Jim DeMint and the Heritage Foundation try to kill immigration reform

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Tea Party darlin', former Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), now pulling down big bucks for his conservative demagoguery at the Heritage Foundation, has an op-ed in the Washington Post (where else) this afternoon, What amnesty for illegal immigrants will cost America (note the code language to the nativist base) claiming that:

An exhaustive study by the Heritage Foundation
has found that after amnesty, current unlawful immigrants would receive
$9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay more than $3
trillion in taxes over their lifetimes. That leaves a net fiscal deficit
(benefits minus taxes) of $6.3 trillion. That deficit would have to be financed by increasing the government debt or raising taxes on U.S. citizens.

* * *

Given the U.S. debt of $17 trillion, the fiscal effects detailed in our
study should be at the forefront of legislators’ minds as they consider
immigration reform.

Ummm, sorry, but no. By now any rational intelligent human being should know that one does not give any credence to anything produced by the Heritage Foundation. Ever. Especially now that a demagogue like Jim DeMint is at its helm.

Greg Sargent writes in The right’s last stand against immigration reform?:

The Heritage Foundation has just released its long awaited report
supposedly documenting that the path to citizenship in the Gang of
Eight immigration reform compromise will sock the taxpayer with a
multi-trillion-dollar bill. You cannot overstate how much opponents of
reform have staked on the hope that this report will be the magic bullet
to kill the proposal. This is the report that’s supposed to send House
conservatives running away, never to return.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects appeal of Alabama anti-immigrant law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The ALEC model legislation for the anti-immigrant crusade of Kris Kobach, legal counsel with the Immigration Law Reform Institute, the legal arm of the anti-immigrant Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), and the author of Arizona's SB 1070, is losing in court. Federal courts have made it clear that federal law preempts the field in immigration law. Only federal gov't, not states, can enforce immigration laws, Supreme Court says:

The Supreme Court made it clear Monday that enforcing immigration laws is reserved for the federal government, not the states.

By
an 8-1 vote, the justices rejected a request from Alabama to revive
part of a 2011 law designed to drive out illegal immigrants
. That year
saw a wave of new laws in Republican-controlled states where lawmakers
decried perceived federal inaction. Alabama's was deemed the toughest.

State officials said if federal authorities were not going to arrest illegal immigrants, their police would take on the task.

But
the Obama administration went to court to challenge these laws, arguing
that federal immigration policy trumped state efforts. The
administration said it was targeting criminals, gang members and
smugglers, not the millions of otherwise law-abiding but undocumented
immigrants who live and work in this country.

The administration
won a major victory last year when the Supreme Court struck down most of
Arizona's immigration enforcement law, known as SB 1070.
In a 6-3
decision, the justices agreed that Washington, not the states, gets to
decide how to enforce the immigration laws. The opinion rejected the
idea that states could make immigration violations a crime under state
law.

Border policy myths, realities and faulty assumptions

By Karl Reiner

Gov. Brewer recently asserted that Arizona's controversial SB 1070 served as the catalyst for the creation of the immigration legislation now in Congress.  Although much of SB 1070 was set aside by the Gov Brewer 1courts, the governor believes the law, costly legal fights and publicity helped start the momentum that led to the current bipartisan immigration proposal.

The governor has a point because the SB 1070 effort was not a low cost affair.  The publicity it generated saddled Arizona with a mostly negative reputation.  In far away Washington, Congress would have been aware of the SB 1070 tempest.  It could have encouraged senators to consider moving on immigration legislation.  

Sen. Jeff Flake now owns the dubious title of most disliked senator

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

In just three short months in the U.S. Senate, our boy Jeff Flake has managed to dethrone the Septegenarian Ninja Turtle, Mitch McConnell, as the most disliked senator among Americans. Getting caught lying to a grieving mother who lost her son to gun violence will do that. The Atlantic Wire reports, How Jeff Flake Became the Most Unpopular Senator in America:

Public Policy Polling, in their latest survey on the fallout of the recent vote on gun legislation, explains just how much people don't like Mr. Flake:

FlakeJust 32% of voters
approve of him to 51% who disapprove and that -19 net approval rating
makes him the most unpopular sitting Senator we've polled on, taking
that label from Mitch McConnell.

Since December, it was hard to imagine anyone unseating McConnell because, according to PPP and
despite the Kentucky Senator's internal numbers, the Senate Minority
Leader was always' the old curmudgeon who represented the laughable state of America's hatred toward Congress.

* * *

So what happened to the junior Senator from Arizona? According to
PPP's polling, conducted April 25-26 in the aftermath of the gun vote
that killed legislation on background checks, it's blowback — Democrats
and independent voters have really flaked on Flake:

FlakePoll

Down with Drones: Protest at Ft. Huachuca Today

by Pamela Powers Hannley Southern Arizona peace activists have organized a anti-drone protest outside of Fort Huachuca today, Monday, April 29. Drones are a big deal in Southern Arizona. Ft. Huachuca, Davis-Monthan, Raytheon, the University of Arizona, and Cochise College– all have a piece of the military industrial complex's drone pie, and if our esteemed … Read more