Dallas Morning News (Editorial): Strict immigration laws at the local and state levels have been in vogue for years. Our own Farmers Branch was a pioneer. Hazleton, a small town in the Pocono Mountains of Pennsylvania, is nationally known because of its efforts to control illegal immigration. And then, of course, there is all the recent attention and legal maneuvering over the new and very restrictionist law in Alabama.
But Arizona remains the symbolic leader. Its law, HB 1070, was the first comprehensive effort to legislate immigration at the state level. Although enforcement has been held up by federal judges, its impact has nevertheless been significant. Given its status as a border state, what happens in Arizona on the immigration front may well be a bellwether for the nation.
That's why the electoral recall this week of Russell Pearce, the Arizona state Senate president and architect of the strict immigration laws, is noteworthy. As a standard-bearer for the cause, Pearce had few equals, and he owed his national prominence to the fight for ever-stricter enforcement. In the end, that crusade also proved to be his undoing.
The tide turned earlier this year, when the Arizona Legislature rejected five immigration bills advanced by Pearce that were even more radical than the law enacted in 2010. Business leaders publicly called on him to abandon his extremist cause, citing among other things the damage that a boycott had already done to the state. The recall effort took root and, on Tuesday, voters elected a Republican with more moderate ideas on immigration.
As if to prove that Pearce was out of touch, a new poll by the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University shows that citizens overwhelmingly favor a comprehensive approach to immigration. Almost eight in 10 support extending legal status to longtime residents if they meet certain criteria -- an astonishing rebuke to Pearce and his "deport-all" stance.
Immigration debates are often defined by the fringes, at both ends of the political spectrum. What Arizona voters have done, in their sober judgment of Pearce, is remind us that this is a very poor way to make public policy. It is a call the nation should heed.
But Arizona remains the symbolic leader. Its law, HB 1070, was the first comprehensive effort to legislate immigration at the state level. Although enforcement has been held up by federal judges, its impact has nevertheless been significant. Given its status as a border state, what happens in Arizona on the immigration front may well be a bellwether for the nation.
That's why the electoral recall this week of Russell Pearce, the Arizona state Senate president and architect of the strict immigration laws, is noteworthy. As a standard-bearer for the cause, Pearce had few equals, and he owed his national prominence to the fight for ever-stricter enforcement. In the end, that crusade also proved to be his undoing.
The tide turned earlier this year, when the Arizona Legislature rejected five immigration bills advanced by Pearce that were even more radical than the law enacted in 2010. Business leaders publicly called on him to abandon his extremist cause, citing among other things the damage that a boycott had already done to the state. The recall effort took root and, on Tuesday, voters elected a Republican with more moderate ideas on immigration.
As if to prove that Pearce was out of touch, a new poll by the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University shows that citizens overwhelmingly favor a comprehensive approach to immigration. Almost eight in 10 support extending legal status to longtime residents if they meet certain criteria -- an astonishing rebuke to Pearce and his "deport-all" stance.
Immigration debates are often defined by the fringes, at both ends of the political spectrum. What Arizona voters have done, in their sober judgment of Pearce, is remind us that this is a very poor way to make public policy. It is a call the nation should heed.
No comments:
Post a Comment