by David Safier
Steve Irvin at Phoenix's ABC15 is upset with the Goldwater Institute for its silence on SB1070.
Silence can be deafening, especially when you've made it your business to speak out.
Which is why I've been puzzled and just a little miffed at the Goldwater Institute.
Months have passed since our state's immigration law was first proposed. But throughout the debate and the passage of the bill, one of the state's leading conservative voices has remained silent… not a word.
So far as I know, that's the first mention in the MSM of G.I.'s silence.
Thanks to Irvin, we now know the Goldwater Institute is planning to maintain its silence. He asked G.I. communications director Le Templar, formerly of the East Valley Trib, why they haven't voiced an opinion about SB1070.
"We don't have any policy experts on staff," said communications director Le Templar, when I asked him about it.
No policy experts, says Le Templar. So they simply won't — can't! — weigh in on immigration legislation or immigration issues.
Of course, G.I. has its Center for Constitutional Litigation headed up by Clint Bolick, who is currently leading the charge to declare Health Care Reform legislation unconstitutional.
So Bolick certainly has the chops to weigh in on the question of SB1070's constitutionality.
And while we're speaking about Bolick, he's written quite a bit about immigration. He has shown himself to be at least a reluctant supporter of comprehensive immigration reform legislation. As he wrote in 2007 when the McCain/Kennedy bill was up for consideration:
The immigration bill is far from perfect, but it is the best that those who support strict enforcement possibly can hope for in this or any Congress in the foreseeable future. Notably, according to a New York Times poll, the principles reflected in the bill are supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. The alternative is to allow the issue to fester, which is a recipe not only for continued societal division, but for an ever-shrinking share of the vote for Republicans.
And in December, 2008, Bolick wrote a 22 page policy report, Mission Unaccomplished: The Misplaced Priorities of the Maricopa County Sheriff ’s Office.
Bolick goes after Arpaio big time in the report. On the issue of immigration, Bolick says Arpaio spends an inordinate amount of his policing resources on immigration-related issues, a policy which isn't effective in lowering the number of illegal immigrants in the area or dealing with serious problems like human smuggling or the crime rate. And, says Bolick, Arpaio runs up huge police overtime bills without dealing with community-wide crime problems.
So it sounds like Bolick has done some serious research on the type of enforcement we would see more of with SB1070, and he thinks concludes it's costly and ineffective.
Contrary to what Le Templar maintains, I would say Bolick qualifies an "expert" on constitutional issues and has written extensively about immigration enforcement issues.
When Le Templar says G.I. has no policy experts on staff, he's indulging in one of those convenient mistruths G.I. is justly famous for. The fact is, SB1070 is radioactive for a conservative group that can't give the law its wholehearted support. Contributions totaling about $5 million a year and very generous 6 figure salaries have turned the G.I. leadership into abject, spineless cowards.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Chamber of Commerce cut a quid pro quo deal with the Lege for their silence on SB1070 in exchange for them stripping out the provision that would have allowed county attorneys to subpoena employers’ records. GI is the ideological/PR arm of the Chamber. I can’t understand why so many progressives in AZ are shocked (shocked!) that these groups aren’t coming forward to denounce the new law. Their silence should be taken as a “tell” that SB1070 will be as toothless as the so-called “toughest employer sanctions law in the nation” that was enacted in AZ in 2007 (which has led to maybe one successful prosecution) where actual immigration enforcement is concerned. There will be a few high-publicity Joe Arpaio raids, lots of fear and division in the community, and unintended local economic consequences (boycotts, lawsuits, mass attrition of immigrants). But the people behind the AZ Chamber and Goldwater (Big Bidness) will be left unscathed.
If the law isn’t overturned in court (which will give Republicans an “OMG liberal judicial activists!” hairshirt to wave around), the dust will settle and the raids will stop because businesses like cheap labor. But abusive illegal employers will have yet more leverage over their desperate impoverished workers. Why would Goldwater object to this situation? When have they ever shown themselves to be concerned about the wellbeing of workers?
Can we PLEASE remember this the next time anyone is tempted to say that the Chamber or GI are “good” on immigration?
Not having a policy expert hasn’t kept them from talking about things like environmental law. I still chuckle when I think of Dranias talking about intrastate emissions.