Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World

Guest posting by C. L. Heatherly

On June 29 the Denver Post ran a front page story titled “Legislator: Ga.’s law no panacea,” which cited Georgia state senator Sam Zamarripa as an authority on the recently enacted “Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act.” By all reports, the new Georgia law is the model being used for the “compromise solution” by people seeking to head off the Defend Colorado Now ballot initiative.

It is understandable that our newspapers would be curious about Georgia’s experience, but what is not clear is why a newspaper would select Sam Zamarippa as the “go-to man” for advice on the matter. True, the Atlanta Democrat did participate in the legislative negotiations – as an ardent critic and vocal opponent who then voted against the measure.

Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff also believes Zamarripa has “very good advice.” Unfortunately, neither Romanoff nor the Post’s reporter informed readers that this Georgia legislator sits on the national board of directors of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), one of the most aggressive proponents of illegal immigration in the nation.

It is a matter of public record that Zamarripa is a founding partner and marketing director of a Georgia bank that is openly marketing mortgage loans to “undocumented aliens,” creating a vested financial interest in the crime of illegal immigration. He also has been an advocate for driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. This is the man from whom Colorado should take advice on immigration control?

Georgia State Senator Chip Rogers, the author of the act, has given very different advice: toughen the rules, don’t weaken them. Should we wonder why Andrew Romanoff isn’t citing him as the expert instead of Zamarripa?

Georgia immigration reform leader D.A. King, who worked on the legislation for eighteen months, has warned that reducing the penalty for signing a false affidavit to get state services from a felony to a misdemeanor, as the “Colorado compromise” proposes to do, makes the penalty for welfare fraud by an illegal alien “the equivalent of a traffic ticket.” Why the unwillingness to adopt the Georgia language? Perhaps it is because under the proposed Colorado version, filing a false affidavit to get social services would not be a deportable offense.

The sponsors of the Georgia act believe its nine sections set minimum standards for beginning to control illegal immigration. In fact, they plan to add new provisions in 2007 to make it more effective, such as making it a felony to use fraudulent identity documents. This is the exact opposite of the approach taken by Mr. Zamaprria and his Colorado allies in the legislature, who plan to introduce a “Georgia Lite” version of the law in the upcoming special session.

The curious way this so-called “Colorado compromise” emerged from backroom negotiations among Democrats Dick Lamm, Federico Pena and Andrew Romanoff illustrates why the original authors of the Defend Colorado Now (DCN) ballot measure chose the initiative route instead of the legislative route.

During the 2005 regular session, Democrats in the legislature voted to kill HB 05-1271 in committee on a straight 6-to-5 party-line vote, a bill which would have accomplished the same thing by statute as the DCN ballot measure. In the same session, they also killed HCR 05-1007, a bill to allow the people of Colorado to vote on the proposal by referendum. Neither bill was allowed to come to a floor vote. Only now do these same politicians find the Georgia act so attractive  when confronted with the prospect of a special session to consider the DCN proposal as a referendum measure. The June 27 backroom deal among Democrats that sidetracked the DCN ballot measure in favor of the Georgia Lite alternative is incomprehensible except as a means to avoid letting the people vote on genuine immigration reform in November.

The only reason the authors of the DCN measure did not also tackle the subject of employer sanctions is the state constitution’s “single subject rule” for ballot initiatives. The legislature can do that by statute, but that is no excuse for sidetracking the DCN proposal on social services.

If Colorado’s legislature sidetracks the DCN ballot referendum in 2006 in favor of a purely statutory approach, they ought to adopt the Georgia statute in its entirety, not a pale imitation. If Pena, Romanoff and Company are not willing to follow the Georgia example, that tells us they are not really serious about controlling illegal immigration. The citizens of Colorado may figure that out also.

*C. L. Heatherly is a resident of Centennial. He is director of research and planning for Rep. Tom Tancredo and a former Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration.