Immigration

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

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Willard "Mittens" Romney believes that he is entitled to be the next president. As his wife said, "it's his turn." So Mittens has this attitude that he should just be handed the job. "I don't have to answer any questions or tell you what I am going to do." You don't want to be that guy, Mittens — people really hate that guy.

Mittens is in Scottsdale, Arizona today for a fundraiser (probably attended by the universe of Koch brothers' affiliated entities and their evil minions in the state of Maricopa) — the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the majority of SB 1070 and left the "papers please" provision to another day after the Arizona Courts are done ruling on it.

After a day of being hounded by reporters, Mittens gave his typical non-responsive answer. He has a problem making a commitment. Romney Wishes Courts Gave States ‘More Latitude’ On Immigration:

Getting an opinion from Mitt Romney on immigration has been like pulling teeth after the Supreme Court’s decision on SB 1070 Monday, but the presumptive Republican nominee finally offered up some words on the ruling at a fundraiser in Arizona.

“Now you probably heard today there was a Supreme Court decision relating to immigration and, you know, given the failure of the immigration policy in this country, I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states not less. And there are states now under this decision have less authority, less latitude, to enforce immigration laws,” he said, according to NBC.

Did you even read the opinion, Mittens? The Court was pretty emphatic that immigration is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government and that express or implied federal preemption precludes the state from acting on immigration matters on its own. Only where there is cooperation between the state and federal government under an express provision of federal law — and the Court did not expressly find cooperation or hinderance by Arizona on this ground since that provision of SB 1070 has been on hold pending this opinion — does the state have a narrowly defined and limited role to play. "States Rights" Tenthers like Governor Jan Brewer and Mittens just had the foundation for their arguments blown away today by the Court.

Talking Points Memo earlier reported that Romney Spokesman Dodges 20 22 Questions On Romney’s Immigration Position:

Mitt Romney’s campaign has been extremely careful not to take a clear position on either Arizona’s SB 1070 law or the Supreme Court decision on Monday that ruled parts of it unconstituional. In an exchange with the traveling press, transcribed by Politico, Romney spokesman Rick Gorka was asked over 20 times by reporters to clarify the candidates position on either the law or the ruling.