When Jorge Luis Garcia came to the Legislature in the early 1990s he brought with him a distinctive insight on immigration. His grandfather, a Mexican national, once worked the mines in Arizona until he was, according to him, no longer needed. In the 1930s, miners brought in from Mexico were deported back to their homeland. His grandfather was among them. In 1953, Garcia was born in Nogales, Mexico. When he was eight his family moved to Arizona, where his mother had been born and was therefore a U.S. citizen. Garcia said he used to pick fruits as a kid. Arguably, his family history and his experience as a working man helped mold his politics. But it was his mother who influenced him the most, said the assistant minority leader of the state Senate. “Basically, my mom said you got to do the right things in life and you got to work hard. That’s her politics,” he told the Arizona Capitol Times on June 20, just hours before the Legislative session ended.
How did you become a liberal Democrat≠
Well, you know, if you are poor and you grow up in those areas you know what you are doing.
Did you consider yourself as growing up poor≠
Income-wise, yes. Income-wise, we were definitely there but not poor in any other way. We did not have many things. But that’s beyond us.
Can you remember instances when you wanted some things that you couldn’t get≠
There was never that interest. If you wanted to do something, you had to go work and get it. That’s what it was.
What kinds of jobs did you have≠
When I was a kid, we used to go pick onions. I even did melons, I did watermelons, and I did oranges. And even in my first year of college, I picked fruit, citrus.
What does it mean to be a liberal Democrat in Arizona≠
I think for me it means standing up for the rights of the downtrodden, standing up for the rights of the working man, and I focus now on the working families, making sure that working families have opportunities and that they are not forgotten in Arizona’s progress as Arizona moves forward, and that the small man doesn’t get beat up by the bigger man.
Let’s talk about immigration. Do you agree that the immigration system is broken≠ That’s how it has been described by some in the national media.
It’s not working.
Your position has always been for the federal government, rather than the state, to act on this issue and solve this problem. But it seems the immigration bill in Congress isn’t going anywhere, for now, and people want something done. What can the state do≠ Or should the state do something≠
I think what the state is doing is beneficial in the struggle (on the issue of) immigration to allay people’s fears or phobias. They are not fears. They are actually phobias.
Phobias≠ That’s an irrational fear of something. It’s not real.
You got it.
So this illegal immigration fear is not fear. It is a phobia≠
That’s right. And it’s always been there. It was there before (with) the issue with my grandfather.
People say the U.S. was founded on immigration. You’ve always had people coming in here.
But there is this mentality that — it’s a human mentality — that that was different, and this is different and that these are unsavory people. I don’t buy that mentality. If it was good for the invaders of the 1500s, it’s good for the invaders of the 20th century.
The compromise immigration measure in Washington shifts to a merit-based system from a family-based system of immigration. Essentially, people who are more educated and can speak English better have a better chance of getting a permanent visa. Do you think the United States should veer toward that direction≠
I really couldn’t comment on that because I don’t know much about it, other than what I’ve seen in the papers… But I understand that my participation in the budget has taught me that if you want to get to the end of the road, you need to be willing to accept a lot of help to get to the end of the road.
I know people have been struggling to find an answer. But what’s your take on the immigration debate, senator≠ If it is not working like you say, how do you make it work≠
I’ve always maintained that for better or for worse, then-President Clinton signed the NAFTA agreement. And it allowed the free movement of goods, commerce — the same things that these explorers came out here for. Columbus, he was looking for commerce and he was going to allow the free movement of commerce. The problem it did, it does, is that it does not allow the free movement of people. So whereas in the European countries people can move freely — there may be some issues about citizenship and all that but they are not as (heightened) here — and there is that acceptance because there is that treaty, there is that history, and obviously they have many more centuries of life than we do. So there is that. Our neighbors in Canada, it is my understanding from news accounts that they are very accepting of the immigrant from Central and North America. A lot of it has to do with the market: What boils it, what moves it. They need workers and this is the work source and that is what we have to look at it. It is a manpower source and other extraneous excuses of whether they are criminal or whether they are dumb is secondary. Society deals with criminals. They’ve always dealt with criminals. They’ve always dealt with undesirables. But societies have always had a place for productive members.
I take it you don’t support a fence that would seal the borders≠
No. It will ruin the sunsets.
Lawmakers here are working on an immigration bill. You said you would rather support the initiative than this bill, the one that got out of the Senate.
Did I say that≠ …The reason why I opposed the current, the Senate bill, is (because of) the way it is structured. Basically, the immigrant stays in jail from three to seven years for something that is not criminal that we have decided to criminalize. And the employer walks away free if the employer knowingly hires that individual.
That’s a foundational difference between how you view this problem and how others view this problem. You don’t think illegal immigration is criminal.
That is right.
They think it is.
Even the feds say it is criminal, but under the federal statutes, they treat it as a misdemeanor. They treat it as a petty crime. They’re treating it here as a serious felony.
On vote-smart.org you filled out one of their surveys. You said that abortion should be legal only during the first trimester of pregnancy. I notice that you are Catholic and the Church has always maintained a strict stance on abortion. The Church opposes it. How do you reconcile your Catholicism and your view on abortion≠
I don’t. I don’t worry about it. (If) I’m going to go to hell I’m going to go to hell for not following the Church’s (stand). It is something that is best left up to a woman and her maker. The woman is going to be the one that has got to deal with all the emotional strife that follows.
I’ve always seen you as anti-gun. All the gun measures that tend to loosen up or ease gun restrictions you have always opposed. That’s an unpopular stance. Why take that stance≠
Well I look at it from a different perspective — why do we need to change the gun laws≠ I mean why are gun laws right now so onerous that they need to be changed≠ And no one has described (to me) that the laws which are onerous are preventing someone from carrying a gun. Who said that≠
The gun culture is being blamed for some of the massacres that we have seen in our schools. Do you see a correlation between this society, so freely allowing people to carry guns, and what’s happening as far as violence in schools≠
I tend to stay away from those correlations because I don’t believe in those correlations. I know that those correlations have been made between the cartoons we watched as kids, that I watched as a kid, of whether or not I changed my friends while I was in high school, and whether the video games that kids play now are too violent. I’m not a believer in that. I think, yes, parents should be cautious of it but to go overboard I think (is) terrible. I’m one who believes that we as parents and we as adults should let our children screw up, you know, and screw up within limits, because that is how they are going to learn, that is how they are going to grow.
Let’s talk about the budget negotiations. What first came to your mind when you found out that (Senate President Tim) Bee wanted to directly negotiate with Senate Democrats≠ Was there any reluctance on your part≠
Oh no, we welcomed it.
Were there times during the negotiations when you felt like giving up≠
No. Like I said, I learned a lot from the negotiations and that if you are going to move forward we got to take different roads to get there, many different roads, some of them we like, some of them we don’t. Sen. (Robert) Blendu asked me how I liked my votes, I said you know, up there it says “yes” but my heart says “no.” Those are the realities. You got to go there. You are put into a situation… and you do the best, and if your best is not what you want, you got to accept it.
Bee’s decision to negotiate with you gave the Democrats some leverage as far as how spending should be done here in the state. Looking at the budget you have now, do you think you have produced one that is favorable or at least fair to your members≠
As I said yesterday, fair but not what I would call the best.
You’ve complained to me about certain items that you have wanted included. Can you cite them to me≠
The English Language Learners, the 300 percent of poverty level for KidsCare, the childcare reimbursement at 2006 rates. There are a couple of other ones but that’s the (major ones).
This session has been good so far≠
I think that it’s been a very positive session. And I think that in every session that I’ve been here I think I’ve grown more, I’ve become less polarized than I used to be, so I think my blinders are coming off.