Proposition 102

Proposition 102 would deny punitive damages to illegal immigrants

Transcript:

Michael Grant:
Tonight on Horizon, illegal immigration has become the political issue of this election season. There are four measures on November's ballot dealing with that issue. Hear the pros and cons on those. That's next on Horizon.

Michael Grant:
Good evening. Welcome to Horizon. I'm Michael Grant. Before we get to the issue of the immigration proposition we have a new Cronkite eight policy out. We asked people what they thought about other proposition, the poll conducted by KAET Eight TV and Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State September 24-28. 882 voters most likely to vote surveyed. The poll has a margin of error of 3.3%. Here are right results.

Mike Sauceda:
The new Cronkite Eight Poll shows 57% of those most likely to vote support proposition 201 which would ban smoking in most public places. 33% are against that measure. 55% are for proposition 206 which would also ban smoking in most public places but allow bars to permit smoking. 34% don't support the proposition. 77% like prop 202 which would raise the minimum wage by $1.60. 16% plan to vote against that measure. Proposition 200 would enter voters into a lottery for a million bucks. 40% are for that and 47% are against it. Proposition 204 would require more room for two times of animals before they are slaughtered. 65% like that measure. 16% are against it. Proposition 203 would you add an 80 cent tax to a pack of smokes to pay for children's programs. 62% plan to vote for that one, 28% do not. Proposition 105 would change the constitution to allow 43,000 acres of urban state and trust land designated for conservation sold for local governments. 36% support that measure. 34% do not support that measure finally proposition 106 would change the Arizona constitution to protect 694,000 acres of state trust land from development. 49% plan to vote for that measure. 21% say they will vote against it.

Michael Grant:
The issue that has spurred huge controversy. Marches by those supporting the rights of illegal immigrants on the other side it has become a political wedge issue fueled by fiery rhetoric. This election voters are going to be faced well issue in the form of four propositions dealing with illegal immigration, all put on the ballot by the legislature. You will hear arguments from both sides of the issues tonight. First, let's start with the issue of making English the official language of Arizona. Here are some basic information about proposition 103.

Mike Sauceda:
Proposition 103 would change the Arizona constitution to make english the official language of the state. It would require that official actions of government in Arizona be conducted in English. Official actions of those on behalf of the government appeared to present the views of government or bind government. There are several exceptions to 103. Languages other than English can be used when required by federal law, when needed to preserve the right to petition the government, when teaching foreign languages, when using Native American languages for public safety, law enforcement, and emergency service needs, when providing assistant to illiterate or hearing-impaired persons and informal nonbinding communications for tourism and international trade. 103 would also prohibit discrimination against a person because that person used English. A measure also allows a person who lives in Arizona or does business here to sue to force the new constitutional requirement. Arguments supporting official English satisfy it will empower immigrants to give them a greater incentive to engine English and eliminate the need to provide government services in different languages. Arguments against 103 state that no one is trying to change English as the language of this country but making it the official language deprives some citizens of first amendment rights to government services. Other arguments against 103 it would be divisive, the measure is steeped in hate and would end up in courts like a previous English only measure that passed that was thrown out by the courts.

Michael Grant:
Here to discuss proposition 103 and the other three measures we will be talking about tonight, Representative Russell Pearce is the force behind most of the measures on the ballot, here to speak against the measures is Representative Steve Gallardo. It's been years since we've been together. Representative Pearce, why should people vote for proposition 103?

Russell Pearce:
Because it's common sense. History has proven it. Every country that has become multicultural has been a destructive force within. Like what Teddy Roosevelt said in 1907, the crucial dissemination process must turn people into Americans. One of the things that bind us together is the official language of English. This doesn't prohibit people from speaking at home or hanging on to the culture but it says government must promote and enhance English wherever possible. It's common sense government. It's the right thing to do. We shouldn't have ballots -- there's 329 languages spoken in the United States. Where does it end? We decided that a long time ago. Our founding fathers by vote of one decided English would be the language versus German. That is our language. And to be productive in America, or Arizona, it benefits you. In fact, nine out of 10 immigrants agree that English ought to be the official language.

Michael Grant:
Steve Gallardo, why do you disagree with proposition 103?

Steve Gallardo:
First of all, it's not needed. Mr. Pearce will talk about the need for assimilation. However, on another proposition he is sponsoring it's a proposition that would prohibit folks from actually taking English classes. When you start talking about English as the official language, I think we should be working on how do we help folks learn English? I believe everyone will agree learning English is a must. In order to be successful in this society, you have to have master the English language in order to be successful and for us to try and say that we should own making English the official language is something we will all agree. I think we will agree that it's needed. I think in order to be successful. No one is trying to change the English as the official language in the state of Arizona. Everyone understands you need to learn it in order to be successful. What this does is divides the state of Arizona. It's not a divisive issue we don't need to attempt to. No one is trying to change the language.

Michael Grant:
Steve, if everyone can agree on that what's the harm with, again, from a governmental standpoint, saying that English is the official language in which we will communicate? You don't have to use it but when government speaks, it will speak in English.

Steve Gallardo:
First of all, this particular ballot language is in the constitution. It's still different than the 1988 version. They have tweaked it. They have tweaked it and they have pushed it forward. The fact is that no one is trying to change it. Why are we putting another divisive measure on the ballot when we don't need to? The state is very divide over the whole immigration issue and keep in mind this is not immigration. The folks that are going to be impacted by this are not undocumented. These are U.S. citizens who are trying to learn the English; they are rushing to our English classes to learn English as fast as possible. It's not needed. We always recognize English as the official language. We don't need to recognize it.

Michael Grant:
Will this survive the constitutional challenge the one 18 years ago did not?

Russell Pearce:
It absolutely will. We wrote it specifically with that in mind and we responded to all of those concerns by the Ninth Circuit Court. This is outrageous first of all. You know, some of the things that Steve said in terms of the fact this promotes -- this is government's responsibility. This is not English only. This is official language. That is our language. And we should promote it and enhance it and it serves everybody well and to sit there and hide from reality, you know, and then he talked about another ballot, we will talk about earlier and this says it all, people to attend English classes. Illegal aliens in this country illegally shouldn't be subsidized by the taxpayer. That's true. This has nothing to do it. This is simply common sense government. This is simply the right thing to do. Just makes sense why anybody, even Governor Lamm, a liberal governor from Colorado called me and said, Russell, what can I do to help?

Michael Grant:
What problem are we trying to fix here?

Russell Pearce:
We have serious problems. We have folks; we have folks who are denied jobs. We have ballots and other materials printed in multiple languages. Shame on congress for enacting that in 2007. It's not changed in this. That other publications will. Websites will. Government must produce official correspondence. It doesn't mean proper communication where you and I are communicating.

Michael Grant:
Who is not, though? I am trying to figure out.

Russell Pearce:
Many, many folks. I would a paper brought to my home from a school that was putting to Spanish only in an English class which is prohibited by proposition 203. The laws must be complied with and all this does is say, hey, guys, back up a little bit. We in government must recognize English as our language and we must perform in English. If you want an interpreter it's provided. Criminal justice it's provided. Emergency services, you saw the exceptions. There they were put on your boards.

Michael Grant:
Steve.

Russell Pearce:
Exceptions for people to function.

Steve Gallardo: Proposition 103 would not prevent a lot of federal mandated type forms from being printed like ballots. Which is required by federal law. The fact is that you touched on it. There's no need for it. We're not correcting anything. We are not changing anything here. People recognize English as the official language. We don't need it. The idea that a constituent in my district who is fluent in Spanish in not able to come to my office and seek assistance, a U.S. citizen, who is fluent, yes, it does. It keeps me from acting --

Russell Pearce:
It does not.

Steve Gallardo.
As an official action --

Russell Pearce:
No, Steve. That's written in the proposition.

Steve Gallardo:
Read your act.

Russell Pearce:
Simply not true. Simply not true!

Michael Grant:
All right. We will close on the fact that none of that is true. We have to go on. Next proposition we will talk about could be called proposition 200. The sequel, Proposition 300 would expand proposition 200 which was passed couple of years ago. And in part that I denies services to illegal aliens. Here's more about proposition 300.

Mike Sauceda.
Proposition 300 was put on the ballot by the legislature to expand proposition 200 which was passed 2 years ago to deny government services to illegal aliens. It would ban illegal immigrants from taking adult education classes offered by the Arizona Department of Education. It would not allow illegal immigrants to pay instate tuition at colleges. It would ban illegal immigrants from getting state financial aid or child care subsidies and requires that the measure be administered, discrimination-free. Arguments for prop 300 submitted to the voters guide state that prop 200 was forwarded in its implementation and that a yes vote will end taxpayer subsidies to illegal aliens. Arguments against the measure argue it would stymie child care, discourage school aged children from attending college and harder to make English taught to those who want learn.

Michael Grant:
Steve let me go to you first. Why should people not vote for proposition 300?

Steve Gallardo: Once again what we are doing here, in this particular case, is just immigration theater. The fact is that this particular proposition is not going to slow down the flow of immigrants coming across our boarder. The fact is we do need immigration reform and we need our federal government to step up to the plate and take care of that. Proposition 300 is an expansion of prop 200. It does nothing in terms of trying to slow down the flow of immigrants coming across. What it really does is prohibit folks that have been in this state, particularly the education part, folks that have been in this state all their lives who have lived here, who don't even know any other country but America, keeps them from going to college. It puts a barrier in front of them and keeps them from going to any type of post secondary education and it does. It prohibits them from taking advantage of any type of tuition services that they could be taking advantage of.

Michael Grant:
Now, Russell, ok. We got three -- we got three primary areas. Adult education, no in in-state tuition, and no state subsidized child care. Why should people vote for this?

Russell Pearce:
First of all, it is enforcing prop 200. Proposition 200 overwhelmingly passed by the state of Arizona covered these. All public benefits that required eligibility which these do. Tuition, and they can go to school. In violation of federal law. Federal law already says if you are in the country illegally you cannot attend higher Ed. This doesn't go that far. It says the government is not going to subsidize you. If you go to higher Ed you pay the full load. Doesn't stop anybody from going and out of state tuition person, out of state person going here pays an out of state tuition and we want to give benefits to people who have broken into the country? These are not people who are here legally. They are not allowed to be subsidized by the taxpayer. Does not prohibit them at this point and it should, but it doesn't. It says they pull the full load and they are not subsidized by the taxpayer. A benefit we don't give out of state students.

Michael Grant:
Steve, here I think is a key issue. I think most people agree that this is not going to impact illegal immigration. I think the issue separate from that. It's how hospitable will you make the climate for illegal immigration. Why isn't that an appropriate function of proposition 300?

Steve Gallardo:
We have to look at folks who are impacted by this piece of legislation. We have folks who are for the most part may have been brought here when they were very young. They have lived in our society. They know, don't even know Spanish. They have gone through our public schools and now we are, we are telling them, the buck stops here. You are no longer going to be able to go into a post secondary education. We will make it more difficult for you to go to a post secondary education. I think that's unconscionable. I think when you are looking at some of the brightest kids in our schools, and to be able to not offer them the ability to live that American dream, I think that's the problem with this particular piece of legislation. No doubt we want to try and stop the fact that folks that are taking advantage of our state benefits, we can do that but I think there's areas in which we should not. I think there's areas in which we should allow these --

Michael Grant:
What about adult Ed and child care subsidy? You haven't got kids involved there. You got adults.

Steve Gallardo:
Here's another perfect example. Mr. Pearce has talked about the importance of assimilation, the importance of English. Yet we are not allowing these folks to learn. These folks for the most part to be in the process, a lot of them are in the process of gaining citizenship. But we are not helping them. We are not helping them. Fact it is true.

Russell Pearce:
It doesn't matter if they are in the process. They are illegal. When do competent we stop? When do we enforce the borders? Why would you give free stuff to people who have broken into your country? Proposition 200 made that clear the voters didn't want to do that. This first of all federal law already says you can't attend higher ed. If you are here illegally. They don't get state -- it's federal law. But what we are saying is if you go to continue to break federal law what you can't do is subsidize and pay the full load. Why do we blame you and I for people who broke into this country? You know, if somebody brought somebody here at a young age there are consequences of breaking the law. That's their problem. When do you decide who we treat with free stuff and who we don't because they are illegal? The law's the law. When you are dealing with child care subsidies, we have waiting lists, illegal aliens are on that list and get in there and citizens have to wait and can't get service. Absolutely outrageous. English only adult classes are only stopping those in process. In process means I'm illegal but somewhere along the line I think somebody's going to get me amnesty or I am going to become a citizen. They are illegal. If they are legal they can attend. Only those illegally in the country can't get these benefits.

Steve Gallardo:
This is the fact is that many of the folks that are here undocumented are so fearful of a lot of our government entities because of the atmosphere we have in our state. But it should be -- and they are not taking advantage of the types of benefits that I think you are pointing out to. The fact is --

Russell Pearce:
Many of them are and the opinion is --

Michael Grant:
Not both at the same time.

Steve Gallardo:
The fact is we should be doing what we can to try and help those folks that are in the process of gaining citizenship. If it means teaching them English, helping them assimilate in our society why aren't we doing that? You talk about the importance of learning English and knowing English and the importance of learning English --

Michael Grant:
Quickly. Then I got to move on.

Russell Pearce: It's just not true. This in the process, this spin that you keep putting, these are folks who are illegal. They came here illegally f. They came here illegally they are not denied this. You are putting the spin. You continue to stand up for people that break into the country and the march on the streets demanding stuff but what you can't do in America is come here illegally and demand stuff. You can't come and demand stuff in other languages. No, I do not support law breakers.

Michael Grant:
We need to move on. The next proposition on the table tonight is proposition 100. It would deny bail to those here illegally who are accused of committing a serious felony. Here's more on proposition 100.

Mike Sauceda:
A yes vote on proposition 100 would change Arizona's constitution to deny bail to illegal aliens accused of committing a class one through four felony. The felony levels were bail could be denied were set by the legislature. Currently the state's constitution allows bail to be denied for several reasons, for capital offenses, for sexual assault or molestation of a child under 15 years of age, for a felony committed when the person is already out on bail for a felony, and for felony offenses where the person presents a substantial danger. One argument for proposition 100 submitted to the voters guide states that the measure would deny bail to illegal immigrants who, if allowed to post bail might leave the country. Arguments against proposition 100 states that the measure's approval would result in added prison costs, add to prison overcrowding and it would create a subclass of people denied bail because of race or national origin. The con argument states prop 100 would deny people bail based on their inability to show proper documentation and not based on their danger to society.

Michael Grant:
Representative Pearce denying bail to those here illegally and charged with a serious felony, why should people vote for proposition 100?

Russell Pearce:
I'm not so sure all people who commit serious felony ought not to be denied bail but off flight risk factor and let's recognize these are serious felonies. These are serious felonies. Crimes against children, you know, crimes of aggravated crimes. That's what this law has to do with and what happens today, you have thousands of folks who have committed serious crimes, fled back across little the border. The government's Mexican government will not cooperate with us. There are thousands of suspect who is have committed serious, serious felony that is have gone south across the border and Mexican government refuses to let us extradite them. That is common sense measure that says enough is enough. Our number one responsibility to the public is public safety. We are not talking good, you know, guys for traffic stops, deportation may start with the traffic stop and that's a public policy we ought to get into. Those that committed serious felonies and they are already in the country illegally. And they commit crime and again, remember, Arizona is number one in crime. Phoenix the fifth most likely city to be killed in. You know the largest most violent gangs in America are of illegal alien, a new homeland security report came out 25 people killed every day. 13 by DUI, 12 by stabbings and shootings by illegal aliens. Where is enough, enough?

Michael Grant:
Steve, why should people vote against proposition 100?

Steve Gallardo:
Well, let me just say right now, the courts already have that discretion to be able to deny bail. One thing me and Russell would agree on those folks that are convicted or caught committing serious crimes should be denied bail and the courts do have that type of discretion. When we started talking about denying bail, we could not just deny bail for immigrants. We should deny bail for all people, anyone who is a child molester, anyone who is a murderer should be denied bail.

Michael Grant:
The constitution generally prohibits that.

Steve Gallardo:
I mean, if -- if we are serious about this, then that's the way we should actually go. The fact is that we are not really trying to keep anyone from a flight risk if there's a person who is a flight risk, that judge has the discretion to deny bail already. Why we are doing this?

Russell Pearce:
Then, Steve, why would you fight against this? Why would you fight against this then? Under the constitution -- only two areas you can deny bail. Capital crime and if you commit a felony while on bond for -- under the constitution those are the only two categories you can deny bail for. This add as third category in the constitution, and if nourish the country illegally, knowing you are going to go back to Mexico.

Michael Grant:
Quick response.

Russell Pearce:
The answer is no.

Steve Gallardo:
The burden on the counties to hold these folks for most part they are not a flight risk.

Russell Pearce:
They all are.

Steve Gallardo:
Horrible to devastate.

Michael Grant:
The final measure we will discuss tonight would deny punitive damages to illegal immigrants. Here is more on proposition 102.

Mike Sauceda:
A yes vote on proposition 102 would bar illegal immigrants from receiving punitive damages in any court in Arizona. Punitive damages are awarded in lawsuits to punish the person sued for a serious wrongdoing and to discourage others from similar, wrongful behavior. A pro prop 102 argument submitted to the state's voter's guide says it makes no sense to reward law breakers. Prop 102 would discourage immigrants from suing citizens. Another pro argument says 102 is the first step in tort reform. An argument against 102 says it would protect wrong doers and it would undermine the purpose of punitive damages by demonizing victims.

Michael Grant:
Why should people vote no on 102?

Steve Gallardo:
There is a purpose why we have punitive damages. It is to go after the wrong doers. It is not to victimize those folks that are criminalized that are victims already. If those folks that are hurt by someone who did something wrong they should be able to go after and push those folks from doing I that's the whole purpose of punitive damages. It's to push those wrong doers and teach society that if you continually commit this type of crime or oh --

Michael Grant:
Conduct.

Steve Gallardo:
Conduct, there you go. Then you will face punishment. And that's a whole purpose of punitive damage, not to punish those folks that are victims.

Michael Grant:
Russell, Steve is correct. Punitive damages are reserved for egregious conduct. Why would we --

Russell Pearce:
Under federal law if you are not a citizen of the no stand next courts. This is in responses to what happened in Douglas where a rancher who stops trespassers illegal aliens on his property, his crime was give them clothing, blankets, food, and water, and sent them back across the border. And then the southern poverty for law is suing him because they didn't have the money to defend themselves. They were awarded his ranch. In reality, punitive should never go to the victim. It should go into a fund for victims because it's meant to punish not reward and what this does is stop lottery payouts by people in this country illegally who want too sue a united states citizen, allows them to be made whole. Does not stop them from suing, just says no lottery payout. You have a right to be made whole but the punitive part you don't have a right to. You are not going to come to America and get some lottery payout.

Michael Grant:
Gentlemen, we are out of time. Representative Russell Pearce, thank you very much for joining us. Representative Steve Gallardo, our thanks to you as well.

Michael Grant:
If you would like to see a transcript of tonight's show or get information about upcoming topics, you can visit the website. You will find it at www.azpbs.org. Once you get to the home page, click on the word "Horizon" for more details.

Larry Lemmons:
A new Cronkite eight policy shows Governor Napolitano far ahead of Republican Len Munsil with six weeks to go to Election Day. And the new memorial at Wesley Bowl Lynn Plaza is causing controversy. Those stories on Journalists' Roundtable, Friday at 7:00 on Horizon.

Michael Grant:
Those stories for sure and probably more on tomorrow's Friday edition of Horizon. Thank you very much for joining us on in Thursday evening. I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Good night.