Horizon, Host: Ted Simons

January 18, 2007


Host: Michael Grant

Education Issues


  • susan Carlson of The Arizona Business and Education Coalition will talk about the governor's plans for education.
Guests:
  • Kyrsten Sinema - Democratic State Representative
  • Russell Pearce - Republican State Representative
  • Susan Carlson - Executive Director, Arizona Business and Education Coalition (ABEC)
Category: Education

View Transcript
Michael Grant:
tonight on "Horizon," Immigration is going to be a big issue at the state capitol again this session with employer Sanctions at the forefront. Plus hear from a local group that represents business and Education about what they think about The Governor's education Proposals. That's coming up on "Horizon."

Announcer 1:
"Horizon" is made possible by Contributions from the friends Of 8, members of your Arizona P.B.S. station. Thank you.

Michael Grant:
Good evening. Welcome to "Horizon." I'm Michael Grant. Tonight we're going to wrap up our legislative series, "legislature A-Z," by taking a Look at the most emotional issue at the state capitol, Immigration. The state legislature is going to consider employer sanctions against companies which knowingly hire illegal aliens. Other immigration bills would send to the ballot a measure to make being an illegal alien a Trespassing offense and would Ban the use of consular I.D. Cards. We'll talk with two state Representatives about Immigration bills that will come up this session but first here are the thoughts of one local Business representative on possible employer sanctions.

Joe Siggs:
First of all, you start at the top; we have labor shortages in our industry, construction, a Variety of industries across Arizona. We're aging. 2 We're increasingly educated. We have other alternatives than Entry-level-skill jobs, and we're scrambling for labor. Labor is an issue. Employers only want access to a Legal, reliable labor supply, and generally that's what we've been working on the past -- past several years. In terms of employer sanctions at the state level, federal Government has failed miserably. The hiring system is broken. It's a mess. We all agree it's a mess. We want reform, and the problem Is, where the federal government has failed, public is Frustrated. Employers are frustrated, frustrated with the system. So you have the state stepping into that vacuum, if you will, and Discussing issues of employer Sanctions. We're not against employer Sanctions per se. It's the question of how you implement those sanctions. There's -- and you have to look at it two ways. You need to separate illegal Hiring from employers who are knowingly following the system, who are -- who are engaging in the federal system as Constructed. There is an underground economy where people employ off the Books, under the table. We don't defend anyone who operates in that fashion. It's a competitive issue to responsible employers, that's a problem. State government can go after that underground economy in a fashion. For responsible employers doing what they're supposed to do, the issue is fraudulent documents, and there is -- with all due respect, there's very little that the state legislature can do about that. We have a proliferation of fraudulent documents and don't have any reliable, legal method to verify those documents at the point of employment. The only tool the federal Government has available for verification is Basic Pilot, and that's a contract between each employer, homeland Security, and social security. Basic Pilot is riddled with holes. It has reliability issues, capacity problems. In the U.S., there's only about 10,000 employers using this contract. It's still called a pilot. That's what it is. Even homeland security acknowledges it may not be -- It's just a prototype. And to expand that for all employers, putting them on an employment system that does not work, is an issue. Secondly, state government has to face the issue of being preempted on this. There are only certain things the State of Arizona can do under Federal Law to move towards employers. So when we discuss employer Sanctions at the state level, we Have to talk about what the State should do, first of all, and then we have to get into what the state can do.

Michael Grant:
Here to talk about Immigration issues that will come up this session is Democratic representative Kyrsten Sinema and Republican Representative Russell Pearce. Welcome back. You guys haven't shouted at each other on this show for some time.

Kyrsten Sinema:
I don't think we ever shout.

[laughter]

Michael Grant:
Russell, I hear frequently the "we are not opposed to employer sanctions", but there's always a "but". Is the legislature going to move affirmatively on some enhanced employer sanctions this session?

Russell Pearce:
You know -- and I can only hope so. The public has spoken loud and clear. The Arizona Republic's last survey-- 87\% of the public wanted employer sanctions. The same number exists with local law enforcement enforcing the law. Last election, an average of 75\% of the voting public voted for the four propositions on there to do with the illegal aliens. Clearly the message is loud and clear, and doing nothing is absolutely outrageous. It's malfeasance of office, in violation of our oath of office not to do something. This business of pointing the finger at the federal government is outrageous. Last year, election year, The Governor was willing to spend 100 million; she said "I put a bill out for 160 million". She vetoed it all. This year, it's not even an issue. Election's over. Apparently she doesn't care about border security or enforcement anymore.

Michael Grant:
Kyrsten, here's one of the problems. They do have a legitimate point, and I think the Swift case highlighted this. Swift had used the federal employee verification database and got nailed anyway, and a lot of employers say, sometimes you suspect, but a lot of employers say there's no way to verify if in fact this person is legal or illegal.

Kyrsten Sinema:
Well, the current federal program is not perfect, but the Basic Pilot program, which the state government has used -- Janet Napolitano used it for state employees to some good effect last year -- is the best program available. Now, the House Democrats are introducing a bill next week that will actually use employer sanctions, using this Basic Pilot program, and be much more strenuous on the issue of employer sanctions, which as Russell mentioned, 87\% of Arizonans are interested in. What this piece of legislation does is use that Basic Pilot program, and then employs rigorous financial culpability for those employers who willfully disobey.

Michael Grant:
But if they use it, it's a safe harbor for them?

Kyrsten Sinema:
No. It penalizes individuals, who, through the use of the Basic Pilot program, are proven to be acting in malfeasance, or not following the state and federal Guidelines. The difference with this program than other programs that have been proposed in the past is that, rather than just sending a warning letter and allowing people to start over, this accumulates their violations within three violations in one year, each time with a fine of $5000, second $10,000, third $15,000. And with the third fine, taking away that person's business License and printing the name of that company in the newspaper so That everybody in the community knows that this person is a repeat offender on this issue.

Michael Grant:
I think your position is that the state has got constraints on how far it can go under federal law.

Russell Pearce:
They do, and Kyrsten should know that. Anyone who has a basic understanding of the Constitution understands that you can't do some of what she wants to do. And that's why-- what I'm going to do is even much tougher. We're going to require those businesses to enter an affidavit Under penalty of perjury that they will not hire an illegal Alien. They'll be prosecuted criminally if they do that, in addition to losing their license. Mine has a third strike in it, license revoked, not allowed to do business in the State of Arizona again. It's a shame it has to go to third strikes. People know the law, and one can't compete and have a dishonest, illegal, competitive advantage over the honest employer. But Kyrsten misses a couple points. First of all, last year that Bill didn't do what they like to keep trying to say it does. Secondly, the employer sanction, does not allow you to impose fines on employer sanctions. It specifically preempts that. You can go after the license. And I'm going to create a penalty for the affidavit, so there is going to be criminal penalty with it. No more wink and nod. These employers who continue to cheat and compete illegally and knowingly hire illegals are going to pay the price. The public demands it we demand it, and enough is enough, and for five years, I've ran this bill, five years I've never had any Democrat support, and I've run the toughest bill the first two years that they ever wanted, and nobody voted for it. So I'm just tired of tough-talking drive-by statement.

Kyrsten Sinema:
Well, we'll look forward to seeing something, because the bill that was introduced last year By Mr. Pearce was, as I said on the show, smoke and mirrors.

Russell Pearce:
Absolutely not. You know that. It was constitutional, Written by the best attorneys in the nation.

Michael Grant:
All right.

Russell Pearce:
That's absolutely not true, and they ignore it, they get away with it.

Michael Grant:
Let me shift gears, the Smuggler law. I think you've already got moving a bill that would make it clear that the "smugglee" could not be charged with conspiracy.

Kyrsten Sinema:
Yes, H.B. 2270, and I introduced it, really, in honor of Representative Paton, who is a Republican member of the legislature from Tucson who is serving our Country in Iraq. When Mr. Paton introduced this Legislation in 2005, he and Senator Jerod, who is since deceased, introduced the legislation mostly to cover issues of sex trafficking and forced labor smuggling. I was a co-sponsor of that original legislation and worked very closely with Representative Paton throughout the process. Unfortunately, Andrew Thomas is the only county attorney in the state who is misapplying and abusing this law. I have seen on numerous occasions, I'm sure as everyone else has, Representative Paton's repeated discussions in the media before he went to Iraq how that was not The intent of the legislation.

Michael Grant:
If I conspire with someone to commit a crime, even involving myself, why isn't that a crime?

Kyrsten Sinema:
Well, let's remember that many of the people who are smuggled to this country -- and again this is the original intent of the legislation -- are smuggled against their own will. So we're talking about young girls and women who are smuggled in for forced prostitution and sex trafficking, we're talking about young men and even older men who are smuggled for forced labor purposes. But even if you were to put those very clear victims aside and talk about individuals who had perhaps purchased a service from a coyote, I think Judge O'Toole said it best. That would be -- charging that person as a conspirator in the crime of smuggling would be akin to charging a person who bought a bus ticket as a co-conspirator in an act that that person driving a bus would commit.

Russell Pearce:
First of all, this was Andy Biggs' bill, originally, who gave it to Paton. He always intended the conspiracy law to be applied. Secondly, why are we going to carve these folks out all of a sudden? They can't be involved in a conspiracy. If you and I negotiate with somebody to commit a crime, we've committed conspiracy. That's the application of the law. This law is no different than any other law. Kyrsten has a bill also that says you can't enforce the law and you can't - and the Minutemen, the citizens, can't Be involved. Kyrsten would enforce no law if she had her way. And H.C.R. 2011, one of her H.C.R.'s, says you can't enforce the law regardless of your immigration status. You have a right to be here. That's outrageous.

Kyrsten Sinema:
That's to stop domestic terrorism.

Michael Grant:
What about the argument, though, that we're wasting resources that we ought to be spending on coyotes by chasing --

Russell Pearce:
I appreciate that comment and thank you. Arizona's number 1 in crime. Phoenix's fifth most likely city to be killed in. The Homeland Security report by Congressman Keane indicates we've lost 3,000 of our best in the last four years in Iraq. We have 9,000 people a year in The United States at the hands Of illegal aliens, 12 a day by stabbings and shootings, 13 a Day by D.U.I. or vehicular Homicides. Billions of dollars. We have 225,000 non-English Speakers out of a million Students at k-12. The health care system has imploded. We know the problems: congestion. There's not an issue that you can talk about that this isn't a major, major impact.

Michael Grant:
Final comment and then I want to shift.

Kyrsten Sinema:
with all due respect to Mr. Pearce, "The Republic" noted last year that Mr. Pearson has a Habit of just kind of willy-nilly citing statistics. The fact is that--

Russell Pearce:
These are Congressional numbers, and wish you wouldn't say that because you don't like the numbers. You hate it when --

Michael Grant:
Mr. Pearce, let her answer.

Russell Pearce:
Yea, but I'm not lying.

Kyrsten Sinema:
The fact is that many individuals who come to this Country, whether they come through an authorized means or unauthorized means, are not criminals. This legislation that Representative Paton Introduced, as we talked about in the public, at least on five separate occasions to media outlets -- he said over and over that the intent was not to charge those individuals who are victims as co-conspirators.

Michael Grant:
The voters have passed Proposition 200, they have passed Proposition 300. Is there any plan to fence off additional state benefits from illegal aliens in continuation of that trend?

Russell Pearce:
Good question. First of all, if you're in this country illegally, you have no right to be here. You certainly don't have a right to be an impact on the taxpayers. And again, like Disneyland learned a Long time ago, if you want the crowds to go home, you've got to shut down the rides. Enough is enough, and the public has spoken. There's an impact on the taxpayers, impact in terms of crime. I mean, Phoenix is the capitol -- the car jack and home invasion capitol of the world. All of this is related.

Michael Grant:
Anything specific on additional benefits?

Russell Pearce:
Well, there are some bills out there on additional benefits, but mostly the two major bills that must be passed that will turn this around is simply employer sanctions and the elimination of illegal sanctuary policies by cities and counties to say they won't enforce the law. They have an inherent authority, they have an inherent responsibility. The 1996 Immigration Control Act made that clear. Enough is enough. Enforce the law.

Michael Grant:
30 seconds to give you the final word.

Kyrsten Sinema:
And yes, there are several pieces of legislation that Mr. Pearce has introduced. One is a memorial to send to Congress to repeal the Fourteenth amendment--

Russell Pearce:
No it doesn't. Krysten--

Kyrsten Sinema:
--Which grants rights of citizenship to Individuals born in this Country. The other piece of legislation that he's introduced is a piece Of legislation that says, as of the date of his legislation taking effect, children who are born in this country to parents Who are undocumented would cease to enjoy the benefits of citizenship in Arizona, they would no longer have the right to attend K-12 education, no longer have The right to access health care. Now, with all due respect, that's unconstitutional, flat out.

Michael Grant:
I've got to wrap.

Russell Pearce:
Well first of all, it's not--

Michael Grant:
I've got to wrap. I barely get a word in edge-wise with you guys. Representative Pearce, thank you very much.

Russell Pearce:
Thank you.

Michael Grant:
Representative Sinema, our thanks to you as well.

Michael Grant:
As "Horizon" continues the celebration of its 25th Anniversary, we look back at the big stories we have covered. One of them was the effort to get a Martin Luther King holiday. Before leaving office in 1987, Arizona governor Bruce Babbitt Signed an executive order creating a Martin Luther King Jr. Day. That set off a controversial saga that did not end until voters passed the holiday six years later. Here's a look back at our coverage and a discussion from our 25th anniversary broadcast.

Michael Grant:
First, last Thursday, Governor Mecham proclaimed the third Sunday in January as Martin Luther King Jr. Civil Rights Day. The day is an unpaid observance, rather than a state-paid holiday. The question that will be facing Arizona's legislators for the third time in as many years is whether Arizona will join the Federal government and 44 other states in commemorating the man and the movement with a State-paid holiday.

Protesters:
|We want King Day!

Reporter 1:
for the 8,000 marchers, it was a time to hear speakers reaffirm their commitment to making King Day a reality.

Reporter 2:
Arizona is the only state without a holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr. It's also the only state to ask voters if a paid holiday honoring the civil rights leader should exist. The question has been tossed around for a number of years, beginning with legislative debates in 1975. Former governor Bruce Babbitt, in 1986, declared a Martin Luther King holiday by executive order. Governor Evan Mecham called the declaration illegal and rescinded the holiday two weeks after he took office. Mecham did declare an unpaid Martin Luther King Jr. Civil Rights day to be observed on Sunday, but still the controversy continued. In the 1990 general elections, Arizonans voted against two Martin Luther King Propositions, one which would have replaced Columbus Day with King Day. The other would have simply added King Day to the list of state-paid holidays.

Michael Grant:
This one was a tough one. It had a lot of moving parts to it, and I had forgotten that it spanned six years. How do you explain this long saga in Arizona history in 45 seconds or less?

Art Hamilton:
There were some people who made a decision that the King Holiday was not a holiday that would pass on their watch. If it passed, it would pass long after they were gone. They made that judgment. They thought politically it was as difficult for them as immigration is today, and they simply would have preferred it to go away, and it was an issue that simply would not quietly or peacefully go away.

Michael Grant:
And then you've got the conflict between two holidays. We tried that one, forget about that.

Art Hamilton:
Well, initially, we tried the bill that ultimately is now the law in Arizona. That was rejected because it was said that we couldn't get rid of the President -- George Washington was too honored, and Abraham Lincoln was the patron saint of the Republican Party. You can't possibly have federal treatment. And that's why the Columbia Day issue was really foisted upon us. We never really wanted the Columbus Day switch.

Mark Flatten:
I think what made this such a difficult issue is it got so tied up in so many different things. If you look at what really triggered this, it was Evan Mecham repealing the original holiday. Legally, I think Evan Mecham was right. He had an opinion from the Attorney General that says this is an illegal holiday. You can't declare it by executive order. The Governor doesn't have that power. If Carolyn Warner had won, she'd probably have had to do the same thing. If Bill Schultz had won, he'd have to do the same thing. But it's the way Mecham did it, he did it with such vitriol, almost such flippancy, that I think that made people just choose sides, and that animosity just continued and continued.

Keven Willey:
You know, this was a pivotal issue. I was a new legislative reporter In the House when this issue first bubbled up, and I will never forget a floor speech given by a late legislator who rose up on the floor of the House and proclaimed that Martin Luther King may be a hero for Black people but he's not a hero for the rest of America. And I was at the press table. I just couldn't believe what I had heard. I had to leave the floor of the House to recover my composure. I was so astounded by that. And that was part of the problem.

Michael Grant:
NFL didn't help us.

Mark Flatten:
I was just gonna say. I think what you saw is the first go around with Mecham, there was a lot of hate and anger, a lot that has rolled around Mecham and everything else. The second time, you had so much interference; you had bad stuff on both sides. You had the NFL saying, "well, if you don't get the King Holiday, We're not going to play the Super Bowl", which led to the greatest bumper sticker of all time which is "NFL, go to hell and play the Super Bowl there".

[laughter]

Mark Flatten:
The third time around, the time that ultimately passed, the supporters waged what I would consider a fairly low-key campaign. They didn't inject a lot of emotion. It was the first time they said, "Let's just do it on its own merits" and it passed.

Michael Grant:
The Arizona Business and Education Coalition is a watchdog organization that keeps an eye on k-12 education issues as they relate to business. The organization has representatives from companies Like Motorola, Wells Fargo, and Intel, organizations like the Arizona School Board Association. Here to talk about some of The Governor's education goals from the viewpoint of ABEC is its Executive Director, Susan Carlson. Susan, a little more detail on What ABEC is?

Susan Carlson:
Thank you very much. Thanks so much for having us here tonight. ABEC is-- the purpose of ABEC, really, is to take some of these complex Issues and find common ground. Business and education had a huge amount in common in terms Of a strong economic development that's based on strong schools. And so our goal is to find Common ground on complex issues, Educate each other about the issues and then go forward to educate each other, exert Influence wherever we can, from State Board of Education to the legislature.

Michael Grant:
how complicated an issue is moving to four years of Math in high school, in your opinion?

Susan Carlson:
I think it is -- it sounds simple, but it's very complicated. First of all, it's important to know that this is an advocacy that ABEC's been about for a number of years with Our Arizona Academic Scholars Initiative. That initiative is targeted at the middle 50\% of students, asking them to take more math and science in their curriculum. Now, we know that four years of practicing math is important for students, all students, to be prepared for either the workforce or post-secondary education. And by post-secondary education, it's important to know, I'm not saying university. I'm saying lifelong learning. Every single student exiting the system needs to be prepared to go into the workforce, needs to be prepared to get certification, go to Community Colleges, and being-- practicing Math for four years is important.

Michael Grant:
Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, says the Problem with that is you may actually work against yourself In terms of keeping a certain segment of the student population in school. What do you say?

Susan Carlson:
I would say that we need to overcome that view, that there are other things we need to be doing to keep that element of student in school. We would not for a moment expect that we can put a four-year Math requirement in place without also looking at the infrastructure to make sure all students are successful from the time they enter school.

Michael Grant:
Does part of it hinge on Whether or not you drive toward Calculus or you simply require a continuing familiarity with Math throughout the high school stay?

Susan Carlson:
That is a wonderful question. Absolutely not driving toward Calculus, but we do know that students learn in different ways, that Math is important, practicing Math is important, and applying the academics is important. So a student practicing their Math in a contextual way, let's say a capstone course, their Career and Technical Education coursework, where they're actually applying their learning, but it's a Math concept that they're applying. That is a wonderful way to practice Math. So what we're saying is: they need four years of Math practice. Some of it may be in current Technical Education course work.

Michael Grant:
I want to touch at least briefly on the teacher pay increase. The Governor recommended taking base to $33,000. I guess one of the arguments that I hear against that is not necessarily against a fixed base, but against flexibility in school districts to deal with Both new teachers as well as Teachers who have been there and The way they think best fits Their locality.

Susan Carlson:
The issue of local control, I'm hearing you comment on, is a true issue for the State of Arizona in terms of how-- having been a school board member myself, I know the importance of--

Michael Grant:
Sure.

Susan Carlson:
|--that allocation coming to our school district, and being able to deal with it the way we want to deal with it, based on our local conditions. But I do have to say that we are trying to-- we're attempting to recruit teachers from across this country and we're competing with states around us. Every district is competing with other districts across the Southwest, and having a competitive salary schedule for teachers, particularly in some of these hard-to-serve areas, that's imperative. We're going to have to look at overcoming some of these issues together.

Michael Grant:
Susan Carlson, executive Director of ABEC, thank you very much for joining us.

Susan Carlson:
Thank you.

Announcer 2:
The City of Scottsdale is asking the State to take responsibility for the speed cameras on the Loop 101. This follows a report that shows the cameras brought down speeds on the freeway. And following The Governor's Proposal, the Republican majority in the legislature is coming forward with its priorities. "The Journalist Roundtable", Friday at 7:00 on "Horizon".

Michael Grant:
Those stories and others tomorrow on Friday's edition. Hope you can join us for that. We appreciate very much your joining us for the Thursday Edition of "Horizon". I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Good night.

HORIZON 25th Anniversary


  • As we continue our look back at the big stories Horizon has covered during it's 25 years, the effort to get a Martin Luther King Junior holiday in Arizona was a big part of our coverage for many years.
Guests:
  • Kyrsten Sinema - Democratic State Representative
  • Russell Pearce - Republican State Representative
  • Susan Carlson - Executive Director, Arizona Business and Education Coalition (ABEC)


View Transcript
Michael Grant:
tonight on "Horizon," Immigration is going to be a big issue at the state capitol again this session with employer Sanctions at the forefront. Plus hear from a local group that represents business and Education about what they think about The Governor's education Proposals. That's coming up on "Horizon."

Announcer 1:
"Horizon" is made possible by Contributions from the friends Of 8, members of your Arizona P.B.S. station. Thank you.

Michael Grant:
Good evening. Welcome to "Horizon." I'm Michael Grant. Tonight we're going to wrap up our legislative series, "legislature A-Z," by taking a Look at the most emotional issue at the state capitol, Immigration. The state legislature is going to consider employer sanctions against companies which knowingly hire illegal aliens. Other immigration bills would send to the ballot a measure to make being an illegal alien a Trespassing offense and would Ban the use of consular I.D. Cards. We'll talk with two state Representatives about Immigration bills that will come up this session but first here are the thoughts of one local Business representative on possible employer sanctions.

Joe Siggs:
First of all, you start at the top; we have labor shortages in our industry, construction, a Variety of industries across Arizona. We're aging. 2 We're increasingly educated. We have other alternatives than Entry-level-skill jobs, and we're scrambling for labor. Labor is an issue. Employers only want access to a Legal, reliable labor supply, and generally that's what we've been working on the past -- past several years. In terms of employer sanctions at the state level, federal Government has failed miserably. The hiring system is broken. It's a mess. We all agree it's a mess. We want reform, and the problem Is, where the federal government has failed, public is Frustrated. Employers are frustrated, frustrated with the system. So you have the state stepping into that vacuum, if you will, and Discussing issues of employer Sanctions. We're not against employer Sanctions per se. It's the question of how you implement those sanctions. There's -- and you have to look at it two ways. You need to separate illegal Hiring from employers who are knowingly following the system, who are -- who are engaging in the federal system as Constructed. There is an underground economy where people employ off the Books, under the table. We don't defend anyone who operates in that fashion. It's a competitive issue to responsible employers, that's a problem. State government can go after that underground economy in a fashion. For responsible employers doing what they're supposed to do, the issue is fraudulent documents, and there is -- with all due respect, there's very little that the state legislature can do about that. We have a proliferation of fraudulent documents and don't have any reliable, legal method to verify those documents at the point of employment. The only tool the federal Government has available for verification is Basic Pilot, and that's a contract between each employer, homeland Security, and social security. Basic Pilot is riddled with holes. It has reliability issues, capacity problems. In the U.S., there's only about 10,000 employers using this contract. It's still called a pilot. That's what it is. Even homeland security acknowledges it may not be -- It's just a prototype. And to expand that for all employers, putting them on an employment system that does not work, is an issue. Secondly, state government has to face the issue of being preempted on this. There are only certain things the State of Arizona can do under Federal Law to move towards employers. So when we discuss employer Sanctions at the state level, we Have to talk about what the State should do, first of all, and then we have to get into what the state can do.

Michael Grant:
Here to talk about Immigration issues that will come up this session is Democratic representative Kyrsten Sinema and Republican Representative Russell Pearce. Welcome back. You guys haven't shouted at each other on this show for some time.

Kyrsten Sinema:
I don't think we ever shout.

[laughter]

Michael Grant:
Russell, I hear frequently the "we are not opposed to employer sanctions", but there's always a "but". Is the legislature going to move affirmatively on some enhanced employer sanctions this session?

Russell Pearce:
You know -- and I can only hope so. The public has spoken loud and clear. The Arizona Republic's last survey-- 87\% of the public wanted employer sanctions. The same number exists with local law enforcement enforcing the law. Last election, an average of 75\% of the voting public voted for the four propositions on there to do with the illegal aliens. Clearly the message is loud and clear, and doing nothing is absolutely outrageous. It's malfeasance of office, in violation of our oath of office not to do something. This business of pointing the finger at the federal government is outrageous. Last year, election year, The Governor was willing to spend 100 million; she said "I put a bill out for 160 million". She vetoed it all. This year, it's not even an issue. Election's over. Apparently she doesn't care about border security or enforcement anymore.

Michael Grant:
Kyrsten, here's one of the problems. They do have a legitimate point, and I think the Swift case highlighted this. Swift had used the federal employee verification database and got nailed anyway, and a lot of employers say, sometimes you suspect, but a lot of employers say there's no way to verify if in fact this person is legal or illegal.

Kyrsten Sinema:
Well, the current federal program is not perfect, but the Basic Pilot program, which the state government has used -- Janet Napolitano used it for state employees to some good effect last year -- is the best program available. Now, the House Democrats are introducing a bill next week that will actually use employer sanctions, using this Basic Pilot program, and be much more strenuous on the issue of employer sanctions, which as Russell mentioned, 87\% of Arizonans are interested in. What this piece of legislation does is use that Basic Pilot program, and then employs rigorous financial culpability for those employers who willfully disobey.

Michael Grant:
But if they use it, it's a safe harbor for them?

Kyrsten Sinema:
No. It penalizes individuals, who, through the use of the Basic Pilot program, are proven to be acting in malfeasance, or not following the state and federal Guidelines. The difference with this program than other programs that have been proposed in the past is that, rather than just sending a warning letter and allowing people to start over, this accumulates their violations within three violations in one year, each time with a fine of $5000, second $10,000, third $15,000. And with the third fine, taking away that person's business License and printing the name of that company in the newspaper so That everybody in the community knows that this person is a repeat offender on this issue.

Michael Grant:
I think your position is that the state has got constraints on how far it can go under federal law.

Russell Pearce:
They do, and Kyrsten should know that. Anyone who has a basic understanding of the Constitution understands that you can't do some of what she wants to do. And that's why-- what I'm going to do is even much tougher. We're going to require those businesses to enter an affidavit Under penalty of perjury that they will not hire an illegal Alien. They'll be prosecuted criminally if they do that, in addition to losing their license. Mine has a third strike in it, license revoked, not allowed to do business in the State of Arizona again. It's a shame it has to go to third strikes. People know the law, and one can't compete and have a dishonest, illegal, competitive advantage over the honest employer. But Kyrsten misses a couple points. First of all, last year that Bill didn't do what they like to keep trying to say it does. Secondly, the employer sanction, does not allow you to impose fines on employer sanctions. It specifically preempts that. You can go after the license. And I'm going to create a penalty for the affidavit, so there is going to be criminal penalty with it. No more wink and nod. These employers who continue to cheat and compete illegally and knowingly hire illegals are going to pay the price. The public demands it we demand it, and enough is enough, and for five years, I've ran this bill, five years I've never had any Democrat support, and I've run the toughest bill the first two years that they ever wanted, and nobody voted for it. So I'm just tired of tough-talking drive-by statement.

Kyrsten Sinema:
Well, we'll look forward to seeing something, because the bill that was introduced last year By Mr. Pearce was, as I said on the show, smoke and mirrors.

Russell Pearce:
Absolutely not. You know that. It was constitutional, Written by the best attorneys in the nation.

Michael Grant:
All right.

Russell Pearce:
That's absolutely not true, and they ignore it, they get away with it.

Michael Grant:
Let me shift gears, the Smuggler law. I think you've already got moving a bill that would make it clear that the "smugglee" could not be charged with conspiracy.

Kyrsten Sinema:
Yes, H.B. 2270, and I introduced it, really, in honor of Representative Paton, who is a Republican member of the legislature from Tucson who is serving our Country in Iraq. When Mr. Paton introduced this Legislation in 2005, he and Senator Jerod, who is since deceased, introduced the legislation mostly to cover issues of sex trafficking and forced labor smuggling. I was a co-sponsor of that original legislation and worked very closely with Representative Paton throughout the process. Unfortunately, Andrew Thomas is the only county attorney in the state who is misapplying and abusing this law. I have seen on numerous occasions, I'm sure as everyone else has, Representative Paton's repeated discussions in the media before he went to Iraq how that was not The intent of the legislation.

Michael Grant:
If I conspire with someone to commit a crime, even involving myself, why isn't that a crime?

Kyrsten Sinema:
Well, let's remember that many of the people who are smuggled to this country -- and again this is the original intent of the legislation -- are smuggled against their own will. So we're talking about young girls and women who are smuggled in for forced prostitution and sex trafficking, we're talking about young men and even older men who are smuggled for forced labor purposes. But even if you were to put those very clear victims aside and talk about individuals who had perhaps purchased a service from a coyote, I think Judge O'Toole said it best. That would be -- charging that person as a conspirator in the crime of smuggling would be akin to charging a person who bought a bus ticket as a co-conspirator in an act that that person driving a bus would commit.

Russell Pearce:
First of all, this was Andy Biggs' bill, originally, who gave it to Paton. He always intended the conspiracy law to be applied. Secondly, why are we going to carve these folks out all of a sudden? They can't be involved in a conspiracy. If you and I negotiate with somebody to commit a crime, we've committed conspiracy. That's the application of the law. This law is no different than any other law. Kyrsten has a bill also that says you can't enforce the law and you can't - and the Minutemen, the citizens, can't Be involved. Kyrsten would enforce no law if she had her way. And H.C.R. 2011, one of her H.C.R.'s, says you can't enforce the law regardless of your immigration status. You have a right to be here. That's outrageous.

Kyrsten Sinema:
That's to stop domestic terrorism.

Michael Grant:
What about the argument, though, that we're wasting resources that we ought to be spending on coyotes by chasing --

Russell Pearce:
I appreciate that comment and thank you. Arizona's number 1 in crime. Phoenix's fifth most likely city to be killed in. The Homeland Security report by Congressman Keane indicates we've lost 3,000 of our best in the last four years in Iraq. We have 9,000 people a year in The United States at the hands Of illegal aliens, 12 a day by stabbings and shootings, 13 a Day by D.U.I. or vehicular Homicides. Billions of dollars. We have 225,000 non-English Speakers out of a million Students at k-12. The health care system has imploded. We know the problems: congestion. There's not an issue that you can talk about that this isn't a major, major impact.

Michael Grant:
Final comment and then I want to shift.

Kyrsten Sinema:
with all due respect to Mr. Pearce, "The Republic" noted last year that Mr. Pearson has a Habit of just kind of willy-nilly citing statistics. The fact is that--

Russell Pearce:
These are Congressional numbers, and wish you wouldn't say that because you don't like the numbers. You hate it when --

Michael Grant:
Mr. Pearce, let her answer.

Russell Pearce:
Yea, but I'm not lying.

Kyrsten Sinema:
The fact is that many individuals who come to this Country, whether they come through an authorized means or unauthorized means, are not criminals. This legislation that Representative Paton Introduced, as we talked about in the public, at least on five separate occasions to media outlets -- he said over and over that the intent was not to charge those individuals who are victims as co-conspirators.

Michael Grant:
The voters have passed Proposition 200, they have passed Proposition 300. Is there any plan to fence off additional state benefits from illegal aliens in continuation of that trend?

Russell Pearce:
Good question. First of all, if you're in this country illegally, you have no right to be here. You certainly don't have a right to be an impact on the taxpayers. And again, like Disneyland learned a Long time ago, if you want the crowds to go home, you've got to shut down the rides. Enough is enough, and the public has spoken. There's an impact on the taxpayers, impact in terms of crime. I mean, Phoenix is the capitol -- the car jack and home invasion capitol of the world. All of this is related.

Michael Grant:
Anything specific on additional benefits?

Russell Pearce:
Well, there are some bills out there on additional benefits, but mostly the two major bills that must be passed that will turn this around is simply employer sanctions and the elimination of illegal sanctuary policies by cities and counties to say they won't enforce the law. They have an inherent authority, they have an inherent responsibility. The 1996 Immigration Control Act made that clear. Enough is enough. Enforce the law.

Michael Grant:
30 seconds to give you the final word.

Kyrsten Sinema:
And yes, there are several pieces of legislation that Mr. Pearce has introduced. One is a memorial to send to Congress to repeal the Fourteenth amendment--

Russell Pearce:
No it doesn't. Krysten--

Kyrsten Sinema:
--Which grants rights of citizenship to Individuals born in this Country. The other piece of legislation that he's introduced is a piece Of legislation that says, as of the date of his legislation taking effect, children who are born in this country to parents Who are undocumented would cease to enjoy the benefits of citizenship in Arizona, they would no longer have the right to attend K-12 education, no longer have The right to access health care. Now, with all due respect, that's unconstitutional, flat out.

Michael Grant:
I've got to wrap.

Russell Pearce:
Well first of all, it's not--

Michael Grant:
I've got to wrap. I barely get a word in edge-wise with you guys. Representative Pearce, thank you very much.

Russell Pearce:
Thank you.

Michael Grant:
Representative Sinema, our thanks to you as well.

Michael Grant:
As "Horizon" continues the celebration of its 25th Anniversary, we look back at the big stories we have covered. One of them was the effort to get a Martin Luther King holiday. Before leaving office in 1987, Arizona governor Bruce Babbitt Signed an executive order creating a Martin Luther King Jr. Day. That set off a controversial saga that did not end until voters passed the holiday six years later. Here's a look back at our coverage and a discussion from our 25th anniversary broadcast.

Michael Grant:
First, last Thursday, Governor Mecham proclaimed the third Sunday in January as Martin Luther King Jr. Civil Rights Day. The day is an unpaid observance, rather than a state-paid holiday. The question that will be facing Arizona's legislators for the third time in as many years is whether Arizona will join the Federal government and 44 other states in commemorating the man and the movement with a State-paid holiday.

Protesters:
|We want King Day!

Reporter 1:
for the 8,000 marchers, it was a time to hear speakers reaffirm their commitment to making King Day a reality.

Reporter 2:
Arizona is the only state without a holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr. It's also the only state to ask voters if a paid holiday honoring the civil rights leader should exist. The question has been tossed around for a number of years, beginning with legislative debates in 1975. Former governor Bruce Babbitt, in 1986, declared a Martin Luther King holiday by executive order. Governor Evan Mecham called the declaration illegal and rescinded the holiday two weeks after he took office. Mecham did declare an unpaid Martin Luther King Jr. Civil Rights day to be observed on Sunday, but still the controversy continued. In the 1990 general elections, Arizonans voted against two Martin Luther King Propositions, one which would have replaced Columbus Day with King Day. The other would have simply added King Day to the list of state-paid holidays.

Michael Grant:
This one was a tough one. It had a lot of moving parts to it, and I had forgotten that it spanned six years. How do you explain this long saga in Arizona history in 45 seconds or less?

Art Hamilton:
There were some people who made a decision that the King Holiday was not a holiday that would pass on their watch. If it passed, it would pass long after they were gone. They made that judgment. They thought politically it was as difficult for them as immigration is today, and they simply would have preferred it to go away, and it was an issue that simply would not quietly or peacefully go away.

Michael Grant:
And then you've got the conflict between two holidays. We tried that one, forget about that.

Art Hamilton:
Well, initially, we tried the bill that ultimately is now the law in Arizona. That was rejected because it was said that we couldn't get rid of the President -- George Washington was too honored, and Abraham Lincoln was the patron saint of the Republican Party. You can't possibly have federal treatment. And that's why the Columbia Day issue was really foisted upon us. We never really wanted the Columbus Day switch.

Mark Flatten:
I think what made this such a difficult issue is it got so tied up in so many different things. If you look at what really triggered this, it was Evan Mecham repealing the original holiday. Legally, I think Evan Mecham was right. He had an opinion from the Attorney General that says this is an illegal holiday. You can't declare it by executive order. The Governor doesn't have that power. If Carolyn Warner had won, she'd probably have had to do the same thing. If Bill Schultz had won, he'd have to do the same thing. But it's the way Mecham did it, he did it with such vitriol, almost such flippancy, that I think that made people just choose sides, and that animosity just continued and continued.

Keven Willey:
You know, this was a pivotal issue. I was a new legislative reporter In the House when this issue first bubbled up, and I will never forget a floor speech given by a late legislator who rose up on the floor of the House and proclaimed that Martin Luther King may be a hero for Black people but he's not a hero for the rest of America. And I was at the press table. I just couldn't believe what I had heard. I had to leave the floor of the House to recover my composure. I was so astounded by that. And that was part of the problem.

Michael Grant:
NFL didn't help us.

Mark Flatten:
I was just gonna say. I think what you saw is the first go around with Mecham, there was a lot of hate and anger, a lot that has rolled around Mecham and everything else. The second time, you had so much interference; you had bad stuff on both sides. You had the NFL saying, "well, if you don't get the King Holiday, We're not going to play the Super Bowl", which led to the greatest bumper sticker of all time which is "NFL, go to hell and play the Super Bowl there".

[laughter]

Mark Flatten:
The third time around, the time that ultimately passed, the supporters waged what I would consider a fairly low-key campaign. They didn't inject a lot of emotion. It was the first time they said, "Let's just do it on its own merits" and it passed.

Michael Grant:
The Arizona Business and Education Coalition is a watchdog organization that keeps an eye on k-12 education issues as they relate to business. The organization has representatives from companies Like Motorola, Wells Fargo, and Intel, organizations like the Arizona School Board Association. Here to talk about some of The Governor's education goals from the viewpoint of ABEC is its Executive Director, Susan Carlson. Susan, a little more detail on What ABEC is?

Susan Carlson:
Thank you very much. Thanks so much for having us here tonight. ABEC is-- the purpose of ABEC, really, is to take some of these complex Issues and find common ground. Business and education had a huge amount in common in terms Of a strong economic development that's based on strong schools. And so our goal is to find Common ground on complex issues, Educate each other about the issues and then go forward to educate each other, exert Influence wherever we can, from State Board of Education to the legislature.

Michael Grant:
how complicated an issue is moving to four years of Math in high school, in your opinion?

Susan Carlson:
I think it is -- it sounds simple, but it's very complicated. First of all, it's important to know that this is an advocacy that ABEC's been about for a number of years with Our Arizona Academic Scholars Initiative. That initiative is targeted at the middle 50\% of students, asking them to take more math and science in their curriculum. Now, we know that four years of practicing math is important for students, all students, to be prepared for either the workforce or post-secondary education. And by post-secondary education, it's important to know, I'm not saying university. I'm saying lifelong learning. Every single student exiting the system needs to be prepared to go into the workforce, needs to be prepared to get certification, go to Community Colleges, and being-- practicing Math for four years is important.

Michael Grant:
Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, says the Problem with that is you may actually work against yourself In terms of keeping a certain segment of the student population in school. What do you say?

Susan Carlson:
I would say that we need to overcome that view, that there are other things we need to be doing to keep that element of student in school. We would not for a moment expect that we can put a four-year Math requirement in place without also looking at the infrastructure to make sure all students are successful from the time they enter school.

Michael Grant:
Does part of it hinge on Whether or not you drive toward Calculus or you simply require a continuing familiarity with Math throughout the high school stay?

Susan Carlson:
That is a wonderful question. Absolutely not driving toward Calculus, but we do know that students learn in different ways, that Math is important, practicing Math is important, and applying the academics is important. So a student practicing their Math in a contextual way, let's say a capstone course, their Career and Technical Education coursework, where they're actually applying their learning, but it's a Math concept that they're applying. That is a wonderful way to practice Math. So what we're saying is: they need four years of Math practice. Some of it may be in current Technical Education course work.

Michael Grant:
I want to touch at least briefly on the teacher pay increase. The Governor recommended taking base to $33,000. I guess one of the arguments that I hear against that is not necessarily against a fixed base, but against flexibility in school districts to deal with Both new teachers as well as Teachers who have been there and The way they think best fits Their locality.

Susan Carlson:
The issue of local control, I'm hearing you comment on, is a true issue for the State of Arizona in terms of how-- having been a school board member myself, I know the importance of--

Michael Grant:
Sure.

Susan Carlson:
|--that allocation coming to our school district, and being able to deal with it the way we want to deal with it, based on our local conditions. But I do have to say that we are trying to-- we're attempting to recruit teachers from across this country and we're competing with states around us. Every district is competing with other districts across the Southwest, and having a competitive salary schedule for teachers, particularly in some of these hard-to-serve areas, that's imperative. We're going to have to look at overcoming some of these issues together.

Michael Grant:
Susan Carlson, executive Director of ABEC, thank you very much for joining us.

Susan Carlson:
Thank you.

Announcer 2:
The City of Scottsdale is asking the State to take responsibility for the speed cameras on the Loop 101. This follows a report that shows the cameras brought down speeds on the freeway. And following The Governor's Proposal, the Republican majority in the legislature is coming forward with its priorities. "The Journalist Roundtable", Friday at 7:00 on "Horizon".

Michael Grant:
Those stories and others tomorrow on Friday's edition. Hope you can join us for that. We appreciate very much your joining us for the Thursday Edition of "Horizon". I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Good night.

Legislature A to Z: Immigration


  • Republican lawmakers promise that immigration will be a big issue again this session. Republican Representative Russell Pearce and Democratic Representative Kyrsten Sinema will discuss immigration bills being considered this session.
Guests:
  • Kyrsten Sinema - Democratic State Representative
  • Russell Pearce - Republican State Representative
  • Susan Carlson - Executive Director, Arizona Business and Education Coalition (ABEC)
Category: Immigration

View Transcript
Michael Grant:
tonight on "Horizon," Immigration is going to be a big issue at the state capitol again this session with employer Sanctions at the forefront. Plus hear from a local group that represents business and Education about what they think about The Governor's education Proposals. That's coming up on "Horizon."

Announcer 1:
"Horizon" is made possible by Contributions from the friends Of 8, members of your Arizona P.B.S. station. Thank you.

Michael Grant:
Good evening. Welcome to "Horizon." I'm Michael Grant. Tonight we're going to wrap up our legislative series, "legislature A-Z," by taking a Look at the most emotional issue at the state capitol, Immigration. The state legislature is going to consider employer sanctions against companies which knowingly hire illegal aliens. Other immigration bills would send to the ballot a measure to make being an illegal alien a Trespassing offense and would Ban the use of consular I.D. Cards. We'll talk with two state Representatives about Immigration bills that will come up this session but first here are the thoughts of one local Business representative on possible employer sanctions.

Joe Siggs:
First of all, you start at the top; we have labor shortages in our industry, construction, a Variety of industries across Arizona. We're aging. 2 We're increasingly educated. We have other alternatives than Entry-level-skill jobs, and we're scrambling for labor. Labor is an issue. Employers only want access to a Legal, reliable labor supply, and generally that's what we've been working on the past -- past several years. In terms of employer sanctions at the state level, federal Government has failed miserably. The hiring system is broken. It's a mess. We all agree it's a mess. We want reform, and the problem Is, where the federal government has failed, public is Frustrated. Employers are frustrated, frustrated with the system. So you have the state stepping into that vacuum, if you will, and Discussing issues of employer Sanctions. We're not against employer Sanctions per se. It's the question of how you implement those sanctions. There's -- and you have to look at it two ways. You need to separate illegal Hiring from employers who are knowingly following the system, who are -- who are engaging in the federal system as Constructed. There is an underground economy where people employ off the Books, under the table. We don't defend anyone who operates in that fashion. It's a competitive issue to responsible employers, that's a problem. State government can go after that underground economy in a fashion. For responsible employers doing what they're supposed to do, the issue is fraudulent documents, and there is -- with all due respect, there's very little that the state legislature can do about that. We have a proliferation of fraudulent documents and don't have any reliable, legal method to verify those documents at the point of employment. The only tool the federal Government has available for verification is Basic Pilot, and that's a contract between each employer, homeland Security, and social security. Basic Pilot is riddled with holes. It has reliability issues, capacity problems. In the U.S., there's only about 10,000 employers using this contract. It's still called a pilot. That's what it is. Even homeland security acknowledges it may not be -- It's just a prototype. And to expand that for all employers, putting them on an employment system that does not work, is an issue. Secondly, state government has to face the issue of being preempted on this. There are only certain things the State of Arizona can do under Federal Law to move towards employers. So when we discuss employer Sanctions at the state level, we Have to talk about what the State should do, first of all, and then we have to get into what the state can do.

Michael Grant:
Here to talk about Immigration issues that will come up this session is Democratic representative Kyrsten Sinema and Republican Representative Russell Pearce. Welcome back. You guys haven't shouted at each other on this show for some time.

Kyrsten Sinema:
I don't think we ever shout.

[laughter]

Michael Grant:
Russell, I hear frequently the "we are not opposed to employer sanctions", but there's always a "but". Is the legislature going to move affirmatively on some enhanced employer sanctions this session?

Russell Pearce:
You know -- and I can only hope so. The public has spoken loud and clear. The Arizona Republic's last survey-- 87\% of the public wanted employer sanctions. The same number exists with local law enforcement enforcing the law. Last election, an average of 75\% of the voting public voted for the four propositions on there to do with the illegal aliens. Clearly the message is loud and clear, and doing nothing is absolutely outrageous. It's malfeasance of office, in violation of our oath of office not to do something. This business of pointing the finger at the federal government is outrageous. Last year, election year, The Governor was willing to spend 100 million; she said "I put a bill out for 160 million". She vetoed it all. This year, it's not even an issue. Election's over. Apparently she doesn't care about border security or enforcement anymore.

Michael Grant:
Kyrsten, here's one of the problems. They do have a legitimate point, and I think the Swift case highlighted this. Swift had used the federal employee verification database and got nailed anyway, and a lot of employers say, sometimes you suspect, but a lot of employers say there's no way to verify if in fact this person is legal or illegal.

Kyrsten Sinema:
Well, the current federal program is not perfect, but the Basic Pilot program, which the state government has used -- Janet Napolitano used it for state employees to some good effect last year -- is the best program available. Now, the House Democrats are introducing a bill next week that will actually use employer sanctions, using this Basic Pilot program, and be much more strenuous on the issue of employer sanctions, which as Russell mentioned, 87\% of Arizonans are interested in. What this piece of legislation does is use that Basic Pilot program, and then employs rigorous financial culpability for those employers who willfully disobey.

Michael Grant:
But if they use it, it's a safe harbor for them?

Kyrsten Sinema:
No. It penalizes individuals, who, through the use of the Basic Pilot program, are proven to be acting in malfeasance, or not following the state and federal Guidelines. The difference with this program than other programs that have been proposed in the past is that, rather than just sending a warning letter and allowing people to start over, this accumulates their violations within three violations in one year, each time with a fine of $5000, second $10,000, third $15,000. And with the third fine, taking away that person's business License and printing the name of that company in the newspaper so That everybody in the community knows that this person is a repeat offender on this issue.

Michael Grant:
I think your position is that the state has got constraints on how far it can go under federal law.

Russell Pearce:
They do, and Kyrsten should know that. Anyone who has a basic understanding of the Constitution understands that you can't do some of what she wants to do. And that's why-- what I'm going to do is even much tougher. We're going to require those businesses to enter an affidavit Under penalty of perjury that they will not hire an illegal Alien. They'll be prosecuted criminally if they do that, in addition to losing their license. Mine has a third strike in it, license revoked, not allowed to do business in the State of Arizona again. It's a shame it has to go to third strikes. People know the law, and one can't compete and have a dishonest, illegal, competitive advantage over the honest employer. But Kyrsten misses a couple points. First of all, last year that Bill didn't do what they like to keep trying to say it does. Secondly, the employer sanction, does not allow you to impose fines on employer sanctions. It specifically preempts that. You can go after the license. And I'm going to create a penalty for the affidavit, so there is going to be criminal penalty with it. No more wink and nod. These employers who continue to cheat and compete illegally and knowingly hire illegals are going to pay the price. The public demands it we demand it, and enough is enough, and for five years, I've ran this bill, five years I've never had any Democrat support, and I've run the toughest bill the first two years that they ever wanted, and nobody voted for it. So I'm just tired of tough-talking drive-by statement.

Kyrsten Sinema:
Well, we'll look forward to seeing something, because the bill that was introduced last year By Mr. Pearce was, as I said on the show, smoke and mirrors.

Russell Pearce:
Absolutely not. You know that. It was constitutional, Written by the best attorneys in the nation.

Michael Grant:
All right.

Russell Pearce:
That's absolutely not true, and they ignore it, they get away with it.

Michael Grant:
Let me shift gears, the Smuggler law. I think you've already got moving a bill that would make it clear that the "smugglee" could not be charged with conspiracy.

Kyrsten Sinema:
Yes, H.B. 2270, and I introduced it, really, in honor of Representative Paton, who is a Republican member of the legislature from Tucson who is serving our Country in Iraq. When Mr. Paton introduced this Legislation in 2005, he and Senator Jerod, who is since deceased, introduced the legislation mostly to cover issues of sex trafficking and forced labor smuggling. I was a co-sponsor of that original legislation and worked very closely with Representative Paton throughout the process. Unfortunately, Andrew Thomas is the only county attorney in the state who is misapplying and abusing this law. I have seen on numerous occasions, I'm sure as everyone else has, Representative Paton's repeated discussions in the media before he went to Iraq how that was not The intent of the legislation.

Michael Grant:
If I conspire with someone to commit a crime, even involving myself, why isn't that a crime?

Kyrsten Sinema:
Well, let's remember that many of the people who are smuggled to this country -- and again this is the original intent of the legislation -- are smuggled against their own will. So we're talking about young girls and women who are smuggled in for forced prostitution and sex trafficking, we're talking about young men and even older men who are smuggled for forced labor purposes. But even if you were to put those very clear victims aside and talk about individuals who had perhaps purchased a service from a coyote, I think Judge O'Toole said it best. That would be -- charging that person as a conspirator in the crime of smuggling would be akin to charging a person who bought a bus ticket as a co-conspirator in an act that that person driving a bus would commit.

Russell Pearce:
First of all, this was Andy Biggs' bill, originally, who gave it to Paton. He always intended the conspiracy law to be applied. Secondly, why are we going to carve these folks out all of a sudden? They can't be involved in a conspiracy. If you and I negotiate with somebody to commit a crime, we've committed conspiracy. That's the application of the law. This law is no different than any other law. Kyrsten has a bill also that says you can't enforce the law and you can't - and the Minutemen, the citizens, can't Be involved. Kyrsten would enforce no law if she had her way. And H.C.R. 2011, one of her H.C.R.'s, says you can't enforce the law regardless of your immigration status. You have a right to be here. That's outrageous.

Kyrsten Sinema:
That's to stop domestic terrorism.

Michael Grant:
What about the argument, though, that we're wasting resources that we ought to be spending on coyotes by chasing --

Russell Pearce:
I appreciate that comment and thank you. Arizona's number 1 in crime. Phoenix's fifth most likely city to be killed in. The Homeland Security report by Congressman Keane indicates we've lost 3,000 of our best in the last four years in Iraq. We have 9,000 people a year in The United States at the hands Of illegal aliens, 12 a day by stabbings and shootings, 13 a Day by D.U.I. or vehicular Homicides. Billions of dollars. We have 225,000 non-English Speakers out of a million Students at k-12. The health care system has imploded. We know the problems: congestion. There's not an issue that you can talk about that this isn't a major, major impact.

Michael Grant:
Final comment and then I want to shift.

Kyrsten Sinema:
with all due respect to Mr. Pearce, "The Republic" noted last year that Mr. Pearson has a Habit of just kind of willy-nilly citing statistics. The fact is that--

Russell Pearce:
These are Congressional numbers, and wish you wouldn't say that because you don't like the numbers. You hate it when --

Michael Grant:
Mr. Pearce, let her answer.

Russell Pearce:
Yea, but I'm not lying.

Kyrsten Sinema:
The fact is that many individuals who come to this Country, whether they come through an authorized means or unauthorized means, are not criminals. This legislation that Representative Paton Introduced, as we talked about in the public, at least on five separate occasions to media outlets -- he said over and over that the intent was not to charge those individuals who are victims as co-conspirators.

Michael Grant:
The voters have passed Proposition 200, they have passed Proposition 300. Is there any plan to fence off additional state benefits from illegal aliens in continuation of that trend?

Russell Pearce:
Good question. First of all, if you're in this country illegally, you have no right to be here. You certainly don't have a right to be an impact on the taxpayers. And again, like Disneyland learned a Long time ago, if you want the crowds to go home, you've got to shut down the rides. Enough is enough, and the public has spoken. There's an impact on the taxpayers, impact in terms of crime. I mean, Phoenix is the capitol -- the car jack and home invasion capitol of the world. All of this is related.

Michael Grant:
Anything specific on additional benefits?

Russell Pearce:
Well, there are some bills out there on additional benefits, but mostly the two major bills that must be passed that will turn this around is simply employer sanctions and the elimination of illegal sanctuary policies by cities and counties to say they won't enforce the law. They have an inherent authority, they have an inherent responsibility. The 1996 Immigration Control Act made that clear. Enough is enough. Enforce the law.

Michael Grant:
30 seconds to give you the final word.

Kyrsten Sinema:
And yes, there are several pieces of legislation that Mr. Pearce has introduced. One is a memorial to send to Congress to repeal the Fourteenth amendment--

Russell Pearce:
No it doesn't. Krysten--

Kyrsten Sinema:
--Which grants rights of citizenship to Individuals born in this Country. The other piece of legislation that he's introduced is a piece Of legislation that says, as of the date of his legislation taking effect, children who are born in this country to parents Who are undocumented would cease to enjoy the benefits of citizenship in Arizona, they would no longer have the right to attend K-12 education, no longer have The right to access health care. Now, with all due respect, that's unconstitutional, flat out.

Michael Grant:
I've got to wrap.

Russell Pearce:
Well first of all, it's not--

Michael Grant:
I've got to wrap. I barely get a word in edge-wise with you guys. Representative Pearce, thank you very much.

Russell Pearce:
Thank you.

Michael Grant:
Representative Sinema, our thanks to you as well.

Michael Grant:
As "Horizon" continues the celebration of its 25th Anniversary, we look back at the big stories we have covered. One of them was the effort to get a Martin Luther King holiday. Before leaving office in 1987, Arizona governor Bruce Babbitt Signed an executive order creating a Martin Luther King Jr. Day. That set off a controversial saga that did not end until voters passed the holiday six years later. Here's a look back at our coverage and a discussion from our 25th anniversary broadcast.

Michael Grant:
First, last Thursday, Governor Mecham proclaimed the third Sunday in January as Martin Luther King Jr. Civil Rights Day. The day is an unpaid observance, rather than a state-paid holiday. The question that will be facing Arizona's legislators for the third time in as many years is whether Arizona will join the Federal government and 44 other states in commemorating the man and the movement with a State-paid holiday.

Protesters:
|We want King Day!

Reporter 1:
for the 8,000 marchers, it was a time to hear speakers reaffirm their commitment to making King Day a reality.

Reporter 2:
Arizona is the only state without a holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr. It's also the only state to ask voters if a paid holiday honoring the civil rights leader should exist. The question has been tossed around for a number of years, beginning with legislative debates in 1975. Former governor Bruce Babbitt, in 1986, declared a Martin Luther King holiday by executive order. Governor Evan Mecham called the declaration illegal and rescinded the holiday two weeks after he took office. Mecham did declare an unpaid Martin Luther King Jr. Civil Rights day to be observed on Sunday, but still the controversy continued. In the 1990 general elections, Arizonans voted against two Martin Luther King Propositions, one which would have replaced Columbus Day with King Day. The other would have simply added King Day to the list of state-paid holidays.

Michael Grant:
This one was a tough one. It had a lot of moving parts to it, and I had forgotten that it spanned six years. How do you explain this long saga in Arizona history in 45 seconds or less?

Art Hamilton:
There were some people who made a decision that the King Holiday was not a holiday that would pass on their watch. If it passed, it would pass long after they were gone. They made that judgment. They thought politically it was as difficult for them as immigration is today, and they simply would have preferred it to go away, and it was an issue that simply would not quietly or peacefully go away.

Michael Grant:
And then you've got the conflict between two holidays. We tried that one, forget about that.

Art Hamilton:
Well, initially, we tried the bill that ultimately is now the law in Arizona. That was rejected because it was said that we couldn't get rid of the President -- George Washington was too honored, and Abraham Lincoln was the patron saint of the Republican Party. You can't possibly have federal treatment. And that's why the Columbia Day issue was really foisted upon us. We never really wanted the Columbus Day switch.

Mark Flatten:
I think what made this such a difficult issue is it got so tied up in so many different things. If you look at what really triggered this, it was Evan Mecham repealing the original holiday. Legally, I think Evan Mecham was right. He had an opinion from the Attorney General that says this is an illegal holiday. You can't declare it by executive order. The Governor doesn't have that power. If Carolyn Warner had won, she'd probably have had to do the same thing. If Bill Schultz had won, he'd have to do the same thing. But it's the way Mecham did it, he did it with such vitriol, almost such flippancy, that I think that made people just choose sides, and that animosity just continued and continued.

Keven Willey:
You know, this was a pivotal issue. I was a new legislative reporter In the House when this issue first bubbled up, and I will never forget a floor speech given by a late legislator who rose up on the floor of the House and proclaimed that Martin Luther King may be a hero for Black people but he's not a hero for the rest of America. And I was at the press table. I just couldn't believe what I had heard. I had to leave the floor of the House to recover my composure. I was so astounded by that. And that was part of the problem.

Michael Grant:
NFL didn't help us.

Mark Flatten:
I was just gonna say. I think what you saw is the first go around with Mecham, there was a lot of hate and anger, a lot that has rolled around Mecham and everything else. The second time, you had so much interference; you had bad stuff on both sides. You had the NFL saying, "well, if you don't get the King Holiday, We're not going to play the Super Bowl", which led to the greatest bumper sticker of all time which is "NFL, go to hell and play the Super Bowl there".

[laughter]

Mark Flatten:
The third time around, the time that ultimately passed, the supporters waged what I would consider a fairly low-key campaign. They didn't inject a lot of emotion. It was the first time they said, "Let's just do it on its own merits" and it passed.

Michael Grant:
The Arizona Business and Education Coalition is a watchdog organization that keeps an eye on k-12 education issues as they relate to business. The organization has representatives from companies Like Motorola, Wells Fargo, and Intel, organizations like the Arizona School Board Association. Here to talk about some of The Governor's education goals from the viewpoint of ABEC is its Executive Director, Susan Carlson. Susan, a little more detail on What ABEC is?

Susan Carlson:
Thank you very much. Thanks so much for having us here tonight. ABEC is-- the purpose of ABEC, really, is to take some of these complex Issues and find common ground. Business and education had a huge amount in common in terms Of a strong economic development that's based on strong schools. And so our goal is to find Common ground on complex issues, Educate each other about the issues and then go forward to educate each other, exert Influence wherever we can, from State Board of Education to the legislature.

Michael Grant:
how complicated an issue is moving to four years of Math in high school, in your opinion?

Susan Carlson:
I think it is -- it sounds simple, but it's very complicated. First of all, it's important to know that this is an advocacy that ABEC's been about for a number of years with Our Arizona Academic Scholars Initiative. That initiative is targeted at the middle 50\% of students, asking them to take more math and science in their curriculum. Now, we know that four years of practicing math is important for students, all students, to be prepared for either the workforce or post-secondary education. And by post-secondary education, it's important to know, I'm not saying university. I'm saying lifelong learning. Every single student exiting the system needs to be prepared to go into the workforce, needs to be prepared to get certification, go to Community Colleges, and being-- practicing Math for four years is important.

Michael Grant:
Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, says the Problem with that is you may actually work against yourself In terms of keeping a certain segment of the student population in school. What do you say?

Susan Carlson:
I would say that we need to overcome that view, that there are other things we need to be doing to keep that element of student in school. We would not for a moment expect that we can put a four-year Math requirement in place without also looking at the infrastructure to make sure all students are successful from the time they enter school.

Michael Grant:
Does part of it hinge on Whether or not you drive toward Calculus or you simply require a continuing familiarity with Math throughout the high school stay?

Susan Carlson:
That is a wonderful question. Absolutely not driving toward Calculus, but we do know that students learn in different ways, that Math is important, practicing Math is important, and applying the academics is important. So a student practicing their Math in a contextual way, let's say a capstone course, their Career and Technical Education coursework, where they're actually applying their learning, but it's a Math concept that they're applying. That is a wonderful way to practice Math. So what we're saying is: they need four years of Math practice. Some of it may be in current Technical Education course work.

Michael Grant:
I want to touch at least briefly on the teacher pay increase. The Governor recommended taking base to $33,000. I guess one of the arguments that I hear against that is not necessarily against a fixed base, but against flexibility in school districts to deal with Both new teachers as well as Teachers who have been there and The way they think best fits Their locality.

Susan Carlson:
The issue of local control, I'm hearing you comment on, is a true issue for the State of Arizona in terms of how-- having been a school board member myself, I know the importance of--

Michael Grant:
Sure.

Susan Carlson:
|--that allocation coming to our school district, and being able to deal with it the way we want to deal with it, based on our local conditions. But I do have to say that we are trying to-- we're attempting to recruit teachers from across this country and we're competing with states around us. Every district is competing with other districts across the Southwest, and having a competitive salary schedule for teachers, particularly in some of these hard-to-serve areas, that's imperative. We're going to have to look at overcoming some of these issues together.

Michael Grant:
Susan Carlson, executive Director of ABEC, thank you very much for joining us.

Susan Carlson:
Thank you.

Announcer 2:
The City of Scottsdale is asking the State to take responsibility for the speed cameras on the Loop 101. This follows a report that shows the cameras brought down speeds on the freeway. And following The Governor's Proposal, the Republican majority in the legislature is coming forward with its priorities. "The Journalist Roundtable", Friday at 7:00 on "Horizon".

Michael Grant:
Those stories and others tomorrow on Friday's edition. Hope you can join us for that. We appreciate very much your joining us for the Thursday Edition of "Horizon". I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Good night.

What's on?

Content Partner:

  About KAET Contact Support Legal Follow Us  
  About Eight
Mission/Impact
History
Site Map
Pressroom
Contact Us
Sign up for e-news
Pledge to Eight
Donate Monthly
Volunteer
Other ways to support
FCC Public Files
Privacy Policy
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Google+
Pinterest
 

Need help accessing? Contact disabilityaccess@asu.edu

Eight is a member-supported service of Arizona State University    Copyright Arizona Board of Regents