« In budget, changes to approved charter schools bill | Main | Barney Bishop backtracks on call to replace board of Citizens Property Insurance »

JD Alexander explains immigration 'no' vote

Sen. JD Alexander ended up voting against SB 2040, the immigration crackdown bill that Senate President Mike Haridopolos dropped on his lap three weeks ago and cleared the Senate on Thursday.

"I should have probably voted for it," Alexander, R-Lake Wales, told reporters Friday morning. "The reality is, I just didn't like that whole set of issues….I probably shouldn't have left members hanging and voted with them. I think it's good policy that we put forward; I hope the House will take it."

The House, however, has been sitting on the tougher HB 7089, waiting to see the Senate's actions. And Rep. William Snyder, R-Stuart and the House bill sponsor, has said the effort is essentially dead with less than two days left in the legislative session.

"I don't know that I want to see their bill," Alexander said of the House. "Their bill would go further than I would be comfortable."

The powerful budget chief noted Thursday's vote is the one of the only times he's differed with Haridopolos.

"As I got into it more and more, I got more and more uncomfortable with it," Alexander said. "I didn't feel morally I could make that choice. It became not a political issue but a moral issue."

He ended up with the bill, he suggested, because as a citrus grower, "I probably know more about the reality of these issues than anybody else on the floor."

And Alexander praised Haridopolos for allowing senators to vote their will on immigration.

"I think that's leadership and not just pure politics," he said.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

George Fuller

Alexander's NO vote was financially inspired, not politically or morally.

He is the CEO of ALICO, huge grower of citrus, sugarcane cattle.

Here is the statement in ALICO's 2010 Annual statement about the effect of immigration laws on the corporation. Read it and see if you detect any thing moral in it.

"Changes in immigration laws or enforcement of such laws could impact the ability of Alico to harvest its crops.
Alico engages third parties to provide personnel for its harvesting operations. Alico communicates to such third parties its policy of employing only workers approved to work in the United States. However, Alico does not specifically monitor such compliance and the personnel engaged by such third parties could be from pools composed of immigrant labor. The availability and number of such workers is subject to decrease if there are changes in the U.S. immigration laws or by stricter enforcement of such laws. The scarcity of available personnel to harvest Alico’s agricultural products could cause Alico’s harvesting costs to increase or could lead to the loss of product that is not timely harvested which could have a materially adverse effect upon Alico."

The comments to this entry are closed.