“Democrats want cheap votes and Republicans want cheap labor”. This is a trite cliché, but it accurately describes the position of the leadership of both political parties. Recent actions by the Gang of Eight make it abundantly clear that neither party’s leadership is interested in meaningful immigration reform. Their main interest is to enact amnesty to illegal aliens as a means to advance their individual agendas.
Against this background, we the people of AZ are faced with the stark reality that if any meaningful curbing of illegal immigration is to take place, it must be done at the state level. Defending our borders and our sovereignty is the duty and the responsibility of the federal government, so we are limited as to what we can do at the state level. However, there are two areas in which we can make some improvements, employer sanctions and border security.
There are two reasons why we have such a large illegal alien problem in our state. First, we provide an irresistible magnet in the form of jobs. Second, we make it relatively easy to cross the border or overstay otherwise legal visas.
Like so many other aspects of our economy, jobs are subject to the rules of supply and demand. The price of labor (wages) is considerably reduced when the supply exceeds the demand. Since most businesses are more interested in the bottom line than on national security, the only way to make them behave properly is to have employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens.
Back in 2007, Arizona was one of the first states to enact E-Verify legislation in the form of bill HB2779, which went into effect January 1, 2008. The provisions of HB2779 were refined with HB2745, which went into effect May 1, 2008.
The E Verify program was intended to prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens. At first, this program met great success in the form of an exodus of illegal aliens from Arizona to other states, in anticipation of widespread enforcement. But in the long run, it has turned out to be a colossal failure. Even though the program has been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, enforcement has been spotty at best. A report card of sorts was issued by Tucson’s Daily Star newspaper on January 6, 2013. The Star reports that there has been less than 66% compliance. It further states that only 43% of all businesses have enrolled. Enrollment is substantially lower for businesses with 4 or fewer employees, only 19%. Finally, the Star claims that there have been only two E Verify cases prosecuted since 2008. The Star’s claims seem to be substantiated by governor candidate and previous Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas. He claims that there have been no prosecution in 4 years, and the last one was brought by him. We must do better with E Verify. We must strengthen the law to make it easier for whistle blowers to file complaints and for law enforcement agencies to respond.
The second component in the reduction of illegal alien presence in Arizona is border security and enforcement. This is another area in which progress has been painfully slow and highly disappointing.
In 2011, senate bill SB1406 gave the governor the authority to build a border fence either by entering into a compact with other states, or doing it alone. The governor never made any effort to proceed with this.
Another 2011 senate bill, SB1495, gave the governor the authority to create a State Guard, whose duties would have been to provide border security and assist with other matters, such as disaster relief, during periods in which the National Guard would be shorthanded as a result of deployments. The governor has made no effort to create a State Guard.
In both of the aforementioned instances, cost could not have been the cause of inaction. In the case of a border fence, there is a low cost, viable alternative. Its promoters refer to it as the Sound Barrier. It consists of a network of sound sensors buried along the border. These sensors not only detect traffic, but can discriminate if the crossing is being done by animals, humans on foot, vehicles, or aircraft. At the very least, this system would enable us to quantify crossings, which we are not able to do currently. At best, it would provide a very effective and relatively inexpensive early warning system to enable law enforcement personnel to respond more quickly and effectively. There are two situations in which the Sound Barrier could be deployed successfully. One would be areas in which either the terrain or the politics preclude the building of a physical fence. The other would be a low cost, and possibly temporary, alternative to building a real fence. Political leaders have so far refused to even consider this low cost alternative to building a fence.
Cost wise, the establishment of a State Guard would also be a bargain. With a few exceptions, the personnel involved would be volunteers. It is quite apparent that reluctance to implement is more the result of politics rather than economics. Two other efforts have also failed because of political considerations.
In 2011, House bill HB258, introduced by Rep. Pratt, would have facilitated and mandated greater cooperation among law enforcement units. It passed in the House almost unanimously. It passed in the Senate Public Safety Committee by a large margin. However, it was stopped on its tracks by the then President of the Senate, Steve Pierce (Not to be confused with earlier president, and staunch patriot, Russell Pearce).
In 2012, Senate bill SB1083, introduced by Sen. Sylvia Allen, would have forced creation of a State Guard. It was submitted as because of the governor’s continued reluctance to create the Guard. As a result of a great effort by Sen. Allen and retired Army special operations expert Col. Luke Taylor, this bill passed in the Senate by a margin of 2 to 1. In the House it passed in the Military Affairs and Public Safety Committees by the same 2 to 1 margin. But, like bill HB2583 in the Senate, this bill was stopped by the Speaker of the House Andy Tobin. This was again a clear case of politics over security.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from all this is that we the people need to somehow become more powerful and influential in the area of both legislation and elections. The two go hand in hand.
A very high percentage of legislators are driven by special interests, particularly those with deep pockets, who are willing and able to bankroll huge campaigns based on mass media. We can protest, pass resolutions, go to meetings, complain to like minded individuals, listen to speakers, etc. But all of this is totally ineffective unless we have the power to effect change. We must become the most powerful special interest so that politicians fear us more than they fear the deep pocket special interests. Hopefully we will find a way to achieve this in the not too distant future.