State Update

Witty gov speak...

Nothing profound here, I just enjoyed these recent quips by two govs. Feel free to send me or leave quotes of your own...

A few weeks back, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) of California mocked President Bush's plan to send National Guard troops to the Mexican border. From the LA Times:

In a letter Tuesday night to Chertoff, Schwarzenegger called the border security plan a "logistical nightmare" and asked several questions: Who determines when troops come home? What criteria would determine whether their mission was successful? And how would California handle the "staggering" job, as Schwarzenegger put it, of providing support for the thousands of troops who will be cycled into the border region for two-week rotations?

And then the best part:

"Think about it," he said Wednesday after a Sacramento speech. "Every two weeks we will rotate out the National Guard? That's like starting a heart surgery and having the whole team of doctors and nurses leap up after every five minutes and switch. How are you going to be successful with that? I have a lot of concerns with it.

Fast forward to today in a story from The New York Times about coastal states (and cities) trying to scare their residents into getting prepared for the hurricane season, which officially starts tomorrow (June 1). All the way at the bottom of the story, the Times relates how Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) vented some frustration about residents' response to Hurricane Wilma.

Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, at his annual hurricane conference this month in Fort Lauderdale, sourly recalled the chaos after Hurricane Wilma last year, where throngs of residents lined up for free emergency supplies that quickly ran out.

"It makes it a lot harder when people line up in their Lexuses or Mercedeses to get ice and water at a public distribution site when the Publix is open a block away," Mr. Bush said.

As his audience of emergency workers applauded, he added, "I don't know about you, but it sure made me feel better to get that off my chest."

Pancho Villa lives!

President Bush's proposal to send the National Guard to Mexico is reviving memories the U.S. reaction to Pancho Villa 90 years ago. The Richmond Times-Dispatch's columnist Ray McAllister does a pretty good job of reminding us how it all happened:

If President Bush does deploy thousands of National Guard troops, including Virginia's, to the Mexican border, it won't be their first trip.

In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson mobilized a whopping 158,664 Guardsmen from all 48 states and sent them to protect the length of the border. They were moved to camps in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.

That time, it wasn't Mexican immigrants they were trying to keep out.

It was Pancho Villa.

But McAllister wasn't the only one who remembered Pancho Villa. We've got to give props to South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds (R), who also made the connection. Rounds said the episode showed there's precedent for sending the Guard to the border.

The Guard's work is never done

Stateline.org reports that the National Guard is underequipped for the hurricane season, because of all the equipment its units have left in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, while the number of troops abroad has decreased, the White House is now considering another mission for the Guard: to patrol the Mexican border.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the chairman of the Democratic Governors Association and one of two border-state governors to declare a state of emergency because of the influx of illegal immigrants, told the Washington Post that the proposed deployment puts further strain on the Guard.

Richardson (D) said he was concerned that the administration had not consulted directly with him and other governors of border states. "While the immediate deployment of troops may create a short-term fix, it creates further problems and concerns regarding our National Guard troops who may be called upon to respond to other emergencies and natural disasters," he said.

But the idea, which Bush is likely to announce during a prime time announcement Monday, is drawing fire from a key Republican, too, The Associated Press reports.

Criticism of the National Guard plan came Sunday from Democrats, but also an important Republican negotiator in the immigration debate -- Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. He said National Guard troops cannot secure the border over the long term and that he does not think it is wise even in the short term.

As if to underscore the many, many missions of the National Guard, the governors of New Hampshire and Massachusetts declared states of emergency and mobilized the National Guard to respond to flooding there today.

No rush on immigration, after all

Well, we sure heard sound and fury on the immigration issue, but, as The New York Times points out, even the states haven't figured out what to do about immigration.

But few bills to clamp down on illegal immigration have made it into law, meeting determined resistance from unlikely alliances uniting Latino community groups and civil liberties advocates with law enforcement officials and local chambers of commerce.

The array of state initiatives reflect uneasiness among voters across the country about the growing presence of illegal immigrants, especially in states — like North Carolina, Tennessee, Colorado and Arizona — where immigrant populations have surged in recent years.

"It was a way to wake up the federal government to do something, after they let down the entire country on illegal immigration," said Steve Gallardo, a Democratic state representative in Arizona, where the Legislature has been battling nonstop on the issue since January.

So far this year, no fewer than 461 bills related to immigration have been offered in the 43 states where legislatures have been in session, according to a survey by Ann Morse of the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures.

Also, I got a pretty good reaction from the last analysis from the Pew Hispanic Center I pointed you to, so I thought this might interest you too. This week, the Pew Research Center for People and the Press details how attitudes toward immigrants differ in red and blue counties.

The immigrant population of most predominantly Republican "red" counties and swing counties is relatively small. Yet residents of red and swing counties are significantly more opposed to immigration - both legal and illegal - than are residents of predominantly Democratic "blue" counties, where immigrants are much more populous.

The overall population of red counties is 93% native-born, with just 7% born outside the U.S. Fully 59% of red-county residents live in places where fewer than one-in-20 people are foreign-born. By contrast, blue counties have more than twice as many foreign-born residents (17% overall); about one-in-three blue-county residents (34%) live in areas where foreign-born people make up a fifth or more of the total population.

The demographic makeup of politically contested swing counties is far more similar to Republican parts of the country than Democratic areas. Just 8% of the population in highly contested counties was born outside the U.S., and a 44% plurality lives in areas where fewer than one-in-20 are foreign-born.

(My emphasis added.)

*In case you're curious, the Pew Hispanic Center, the Pew Research Center on People and the Press and Stateline.org are all parts of one big happy family called the Pew Research Center.

Immigrant numbers by state

With immigrant protests across the country today and Cinco de Mayo on the horizon Friday, this recent breakdown of the number of illegal immigrants by state by the Pew Hispanic Center could come in handy for stories on the topic.

Oh the irony...

In a story about the race for the GOP nomination for governor in Nevada:

"We need to stop using two languages," said Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas.

More immigration fall-out

There are currently nine members of the U.S. House seeking to become governors in their home states. Seven of them voted in favor of a House bill that sparked a huge backlash among the immigrant community. It would beef up border security and make sneaking into the country a criminal offense. It would also penalize those that help illegal immigrants. The measure, HR 4437, passed on a 239-182 vote on Dec. 16.

Six of the Republicans and one of the Democrats pursuing a governor's seat voted in favor of it. One Democrat voted against it, and one Republican missed the vote. Here's how it breaks down:

YES
-----------
U.S. Rep. Jim Nussle (R-Iowa)
U.S. Rep. Butch Otter (R-Idaho)
U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez (R-Colo.)
U.S. Rep. Tom Osborne (R-Neb.)
U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.)
U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland (D-Ohio)
U.S. Rep. Mark Green (R-Wis.)

NO
-----------
U.S. Rep. Jim Davis (D-Fla.)

NOT VOTING
-----------
U.S. Rep Ernest Istook (R-Okla.)

Where to begin?

If one thing's clear, the immigration debate is affecting every corner of this country these days. A half a million people rallied in Los Angeles, another 300,000 or so took to the streets in Chicago and demonstrations cropped all over the place (Colorado, New Jersey, Ohio, Wisconsin, just to name a few) there's been plenty of media coverage.

While the U.S. Senate debates the merits and details of a guest worker program, states are struggling with a whole host of immigration-related topics as well. A few quick links:

• Stateline.org Staff Writer Mark K. Matthews gives an overview of the wide-ranging reactions to immigration in statehouses on NPR's "All Things Considered." (Yeah, it's a little self-promotion, so what?)
• Two of the three GOP candidates for governor in Nebraska say they would back a bill giving children of illegal immigrants the opportunity to receive in-state tuition rates for public universities there. Gov. Dave Heineman, the third candidate, said he wasn't sure if he could support such a measure.

Who's up, who's down

The latest Survey USA results are in. The vast majority of govs didn't have a lot of movement in their popularity since February's poll. But there are some exceptions.

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds (R) took the biggest hit in the nation -- losing 14 percent -- after signing a law to ban abortions in the state, in direct contradiction to Roe v. Wade. That said, his approval rating is still at 58 percent.

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) fell 9 points as she and Republicans sparred over how many National Guard troops to send to the Mexican border to deal with illegal immigration. She, too, earned approval among 58 percent of those polled.

Other govs with noticeable drops are:

• Sonny Perdue (R) of Georgia, down 8 points to 52 percent
• Brad Henry (D) of Oklahoma, down 8 points to 66 percent
• Robert Ehrlich (R) of Maryland, down 7 points to 48 percent
• Jodi Rell (R) of Connecticut, down 6 points but still riding high at 75 percent
• John Lynch (D) of New Hamsphire, down 6 points to 64 percent

Both of last month's two most popular governors -- Rell and Joe Manchin (D) of West Virginia -- had fall-offs this month. Manchin lost 5 points. But then again, it's pretty tough keeping approval ratings up near 80 percent.

And, yes, there's good news too.

Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) leads the pack with most improved ratings. He added 7 points and is now liked by 59 percent of responders. Vilsack was in the throes of a legislative session when the poll was out, pushing for more money for education and promoting his economic development program. But the poll was taken before he signed a law outlawing the video gambling machines the state lottery had rolled out.

In Mississippi, Gov. Haley Barbour (R) went up 6 points to 54 percent approval. He's received a lot of credit for the Katrina aid package recently passed by Congress, in which Mississippi fared well.

Dirk Kempthorne, the Idaho Republican recently tapped as President Bush's nominee to head the Interior Department, also added 6 points, to arrive at 62 percent approval. The poll was taken before the announcement of his possible promotion.

Other govs with health doses of good news (all going up 5 points):

• Mark Sanford (R) of South Carolina, up to 52 percent
• Michael Easley (D) of North Carolina, up to 55 percent
• Jon Corzine (D) of New Jersey, up to 51 percent

The year's hottest topic?

It certainly looks like illegal immigration could claim that title. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is the latest to weigh in on the flood of bills filed around the country aimed at addressing illegal immigration.

While many lawmakers hope to cut services to undocumented workers or expand police powers to handle immigration matters, Stateline's Mark Matthews points out that legislators are increasingly trying to clamp down on employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Normally, bills to crack down on employers who hire workers without the proper papers are killed by a makeshift alliance of big-business Republicans and minority-friendly Democrats, immigration experts said.

But with little recourse to staunch the steady stream of illegal immigrants -- and with little action by federal authorities -- state lawmakers are taking a second look at employer sanctions.

If any of these bills were to succeed, it would mark the first time a state has passed an employer-sanction law since the federal government overhauled its immigration rules in 1986, said Marielena Hincapie, a senior attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, based in Los Angeles.

Definitely worth reading the whole thing.