One among thousands
In April more than 100,000 hit the streets of downtown Phoenix in support of immigration reform. Martin Garcia, taking a break at the Capitol, told a Capitol Times reporter he came here 15 years ago “on a passport.” He now has a daughter who is an honors student at a local high school.

Four of the 19 ballot propositions voters will consider on Nov. 7 are aimed at immigrants, and three of them specifically target those who entered the United States illegally.
While supporters of the referendums say the measures protect citizens and taxpayers, critics argue the point is to paint immigrants in a bad light.
“I think it’s common sense government,” Rep. Russell Pearce, R-18, said of the four propositions he helped craft.
However, Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-15, says that, not only are they bad public policy, they are an effort to play on people’s fears. And, she laments, they will all likely pass.
“Their intent is not to change what’s happening in this state, but to send a stereotypical message to voters of who immigrants are,” she said. “These messages are not unique to undocumented migrants. They were used against other immigrant groups in the past, and I’m sure they’ll be used against immigrants in the future.
“It is not a good time to be an immigrant in Arizona.”
Recent polling data on the propositions shows all four likely to be approved by voters.
The propositions in question will, if passed, deny bail to illegal immigrants arrested for serious felonies; prevent illegal immigrants from receiving punitive damages in a lawsuit; deny illegal immigrants from receiving certain public benefits, including childcare subsidies, adult education and in-state tuition rates for universities or community colleges, and make English the state’s official language.
Prop. 300: Public programs; illegal aliens
If the attorney general and governor had interpreted the scope of Proposition 200 properly two years ago, there would be no need for Proposition 300, its proponents say. The measure, which will end some state subsidies for illegal immigrants, is an expansion of the initiative approved by voters in 2004.
This year’s ballot measure would prevent illegal immigrants from receiving childcare subsidies, attending state-run adult education programs or family literacy classes, receiving in-state tuition rates at public universities and colleges, and receiving state-funded higher education scholarships or tuition waivers.
“This is not about who you are, it’s not about where you came from,” Sen. Dean Martin, R-6, and the sponsor of SCR1031, which put the issue on the ballot, said. “It’s about how you got here.”
Not allowing illegal immigrants access to public programs gives them more incentive to become citizens, he added.
But opponents of the proposition say it’s not just bad policy, it’s downright cruel.
“I think it’s the worst of them all,” Ms. Sinema said. “It’s the meanest proposition on the ballot.
Voters, says Rep. Steve Gallardo, D-15, oppose the measure because it denies higher education to Arizona high school students. Many of the students affected by this, he says, have gone to school here since kindergarten and are among the best and brightest in the state.
“They don’t even know any other country but this country,” he said. “They are the doctors and lawyers of tomorrow and we are saying, ‘No, you can’t go to higher education.’”
However, Mr. Martin says making sure giving higher education to illegal immigrant students shouldn’t be a state responsibility, especially since these students — no matter how well they do in high school or how many degrees they receive — can’t legally join the workforce.
“You’ve got the state spending money that it won’t spend on students from other states — legal citizens — being spent on foreign citizens who can’t work here,” he said.
The students, Mr. Martin says, can still attend universities and community colleges, even under Proposition 300. The difference, he says, will be that the state won’t subsidize the education the way it does for citizens.
Mr. Gallardo, though, says many students are in the process of becoming citizens and the higher tuition rates make it “almost impossible” to attend school in the meantime.
Polling results on this proposition have been mixed, though it appears likely to pass. A poll conducted by Arizona State University pollster Bruce Merrill Oct. 19 through Oct. 22 found 45 percent of voters supported it, while 38 percent opposed it. However, the poll has been criticized by the proposition’s supporters, who say the polling question focused on only the higher education portion of the measure, not the cumulative effect of the proposition.
A poll conducted by Northern Arizona University Oct. 11 through Oct. 16 found 70 percent of voters supported it, with only 22 percent opposing it.
Prop. 100: Denial of bail; illegal aliens
Statistics, Mr. Pearce says, show that 80 percent of the crimes are committed by 20 percent of the populace. When it comes to serious felonies — those Class 4 and higher, as well as extreme DUI — he says the likelihood of someone being a repeat offender is even greater.
Though judges currently have discretion over the bail amounts for alleged serious felons, Mr. Pearce says illegal immigrants arrested for those crimes shouldn’t be released from jail before their trials because, not only are they statistically likely to commit another crime, but they are also a flight risk. And when they run, he says it’s difficult to find them again, and they often remain on the lamb, where they commit more crimes.
That led him to sponsor HCR2028 in 2005, the legislation that put Proposition 100 on the ballot in an attempt to amend the state Constitution.
“If you have no business being in the state,” he said, “you certainly have no business being released back into society.”
But critics, like Mr. Gallardo, say the requirement of the proposition to keep alleged criminals in jail until their trials places a burden on the counties that have to house them. He says that, at a cost of $24,000 per person a year, the measure represents “a huge unfunded mandate” to the counties.
“This is something that’s going to be very expensive to the taxpayers of Arizona and could result in a possible tax increase,” he said.
And Ms. Sinema, a criminal defense attorney, says that, not only does the proposition try to frame all illegal immigrants as violent felons, it also is unconstitutional because it does not apply to all serious felons.
“It denies the opportunity of bail to a class of persons across the board, and that’s not allowed,” she said.
However, Governor Napolitano, also an attorney, signed legislation that essentially does the same thing — H2580 (Laws 2006, Chapter 380) — into law earlier this year. If the proposition passes, the law will go into effect; if it fails, the portion of the legislation dealing with bail for illegal immigrants will be voided.
The Merrill poll shows that 66 percent of voters support Proposition 100, while only 21 percent oppose it.
Prop. 102: Punitive damages; illegal immigrants
Ms. Sinema says that the notion perpetuated by this proposition, which would forbid illegal immigrants from suing for punitive damages, is that people are coming to this country are “scheming money grabbers” hoping to take advantage of our legal system to land a big windfall.
The point of punitive damages, Mr. Gallardo says, is to punish the wrongdoer. This proposition, he argues, does the exact opposite, and instead harms the victim.
But Mr. Pearce, who wrote the language of the proposition that was added to SCR1001 as a strike-everything amendment this year, says the point is to eliminate “lottery payouts” for non-citizens. What it doesn’t do, though, is prevent illegal immigrants from suing to make themselves whole.
The impetus for the ballot measure, he says, was a 2005 lawsuit in which a member of a vigilante border-control group captured two illegal immigrants on a Texas ranch. The pair sued, saying they were illegally detained and assaulted. With the help of the Southern Poverty Law Center, they were awarded a Douglas, Ariz., ranch owned by the defendant. Mr. Pearce says the man never assaulted in the immigrants and did nothing wrong, but was punished nonetheless.
“No citizen should be at risk of losing everything they own…when they’ve done nothing wrong,” Mr. Pearce said.
The proposition protects citizens in that respect, he says.
“It’s justice — it’s the right thing to do,” Mr. Pearce says.
However, Mr. Gallardo says restricting punishment of wrongdoers only to citizens is an abhorrent trampling of human rights.
“[It] is very disrespectful to victims in our society, regardless of [immigration] status,” he said. “They’re human beings — they should be able to go after those folks who victimize them.
“[Proposition 102] saying the only folks who count are U.S. citizens is pretty outrageous.”
The Merrill poll shows 55 percent of voters supporting the measure and 28 percent opposing it.
Prop. 103: English as official language
Arizona needs to follow the lead of 27 other states, Mr. Pearce says, and declare English the official language. The point, he says, is not to take away people’s culture, but to increase assimilation.
“We’re one nation, we’re one flag, we’re one language,” he said.
The proposition would amend the state Constitution to require that all official government action be conducted in English. Other languages are allowed in some instances, such as when required by federal law or for public health or safety concerns, and informal non-English communications or translations between government officials — elected or otherwise — and the public are allowed, though considered nonbinding.
Proposition 103 would not prohibit the use of other languages for personal communications.
The main effect of the measure, Mr. Pearce says, will be to incentivize learning English for immigrants.
“If you come to a country that speaks English, you need to speak English,” he said.
But Mr. Gallardo says everyone, immigrants included, know mastery of the English language is essential for success.
He says the proposition, like another ballot measure approved by voters in 1988, will be ruled unconstitutional.
“At the end of the day, it still violates someone’s First Amendment rights,” he said. “This is their right to be able to seek help from the government.”
Mr. Pearce, though, says the ballot language, which was passed by the Legislature this year and put on the ballot through HCR2036, was specifically crafted to address the unconstitutionalities of the 1988 measure by allowing private communications in other languages.
According to the Merrill poll, 63 percent of the electorate supports Proposition 103, while 28 percent oppose it.
Prop. 100: Denial Of Bail; Illegal Aliens
Amend the state Constitution to prohibit bail for illegal aliens who are charged with a serious felony (defined in statute as those of classes one, two, three and four, as well as aggravated DUI). Referred by Legislature HCR 2028, 2005 Regular Session; see also HB2580, 2006 Reg Session

Prop. 102: Punitive Damages; Illegal Immigrants
Amend the state Constitution to prohibit a person who is in Arizona in violation of federal immigration law from being awarded punitive damages in any civil lawsuit filed in the state. Eligibility of illegal immigrants to file for compensatory damages is not affected. Referred by Legislature (SCR 1001, 2006 Regular Session)

Prop. 103: English As Official Language
Amend the state Constitution to require that all official government action be conducted in English. Use of a language other than English is permitted in certain cases, e.g., when required by federal law, in actions to protect public health or safety and to promote or conduct tourism or international trade. Informal non-English communications or translations between government officials and the public are permitted but are considered nonbinding. Referred by Legislature (HCR 2036, 2006 Regular Session)

Prop. 300: Public Programs; Illegal Aliens
Persons in this county illegally are not eligible to receive certain public benefits, including child care assistance and education grants or tuition waivers; nor are they eligible to participate in state-run adult education classes or family literacy programs. Illegal aliens may not be classified as in-state students for tuition purposes at community colleges or state universities. Referred by Legislature (SCR 1031, 2006 Regular Session)