On Leadership
Video | PostLeadership | FedCoach | | Books | About |
Exploring Leadership in the News with Steven Pearlstein and Raju Narisetti

Coro Fellows
Young Leaders

Coro Fellows

As part of the Coro Fellows Program in Public Affairs, these 12 Southern California fellows are engaged in a full-time, nine-month, graduate-level leadership training program that prepares individuals for public-affairs leadership.

Arizona's 'Hiccup,' the dragon-trainer

Q: When Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a new immigration law making illegal residence a state offense in addition to a federal offense, she cited a lack of federal leadership on the issue. If you perceive upper-level leaders to be ineffective, when is it right to take bold action?

Hiccup, the wimpy-turned-heroic protagonist of How to Train Your Dragon witnessed his father, Stoik the Vast, fail to conquer the dragons that wreaked havoc on their harvest. Hiccup then unknowingly countered his father's approach by creating his own: getting to know the dragons. Hiccup's boldness stemmed from his uncertainty and in the climax, realized that his father's ineffectiveness had to be acted upon, Hiccup began to do the unthinkable. This bold move led the Vikings and the dragons into a new era together.

In the past year, immigration reform fell by the wayside as policy discussions have become inundated with health care talks. President Obama spent the first quarter of his presidency tackling health care reform while immigration faded away. The Stoik in the federal government influenced the Hiccup in Governor Jan Brewer to take action. As of late, upper-level leaders had allowed immigration reform to become nothing more than a bullet on a list of "things to do if I am elected." Gov. Jan Brewer is taking action, however much I may disagree with it, towards reforming immigration in the U.S.

When Stoik failed, Hiccup took it in himself to move forward. Stoik's many failures had created the circumstance that allowed Hiccup to take action. The same can be said about how the federal government's failure to reform immigration created the opportunity for Arizona to implement this new immigration law. Therefore, it is right to take bold action when, one, everyone else has failed and, two, when it will revive something that appears dead. Hiccup's approach to the dragons caught everyone's attention just as Arizona's new law catapults immigration back into popular discussions. I don't agree with Arizona's law but maybe now more people will talk about immigration with the same seriousness they did health care. --Clayton Rosa

By Coro Fellows

 |  April 29, 2010; 8:03 AM ET
Category:  Congressional leadership Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: When values are a liability | Next: Bucking the ride

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



Is there any question as to whether Gov. Brewer's action was constitutional? If not, then fight an election over it. If yes, fight it in the courts.

Her actions have brought attention to the immigration debate. For the southern border states it is a local issue, for the rest of the country it is someone else's problem. That's why nothing ever gets done.

Posted by: MHawke | April 30, 2010 3:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Even though some of the provisions of the Arizona law may be subject to question for general reasons, the fact remains that nowhere does the the text of the Constitution delegate the power to control immigration to Congress, The Executive or the Court.

Any argument that it does is a violation of the freedom of Constitutional truth and the reservations of power to the people and states pursuant to the ninth and tenth amendments.

Any notion that the power is inherent in a sovereign is seditious in that such a notion if valid, would deny the efficacy of the Constitution as the articulation of our rule of law by subjecting the American People to any academic "interpretation" of sovereign powers that might come to any politician's mind.[as it were]

Posted by: samscram | April 30, 2010 5:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

There is not anything racial or unconstitutional about this law at all - anybody that says it is apparently needs to read the Constitution. This is a matter of National Security no racial issue about it except for the racists that are crying about it in order to protect criminals. Illegal is ILLEGAL. Try to go into Mexico illegally, see what happens.

This law simply mirrors existing Federal Law so that the state of Arizona can help where the feds have failed. Illinois requires valid legal ID if you're pulled over or detained by a cop for any reason, and we're not even on a border.

Illegal aliens come in all shapes and colors, not just Mexican - So who is doing the profiling now? You're all saying that illegal aliens come in Mexican form only... The law specifically contains wording to prevent profiling - read the law.

Posted by: Ralyn | April 29, 2010 8:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Got God Gang

feminism is over

gov brewer you're the 'man'

classic example of what a real politician
should be....putting personal gain aside to represent the people

suggestion; once the influx of the immigrates
takin' advantage of the benevolence
of the arizona citizen is stopped

then reform all they need

more later....

Posted by: wjkx999 | April 29, 2010 8:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Got God Gang

now all the other politicians follow gov brewer's lead

more later....

Posted by: wjkx999 | April 29, 2010 8:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Who cares about illegal aliens? This law violates the constitutional rights of citizens.

What citizen wants to have some police officer ask him for his 'freedom papers' in front of his wife and children or his co-workers? If that citizen fails to produce documentation, he can be arrested. Imagine that. A police officer arresting you because you don't have two forms of identification in your pocket and you 'look like an illegal'.

Posted by: ProfessorWrightBSU | April 29, 2010 8:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sooo ... why didn't the governor start by arresting employers who hire illegal aliens?

Put a farmer in jail for 6 months for each illegal, fine the farmer $10,000 for each illegal and illegal immigration will stop. Put a couple of mom's in jail for hiring illegals to clean house or work as a nanny and illegals will leave AZ.

Of course that would be too easy.

Posted by: knjincvc | April 29, 2010 5:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sooo ... why didn't the governor start by arresting employers who hire illegal aliens?

Put a farmer in jail for 6 months for each illegal, fine the farmer $10,000 for each illegal and illegal immigration will stop. Put a couple of mom's in jail for hiring illegals to clean house or work as a nanny and illegals will leave AZ.

Of course that would be too easy.

Posted by: knjincvc | April 29, 2010 5:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Blaming the Feds is an excuse--leaders don't make excuses. "The Law" exposed what white supremacists do when they control government--their solutions are predictable; they have been throughout history.

Posted by: dozas | April 29, 2010 1:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I have to disagree with Outragex in the reasoning set forth. While correct that congress has dilly-dallied on any meaningful immigration reform (for largely political posturing), this country has sovereign rights to the sanctity of its borders; if you come over illegally, you violate that right and commit a crime, regardless of your intentions. That the citizens of this country should now be concerned about trampling on what are essentially the rights of criminals by enacting legislation to enforce the laws of this country is plain absurd. Outragex could not be more correct in his or her assertion that "People will always look for ways to justify wrongful action by conflating issues." The problem is that this reasoning is attributed to the wrong side of the coin.

Posted by: sassafrasnewport | April 29, 2010 1:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I don't get Mr. Rosa's logic exactly (ditto for the David Broder column in todays WAPO). It seems as if he is saying that because Congress has dilly-dallied about immigration then the state of Arizona is partially justified in infringing on the civil and religious rights of its citizens, or the human rights of its immigrants. This is like saying that Jim Crow laws were an acceptable way to handle race relations in the 1950s becuuse Congress had not yet passed comprehensive civil rights legislation. People wall always look for ways to justify wrongful action by conflating issues.

I am not buying it. Two wrongs do not make a right, as my mom used to say.

Posted by: outragex | April 29, 2010 12:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company