In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

t h i r t e e n Proposition 200 in Arizona Déjà vu All Over Again M a n u e l A v a l o s a n d Li s a M a g a ñ a A decade after the passage of Proposition 187 in California, a move to block undocumented immigrants from receiving public services in Arizona developed as a backdrop to the 2004 election. The heightened sense of concern about undocumented immigration has in part been due to a downturn in the state economy, the increasing influx of immigrants in what is now the busiest undocumented immigration corridor into the U.S., and the incredible growth of the Arizona Latino population (of which close to 40 percent are non-citizens) between 1990 and 2000.1 With increasing numbers of Latino immigrants in Arizona, the state has seen mounting frustration with the country’s failed immigration enforcement policies in a post–9/11 environment. A citizen group, Protect Arizona Now (PAN), successfully placed a citizen initiative on the ballot for the 2004 general election. This initiative, known as Proposition 200, was titled the “Arizona Taxpayer Citizen Protection Act.” If passed, it would require individuals to provide: (1) proof of citizenship 347 348 ■ Avalos and Magaña when registering to vote;2 (2) the presentation of identification at polling places; and (3) proof of immigration status when applying for state public welfare benefits. In addition, it would require government workers to alert immigration officials of suspected undocumented immigrants seeking benefits. Provisions were also implemented to discourage immigrants from voting illegally. PAN asserted that too many illegal immigrants were coming into the United States to commit voter fraud, despite the fact that no cases of immigrant voter fraud were ever found. Arizona became the first state to ask for proof of citizenship when registering to vote, requiring a birth certificate, passport, or tribal identification. Protect Arizona Now received substantial financial support from three national anti-immigrant groups: the Federation for American­Immigration Reform (FAIR), Americans for Better Immigration, and POP.STOP. The goal of this coalition of anti-immigrant groups was to use Arizona’s vote to spread their restrictionist agenda: a militarized border , a significant decrease or end to legal immigration, the deportation of undocumented immigrants, and opposition to amnesty or guest worker proposals (Crawford 2004). The nativist sentiment at work at that time in Arizona, expressed as a growing distrust of immigration policy and an increasing desire to tighten laws that keep others out, was a reaction to the large numbers of immigrants already in the country and the feeling of loss of control over the community makeup. A study conducted by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) asserts that anti-immigration groups typically coalesce and have open ties to racist organizations. The SPLC maintained that these groups believe that immigrants “are responsible for nearly all the country’s ills, from poverty and inner city decay to crime, urban sprawl and environmental degradation.” The SPLC also found that some of these antiimmigrant organizations are convinced that there is a secret plot by the Mexican government and Latino Americans to take back the Southwest from the United States (SPLC 2001). The SPLC further maintained that FAIR, the major financial funder of the pro-Prop 200 campaign, is one of the country’s most established anti-immigration groups and has not hidden from an openly Proposition 200 in Arizona ■ 349 racist identity. Dan Stein, for instance, the group’s executive director, said that certain immigrant groups are engaged in “competitive breeding ” aimed at diminishing white power. Rick Oltman, FAIR’s western representative, spoke before and worked with the Council of Conservative Citizens. Garrett Hardin, a FAIR board member, felt that helping “starving Africans is counterproductive and will only encourage population growth.” Overall, the SPLC found that FAIR blames immigrants for crime, poverty, disease, urban sprawl, and increasing racial tensions in America (SPLC 2001). Opposition to Proposition 200 came from a broad-based and bipartisan coalition of political leaders and organizations representing business, labor, health care, the Latino community, and various religious denominations. These included Latino advocacy groups (Alianza Indigenia Sin Fronteras, Arizona Hispanic Community Forum), the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, the ACLU of Arizona, AFL-CIO Arizona , the Arizona Democratic Party, and the Arizona Education Association (Diaz 2004). They formed the No on 200, Arizonans for Real Immigration Reform (ARIR) committee. The committee was chaired by former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods and included substantial mone...

Share