


Michael Tams said...


I like to think of this as a joint obligation. Take the parental obligation with respect to a child's education as example. Both parents have a duty to see this obligation met. Yet, if one parent is neglecting their obligation, should the other parent decide to do the same?

If the federal were taking a strong approach to protecting the border, perhaps the states could relax and let the dominant parent (in this example) do the heavy lifting. Yet even still, the states have a responsibility that isn't discharged due to some sporadic action by the federal head.

I long for the day when we can share headlines like "Governor Faithfully Discharges the Duties of Her Office."


Terry Morris said...

I agree. It is a dual obligation as you say. I did allude to that in the post.

The 'dominant' parent in this case isn't doing its job very well, so the States are obliged to pick up its slack.

Like I said way back when, and I stick by the statement now more than ever - if it'll wake the People up at the local and State levels then I'm happy to see the national entity dropping the ball on this question.

Maybe it'll result in their eventually picking up the pieces, and putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.

We ain't the king's horses or the king's men.