Popular Arizona Governor Napolitano has broad immigration experience. (Lauren Victoria Burke/AP/FILE)
Arizona Governor Napolitano tapped as new Homeland Security chief
The vocal immigration reformer brings border-state experience to the post.
By Ben Arnoldy | Staff writer/ November 20, 2008 edition
Oakland, Calif.
The popular two-term governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, has been tapped by President-elect Barack Obama to head the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Her responsibilities would include such high-profile and hot-topic issues as immigration enforcement, federal disaster response, and airport security.
As a border-state governor, Ms. Napolitano brings experience to the role of immigration enforcement. She vetoed several tough illegal immigration bills put forward by state Republicans. She also supported the comprehensive reform efforts in Washington that were ultimately shot down last year by opponents of illegal immigration.
Napolitano has been skeptical that building a fence along the border will solve the immigration problem. She once said, “You build a 50-foot wall, somebody will find a 51-foot ladder.”
However, she also was the first governor to call in the National Guard to beef up border patrols. And her state passed a law last year that requires all Arizona businesses to use the federal online database, E-Verify, to confirm that new hires have valid Social Security numbers and are eligible for employment. This has been a cornerstone of the Bush administration’s immigration policy.
“She’s close and personal with a lot of border and immigration issues.… That’s probably the single greatest thing she brings to the mix,” says James Carafano, an expert on homeland security at the Heritage Foundation. “Arizona has done a lot of pioneering stuff [on immigration]: They have mandatory E-Verify across the state, they’ve tried to crack down with workplace enforcement.”
Napolitano’s approach on immigration is fundamentally pragmatic, says Fred DuVal, founding chairman of the think tank Western Progress and a friend of the governor. Her thinking is, “Drop the ideology and let’s talk about what we need to both make the border secure and the relationship with Mexico functional,” Mr. DuVal says. He adds that Napolitano has a close relationship with her counterpart on the other side of the border in the Mexican state of Sonora.
“She is extremely smart, very prepared, and she absorbs policy material aggressively. She’s in command of the subject and the room by the strength of her knowledge and personality. But she does it with a pleasure in governing that’s quite infectious,” DuVal says.
As governor she has also overseen wildfire and flooding disaster relief efforts and worked with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is now part of the Homeland Security Department.
Congress and a reluctant Bush administration created the department in response to the failures of federal agencies to coordinate effectively in the run-up to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
From the beginning, critics decried the DHS as an added layer of bureaucracy trying to hold together vastly different agencies including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and FEMA. It also came under fire for not prioritizing domestic-security spending based on objective threat assessments and, instead, engaging in pork-barrel politics.
“The Democrats have always been champions of Homeland Security, so in the spirit of Nixon going to China you might see them be able to cut more from Homeland Security than the Republicans could, and reform the department,” says Ivan Eland, a DHS critic and director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the The Independent Institute in Washington.
But Carafano cautions against changing the structure of DHS. “The bottom line is that the most disastrous thing you could do would be to reorganize the department and start revisioning roles and departments,” he says. “Every time you do one of these churns, the disruptions you cause create all this friction.”
A lawyer by training, Napolitano started in politics as a volunteer adviser to Anita Hill during the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. President Clinton appointed Napolitano as US Attorney for Arizona. She went on to become the state’s attorney general before winning election in 2002 as the state’s first Democratic governor in 12 years.
She has since maintained a high level of popularity, with a Mason-Dixon opinion poll conducted in August showing 66 percent of Arizonans approving of her job as governor.
Napolitano has generally recruited good people, run a tight ship, and been well organized and focused, says David R. Berman, a professor emeritus of political science at Arizona State University.
If she left for Washington, a couple of Arizona Republicans would be helped in the near term. The Secretary of State Jan Brewer would assume the governorship for the two years remaining on her term. It would also remove her ability to run against Sen. John McCain, who announced recently his intentions to run again for Senate in 2010 after losing his bid for president.
Several news organizations reported Thursday that Chicago businesswoman Penny Pritzker, who was Mr. Obama’s national campaign finance chairman, is his leading choice to become secretary of commerce. But an Obama adviser disputed the reports.
Several people mentioned as possibilities for appointments in the Obama administration have long careers as Washington insiders, notwithstanding Obama’s clarion call in his campaign for change in the nation’s capital.
Material from the Associated Press was used in this report.
Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.



1. Monica Brown | 02.03.09
Case Number: MTL2008514003 Beneficiary’s Name: WAGNER, PETER
Preference Category: K1 Your Priority Date: 30 Jul 2007
Foreign State Chargeability: CANADA U.S. Embassy/Consulate: CONSULATE GENERAL U.S.
Peter Wagner Canadian Monica Brown American
72 Hickman St. 3687 Parkridge Circle
Amherst, Nova Scotia Canada Sarasota, Fl. 34243
B443Mb 1-941-323-9773
1-902-981-6775 Email: monicabrown7@aim.com
Peter has approval for: I-129F (Petition for Fiancée) #EAC-07-235-535 Jan. 10, 2008 at Vermont processing center. K-1 Visa, Case # MLT2008514003 01 May 27, 2008 at Montreal, Canada said OK except Peter needs a I-212 approval. FILE NO. A098 302 684 –July 16, 2007 at the Port of Entry in Calais Ma., Peter was not allowed into the US from Canada because he was charged with a I-212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) for not having a fiancée visa
Case # MLT2008514003 meeting May 27, 2008 at Montreal, Canada. K1 Visa
Need the I-212 approved to get the K-1 visa In Montreal, during his K-1 visa meeting, the Consulate changed the charge to an I- 212(a)(9)(A)(I) which is an overstay.
Montreal mishandled Peter’s I-212 CASE and this affects me, I am waiting for him!
Cornelius Cremin | IV Unit | U.S. Consulate General handled this case May 27,08. Peter’s and my paperwork was mailed to Montreal in which was: Peter’s passport, a money order for payment of the I-212 the I-212, and my paperwork) which was RECEIVED BY MONTREAL JUNE, 19,08. Montreal sent me emails and said they mailed to VERMONT Peter’s I-212 Nov. 11, 08 and Nov. 20, 08 two different dates. Mishandled They did not know the correct date. This is 5 months from the date we turned everything in. Mishandled. We have no confirmation from Vermont or a case number to confirm that they have Peter’s I-212. Someone cashed the money order December 19, 08.
Montreal sent our personal paperwork to another applicant, enough to steal both of our identities. Mishandled. And gave the former Vice President Cheney wrong information about what Peter needed to do with his I-212 which led us on a wild goose chase. Mishandled. At the May 27 visit in Montreal, Cornelius Cremin told Peter he needed he might need another physical. This physical would cause more delays and thousands of dollars because the doctors are in Montreal and Peter is far away from that. Cremin wasn’t kidding, because he must have known Peter’s paperwork would be unjustly held back! On the paperwork that Peter received from him it said that USCIS will determine if his I-212 is approved. It did not say Montreal could back his paperwork for as long as they want causing problems. MONTREAL IS DELIBERATELY DELAYING OUR PAPER WORK AND MISHANDLING OUR CASE. AND I know other people who had paperwork processed to Vermont, had their paperwork mailed to Vermont in two weeks from their Montreal visit.
I AM A GOOD AMERICAN, A TEACHER OF 30 YEARS, AND DO NOT DESERVE THIS UNFAIR TREATMENT. I HAVE SPENT A LIFETIME HELPING OTHERS, doing teacher training workshops, mentoring educators, and more. I never thought workers who represented the U.S. would be allowed to do this. THIS IS A CONSPIRACY AGAINST PETER AND ME.
I have had 3 operations. Getting operation another March 27, 09. FIND OUR PAPERWORK AND PROCESS IT, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROCESSED BY DECEMBER OF 08. Don’t let Montreal be unfair and they treat people differently-prejudiced, discriminatory… I have been depressed and getting thoughts of suicide. I am 65 and Peter is 67. He is no homeland security threat. Please help us. All the weight of this case is on my shoulders as I am the one writing all the time so that Peter and I can be together. It is more weight than I can take anymore. I have names of people who write about immigration in the newspapers, but this really is not my style. I am not a reporter nor do I want to send bad information but I am desperate to have Peter here and will have to resort to other methods to get him here and our case has been mishandled.