Ever since Barack Obama announced he would nominate Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano to head the Department 0f Homeland Security, pundits have depicted her as “tough” on illegal immigration. For example, columnist Georgie Anne Geyer (who has written many good pieces in the past on the damage resulting from the failure to secure American borders) seems to have bought the Democrat Party spin about how determined Napolitano is to secure the border and fix everything else that is wrong with current U.S. immigration policy. Geyer declared that Napolitano has opposed “the politically correct parlance that has so perverted our nation.” 

For example? “Look back at her record,” Geyer wrote. “Miss Napolitano has tested unique immigration policies and programs in her 15 years of public service to a state being overwhelmed by illegal aliens. She was the first governor to call for National Guard troops on the border, and she has repeatedly called for Congress to deal with comprehensive immigration reform, not just enforcement.”

The line about “comprehensive immigration reform” ought to raise an immediate red flag to anyone remotely familiar with the way open-borders advocates discuss the issue: In arguing in favor of amnesty legislation, politicians ranging from Obama to John McCain have said time and again that it is not enough to simply secure the border, deport illegal aliens or step up enforcement. (And in fact, they spend much of their time doing everything to make it impossible for immigration authorities to implement any of these policies.) We heard plenty of this talk during the 2006 and 2007 federal battles over immigration on Capitol Hill — when bipartisan coalitions including the Bush Administration, the Senate Democrat leadership, the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce teamed up in an effort to enact mass amnesty benefiting the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens already in the United States.

In short, Geyer’s praise of Napolitano for supporting so-called comprehensive immigration reform suggests that 1) Geyer herself has come around to supporting one or another amnesty “compromise” or 2) Geyer still favors a get-tough policy, but has come up with her own bizarre alternative terminology for describing the current debate in Washington ( using language that is completely disconnected from the way virtually everyone else discusses immigration).

The reality is that, when it comes to illegal immigration, Napolitano has been all over the place. Parts of her record as governor of Arizona were abysmal. In 2006 and 2007, she was a vocal supporter of the failed federal mass-amnesty bills. Napolitano has opposed the building of border fence. She vetoed legislation that would have ended the ability of illegals to pay lower in-state tuition rates at Arizona public colleges and universities. In 2004, she failed in her attempt to defeat a 2004 ballot initiative to deny most non-essential services and benefits to illegals. After voters ignored Napolitano and overwhelmingly approved the measure, she tried to neuter its effect by limiting it to five relatively small benefit programs. Napolitano also fought implementation of the federal Real ID Act, the 2005 bill requiring states to make their driver’s licenses and other state-issued identity documents more secure and make certain that illegal aliens cannot obtain them. (This was done to prevent a recurrence of the situation in which September 11th hijackers who were illegal aliens carried driver’s licenses and other forms of state-issued ID.) In June of this year, Napolitano signed into law legislation barring Arizona from complying with Real ID.

To be sure, Napolitano’s record has some tough, pro-enforcement points. Last year, she signed into law a bill denying business licenses to firms that knowingly hire illegal aliens. That law, one of the toughest of its kind in the nation, has so far withstood challenges from illegal-alien advocacy groups. Napolitano has also criticized the federal government for failing to secure the Mexican border and has requested sending national troops to guard the border. She has called for creation of an electronic system to verify a worker’s ability to hold a job in the United States based on information in the Social Security database. An early test of her seriousness will take place in March, when Congress will have reauthorize the existing E-Verification system, and Napolitano will be forced to deal with intense opposition from powerful open-borders advocates like Sen. Robert Menendez and the National Council of La Raza, which nearly managed to kill the program in September.

In a conference call last week, one of Menendez’s allies, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat, said Obama had asked him to relay to these advocates that he is committed to a comprehensive solution to the issue. Open-borders backers told the Los Angeles Times that they were encouraged by the fact that Obama had nominated amnesty supporters like New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Rep. Hilda Solis, California Democrat, to be secretary of commerce and secretary of labor, respectively. According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Obama and McCain (both of whom were part of the pro-amnesty bloc in 2006 and 2007) have agreed to move forward an immigration bill. Where would Napolitano, whose nomination at DHS has been strongly endorsed by McCain, fit in? My guess is that Obama chose her for political cover – to put into place someone thought to be a “law and order” person to help him push amnesty through in the next few years. Get ready for another 2006/2007-style battle royal over illegal immigration sometime soon.

 

Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author