You are on page 1of 18

The following is a clarification of misrepresentations which have been sent to citizens of LD18.

The claim: Russell Pearce is too extreme for Arizona. His proposal and the passage of SB1070 have been detrimental to the states reputation and economy.

This false statement was started by progressive Democrats and has been repeated by the media. While left-wing activist, Randy Parraz, supported and marched in protests calling for a boycott of our state sponsored by the UFCW (who donated to Parrazs Senate Campaign) http://www.ufcw.org/press_room/index.cfm?pressReleaseID=494 MEChA http://www.nationalmecha.org/archives/2010/05/national_mecha_to_protest_arizonas_sb_1070_hb_228 1_and_the_privatization_of_higher_education.php Puente AZ http://puenteaz.org/altoarizona/boycottarizona, Alto Arizona, NDLON http://www.altoarizona.com/az-boycott.html LiUNA, http://www.liuna.org/Portals/0/docs/ArizonaImmigrationLaw.pdf La Raza, SEIU, AFL-CIO http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2010/05/03/daily38.html the result did not have the desired effect. For every organization that boycotted the state, there were many more that encouraged a BUYcott. https://www.facebook.com/StandWithArizona?sk=app_7146470109 http://standwitharizona.com/blog/az-buycott/#top http://www.kold.com/story/12758090/texas-group-finishes-weekend-of-buycott?redirected=true http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/arizona-boycott-s-impact-limited-1.189399 Nov 19, 2010 Arizona Boycott Impact Limited But the state's economy hasn't come to a screeching halt as some who organized the boycott hoped. In fact, more people went to the Grand Canyon this summer than last year, and more stayed in Arizona's hotels and resorts, according to a review by the Associated Press. Many conventions decided not to move, despite questions from members. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sG5GI7BQMVAJ:www.humanevents.com/article. php%3Fid%3D37558+boycott+impact+on+arizona&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us June 18, 2010 Arizona Boycotts Backfiring The calls for a boycott of the Grand Canyon State over the passage of a stringent illegal immigration enforcement law may be backfiring on the groups opposed to Arizonas actions. Like the outrageous and intentional misinterpretations of the law, SB 1070, the boycott is all hype and no substance. The boycott has impacted some businesses here negatively, but supporters of the law are flocking to Arizona to counter the financial impact. There are no negative effects I can quantify, said Tony Venuti, publisher of AZ Tourist News and webmaster of a pro-Arizona business site. There have been cancelations caused by the boycotts, but for every cancellation, four or five (reservations) are coming in. Tourism has not dropped by the amount hoped for by boycotters like Rep. Raul Grijalva (D.-Ariz.). "We don't know how many people wont come here because they saw CNN or whatever and decided not to come to Arizona. That would be almost impossible to measure," said Felipe Garcia, vice president of community affairs and Mexico marketing with Tucsons visitors bureau. "We're seeing other groups very interested, they are showing stronger support to come here. That boycott didn't work very well,"

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5Cy1XMY2G0J:sayanythingblog.com/entry/arizona-boycott-hasnt-had-much-of-animpact/+boycott+impact+on+arizona&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us July 28, 2010 Arizona Boycott Hasnt Had Much Of An Impact Despite the threat of widespread travel boycotts tied to the states strict new immigration law, early results for hotels and resorts in metropolitan Phoenix show little evidence of any short-term impact. Hotel occupancy was up 6.5 percent in May and 10.6 percent in June from a year earlier, outpacing national gains, according to Smith Travel Research. Average room rates were flat on an above-average increase in rooms. Revenue per available room, the most closely watched measure, rose 6.2 percent and 11 percent in May and June, respectively. http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2010/05/arizona-boycott-efforts-may-hurt-hispanics-most/ May 21, 2010 Arizona Boycott Efforts May Hurt Hispanics Most In a strange twist of ironic fate, the quick, rash decision by many people, organizations and cities to boycott Arizona businesses after passage of the states controversial immigration bill may end up hurting Hispanics the most. Hispanic workers make up a fairly large percentage of the hospitality and service workforces in the state of Arizona 30 and 40 percent, respectively, which includes hotels, traveling services and restaurants all businesses that are directly affected by a boycott of the state. http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2011/07/15/20110715arizona-tourismoutlook-up.html July 15, 2011 Arizona Tourism Outlook Up Arizona attracted 1.6 million more visitors in 2010 than in 2009, for 36.9 million overnight visitors. In 2010, tourism spending increased 4.5 percent, to $17.7 billion. That translated to $2.5 billion in local, state and federal tax revenue. http://www.arizonaguide.com/press-room/press-releases/arizona-office-of-tourism-releases-2010tourism-industry-statistics July 18, 2011 Arizona Office Of Tourism Releases 2010 Tourism Industry Statistics Visitor spending directly generated $17.7 billion dollars, which is approximately $48 million dollars being contributed to Arizonas economy every single day. Additionally, direct traveler spending generated: More than 152,200 industry-related jobs, combined with secondary employment that is generated through this direct traveler spending, total job generation for Arizona equals nearly 300,000, $4.9 billion dollars in earnings, and $2.5 billion dollars in local, state and federal tax revenues, which is equivalent to more than $1,040 dollars for every Arizona household. COMPARE TO July 2010: http://www.arizonaguide.com/press-room/press-releases/arizona-tourism-industry-announces-annualvisitation-and-economic-impact-to-states-economy The Arizona Office of Tourism has announced that 35.3 million domestic and international overnight travelers visited Arizona in 2009, spending $16.6 billion throughout the Grand Canyon State. Additionally, spending by travelers in 2009 directly generated: $2.4 billion in local, state and federal tax revenues which equates to $1,008 per Arizona household and 157,000 travel industry-related jobs. In addition, the secondary employment combined with the direct employment reveals that the travel and tourism industry impacted more than 290,000 jobs in 2009. This represents more than 10% of all jobs within Arizona. http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-news/2011/06/01/phoenix-convention-center-facing-strong-summerdespite-impact-of-sb-1070-economy/ June 1, 2011 Phoenix Convention Center facing strong summer despite impact of SB 1070, economy.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5KsbLZ0k8ykJ:ktar.com/category/local-newsarticles/20110422/SB1070-one-year-later:-Debate-rageson/+arizona+restaurant+association+arizona+sb1070+impact&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us The Arizona Restaurant Association says business was better than expected in 2010 -- up more than $80 million over the previous year. On support of SB1070:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010460-503544.html Poll: Support for Arizona Immigration Law Hits 57 Percent (another 17% think it doesnt go far enough) http://www.americanindependent.com/162997/many-states-look-to-arizonas-sb-1070-as-a-model-for-newimmigration-legislation Dec 28 2010 Many states look to Arizonas SB 1070 as a model for new immigration legislation 25 states to consider SB 1070-like policies in upcoming legislative sessions http://www.prescottenews.com/component/content/article/14/3484-legal-immigrants-take-a-stand-onsb-1070 Legal Immigrants Take a Stand on SB 1070 http://www.examiner.com/immigration-reform-in-national/americans-showing-their-support-for-sb1070with-their-wallets July 10, 2010 Americans showing their support for SB1070 with their wallets Between Tuesday and Thursday, $330,000 in donations poured into the legal defense fund set up by Gov. Jan Brewer (RAZ), to help defend her state against the lawsuits being filed, not only by the federal government, but by illegal immigration advocacy groups as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpocEUhM5no 81% of Arizona voters support SB1070-New Poll reveals over 50% of SB1070 supporters are Democrats. The claim: Russell Pearce has made dramatic cuts to Education and Healthcare.

As Republicans, shouldnt we be asking, why arent we making necessary cuts? in order to be fiscally responsible with taxpayers money as opposed to why are we cutting unnecessarily? A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury-Alexander Tytler Education and Healthcare are the two highest expenditures in the budget. (Education- 41%, Healthcare-21%) In the chart referenced below, the Education budget has seen an increase of 18% and Healthcare 92% between 2001 and 2011. During the years that Sen. Pearce was Chairman of the Appropriations Committee (2003-2008), the Education budget increased year over year. The necessary cuts made in 2009-2010 were due to the lag in the unforeseen

economic downturn. Also in 2008, student enrollment dropped by 79,000 which was likely due to the impact of the passage of E-Verify. Education and Healthcare have seen INCREASES of 9% from the 2010-2011 budget. The 2012 budget shows a 1% decline in Education spending to correspond with the current and anticipated decline in enrollment while the Healthcare budget has seen an increase of another 8%. -Factors that increased the Education spending include federal mandates from accepting stimulus money: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/04/03/20090403stim-swv-edstim0404.html In releasing the first $44 billion in economic-stimulus money directed to U.S. schools, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said strings will be attached to the next round of aid.

-As well as the implementation of full day kindergarten and English language learners: From 2007 State Budget: Education http://www.gao.az.gov/financials/CAFR/CAFR2007/CAFR2007_ltr_trans.pdf The FY 2007 Budget provided additional funding of $80.000 million to expand Voluntary Full Day Kindergarten to all school districts and $43.875 million to comply with court orders for English language learners. (As a fiscal Conservative, Senator Pearce tried to overturn the taxpayer subsidized full day Kindergarten program signed by Gov. Napolitano) -In 2008-2010, the Education budget increased the School Facilities Board funding by another $100M (up from $67M) to comply with the upcoming Federal EPA mandates and regulations. http://www.azsfb.gov/sfb/agency/pages/home.asp# -The majority of the Education cuts affected the in-state Community and State Colleges/Universities and not K-12 funding. The Colleges and Universities can and have increased tuition rates to make up the difference. http://www.espressopundit.com/2011/05/more-savings-from-sb-1070.html More Savings from SB 1070 The articles also ignore the cost savings that result from the departure of perhaps 100,000 illegal immigrants... AHCCCS births have collapsed and school enrollment in predominantly Hispanic districts has plummeted. The reduced enrollment provides a huge cost savings to the state budget.

The claim: Russell Pearce has made dramatic cuts to Education and Healthcare, while increasing the budget for prisons, even with a decreasing prison population.

First of all, the Arizona prison population is NOT decreasing. In fact, it is far from it. http://www.azauditor.gov/Reports/State_Agencies/Agencies/Corrections_Department_of/Performance/1 0-08/10-08.pdf Arizonas prison growth rate exceeded that of every other western state between 2000 and 2008. In 2008, 1 in every 170 Arizonans was in prison, compared to 1 in 749 in 1980. http://justicereinvestment.org/files/arizona_press_release.pdf

February 6, 2007 Arizonas Prison Population Projected to Grow Twice as Fast as General Resident Population, Independent Study Finds The number of people in Arizona state prisons is soaring, and if current policies remain unchanged, the state will need to find over $3 billion in new funding to build and operate new prisons over the next 10 years, according to a study released by the Council of State Governments Justice Center. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20011391-10391695.html July 22, 2010 Undocumented Immigrants Increasingly Filling Arizona Prisons New data from the Arizona Department of Corrections shows that undocumented immigrants are increasingly over-represented in the state's prison population. ..of all the prisoners serving time in Arizona state prisons for kidnapping, 40 percent were undocumented. Of those in prison on drug charges, 24 percent were undocumented. And 13 percent of those serving time for murder were undocumented immigrants, according to the new data from the Arizona Department of Corrections. The number of undocumented immigrants in Arizona state prisons has also grown in recent years. In December, 2004 there were 4,098 undocumented immigrants in the Arizona state prison population making up 12.6 percent according to state data. By June 2010 the number had increased to 14.8 percent for a total of 5,983 incarcerated undocumented immigrants. The Department of Corrections budget is 11% of the overall budget. The budget has increased 40% between 2001 and 2011 while there was a 50% increase in prison population during that same time period. (apx 27k-40k). Although the States general population has also increased, the States prison population has grown at an even faster pace. The budget from 2010-2011 only saw a 7% increase (compared to 9% for Education and Healthcare). The 2012 budget shows an increase of 1% from 2011. http://www.azauditor.gov/Reports/State_Agencies/Agencies/Corrections_Department_of/Performance/1 0-08/10-08.pdf

In summary: While the student population has increased 17% from 2001-2010, the budget spending increased 18% overall. The prison population increased 51% over that same period while the budget spending increased 50%. The overall population growth from 2001-2010 was 26%. As you can see, looking at both spending as well as population, the Education budget increased at the same rate as the Department of Corrections.

About Being A Fiscal Conservative The claim: Under his leadership, Arizona increased its tax-financed spending from $6 Billion to over $10 Billion, an increase of more than 69% in just five years. Three of those years represented the largest year-to-year spending increases in Arizona history.

In order to be clear about the numbers stated, it is important to put them in context. Not only does one need to look at spending, but other factors need to be examined and considered such as revenues, population and external factors like the recession in 2008-2009. Lets look at those departments which are the largest % of the budget: (Education-41%, Healthcare-21%, Department of Corrections-11%)

EXPENSES http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/GF10yearweb.pdf 200 200 4 1 2002 2003 Dept of 670 733 575 604 Corrections M M M M 3.9 Education 3.9B 4.0B 3.5B B Health and 1.5 Welfare 1.2B 1.2B 1.3B B TTL Gen. Fund 6.5 Exp. 6.3B 6.3B 5.9B B REVENUES http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/fy10actual.p df 200 1 6.2B 200 4 6.7 B

200 5 641 M 4.3B 1.8B 7.3B

200 6 707 M 5.0 B 2.1 B 8.4 B

200 200 200 7 8 9 815 890 916 M M M 5.5 5.7 4.7 B B B 2.4 2.6 2.4 B B B 9.4 10 8.7 B B B

201 0 870 M 4.2 B 2.1 B 7.7 B

201 1 940 M 4.6 B 2.3 B 8.3 B

2002 2003 6.3B 6.2B

200 5 8.0B

200 6 9.3 B

200 200 200 7 8 9 9.6 9.6 8.2 B B B

201 0 8.3 B

201 1 (est) 8.3 B

POPULATION http://finance-data.com/series/AZPOP http://www.azed.gov/researchevaluation/arizona-enrollment-figures/ 200 1 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 5.3 5.4M General: M 5.6M 5.8M 6.0M 6.1M 6.3M 6.5M 6.6M 1,05 1,12 1,08 Student Enrollment: K922 978, 1,011 3,50 1,004, 0,61 1,148, 1,078, 6,04 ,959 6 009 0 448 697 7 12 ,280 128 Prison 27,0 29,0 31,00 32,0 35,0 37,00 38,00 40,0 Population 00 00 0 00 33,000 00 0 0 00

201 0 6.7 M 1,07 8,93 9 41,0 00

Lets look at ALL of the years Senator Pearce has been in the Legislature as analyzing the WHOLE picture, instead of just a snapshot, will give a more accurate view of year over year trends. Expenditure Increase/Decrease 2001-02 saw no change 2002-03 saw a decrease of 6% 2003-04 saw a budget increase of 10% 2004-05 saw a budget increase of 12% 2005-06 saw a budget increase of 15% 2006-07 saw a budget increase of 12% 2007-08 saw a budget increase of 6% 2008-09 saw a budget decrease of 13% 2009-10 saw a budget decrease of 13% Revenue Increase/Decrease -10% 20% 8% 20% 16% 31% 0% -17% 1%

The overall increase in Revenue between FY01-10 was 34%. The overall increase in Expenses between those same years was 22%. Looking at FY03-08, the overall increase in Expenses was 67%. While this number alone appears alarming, it should be noted that the Revenue also increased 55% during that same 5 year period with surpluses almost every year. Based on the facts, it is a double-standard to argue that a 67% budget increase under Senator Pearces watch is bad while omitting that it was due to the INCREASES in Education and Healthcare. It is clear that FY08-09 were deeply affected by the recession. Because legislative budgets are in place a year in advance, the legislature was not able to make the necessary adjustments until the recession was already well under way. Also, it can be noted that the state has continued to see an increase in population, despite claims that SB1070 and other extreme legislation like would only encourage people/companies to either leave or choose not move to the state. The revenues have also remained steady as well. About Public Campaign Financing The claim: In 2008, Pearce took the maximum public funding available for his campaign, and according to his own campaign finance reports, he has received, in all, more than $71,000 from taxpayers to fund his campaigns. Clever. Why is a 2008 election cycle being cited? Why not cite the most recent 2010 election when he ran traditional and point out that it was the DEMOCRAT who participated in Clean Elections funding? In 2008, Pearce ran against Jeff Flakes brother in law, Kevin Gibbons (another open borders LDS lawyer), who was found to have received a significant amount of donations from outside of his district. http://sonoranalliance.com/2008/07/23/press-releasegibbons-funded-by-out-of-town-supporters/ Conveniently omitted as well is that Pearce also ran traditional in 2006 and 2004. 2010: http://www.azcleanelections.gov/election-data/search.aspx Senate District 18 Name Party Funding Type Income Expenses IE Supporting IE Opposing GARCIA, ANDREA Lib Traditional $689 MCDONALD, ROBERT HERANDEZ JR Dem Traditional $692 PEARCE, RUSSELL Rep Traditional $67,894 SHERWOOD, ANDREW CARRINGTON Dem Participating $24,290 2008: http://www.azcleanelections.gov/election-data/search.aspx Name Party Funding Type Income Expenses IE Supporting IE Opposing 2006: http://www.azcleanelections.gov/election-data/search.aspx 2004 http://www.azcleanelections.gov/election-data/search.aspx It clearly was not against state law. Regardless, the Supreme Court has since determined the Campaign Finance law to be unconstitutional. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304447804576411652081842860.html

About Pension Reform The claim: In addition to his taxpayer-funded salary as a state legislator, Pearce collects three government pensions. His *triple-dipping pensions* amount to $47,957 each year.

Again, context is key. If one is to cite an article, they should include the WHOLE quote. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/arizona-pensions-funds-solutions.html When things were good, they (lawmakers) were overly generous," said incoming Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa. "No one looked at the future impact. . . . We need to look at things now and decide what we can afford." Pearce said he would favor eliminating the Elected Officials' Retirement Plan because he believes people should not be given the wrong reasons to run for office. Earlier this year, 21 states took action to reduce their pension liabilities, Fehr said. Arizona was one of those. Lawmakers required those in ASRS hired after July 1, 2011, to work a few years longer to draw their pensions. The Arizona Legislature also modified the calculation to determine pension benefits for new hires. The changes do not affect current ASRS members or retirees. To retire with full benefits, incoming ASRS members, state and local government workers and teachers now will have to obtain 85 points (calculated by combining age and years of service) rather than the previous 80. And the amount of their annual pensions will be based on their average annual wage during their last five years of employment rather than their last three years. That change is expected to lower starting pensions slightly. Pearce and Adams said those changes were only modest reforms, and it took four years for Arizona lawmakers to approve them.

About the Fiesta Bowl Scandal A clear and complete statement from Senator Pearce can be found here: http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0512pearceresponse.pdf Arizona law does not allow for a legislator to accept tickets unless they are also offered to the whole legislature. The following is a list of other lawmakers who accepted tickets offered by the Fiesta Bowl. Name/Value of tickets per Fiesta Bowl/Amount reimbursed by lawmaker Sen. Paula Aboud, D-Tucson- $85 / $55, Former House Speaker Kirk Adams, R-Mesa- $1,988 / $1,064, Former Sen. Linda Aguirre, D-Yuma- $1,353 / $30, Rep. Ben Arredondo, D-Tempe- $13,678 / $0, Secretary of State Ken Bennett- $2,855 / $35, Former Sen. Robert Blendu, R-Litchfield Park- $17,213 / $955, Former Rep. David Bradley, D-Tucson- $3,756 / $0, Former Senate President Bob Burns, R-Peoria- $4,200 / $0, House Minority Leader Chad Campbell- $1,736 / $55, Sen. Rich Crandall, R-Mesa- $6,548 / $366, Former Rep. Sam Crump, RPhoenix -$1,988 / $0, Sen. Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix- $2,824 / $206, Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix- $1,407 / $0, Former Rep. Laurin Hendrix, R-Gilbert- $1,893 / $0, Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills- $1,813 / $0, Sen. Linda Lopez, D-Tucson- $16,877 / $30, Former Rep. David Lujan, D-Phoenix - $6,420 / $0, Former Rep. Lucy Mason, R-Prescott- $2,793 / $206, Sen. John McComish, R-Phoenix- $2,854 / $206, Sen. Robert Meza, DPhoenix- $5,729 / $2,320, Sen. John Nelson, R-Litchfield Park- $1,407 / $47, Former Rep. Warde Nichols, RGilbert- $1,614 / $0, U.S. Rep. Ed Pastor, D-Ariz.- $2,200 / $0, Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa$39,347 / $1,417, Corporation Commissioner and former Rep. Gary Pierce, R-Mesa- $1,454 / $35, Sen. Michele

Reagan, R-Scottsdale- $3,756 / $160, Pinal County Supervisor and former Rep. Pete Rios, D-Dudleyville- $3,695 / $35, Glendale Mayor Elaine Scruggs- $219 / $0, House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden- $2,824 / $90, Former Rep. Steve Tully, R-Phoenix- $802 / $0, Former Sen. Thayer Verschoor, R-Gilbert- $6,548 / $0 About the Influence of Outside Interests The claim: What Senator Pearce Says: "The folks that lead this...These aren't Mesa folks that are leading this.

True. The leaders of the recall are from outside LD18. http://starpas.azcc.gov/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=wsbroker1/names-detail.p?nameid=17003692&type=CORPORATION The claim: What Senator Pearce Does: Of the $67,894 Senator Pearce received in campaign contributions for the 2010 election, a total of 7 donations came from individuals who live within our District. http://www.azsos.gov/cfs/FilerDetail.aspx?id=200810079#

And yet, his district reelected him to the Senate. Flashback to Randy Parrazs Senate Campaign 2010 donors: http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/campaigns/randy-alan-parraz.asp?cycle=10 Contribution Count 63 58 7 9 4 5 2 2 3 1 1 1 Contribution $ Amount $39,290 $30,587 $3,650 $2,900 $2,250 $2,000 $2,000 $1,400 $950 $500 $500 $250 Percent of Total

State California Arizona Virginia District Of Columbia Massachusetts Florida Indiana Texas Maryland Georgia Illinois Louisiana

Colorado New York

1 1

$250 $250

The claim: His campaign is being funded at least in part by the Committee to Oppose Recall of Russell Pearce, a "federal political action committee" located in Vienna, VA

The TEAM AMERICA PAC/Committee to Oppose the Recall of Russell Pearce co-chair, Bay Buchanan, well known conservative and member of the LDS church, was eager to help Senator Pearce fight the radicals targeting him in the recall. Team America was founded by Tom Tancredo to help raise money for those candidates who oppose illegal immigration. Buchanan sent out her request for funds prior to any election even being announced (June 2011). The recall petitions werent certified until 1 month later. When it was determined that on a technicality, the money should not have been accepted, the $2500.00 was returned within days the group has returned a $2,500 corporate donation http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/06/07/20110607russell-pearcecampaign-finance-donations.html Parrazs Citizens for a Better Arizona have yet to disclose their financial records. Well have to wait and see where the money for the recall and support for Lewis really came from. About Reducing Government Regulation The claim: In the last legislative session, Pearce sponsored SB1405, a bill that requires hospitals to verify a person's citizenship or legal status before admitting the person for non-emergency care. It also requires that hospital admissions staff contact federal immigration authorities if a person does not meet citizenship or legal status requirements."

Is the concern really about government regulation or more about allowing those in the country illegally to have the right of free access to the worlds best hospitals at the expense of the US taxpayer? (see above which shows a 92% increase in healthcare costs over 10 years) SB1405 was sponsored by: Smith, Biggs, Griffin, Klein, Melvin, Shooter and Pearce in February 2011. http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/sb1405o.asp&Session_ID=102 The bill would have required that everyone show proof of insurance for a non-emergency at a hospital. If they cannot provide health insurance information, at some point during the persons admission or treatment in a non emergency case, another form of ID could be provided (Military ID, Drivers License, valid visa, etc).

Will there be plans by the CBA to recall the other sponsors of the bill? One cannot cry foul when necessary cuts to healthcare must be made if there is no significant attempt to curb the abuses. http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/6451-illegal-immigrants-overrun-arizonas-emergencyrooms Immigrants are often uninsured and underinsured. Forty-three percent of noncitizens under 65 have no health insurance. That means there are 9.4 million uninsured immigrants, a majority of whom [are] in the country illegally, constituting 15 percent of the total uninsured in the nation in the mid-1990s. The cost of the medical care of these uninsured immigrants is passed onto the taxpayer, and strains the financial stability of the health care community. Another problem is immigrants use of hospital and emergency services rather than preventative medical care. For example, utilization rate of hospitals and clinics by illegal aliens (29 percent) is more than twice the rate of the overall U.S. population (11 percent). As a result, the costs of medical care for immigrants are staggering. The estimated cost of unreimbursed medical care in 2004 in California was about $1.4 billion per year. In Texas, the estimated cost was about $8.5 billion, and in Arizona the comparable estimate was $4 billion per year.

The claim: In 2011, Senator Pearce sponsored SB1611 that would require parents to provide proof of their children's immigration status and require schools to "notify the Arizona Department of Education, in addition to referring the case to local law enforcement, if the person does not comply with the documentation requirements" An important piece of SB1611 is conveniently omitted above. Public Benefits Proposition 200 was approved by the voters in 2004. It requires state and local governments to verify the identity of all applicants for certain public benefits and government employees to report U.S. immigration law violations by applicants for public benefits. Under the proposition, failure to report is a class 2 misdemeanor, both for the employee and for the employees supervisor if he or she knew about the failure to report. Sections 1-501 and 1-502, A.R.S., require a recipient of a public benefit to present one of the following documents demonstrating lawful presence to the entity that administers the benefit: 1) an Arizona drivers license issued after 1996 or an Arizona nonoperating identification license; 2) a birth certificate, delayed birth certificate or U.S. certificate of birth abroad; 3) a U.S. passport or foreign passport with a U.S. visa; 4) an I-94 travel authorization with a photograph; 5) a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services employment authorization document or refugee travel document; 6) a U.S. certificate of naturalization or certificate of citizenship; or 7) a Tribal certificate of Indian blood or Bureau of Indian Affairs affidavit of birth. Currently, these documents are only required for benefits that require participants to be citizens or legal residents of the U.S., or otherwise lawfully present. 8 U.S.C. 1611 prohibits the provision of state and local public benefits to undocumented immigrants, with several exceptions, such as emergency health care and public health assistance for immunizations. S.B. 1611 requires documentation for all public benefits. -With regard to education, SB1611 simply limited the documents that can be used for enrolling a child in a K-12 school to about a dozen items, including birth certificates and passports. Currently, the law says that those who are enrolling children must show a birth

certificate or other reliable proof of identity and age. The bill doesnt say a child who cannot show proof of legal presence is denied enrollment. -The bill also gives a person 180 days in jail for taking someone elses identity in order to obtain employment. -Finally, the bill would make it unlawful for illegal immigrants to drive in the state. -SB1611 was introduced in February 2011 and passed in both the House and the Senate. It was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Brewer.

The claim: Senator Pearce also sponsored SB 1214, that would allow people to carry loaded, concealed firearms on school campuses. SB 1214 Introduced by Senators Johnson, Blendu; Representatives Barnes, Pearce: Senator Verschoor; Representatives Biggs, Clark, Crump, Groe, Nichols Again, are there any plans to recall all of the above members of the Legislature? Is there something wrong with being able to have a conceal and carry weapon if you have a permit on a college campus? Do we not have something called the 2nd Amendment right to do so? SB1214 was proposed in 2008. A similar bill, SB1467 sponsored by Gould, Gowan, Proud, Smith D, Stevens, Antenori, Harper and Lesko passed both the House and Senate (Pearce voted for it) but was vetoed by Brewer. http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/sb1467o.asp&Session_ID= 102 http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/04/27/20110427asu-tempe-students-gun-lawveto0427.html

About the Constitution The claim: Senator Pearce introduced a bill that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona to parents who are not US citizens, despite the fact that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution states that "All persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." HB 2561 was introduced by Rep Kavanagh, Burges, Fann, Gowan, McLain, Seel, Smith D, Stevens, Ugenti, Barton, Crandell, Fillmore, Goodale, Gray R, Harper, Judd, Lesko, Pratt, Senators Gould, Pearce, Biggs, Bundgaard, Gray, Dlein, Melvin, Murphy, Smith in February 2011. Lets look at the definition of subject to the jurisdiction from the proposed bill: For the purposes of this section, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States has the meaning that it bears in section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, namely that the person is a child of at

least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, or a child without citizenship or nationality in any foreign country.

The claim: About protests here in Arizona, Pearce said, They're illegal and they have no right to be marching down our streets. They have no constitutional rights. They don't have First-, Fourth-, Sixth Amendment rights. While all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, they are also bound by certain laws that govern them. Those who chose to invade our country illegally must understand that they have broken the laws of OUR land and do not have the same rights as those who are legal citizens or residents of the country. Jefferson and Madison incorporated many of the philosophies of John Locke in our founding documents. Locke said, all individuals have a natural right not to be ruled by the power of any government except that which has been established by common consent. No individual has the right to unlawfully harm the lives, health, liberty, or property of other individuals. Locke also states that the people of society have a right to defend themselves against those who would attempt to take away their freedom and security. We, as a nation, by common consent, created our Constitution of laws (with Gods laws as its foundation), for the purpose of protecting our God-given, inalienable rights. No individual (legal or illegal) has the right to UNLAWFULLY harm another. Those who choose to enter our country illegally must adhere to our Constitution of laws. Our nations law, as in other nations, states that being in the Country illegally, by definition, is against the law. Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals. The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to economic or national interests, violate Mexican law, are not physically or mentally healthy or lack the necessary funds for their sustenance and for their dependents. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/03/mexicos-illegals-laws-tougher-thanarizonas/?page=all Our Founders struggled with foreign enemies and border issues as well. While they welcomed the poor, the downtrodden, and the persecuted from any country, they also had to protect the sacred soil from unwanted intruders. Alexander Hamilton insisted that "The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on the love of country, which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family." Madison stated, When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses. I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.

Even Thomas Jefferson who was considered to be the most inclusive of the Founders, understood what might happen if foreigners came to our country unchecked. He said, They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth or.in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass." He continued, Suppose twenty millions of republican American thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? American citizenship was considered and promoted by the Founders as a high honor. The Naturalization Act 1795 required that immigrants intending to naturalize had to go to their local court and declare their intention at least three years prior to their formal application. In the declaration, the immigrant would also indicate their understanding that upon naturalization, they would take an oath not only of allegiance to the United States but also of renunciation of his former sovereign. If we held citizenship in the same high esteem as our Founders and simply enforced the laws we already have, we wouldn't find ourselves in the condition our Country is faced with today. More on Immigration The claim: any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God" and that "the Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship" Such a statement also begs the question of treatment of other violators of the law. People are arrested all the time. Are they not separated from their families? Do they not suffer the consequences of their punishment? Our church has long taught accountability for our actions. Let us first clarify the purpose of the press release cited. It was issued as a policy statement to address a proposed omnibus immigration bill in Utah that included a Utah-specific state legislation guest worker/amnesty provision for illegal aliens living and working in the state. The church has in the past, issued statements or Official Declarations regarding such topics as polygamy (1890) and the priesthood for those of African descent (1978). In both cases, they were announced and explained by the Prophet, widely publicized as such, voted on by the Conference and published in the scriptures. The church could have, and might yet someday, issue a statement from the pulpit that more directly and definitively addresses the question of immigration. To date they have not. That aside, lets take a look at the rest of the church policy statement that is cited: Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable. As a matter of policy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas. As those on all sides of the immigration debate in the United States have noted, this issue is one that must ultimately be resolved by the federal government.

In furtherance of needed immigration reform in the United States, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law. What is the Churchs Matter of Policy? http://lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#21.1.16 (the ONLY OFFICIAL church statement recognized in the CHURCH HANDBOOK) Emigration of Members Generally, members are encouraged to remain in their native lands to build up and strengthen the Church. Opportunities for Church activity and for receiving and sharing the blessings of the gospel are increasing greatly throughout the world. As members remain in their homelands and work to build the Church there, great blessings will come to them personally and to the Church. Stakes and wards throughout the world will be strengthened, making it possible to share the blessings of the gospel with an even greater number of Heavenly Fathers children. Experience has shown that those who emigrate often encounter language, cultural, and economic challenges, resulting in disappointment and personal and family difficulties. Missionaries should not ask their parents, relatives, or others to sponsor members who wish to emigrate to other countries. Members who emigrate to any country should comply with applicable laws. When coming to the United States or other countries on student or tourist visas, members should not expect to find jobs or obtain permanent visas after entering that country. To be considered for Church employment in any country, a person must meet all conditions of immigration and naturalization laws. The Church does not sponsor immigration through Church employment. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we know that the 12th Article of Faith states, We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. This applies to members of the church in the United States as well as Australia, Germany, England, South America, Japan, etc. The claim: pushing forward with anti-immigrant legislation that is unpopular even with other Republican senators Who? The video cited didnt name a single one. About the Recall The claim: "If you want to unelect me, unelect me." Once again, lets put it in context. Senator Pearce said, I dont vote to get elected. And I tell people all the time, If you want to unelect me, unelect me. I keep my word. I keep my promises. When you talk about a contract with America, I have mine,

the Constitution. In the Arizona Legislature, Im rated every year as the top legislator in defense of liberty and limited government and thats not always easy to do. He was elected in 2010. Unelect of course means using a normal election cycle. Not a recall when any registered voter in the district, regardless of party affiliation, can sign the petition, and which no primary election takes place. It is also intended that the citizens represented by the politician would be the ones to initiate a recall. NOT outside organizations like CBA.

The claim: Senator Pearce after saying We've hired attorneys. We'll challenge the petitions, had a supporter file a law suit and subsequent appeals to try and stop the recall, of which all legal claims have been denied by the Arizona Supreme Court.

Recalls were meant to be used in events of corruption, dishonesty, malicious activity, or violations of the law. Because the recall statute doesnt speak to these reasons specifically, a recall can be used simply because any group feels that the legislator isnt representing their priorities. Of course, Parraz and Snow were well aware of this loophole. According to Lilia Alvarez from CBA: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1108/05/sitroom.02.html "Something like a recall statute that has been covered in dust. Look at the power of it. This recall effort has been a very strategic attack. It hasn't been just based on emotion." Those on the Candidate Selection Committee were quick to take advantage of the loophole as well. Andrea Garcia (L) who ran unsuccessfully against Pearce in 2010 and who was involved in the candidate selection said, Are you aware of the Demographics for 18? It's not winnable by Dems. Has anyone considered looking beyond party at the candidate who can take Pearce? I am a proven activist and all I am asking is for people to look at ALL the candidates then decide we can only take Pearce down with a Unified voice and strategy. Dividing into 2 parties will not help get Pearce out." Before the 2011 legislative session even began, Citizens for a Better Arizona and East Valley Patriots for American Values, both created by Randy Parraz, were being organized. http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/2010/12/07/20101207russell-pearce-mesa-groupopposition-arizona-immigration1207.html One of the organizers of the EVPAV said the group began coalescing early this year (2010) before SB 1070 was passed. Of course Senator Pearce had a right to question the motives behind the recall. The citizens in LD 18 and the state also have a right to an explanation as to why they must be subjected to the unnecessary burden and expense of a recall initiated by a group outside their district.

The claim: He has also remained silent on the evidence that supporters, including his family members and close friends, have worked to get a *sham recall candidate* on the ballot to split antiPearce votes. Senator Pearce does not know Ms. Cortes. Are you trying to disenfranchise a candidate from exercising her right to run for public office? It is not up to you or anyone else to tell someone

they cannot run for office. How can this claim be reconciled with the fact that Ms. Cortes filed her petitions BEFORE Jerry Lewis announced his candidacy? Wouldnt that make Mr. Lewis the sham candidate intended to take away votes from Ms. Cortes? http://sonoranalliance.com/2011/09/29/latina-olivia-cortes-was-first-to-file/ Those in Lewis camp have remained silent on the fact that a supporter of CBA, Mary Lou Boettcher, has filed a lawsuit in order to prevent Ms. Cortes from exercising her right to run for public office. The attorney for Boettcher is Tom Ryan who also represented CBA in their case against Franklin Ross on the merits of the recall. CBA along with the Progressive Democrats of America have been actively involved in fundraising for Lewis campaign. http://www.pdamerica.org/get-informed/view/arizona-supremecourt-special-election-to-recall-pearce-is-on/ October 1, 2011 Recall Pearce Group: Lilia Alvarez: Volunteers have successfully organized and hosted 17 fundraising house parties! Our GOAL is 30 before election day November 8th. Please contact me to sign up. Together we are changing the course of history. Randy Parraz: HELLO EVERYONE: We need to do all we can to make sure we have the resource we need to make history on November 8th. Please let us know if you can host a house party. We all need to do our part.Thank you! It appears that CBA has a vested interest in the outcome of the election and does, in fact, care who will win. Other groups are also encouraging their supporters to help and vote for Jerry Lewis: - eLatina Voices: (supporters of Chicanos por la Causa, the Dream Act and Ethnic Studies programs): http://elatinavoices.org/elections/russell-pearce-recall-arizona/ eLatinaVoices encourages District 18 voters to elect Jerry Lewis as their new representative. We ask our members to please contribute to the Jerry Lewis campaign and lend voluntary support to the childrens champion. Vote to remove Russell Pearce that is the real issue! Support Jerry Lewis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J77PlguCRX8 We support the recall of Russell Pearce. We support the candidate that is opposing him which is Jerry Lewiswe will support him with money contributions, volunteer time, and help in his campaign. - The Boycott Georgia, Boycott Hate group (who are supporters of Puente Az and Border Action Network): http://www.facebook.com/boycottgeorgia#!/boycottgeorgia?sk=info Boycott Georgia, Boycott Hate In less than two months, there will be an Arizona recall election for Senator Russell Pearce, author of SB1070. Jerry Lewis of Mesa, AZ is his primary opponent. If you want to keep up with the campaign, his FB page is here. - List of political resources from the leftist online Desert Free Press whose owner, Sand Angel Media Inc in San Tan Valley, AZ, also supports the Boycott Georgia, Boycott Hate group:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sand-Angel-Media-Inc/317356950126#!/pages/Sand-Angel-MediaInc/317356950126?sk=wall http://www.desertfreepress.com/content/big-list-facebook-and-twitter-political-resources Pearce Watch http://www.facebook.com/groups/125309647534553/?ap=1 Citizens For a Better Arizona http://www.recallpearce.com http://twitter.com/recallpearce Recall Pearce http://www.facebook.com/groups/135810276451151/?ap=1 Recall Russell Pearce http://www.facebook.com/groups/165949203451553/?ap=1 Jerry Lewis for LD 18 Senate http://jerrylewisforsenate.com/ http://www.facebook.com/JerryLewisforAZSenate I wonder if Mr. Lewis and his campaign are aware and approve of the affiliation and support he is receiving from these outside leftist groups.

The claim: But I respect the fact that laws exist to protect the electorate's ability to exert its influence in the electoral process......become informed about issues facing our community, gain a familiarity with those running for office, and exercise our right to elect the best candidate. The electorate already exercised its ability to exert its influence in the electoral process by reelecting Senator Pearce in November 2010. Madison said in the Federalist papers No 55, I am unable to conceive that the people of America, in their present temper, or under any circumstances which can speedily happen, will choose, and every second year repeat the choice of men who would be disposed to form and pursue a scheme of tyranny or treachery. The citizens of LD18 were informed and familiar with Senator Pearce and exercised their right to re-elect the best candidate who would represent their district in 2010. It is insulting to insinuate otherwise.

You might also like