Transplant Funding Returned, Says Brewer

The news that Gov. Brewer and Arizona Senate Republicans have restored transplant funding to the state budget may have brought  a bit of hope and relief to the over 90 people counting on Medicaid support to help them pay for life-saving operations, but until these desperate patients hold letters in their hands which guarantee their spots on the transplant list, their lives still hang in the balance.

After a months-long, controversial debate over the topic of transplant funding, which had been axed from Arizona’s AHCCCS program last year, Brewer announced that coverage for lung, liver, pancreas and heart transplants had been reinstated.  Two patients have died while waiting for this decision, and though Brewer and other Republican lawmakers have reiterated that the return of funding is unequivocal, there are some who warn of conditions.

“According to what the governor and other Republicans are touting, yes, they’re celebrating the funds being put back in.  But what they’re saying isn’t necessarily the case.  The funding is based on conditions, contingent on a waiver of approval by the federal government until funding is restored.  The same way they took it out, they should have put it back in,” said Leah Landrum Taylor, D-Phoenix over the phone last week.  The caveat has been raised by Landrum Taylor and others because the budget does not make is explicitly clear how these operations will be paid for under AHCCCS, only that they are once again eligible.

If Republicans can be believed, however, this news gives hope back to people such as 48-year-old David Hernandez, a Tucson resident who needs a double lung transplant.  Hernandez was diagnosed with an interstitial lung disease in 2010 and told he needed both lungs replaced or that he would die in 3 years.  The cause of his condition isn’t certain, but is suspected to relate to his work in the heavy construction industry, where he was exposed to asbestos.  The National Transplant Assistance Fund  is heavily involved in cases such as Hernandez, and helps in fundraising efforts.

Hernandez has deteriorated in the last year, and remembers the letter he received in August 2010 telling him he would not be getting his transplant.  The father of five, who used to coach his daughter’s softball team and worked out regularly at the gym, now spends most of his days bedridden, hooked to an oxygen tank.  He says that a seventy year old with emphysema could outrun him, and that every small movement he takes is a painful endeavor.

He sees new hope in Brewer’s decision to restore the funding, but until he receives a physical letter assuring him of his status, he says he will be holding his breath.

This week in AZ law

There have been plenty of developments in Arizona this last week.  Here’s a roundup of stories that may affect you more than you know.

The debate over Arizona’s “Clean Elections” campaign financing policy, passed in 1998, will head to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The court will determine whether the policy is in violation of First Amendment rights.  The policy essentially allots a lump sum of voluntary public funds to candidates whose campaigns are outspent by opponents in return for turning down special interests.  Opponents of the policy say these matching funds restrict their freedom of speech, that the disincentive to outspend rival campaigns unfairly limits their own campaigns.  Proponents of the policy argue that public campaign financing evens the playing field and gives candidates a chance no matter the resources at their disposal.  The court’s decision could set an influential precedent for U.S. federal policy regarding campaign financing, and affect campaign laws in many states.

AZStarnet takes a look at Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu’s claims that immigration-related crime in his county are far worse than in other counties, including Pima.  These claims are part of Babeu’s ongoing attempts to justify $5 million in border security funding.  The article looks at why the numbers might support a different narrative than the one Babeu is pushing.  Pinal has comparatively low incidents of drug seizures compared to border counties like Pima, Santa Cruz and Cochise.  Nonetheless, Babeu makes the case for why Pinal needs a new helicopter, new guns, and new armored vehicles.

Rules for how medical marijuana dispensaries are set up in Arizona pursuant to the passing of Proposition 203 were released Monday.  AZCentral takes a look at what is required of those who wish to set up dispensaries, and how they will be distributed throughout the state.  This law has been through many drafts, and its final version states that dispensary owners will have to go through a two-part process to become legitimate.  This process includes applying for a registration certificate and an operating license.  The state will officially start processing patient applications on April 14.

 

 

 

Paul Babeu Gets $5 Million for Border Security, Dupnik Excluded

The Sheriff of Pinal County, Paul Babeu, is going to receive $5 million from state legislators to help enforce border security, while Sheriff Dupnik of Pima County, whose county actually shares a border with Mexico, was left out of the budget.  An article in the Daily Star goes into the details of the intentional exclusion, a decision which might seem like a highly politicized display of favoritism to outside observers.  But looking at the larger political context of these two individuals, this move by the Republican legislation to send a symbolic message is unsurprising.

Babeu is a vocal Republican known for his tough position on border security and illegal immigration.  He is a particularly strong supporter of SB 1070 and has made a point to let people know his views, making the rounds on all the major outlets like CNN, Fox News, CBS, and MSNBC.  Dupnik, on the other hand, is a democratic sheriff strongly opposed to SB 1070, initially refusing to enforce the measure.

Not all coverage of Babeu has been positive, and some stories surrounding Babeu remain very controversial.  The sheriff appeared as a guest on a Tennessee hate group-affiliated radio show.  The sheriff denied he had any knowledge of the show’s affiliation, and there have been some contradictory accounts on this which are detailed here, but the incident has continued to follow him.  Another incident which drew controversy involved a deputy of his, Louis Puroll, who claimed he suffered gunshot wounds at the hands of drug cartel gangsters, though the physical evidence contradicted his account.  Puroll later threatened the life a journalist and Babeu had him fired, though he had been one of Puroll’s biggest supporters throughout allegations of lying.

Babeu has not ruled out the possibility of running for office.

Guns Okay at Schools, Says AZ GOP

Far from cracking down on gun possession in the wake of the Jan 8 shootings in Tucson, the Arizona senate is actually trying to loosen up restrictions on guns.  On Monday, the senate approved a bill that allows guns on college and university campuses, with the caveat that they cannot be brought indoors. A link to the news: azstarnet.com.

Wait, what?

Yes, its true.  The logic being pushed by Republican supporters is that shooters like Jared Lee Loughner might be deterred if everyone had more guns.  Mass shootings at schools might be prevented if anyone could shoot back.

The original version of the bill, sponsored by State Senator Ron Gould of Havasu City, would have allowed guns into every college dormitory, library and classroom in Arizona.  It was too much, even for Arizona legislators, and the bill was diluted with an amendment that limits guns to the streets and sidewalks within campuses.  The bill then passed overwhelmingly, and now heads to the house.

Current gun laws in Arizona are already among the most lenient in the nation.  No permits are required to purchase rifles, shotguns or handguns.  There is no need to register any firearms that are purchased.  No licenses are needed.

On March 13, the Daily Star published an open letter written by President Obama expressing his concerns about gun control and how he thinks the issue should be approached and handled.  In the letter, he appeals to common sense, not as a way to impede the 2nd amendment rights of gun owners but as a way to screen dangerous individuals.  He outlines several steps he believes would contribute to smarter, preventive gun laws:

“First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that’s supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn’t been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states – but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.

Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data – and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.

Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can’t escape it.”

There is evidence that the majority of Americans, including gun-owners and advocates, would agree with Obama.  The idea of a system that is better at identifying those who would use their weapons for violence  is something people overwhelmingly support, according to a Newsweek study.  The article reports that over 2,400 people have been shot to death since the Giffords shooting two months ago.  The article examines the issue of gun control in light of tragedies such as the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre and the Tucson shooting.  It also remarks upon Obama’s lack of engagement with the issue, and illuminates the power of the NRA gun lobby in Washington.

 

 

Immigration News Roundup

For this week, I thought I’d try something different and highlight news stories circulating on the internet about developments in immigration law.

The Arizona Republic reports that sweeping anti-immigration measures have been put on hold while lawmakers tackle the state budget.  The new legislation, sponsored by State Sen. Russell Pearce, would impact a huge range of areas including healthcare, education, employment practices and citizenship.  The article indicates that the budget is what people want their state government to prioritize, and points to growing disharmony between Republican hardliners and more moderate conservatives who want to focus on the state’s budget issues before proceeding with any more immigration legislation.

Los Angeles Times examines the failures of Republican legislators in states all over the country to replicate the success of SB 1070.  The article raises the possibility that momentum has swung away from the lawmakers who pushed through SB 1070, citing opposition within the Republican party to new anti-immigration bills supported by State Sen. Russell Pearce.  Utah is the only state that has managed to pass anything similar in spirit to SB 1070, albeit a watered down version, which Nicholas Riccardi writes, “moved in contradictory directions, trying to satisfy activists who want a tough approach to illegal immigration and business and religious leaders who urge flexibility and compassion for working families.

The Washington Post takes a closer look at the newly passed Utah immigration bill, and how it compares to SB 1070.  Although Utah passed an enforcement measure similar to Arizona’s, which allows police to question the immigration status of anyone who commits a felony or serious misdemeanor, it was passed with a companion bill outlining a guest  worker program which some opponents equate to amnesty.   The guest worker program would let illegal immigrants apply for a permit to work in the state.

The New York Times published a comprehensive reflection on SB 1070, its implications and the scrutiny it has faced since coming into law.  It looks at a federal court’s decision to strike down some of the more controversial language in the law, specifically the provisions which require law enforcement officers to ascertain immigrants’ citizenship in the course of enforcing other laws, and one that mandates that immigrants have their papers on hand at all times.  The article looks at SB 1070 in light of the new immigration proposals being pushed by Republicans regarding public benefits and citizenship, and the legal challenges and constitutional questions that will likely be raised.

 

Local journalists in Utah take a look at the immigration debate unfolding there.

 

 

More and more anti-immigrant laws passed

Arizona has gone ahead and approved SB 1308, creating a two-tier system of birth certificates based on the parent’s legal status.  If one of the two parents’ legal status is in question, the child may be denied a normal birth certificate  ensuring full citizenship, and instead be handed a certificate which could be used to deny that child access to public benefits within the U.S. such as healthcare and education.

The man behind SB 1308 is Sen. Russell Pearce, the architect of SB 1070 and a staunch supporter of HB 2281, which took aim at banning ‘Raza’ Ethnic Studies.  The aim this time is to force a reexamining of the 14th amendment of the constitution, which grants anyone citizenship if they are born in the country.  Though Pearce declares himself a constitutionalist, seen through his rigorous adherence to the right to bear arms (even supportive of a measure that would allow guns onto school campuses), apparently, this is one part of the constitution he doesn’t hold in high regard.

On the heels of SB 1308 comes SB 1611, a law seen by some as a spiritual successor to SB 1070.  Again, Pearce is the driving force behind this piece of legislation, which will set up a number of precedents, including denying the children of immigrants entry into any kind of public education institution, including the K-12 system, community colleges, and universities.  The children of illegal immigrants will be denied citizenship, as Pearce believes the 14th amendment to be outdated and abusable.  Nurses will be required to check the immigrant status of patients who come in for any kind of care, and to deny health care to immigrants.  State social workers will be required to report immigrant women seeking shelter from domestic violence.  The reasoning behind this weighty piece of law:

“Arizonans fork out nearly $1.3 billion annually to pay for all of the costs incurred from illegal immigration: around $810 million for education, $400 million for health care-related expenses, $80 million in incarceration costs, and the remainder in welfare benefits. All of this is required while Arizona runs a $500 million deficit annually. According to the Federation for American Immigrant Reform (FAIR), Arizonans shelled out over $312 million annually to educate illegal alien students, and a whopping $437 million annually to educate the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants in 2004, as illegal immigrants and their children constitute over 10 percent of the student body in the K-12 public school system,” said columnist Daniel Sayani

 

 

TUSD Mexican-American Studies Director Defends La Raza

I met with Sean Arce, director of Mexican-American/Raza studies for Tucson Unified School District.  Despite the horrendous sound of a generator in the background of the patio where we talked, which spoiled audio quality and my attempt at a video interview, Arce was a great resource and gave me a ton of information to work with.

Arce points to quantitative and qualitative data as evidence for the success of the Mexican-American Raza studies program, which is implemented K-12 in the district.  The data includes college matriculation rates, drop-out rates, and grades, all of which point to a national achievement gap for Mexican-American students.  Mexican-American students are quickly becoming the majority in urban centers like L.A., New York and Houston, and Arce believes this demographics shift necessitates a cultural and social awareness that is largely overlooked.  The result is that Mexican-American students are marginalized by educational institutions, said Arce.  However, the La Raza program, somewhat modeled after the U of A’s own Latino Studies department, yields students that score more highly on AIMS, graduate in larger numbers, and are more enthused about their education.

In qualitative terms, Arce also talks about surveys and parent-teacher engagement.  He says that Raza classes provide a safe space for Mexican-Americans to learn and to feel accepted, but emphasizes that the classes in no way promote any kind of racial superiority.

ACLU and Anchor Babies

I got a chance to talk to Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona today, asking her about her view of the direction of Arizona legislation and the current political atmosphere in Arizona, which she called “dangerously divisive” and “shaped by xenophobia and discrimination”.

Of the new proposed legislation that would take citizenship away from the children illegal immigrants, she said

“It would be essentially creating a two tier system of birth certificates. It’s a poor piece of legislation because it doesn’t elaborate on consequences, or what the different levels would mean. Will the person be able to vote? Will they be able to get passport? Would they get benefits? All of that is really unclear.”

She pointed to similar transgressions of the 14th amendment in the past, directed at Chinese and Japanese-Americans. She believes the legislation is unlikely to pass, as it has been struck down before.

An interesting point about the ACLU and its fight against SB 1070: Documents show ACLU worked with Justice Department

The rhetoric of unity

A visual representation of the language in SB 1070

Whatever your opinion of Obama’s State of the Union, there was one inescapable message underscoring the rhetoric, petitioning to a common fear, the fear that the United States will lose its edge to rapidly developing superpowers unless it can gain an edge in education, infrastructure and energy.  Although unity is more than often just one of those obligatory keywords in the lexicon of political rhetoric, (because who is against unity, really), sitting squarely in the pantheon of incontrovertible American values next to freedom and democracy and the lesser gods of innovation and family values, this time there was a noticeable urgency lacing the rhetoric.  This time, the stakes have been raised.

Of India and China, Obama said “They’re investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became home to the world’s largest private solar research facility, and the world’s fastest computer”.

Later in the speech, he again paints a picture of America’s global competitors closing in on a superiority that has gone unchallenged for a long time.  So long, perhaps, that a false sense of security and comfort will have to be cast off if America wishes to secure its place in the globalized economy.  There is a sense that some things simply cannot be taken for granted anymore.

“South Korean homes now have greater Internet access than we do. Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in their roads and railways than we do. China is building faster trains and newer airports.”

Since when did the United States become that student in the class, insecure, looking over its shoulder at the great things other kids are working on, secretly comparing its homework to others and feeling behind?

Which leads me to the essential dichotomy of American politics and the two-party system, with both sides destined by design to disagree on nearly everything.  Though I am proud of being an Arizonan, I won’t deny that the way Arizona has become a case study for extreme political divisiveness, portrayed as a caricature of a gun-toting, prejudiced Southwest, has on occasion caused me unease and a tinge of embarrassment.

In a column written for the Washington Post, U.S. Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) said that “the Arizona immigration law reminds us of how fear and distrust can lead to bad laws and even more government overreach into the private sector and our private lives”.

Linda Greenhouse, a columnist for the New York Times, professed “I’m  not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state, which is what the appalling anti-immigrant bill that Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law has turned it into”.

The flattering language goes on and on, in every corner of the nation.  Perceptions are hard to change, and as long as Arizona continues to host scenes like this:

They won’t.  The nation cannot afford to see the effects of divisiveness seen in Arizona spread and worsen, compounded by anger, indignation and ideological inflexibility.  I guess my point is that it may be important to remember that unity was an idea before it was a word, and though politics may have ground the word down, the same way a word spoken aloud over and over tends to lose its meaning, it should still be something worth believing.

Purpose of this blog

This blog will be my contribution to the collaborative work being done at Border Beat by journalism students at the University of Arizona.  Border beat covers a range of topics relevant to life, culture and issues in Southern Arizona.  The focus of this blog will be the legal, legislative and policy issues that shape the lives of those on the border, whether they are residents on either side or simply passing through.