Default
Napolitano gets the message.
Thumb patrick cleburne
July 05, 2007, 10:30 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
The estimate of the magnitude of the seismic shock to American politics represented by the defeat of S.1639 – the Amnesty/Immigration Surge Bill – grows with the news flow. On Tuesday I evaluated the spectacle of a penitent (and very guilty) Jonah Goldberg trying to rebuild his credentials by using his MSM privileges to publish a column good enough for VDARE.com. The previous day Arizona Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano signed what is said to be a severe measure interdicting illegal immigrant employment in the state:

Arizona leads the nation in population growth. More illegal immigrants cross its border than any other in the United States. Now, in an apparent backlash to those trends, the state is leading the charge to halt illegal immigration by cracking down on employers… As of April, 40 other states had introduced 199 bills related to employment of undocumented... Although Arizona`s new law is apparently the harshest so far, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Tennessee, and West Virginia are still in the process of enacting legislation to force employers to verify their workers` legal status

(Employers feel heat on immigration By Faye Bowers The Christian Science Monitor July 5 2007)

Although none of the news accounts bother to mention it, this is a huge shift for Napolitano. Almost exactly four years ago she enraged Joe Guzzardi by making a circus of a pro-illegal veto:

On June 26, Napolitano, in front of a cheering Hispanic audience at the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials annual convention, vetoed H.B. 2345, a bill that would have required voters to show identification at polling places.

Napolitano, seizing a photo-op, brought her red �VETO� stamp to the meeting to delight the partisan crowd as she killed the bill.

And although subsequently she has sometimes taken to wearing camouflage, her true inclinations have remained visible - including as recently as this Spring.

Without a doubt, the upheaval in Washington looked too likely to engulf even state politicians for Napolitano’s nerves.

(Why is it that Arizona’s Bill received extensive national coverage, whereas Oklahoma’s earlier measure was barely mentioned? Could it be that publicizing Oklahoma’s measure might have added momentum to the Patriotic cause, whereas featuring Napolitano’s switch (without calling it that, of course) is damage control for a Democratic favorite?)