Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
In this new series, "Questions for Martha McSally," we pose questions to
the McSally campaign about her positions on current hot topics — I am
not going to give her a free pass until after the GOP primary like our local media did in 2012.
Preface: The "Gang of Eight" in the U.S. Senate, which includes Arizona senators John McCain and Jeff Flake, crafted a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the U.S. Senate on a super-majority vote of 68-32, with 14 Republicans including Arizona's seantors voting in favor.
The "Gang of Eight" bill includes a "border surge" amendment from Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) that throws $30 billion in spending over a 10-year period at border security which would produce a financial windfall to some of America's
largest aerospace, technology and security companies, and to
border states. Sen. Corker conceded that his "border surge" is "almost overkill."
By way of comparison, as I posted previously in The price for GOP nativism and racism: $30+ billion wasted dollars. As Chris Hayes pointed out:
Now when you were evaluating — you right now watching this — the American
voter, the American citizen, the American taxpayer, you`re thinking: is
this a smart way to spend money?
I would like you to keep in mind these two important things. The Migration
Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, found that in 2012 we spent $18
billion on immigration enforcement agencies, a 43 percent increase from
2006. Here`s the kicker. That $18 billion, that`s more than we spent on
all other law enforcement agencies combined by 24 percent.
And do you happen to know what the net migration between Mexico and the
United States currently is? It is zero. Zero.
The most recent numbers show that from 2005 to 2010, the net migration is
zero. A huge change from 1995 to 2000, the net migration from Mexico to
the U.S. was more than 2 million people. But from 2005 to 2010, the number
of people coming here from Mexico was about the same as the number of
people going to Mexico from the U.S.
So we`re already spending almost $18 billion a year on a problem that does
not exist. And Republicans in the Senate are poised to add $30 billion to
that all over a handshake deal to win votes. And remember, these are the
exact same people who say they care about spending and the deficit.
Despite this data, in 2012 Martha McSally told the Arizona Daily Star (2/29/12) that the United States borders "are a national security threat that impacts this community more than any other in the nation." "we need to have the political will to secure the border with available technology. . . . We need to execute intelligence driven operations to thwart the transnational criminal organizations."
In 2012, Martha McSally also supported SB 1070, much of which was subsequently struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as unconstitutional, explaining that it "came about because the federal government did not secure our border. Perhaps it should be changed so that every citizen stopped by law enforcement needs to prove their citizenship," she said. (American Thinker, 2/22/12). A civil libertarian she is not.
What is Martha McSally's position on comprehensive immigration reform?
Does McSally support the "Gang of Eight" Senate comprehensive immigration reform bill, which includes the "overkill" of $30 billion in spending over a 10-year period to address her previously stated concern to "secure the border with available technology"? If not, why not? Is there any metric for border security that would satisify her?
Does McSally support the 13-year pathway to citizenship in the Gang of Eight Senate comprehensive immigration reform bill? If not, why not?
Does McSally support the pathway to citizenship not being contingent upon achieving "hard triggers" for border security after 10 years, as the Gang of Eight Senate comprehensive immigration reform bill provides? Or does she support the pathway to citizenship being revokable upon the failure to achieve arbitrary "hard triggers" for border security after 10 years, rendering the promise of a pathway to citizenship an illusory promise? Explain.
Is McSally opposed to any pathway to citizenship because it is "amnesty," in conservative Republican parlance? If so, how does she propose
to round up the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, process
them through the immigration system, and return them to their country of
origin? How does she propose to pay for this?
Is McSally aware of the substantial economic disruption that mass deportation would cause to the American economy, in particular to agriculture and labor-intensive industries? Does she prefer to punish the undocumented worker with deportation? Or does McSally support substantial sanctions and penalties against "magnate" employers who employ undocumented immigrants? Explain.
Does McSally believe the CBO estimates that the Senate bill could cut illegal immigration by 50%, and would reduce the federal deficit by $197 billion within a decade of passing Congress and an additional $700 billion over the next decade? CBO: Immigration bill would reduce federal deficit. Explain.
Does McSally's support the "guest worker" provisions of the Gang of Eight Senate comprehensive immigration reform bill? If not, why not. Explain.
What is McSally's position on the children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States, and thus American citizens; does she believe that these children are U.S. citizens? Or does she support amending the U.S. Constitution to make citizenship jus sanguinis (right of blood) based upon the mother's national origin, rather jus soli (right of soil) place of birth? Does McSally believe these U.S. citizens who are minor children should be deported along with their undocumented immigrant parent(s)? Explain.
Does McSally support the DREAM Act incorporated into the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform bill? Or does she support the "KIDS Act," the scaled-down House Republican version of the DREAM Act? Or does she oppose both bills? Explain.
Does McSally condemn the statements by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) comparing undocumented immigrants to dogs, and his statement that "For every [DREAMER] who's a
valedictorian, there's another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds and
they've got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75
pounds of marijuana across the desert"? Explain.
Now that most of Arizona's SB 1070 has been struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, does McSally still stand by her position in 2012 that "every citizen stopped by law enforcement needs to prove their citizenship"? If so, please explain her legal justification and reasoning.
Voters in Congressional District 2 have the right to know your positions
on current hot topics, Ms. McSally. Feel free to answer these questions by
posting a comment. More questions to follow.