Ad

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napalitano did a bad thing

By admin | June 29, 2010

Written by VASS

Did you know that Janet Napalitano, currently Secretary of Homeland Security and former Arizona Governor, passed an anti-immigration law? No not the current law that has drawn out immigration activists like flies to dung. In 2007.

It was the Legal Arizona Workers Act. You probably didn’t hear about it because the anti-immigration activists didn’t make an uproar about it. The Legal Arizona Workers Act targets employers found to have hired illegals, and could empower the state government to revoke the business licenses of violators. 10 days for the first offense, permanently for a second.

In fact it states

F. ON A FINDING OF A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A:
1. FOR A FIRST VIOLATION DURING A THREE YEAR PERIOD THAT IS A KNOWING
VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A, THE COURT:
(a) SHALL ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO TERMINATE THE EMPLOYMENT OF ALL
UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS.
(b) SHALL ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO BE SUBJECT TO A THREE YEAR
PROBATIONARY PERIOD. DURING THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD THE EMPLOYER SHALL FILE
QUARTERLY REPORTS WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY OF EACH NEW EMPLOYEE WHO IS HIRED
BY THE EMPLOYER AT THE SPECIFIC LOCATION WHERE THE UNAUTHORIZED ALIEN
PERFORMED WORK.
(c) SHALL ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO FILE A SIGNED SWORN AFFIDAVIT WITH THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE ORDER IS ISSUED…
(d) MAY ORDER THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES TO SUSPEND ALL LICENSES
DESCRIBED IN SUBDIVISION (c) OF THIS PARAGRAPH THAT ARE HELD BY THE EMPLOYER
FOR NOT TO EXCEED TEN BUSINESS DAYS…

In effect, the law signed by former Governor and current Secretary of Homland Security, Janet Napalitano is more restrictive and likely to create racial profiling, in the workplace, than that of the Arizonal Immigration Law signed by Governor Jan Brewer. A fact proven as the lawsuit, which will be going in front of the Supreme Court, names Napalitano among other State officials.

Given that the law is so restrictive, and anti-immigration in orientation, the question begs to be asked why she signed the Bill. Even moreso since a far less restrictive and actively prohibative of racial profiling law by Brewer was attacked by Napalitano - who did not read the law even 2 weeks after it was passed. How hypocritical for Napalitano to denounce a law less restrictive than a law she herself signed for the same State, 3 years later.

Perhaps it’s karma. Maybe it’s the absurdity of partisan politics. But it is definitely notable to know that Secretary Napalitano is as 2-faced as any other politician, especially in the Obama Administration and it’s campaign promise of transparency.

It is also odd that for all the screaming and boycotts and anger from pro-illegal alien (criminal) activists, not a moment of the media’s airtime went to denounce this previous law, that has been in the Court system for 3 years. Could it be that if they mentioned the Legal Arizona Workers Act, it would mean they would have to denounce President Obama’s choice of Secretary and be at odds with the Obama Administration?

In fact, since nothing has been said, to this moment, by the pro-illegal alien activists it can be concluded that all the hype they have manufactured is just political trash meant only to promote their ideals and distract Conservatives and the nation from the Obama Administration? If so, what then is the quid pro quo for leaving Napalitano alone? And what is it that the nation is being distracted from?

Oh by the way, as a moment of transparency not coming from the White House, Napalitano supported the law as Governor and in part since becoming Secretary. The White House is avoiding comment on the Napalitano law - though it is an anti-immigration law that the White House objects to on principle (which means they don’t have to read the law it seems).

Of course the Justice Department investigation includes advice from, you guessed it, Homeland Security and Janet Napalitano directly. She has not recused herself even though she signed the law and has publicly defended it. How transparent is that?

Rating 3.00 out of 5
[?]

Comments