Immigration

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This woman is an affront to all that is good and decent in Arizona. Our delusional governor, who is in denial of the fact that a conservative U.S. Supreme Court just handed her a smack-down defeat on SB 1070, is now venting her rage by demagoguing on anti-immigrant hatred and hysteria, just as she did during her 2010 gubernatorial campaign.

E.J. Montini of the Arizona Republic reports Brewer says Obama wants “illegals” to vote:

Gov. Jan Brewer went on the radio after the SB 1070 ruling and told KFYI host Mike Broomhead that President Obama’s immigration policies are designed to improve his reelection chances by getting him the votes of illegal immigrants.

Not Latino citizens.

The governor of Arizona says that the president of the United States is encouraging people to cross the border and vote for him.

I’m not making this up. (Here is a link to the radio interview. The accusation comes during an answer beginning at about the 4-minute 30-second mark.)

When asked about her administration’s relationship with the Obama administration Brewer said in part:

“We have done everything we could think of to work cooperatively with them and they turn a blind eye to us. They’re not interested. They want chaos. They want a larger voting base as far as I’m concerned and they want the illegal immigration to continue. Not to even mention the fact that they have addressed the issue that you can register with the federal registration form that doesn’t even need documentation that you’re a citizen… Now they’ll have all the illegals and they can all do whatever they want and register to vote. Although it’s illegal if you’re not a citizen to register. But they’re not enforcing the law so what is going to happen to them? He’s looking for votes.”

Sounds to me like the governor is accusing the president of a crime. A conspiracy to commit voter fraud or worse.

Is she?

I put the question to her office.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

One of Arizona's twin embarrasments in the U.S. Senate, "Not intended to be a factual statement" Jon Kyl, has really been making a supreme ass of himself since SCOTUS ruled on SB 1070.

Steve Benen has two reports on our embarrassing senator. What Jon Kyl considers a factual statement:

Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's anti-immigrant law, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R), who represents Arizona, issued a curious press release.

"I note that in his response to today's Supreme Court ruling, President Obama called on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. I also note that the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill I helped draft in 2007 was killed — in part — by then-Senator Obama."

Clearly, expectations for honesty are low when it comes to the politician who made "not intended to be a factual statement" famous, but even by Kyl's low standards, this is unnerving.

First, Obama, as a U.S. senator in 2007, didn't vote to kill comprehensive immigration reform; he voted for it. Kyl's version of reality is the opposite of the one the rest of us live in.

Second, though Kyl bragged yesterday about the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill he "helped draft" five years ago, if we actually look back at the Senate record, we see that the Arizona Republican voted to filibuster the bill. Jon Kyl is falsely accusing Obama of doing what Jon Kyl actually did.

Maybe yesterday's press release wasn't intended to be a factual statement, either?

by David Safier

A few posts ago, I took a shot at the front page of this morning's Star for misrepresenting the Supreme Court's SB1070 ruling and for emphasizing Brewer's point — The Feds are picking on us! — over a cogent description and analysis of the decision. Here's the earlier post with a pic of the relevant section of the Star front page.

Was all the Arizona front page coverage this bad? I went to Newseum, where you can get the front page from papers around the world, to find out. The answer is, the state's two major papers were far better, and the small town papers, well, they gave the Star a run for its money. [To the Star: being compared to small town papers in Arizona is not a compliment.]

Here's the Republic front page.

Without reading the copy, you get a sense of what went on. "Turmoil Remains" sums up the post-decision situation in Arizona well. The next headline is accurate as well: "WHO WON: BOTH SIDES HAVE CLAIM." The other two headlines are good follow-ups. The Republic put some creative thought into its front page, creating a grabber that should move papers on the street and is also an accurate reflection of the situation on the ground.

by David Safier The morning Star the day after the Supreme Court's SB1070 ruling should begin its coverage of the story with the SB 1070 ruling from the court. After that, cover the ramifications. But that's not how the Star handled it on the front page. Brewer's spin of the news was, SB1070 triumphed in … Read more