| Arizona Proposition 200 (2004) |
Article Index for Arizona |
Shopping Proposition |
Website Links For Arizona |
Information AboutArizona Proposition 200 (2004) |
|
Opponents called it Anti-immigrant , and considered it to be reminiscent of California 's 1994 Proposition 187 . PROPONENTS Two separate, rival groups were supporting Proposition 200: "Protect Arizona Now" led by Kathy McKee and supported at the national level by the Carrying Capacity Network (CCN) and Population-Environment Balance (PEB), and "Yes on 200" led by Rusty Childress and supported at the national level by FAIR. The split within PAN was a microcosm of an ongoing feud within the Immigration Reduction movement between FAIR and the two Virginia Abernethy-aligned national groups which dates back to at least 2003, with CCN and PEB issuing frequent statements accusing FAIR (as well as NumbersUSA ) of being "reform lite" and "undermining real immigration reform". The Protect Arizona Now committee was formed by Kathy McKee and Rusty Childress , who became its chair and treasurer respectively. The PAN National Advisory Board was chaired by Dr. Virginia Abernethy , and included Dr. David Pimentel and Marvin Gregory . Childress later joined a separate effort, Yes On 200, organized by the Federation For American Immigration Reform (FAIR). During the signature gathering campaign, Kathy McKee accused Rusty Childress, a Phoenix-area car dealer and PAN's treasurer, of withholding funds and petitions from PAN, and fired Childress. Childress sued McKee over custody of PAN's signatures and funds, but the court ruled in favor of McKee. Childress and the two most prominent supporters of the initiative within the Arizona state legislature, Russell Pearce and Randy Graf , then formed a separate organization, ''Yes On 200''. When FAIR began an independent signature gathering campaign to collect the remaining signatures needed to put the initiative on the ballot, McKee accused FAIR of attempting a hostile takeover of PAN. McKee named Virginia Abernethy the chair of PAN's national advisory board. FAIR responded by issuing a press release calling for both McKee and Abernethy to resign from PAN, calling Abernethy's views "repulsive separatist views." Abernethy drew heated criticism for her close relationship with the Council Of Conservative Citizens , a direct descendent of the White Citizens' Councils of the 1950s. CAMPAIGN On July 5 , 2004 , supporters from two separate groups supporting the initiative submitted 190,887 signatures to the Arizona Secretary Of State 's office, surprising critics who had believed organizers would not be able to garner enough signatures before the deadline. The majority of those signatures were gathered by the Yes On 200 group underwritten by the Federation for American Immigration Reform. A counter-organization, the Statue Of Liberty Coalition , was formed to block Proposition 200, claiming the initiative is Racist and will target Latino Civil Rights . Supporters also relied for justification on a FAIR study that determined that Arizona taxpayers pay $1.3 billion to cover health, education, and incarceration costs of illegal immigrants. This FAIR study is contradicted directly by the Wells-Fargo Thunderbird School of International Management, an international business graduate school in Phoenix, AZ, which in 2003 put out a study called "The Economic Impact of Arizona-Mexico Relationship". The study concludes that immigrants contribute $599 million to Arizona in income and sales taxes every year, while costing the State $250 million in services and $30 million in uncompensated health care. This generates a fiscal surplus for the state of $318 million per year. Despite the claims that the initiative was racist or anti-Latino, exit polls found that 47% of Latino voters voted in favor of the initiative. IMPLEMENTATION A substantial legal battle has erupted over the precise definition of "public benefits." Arizona's Attorney General has ruled that the law only pertains to discretionary state programs. Federally funded entitlements like Food Stamps and subsidized School Lunches are examples of public benefits to which, given the Attorney General's finding, the new law will not apply. The new law, in its current interpretation, is controversial. Legal challenges are still pending. Proponents of the original proposition say that the Attorney General overstepped his bounds when he narrowed the definition of "public benefits." On the other hand, opponents say that the measure is possibly unconstitutional, xenophobic, possibly racist, and definitely inhumane. The City Council of Phoenix, AZ has already declared that the city will pay to defend any city employee charged for failing to report an undocumented alien; other cities may follow suit. As of December 23 , 2004 , the federal appeals court in Tucson, AZ had removed an earlier restraining order that had kept the state from enacting the law. The new law is, for the time being, now exigent, with the definition of "public benefits" mandated by the Attorney General. City, state, and county workers will be fined up to $700 for each instance in which they provide such benefits to persons who cannot produce evidence of citizenship. Kathy McKee has since started a new group, Protect America Now , to support similar initiatives in other states. EXTERNAL LINKS |
|
|