iOS app Android app More

Luis Gutierrez Addresses Mitt Romney's Characterization Of Arizona's Anti-Immigrant Law As A 'Model' For The Country (VIDEO)

First Posted: 02/29/2012 11:39 am Updated: 02/29/2012 5:07 pm

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) is on a roll.

A few weeks after strongly -- and comically -- rebuffing Newt Gingrich's 'Food Stamp President' claim about President Obama, as well as Gingrich's claim that the former Speaker of the House speaks 'for all Catholics' on birth control, the Illinois representative took on the GOP and Mitt Romney's characterization of Arizona's onerous anti-immigration policies as a 'model' the U.S. should follow.

Gutierrez begins his speech by recounting the well known demographics of Latinos, the largest and fastest-growing minority in the country:

  • Important voting blocks in swing states like Arizona (30% of the population is Hispanic); Colorado, Nevada and Florida (25% of the population is Hispanic in each of these states)

  • 1 in 4 of all children in America are Latino

  • 500,000 Hispanics turn 18, and eligible to vote, every year

  • 90% of the 50 million Latinos in the U.S. are citizens

"That's a lot of people to keep track of," says Guiterrez in the video, "especially if you want to offend each and every one of them."

Pulling out a large photo of Mitt Romney, Gutierrez then comments on how the GOP front runner recently said that Arizona's controversial immigration law, SB1070, was a, "model for America."

And with this, the Congressman is off to the races, counting exactly how Arizona's law is a terrible model for the rest of the country:

  • "One, if you're a politician, Arizona's law is a model for how to achieve early retirement."
  • "Two, if you want to wreck your local economy, Arizona's law is a model for lost jobs and tax revenue."
  • "Three, Arizona's law is a model for how to energize Latino voters."
  • "Four -- and I'll stop at four because my time in limited -- Arizona's law is a model on how to make decent people suffer."

Folks, it really doesn't get much better than this when it comes to political theater.


THE HARSHEST ANTI-IMMIGRATION LAWS IN THE U.S.:
Loading Slideshow...
  • The Template: California Proposition 187 (1994)

    California's Proposition 187 was submitted to the voters with the full support of then Republican governor Pete Wilson. It essentially blamed undocumented immigrants for the poor performance of the state economy in the early 1990s. The law called for cutting off benefits to undocumented immigrants: prohibiting their access to health care, public education, and other social services in California. It also required state authorities to report anyone who they suspected was undocumented. <strong>Status:</strong> The law passed with the support of 55 percent of the voters in 1994 but declared unconstitutional 1997. The law was killed in 1999 when a new governor, Democrat Gray Davis, refused to appeal a judicial decision that struck down most of the law. Even though short-lived, the legislation paved the way for harsher immigration laws to come. On the other hand, the strong reaction from the Hispanic community and immigration advocates propelled a drive for naturalization of legal residents and created as many as one million new voters.

  • The Worst: Arizona SB 1070

    The Arizona Act made it a misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to be within the state lines of Arizona without legal documents allowing their presence in the U.S. The law was widely criticized as xenophobic and for encouraging racial profiling. It required state authorities to inquire about an individual's immigration status during an arrest when there was "reasonable suspicion" that the individual was undocumented. The law would allow police to detain anyone who they believed was in the country illegally. <strong>Status:</strong> The law was signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010, immediately generating a swirl of controversy and questions about its constitutionality. In July 2010 and February 2012, federal judges blocked different provisions of SB 1070, setting the stage for the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/sb1070-ruling-supreme-court_n_1614119.html" target="_hplink">the Supreme Court decision of June 25, 2012</a> which struck down multiple provisions but upheld the controversial "papers please" provision, a centerpiece of the law which critics say will lead to racial profiling

  • Following Arizona's Footsteps: Georgia HB 87

    The controversy over Arizona's immigration law was followed by heated debate over Georgia's own law. HB 87 required government agencies and private companies to check the immigration status of applicants. This law also limited some government benefits to people who could prove their legal status. <strong>Status:</strong> Although a federal judge temporarily blocked parts of the law considered too extreme, it went into effect on July 1st. 2011. House: 113-56 Senate: 39-17

  • Verifying Authorized Workers: Pennsylvania HB 1502

    This bill, which was approved in 2010, bans contractors and subcontractors employ undocumented workers from having state construction contracts. The bill also protects employees who report construction sites that hire illegal workers. To ensure that contractors hire legal workers, the law requires employers to use the identification verification system E-verify, based on a compilation of legally issued Social Security numbers. <strong>Status:</strong> Approved on June 8th 2010. House: 188-6 (07/08/2010) <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/" target="_hplink">Flickr photo by DonkeyHotey</a>

  • A Spin Off of Arizona: Utah HB 497

    Many states tried to emulate Arizona's SB 1070 law. However, most state legislatures voted against the proposals. Utah's legislature managed to approve an immigration law based on a different argument. Taking into consideration the criticism of racial profiling in Arizona, Utah required ID cards for "guest workers" and their families. In order to get such a card workers must pay a fee and have clean records. The fees go up to $2,500 for immigrants who entered the country illegally and $1,000 for immigrants who entered the country legally but were not complying with federal immigration law, <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/06/nation/la-na-illegal-immigration-20110306" target="_hplink">according to the LA Times.</a> <strong>Status: </strong> Law went into effect on 03/15/2011 House: 59-15 (03/04/2011) Senate: 22-5 (03/04/2011)

  • The Most Comprehensive: Florida HB-1C

    Florida's immigration law prohibits any restrictions on the enforcement of federal immigration law. It makes it unlawful for undocumented immigrants within the state to apply for work or work as an independent contractor. It forbids employers from hiring immigrants if they are aware of their illegal status and requires work applicants to go through the E-verify system in order to check their Social Security number. <strong>Status: </strong>effective since October 1st, 2010

  • The Hot Seat: Alabama HB 56

    The new immigration law in Alabama is considered the toughest in the land, even harder than Arizona's SB 1070. It prohibits law enforcement officers from releasing an arrested person before his or her immigration status is determined. It does not allow undocumented immigrants to receive any state benefit, and prohibits them from enrolling in public colleges, applying for work or soliciting work in a public space. The law also prohibits landlords from renting property to undocumented immigrants, and employers from hiring them. It requires residents to prove they are citizens before they become eligible to vote. The law asked every school in the state to submit an annual report with the number of presumed undocumented students, but this part, along with others, were suspended by federal courts. <strong>Status:</strong> Approved June 2nd, 2011 House: 73-28 (04/05/2011) Senate: 23-11 (05/05/2011) <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/longislandwins/" target="_hplink">Flickr photo by longislandwins</a>


WATCH RELATED:
FOLLOW HUFFPOST LATINO VOICES

Filed by Miguel Ferrer  |