Thread: Arizona governor issues record 115th veto

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060606/ap_ ... on_arizona
Arizona governor issues record 115th veto By JACQUES BILLEAUD, Associated Press Writer




Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed a bill Tuesday that would have drawn Arizona deeper into the fight against illegal immigration by making it a crime for illegal immigrants to be in the state.

It was the first-term governor's 115th veto, a record for Arizona. The GOP-dominated Legislature has yet to override any of the Democrat's vetoes.

The vetoed bill also would have taken a tougher approach toward employers who hire illegal immigrants, provided money for local police to arrest immigrants and expanded the list of government benefits denied to immigrants.

"It offers no constructive new ideas and instead is filled with unworkable or unconstitutional provisions that I have previously objected to or vetoed," Napolitano wrote in a letter to lawmakers.

Napolitano had warned legislative leaders she would veto the bill if it included criminalization provisions.

The previous Arizona veto record of 114 was established by Democrat Bruce Babbitt, according to figures compiled by the Arizona Capitol Times newspaper. However, Babbitt cast his 114 vetoes in just under nine years in office, while Napolitano has yet to finish the four-year term she began in 2003.

Napolitano is running for re-election this year. She enjoys strong poll ratings, and several prominent Republicans decided against challenging her.

___

On the Net:

Napolitano: http://www.governor.state.az.us

Arizona Legislature: http://www.azleg.gov




Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

nice to know that North Carolina is not the only state with a slacker for governor.

What is wrong with this woman????

She cries ,moans and complains about the illegals and how they are ruining the state...and then she vetos a chance to clean up her state and relieve the poor tax paying citizens of the stress, financial strain, and crime these invaders cast unpon them

She, like Bush wants the illegals to be here!! But unlike Bush, she does not have the "guts" to admit it

They should find a way to kick her sorry butt out of office!

This woman is totally out of touch. Considering her contempt for American taxpayers and McCains recent "Call to arms", it seems that maybe there is something very strange in the drinking water in Arizona.

ConcernedCitizen wrote

She, like Bush wants the illegals to be here!! But unlike Bush, she does not have the "guts" to admit it

Hope she has not been threatened. I'm beginning to wonder if Bush himself hasn't been threatened. Why else would he have chosen this insane path with immigration? Just a thought.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... 06-ON.html

Napolitano vetoes GOP-led immigration proposal

Matthew Benson and Chip Scutari
The Arizona Republic
Jun. 6, 2006 02:15 PM


Gov. Janet Napolitano on Tuesday rejected a GOP-led proposal to stiffen border enforcement, calling the package ill-conceived and unconstitutional.

The veto of House Bill 2577 comes in the waning days of the legislative session, sending lawmakers back to Square One on what many consider the biggest issue of the session.

In a scathing two-page letter explaining her veto, Napolitano, a Democrat, described the bill as "a weak and ineffective illegal immigration bill that offers complete amnesty to employers, violates the Constitution and is overwhelmingly opposed by law enforcement and top border elected officials in the state."

Speaking to a group of senior citizens in Kingman Tuesday, Napolitano drew long applause when she referred to the bill as a "joke" and said she had issued a veto.

"The Legislature passed a bill and said, 'Oh, we're really tough on immigration,' " she told the crowd. "But then you read the bill. On the employer side, there are no sanctions. To the contrary, if you hire someone illegally, and that illegal sues you, the state would have to pay for damages.

"The state would have to pay for your lawyer. Even if you intentionally hired someone illegally. It's an employer protection act."

While the veto was not unexpected, it rankled Republicans who led the drive to approve the measure.

"We provided the governor meaningful opportunities to address the illegal immigration problem in this state and she has chosen not to do so," said House Majority Leader Steve Tully, R-Phoenix . Republicans are scheduled to respond to the veto in a press conference on the Capitol lawn at 3 p.m.

Tully shrugged off Napolitano's criticism, saying that talk of the bill being too soft on employers is "their most recent spin they have come up with."

"The business community doesn't think it's amnesty," he added. "They are very concerned about the strength of the bill."

Napolitano say the specifics of the bill are evidence that Republicans were more interested in winning political points than addressing the state's border problems. Under the proposal, any employer found to have knowingly hired an undocumented worker could be fined or have his or her business license revoked. . But critics took to calling the provision a "paper tiger" because it requires the state meet a tougher legal standard in proving that the employer "knowingly" hired an illegal immigrant.

Even then, Napolitano wrote, the employer would be exempt from punishment as long as they fired the employee in question within 10 days of receiving a cease-and-desist letter from the state Attorney General. Lastly, the measure offered indemnification for employers, placing the state on the hook for the legal fees faced by any employer sued by a worker for following the state law.

The wide-ranging bill included roughly $160 million in state funding, with provisions to deploy members of the Arizona National Guard to the border, create new penalties for employers who hire undocumented workers and expand the state's trespassing statute to include those in the state illegally.

The bill represents the third time this session that Napolitano has vetoed measures dealing with illegal immigration and border security. Versions of the two prior vetoes - for National Guard deployment and the expansion of the trespassing law - were included in HB2577.

Chris Simcox, President of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, accused the governor of blocking attempts to rein in illegal immigration. His group of civilian volunteers has been patrolling border areas in Arizona and elsewhere since last year.

"Gov. Napolitano has signed veto after veto after veto of every substantive measure passed by the Republican-led Arizona legislature to combat a terrorist infiltration at the border, a tsunami of migrants and an unprecedented crime wave by drug smugglers, thieves, rapists, human traffickers and murderers who cross our frontier at will," Simcox wrote in a statement. " Her actions are a disgrace to the office of Governor of Arizona."

Lawmakers now are considering sending the bill to the ballot for voters to decide, Tully said.



Republic reporter Robbie Sherwood contributed to this article.

"We provided the governor meaningful opportunities to address the illegal immigration problem in this state and she has chosen not to do so," said House Majority Leader Steve Tully, R-Phoenix . Republicans are scheduled to respond to the veto in a press conference on the Capitol lawn at 3 p.m.

the voters can respond at election time ... she needs to go

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/15007.php

Napolitano's veto letter on immigration bill
Published: 06.06.2006
Text of Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano’s veto letter for an immigration bill passed by the Arizona Legislature:

Today I vetoed House Bill 2577, a weak and ineffective illegal immigration bill that offers complete amnesty to employers, violates the constitution, and is overwhelmingly opposed by law enforcement and top border elected officials in the state.

Recently, we have made a number of positive first strides in combating illegal immigration. These include finally prevailing upon the Bush Administration to send thousands of federally-funded National Guard members to the border; enacting tough new human smuggling legislation; prosecuting the money launderers who fund illegal crossings; and the recent and ongoing arrests by my fraudulent ID task force, including the arrests of over 100 persons suspected of large-scale immigration document forgery. But House Bill 2577 is a step backwards. It offers no constructive new ideas and instead is filled with unworkable or unconstitutional provisions that I have previously objected to or vetoed. Indeed, your failure to work with me to develop a more comprehensive bill, coupled with your unilateral decision to stock this bill full of provisions you know are opposed by our border communities, law enforcement agencies, and me, confirms that you view this bill more as a political game than as a serious effort to protect the border.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the so-called employer “sanction” provisions of this bill. Despite my repeated calls for meaningful employer sanctions, House Bill 2577 offers full amnesty to any employer who hires an illegal immigrant and gets caught. All the employer must do to claim this amnesty is fire the illegal worker within 10 days of receiving a cease and desist order from the Attorney General. Under this bill, an employer that simply complies with the order upon receipt pays no fine, risks no jail time, and can continue with normal business operations as if nothing has happened. Moreover, it is unlikely that an employer will even receive a cease and desist order because the bill fails to appropriate anything close to the estimated $11 million the Attorney General needs to audit annually five percent of all employers in the state, as the bill purports to require.

To make matters worse, this bill indemnifies any employer against lawsuits brought by employees they fire after a cease and desist order is issued. These remarkable and unprecedented provisions would force the taxpayer to pay not only any damages that are awarded against the employer, but also the employers attorneys fees incurred defending the action. Moreover, the taxpayer would have to pay these fees even if the employee who sues was in fact here illegally. The costs of these overbroad provisions are uncapped and could easily end up exceeding ten million dollars. If anything, these provisions encourage, rather than deter, illegal hiring in Arizona.

Real sanctions are supposed to mean the lawbreaker pays a penalty, not that he gets paid by taxpayers. Arizona should never be in the business of defending one lawbreaker (the employer) against a lawsuit brought by another (the illegal immigrant). To do otherwise would be to send a clarion call to crossers and unscrupulous employers alike: “Come to Arizona, where our legislature fosters an illegal underground labor market by holding employers completely harmless for illegal hiring.”

I have told you repeatedly that I am willing to work with you to develop comprehensive immigration reform that provides not only real sanctions against illegal hiring but also the resources our local law enforcement needs to play a meaningful role. My budget in particular calls for such funding, and I remain serious about providing it, so long as it is through an appropriate funding vehicle, such as the Department of Emergency and Military Affairs or the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. In the meantime, I will continue to work with state and local law enforcement, elected officials, the National Guard, and the federal Department of Homeland Security to secure Arizona’s southern border.

Without a strong employer sanctions provision, your bill hinders rather than helps these efforts. For these and other reasons, including those set forth in my April 25, 2006 veto message regarding Senate Bill 1157, I have vetoed House Bill 2577.

Yours very truly,

Janet Napolitano

Governor

The vetoed bill also would have taken a tougher approach toward employers who hire illegal immigrants,

or

Despite my repeated calls for meaningful employer sanctions, House Bill 2577 offers full amnesty to any employer who hires an illegal immigrant and gets caught. All the employer must do to claim this amnesty is fire the illegal worker within 10 days of receiving a cease and desist order from the Attorney General. Under this bill, an employer that simply complies with the order upon receipt pays no fine, risks no jail time, and can continue with normal business operations as if nothing has happened. Moreover, it is unlikely that an employer will even receive a cease and desist order because the bill fails to appropriate anything close to the estimated $11 million the Attorney General needs to audit annually five percent of all employers in the state, as the bill purports to require.

To make matters worse, this bill indemnifies any employer against lawsuits brought by employees they fire after a cease and desist order is issued. These remarkable and unprecedented provisions would force the taxpayer to pay not only any damages that are awarded against the employer, but also the employers attorneys fees incurred defending the action. Moreover, the taxpayer would have to pay these fees even if the employee who sues was in fact here illegally. The costs of these overbroad provisions are uncapped and could easily end up exceeding ten million dollars. If anything, these provisions encourage, rather than deter, illegal hiring in Arizona.

Real sanctions are supposed to mean the lawbreaker pays a penalty, not that he gets paid by taxpayers. Arizona should never be in the business of defending one lawbreaker (the employer) against a lawsuit brought by another (the illegal immigrant). To do otherwise would be to send a clarion call to crossers and unscrupulous employers alike: “Come to Arizona, where our legislature fosters an illegal underground labor market by holding employers completely harmless for illegal hiring.”

I have told you repeatedly that I am willing to work with you to develop comprehensive immigration reform that provides not only real sanctions against illegal hiring but also the resources our local law enforcement needs to play a meaningful role.