Just Republicans Only: February 2013

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

House awaits Senate action

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where comprehensive immigration reform went to die in 2006, is the wild card in this year's immigration-reform debate.

House leaders are taking a wait-and-see approach as the Senate begins crafting a bipartisan immigration-reform bill, and while advocates are optimistic about its chances, many House conservatives are sure to continue to oppose any polices that might be construed as amnesty for illegal immigrants.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has signaled a willingness to tackle the issue this year in a bipartisan way, but he might have trouble getting a majority of his fellow Republicans to go along with him.

A decision to collaborate with Democrats on such a hot-button issue as immigration could put his leadership position in jeopardy.

Politically, the anti-amnesty sentiment continues to simmer with the grass-roots "tea party" activists who are often influential in GOP primaries.

And to some House Republicans, the long-term future electoral viability of the Republican Party may be a secondary priority to their avoiding a primary foe next year.

So far, Boehner has not endorsed or rejected the bipartisan framework that was announced last Monday by a group of four Democratic senators and four Republican senators.

Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake, both Arizona Republicans, are among the so-called "Gang of Eight" who crafted the plan.

"Boehner is going to play this close to his chest, see what happens in the Senate and not commit too early," said David Cort, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. "Why waste political capital now when he doesn't have to? He can let the Senate go first."

Flake, who was sworn in as Arizona's newest senator last month after six terms in the House, understands the dilemma his former colleagues face.

"There are some who aren't excited about taking up this thing," said Flake, who already is trying to sell the Senate plan to House Republicans. "Anybody with elections every two years worries more about that. But I think everybody is anxious to see this in the rear-view mirror. So that's some motivation there."

Less risk in Senate

While there is no guarantee the Senate will ultimately pass a comprehensive bill, senators generally face fewer political risks in taking on divisive issues than House members do, analysts said.

In representing an entire state, senators tend to be accountable to a more politically diverse group of constituents and can take a more moderate view, said Stephen Yale-Loehr, immigration-law expert and professor of law at Cornell University.

They also have the relative luxury of having to face voters every six years rather than every two years as House members do.

That makes it a bit easier for them to look at issues from a longer-term perspective, Yale-Loehr said.

"Having to face re-election every two years can make a member of the House more cautious thinking about how this might affect his or her primary chances," he said. "Republicans have to worry about a primary-election challenge from a 'tea party' or other conservative candidate."

In 2006, the then-GOP-run Senate passed a comprehensive immigration-reform bill co-authored by McCain and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., but it went nowhere in the Republican-controlled House, which instead passed its own tough enforcement bill that also ultimately failed.

Later that year, Republicans lost control of both the House and Senate in a Democratic wave election. Republicans regained control of the House in the 2010 election.

On Wednesday, Politico reported that a group of eight House members -- four Democrats, four Republicans -- are quietly working on their own immigration-reform plan to offer to House leaders for consideration. None is from Arizona.

Flake acknowledged that some of his former GOP House colleagues who represent Republican-dominated districts could attract a primary foe by embracing comprehensive immigration reform.

However, even Republicans who come from areas with few Hispanic voters have an interest in solving the problem, he said.

"I hope that we have enough who say, 'I'll risk it in my primary, but, boy, for the good of my party, we need to broaden the base,'" Flake said.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is expected to be more open-minded toward immigration reform than his predecessor, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who has already condemned the Senate blueprint as "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.

Likewise, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who chairs the panel's Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, is "a smart guy who approaches this thing in a very deliberative fashion," Flake said.

"With the people in place now, from Goodlatte to Gowdy to others, we are in a better position than we were before," Flake said.

Hopeful on consensus

While Arizona's two senators are in a leading role on reform, many of its House members are largely silent, though some are hopeful.

Rep. David Schweikert, a Republican who represents the northeast Valley, praised the Senate's efforts in a written statement to The Arizona Republic on Wednesday, revealing support for some principles of reform.

Like most Republicans, he argued enhanced border security is a must.

But he also said an immigration overhaul to deal with the millions of people living in the country illegally is "well overdue."

He cautioned that such a plan should not favor illegal immigrants over those who have been waiting in line to come legally to the United States.

"I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find a fair and equitable solution that addresses the very real problems that exist in our system of immigration and border security," he said.

Rep. Ron Barber, a Democrat from Tucson, said he expects a bloc of Republicans to oppose reform but the group may not be large enough to hold up a bill.

"Coming out of the election, Republicans are reflecting across the board on what they need to do on a number of issues, where they stand and how they're perceived, and one of those issues is fixing the broken immigration system," Barber said.

He pointed to "major breaks" within the Republican caucus in recent weeks that aided passage of bills on the "fiscal cliff," Hurricane Sandy relief and the federal-debt ceiling.

"I really believe that can and will happen on immigration," he said.

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, a Democrat who represents a swing district in northern Arizona, also is hopeful.

"I'm optimistic both parties can agree on some of these principles … and move past the stalemate that's been in place so long," Kirkpatrick said.

Freshman Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., said she is grateful that Arizona's two senators are among those who are leading the reform effort.

"It's great for our state and it's great for the prospect of getting reform done," she said.

The Latino factor

The GOP-led House is more likely to pass comprehensive reform if it passes overwhelmingly in the Democratic-led Senate with strong support from Republican senators, Yale-Loehr said.

"But if it passes by just a few votes, I think that will make it harder to get something similar through the House," he said.

If the Senate sends over a strong bipartisan bill, Boehner most likely will call the House GOP caucus together and try to convince them that passage is key to the Republican Party's political future and its ability to attract the growing number of Latino voters, Cort said.

President Barack Obama won more than 70 percent of Latino voters in his re-election bid. Latino voters also overwhelmingly favored Democratic congressional candidates.

"I think Boehner will tell his GOP caucus that Republicans cannot afford to be blamed for the bill going down," Cort said. "He will tell them not to give the Democrats a weapon to use against them at the polls."

Jennifer Gordon, a law professor at Fordham University School of Law in New York City, said she believes the message will resonate with a growing number of House Republicans.

"Supporting reform may not be in the personal interests of some representatives, but it's unquestionably in the interests of the Republican Party as a whole," Gordon said. "The last election was a powerful message to the Republican Party. That's what makes me reluctant to make the standard prediction of it (reform) failing in the House."

Flake said he believes Boehner would be willing to move forward with an immigration bill even if a majority of House Republicans oppose it.

"He's done that a couple of times recently (passed bills largely with Democratic votes), and I think he will do it again," Flake said. "The desire to get immigration behind us extends pretty far and pretty deep, even with people who don't necessarily agree so much with the principles or the direction of it."

Boehner also could be helped by Republican political-action committees such as the Hispanic Leadership Network, which sent e-mails to House Republicans last week urging them to avoid inflammatory rhetoric in the coming debate that could alienate Latino voters.

The group, the Hispanic outreach arm of the American Action Network, cautioned GOP members against referring to immigrants as "illegals" or "aliens" or denouncing the Senate plan as "amnesty."

Meanwhile, Arizona's House members are reviving their bipartisan meetings in the new Congress, a move that the senior member of the delegation,Democratic Rep. Ed Pastor, hopes can help bring consensus on immigration and other issues.

The first outing was an evening social last month hosted by Republican Rep. Trent Franks.

Pastor plans to sponsor monthly delegation breakfasts beginning Feb. 14, and other members are expected to host events as well.

"They have their own interests, they have their own politics, they have districts they represent," Pastor said of his colleagues. "For me, it's holding conversations in a private manner to talk about (immigration reform) and try -- as legislation is developed and passed -- to speak with them and encourage and answer questions."

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

McCain, Flake leading way

(PNI) Arizona's senators are leading. Arizona will benefit.

As part of the bipartisan group of eight who stood up for immigration reform, Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake began solving a problem that has hurt Arizona for years.

They are highly qualified to guide this effort, with a full history and understanding of the complexities.

Crafting specific legislation that embodies the principles outlined Monday will mean wrestling with the devils of detail. But the framework is there.

That's more than just a start. That's real progress.

McCain pointed out that this multipronged effort is not much different from the comprehensive package he helped craft with the late Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy in 2005.

The re-emergence of comprehensive immigration reform as a bipartisan goal is long overdue.

A lack of a guest-worker program to meet labor needs is the biggest reason illegal immigration increased after 1986 reforms that included President Ronald Reagan's amnesty program.

The nation needs a guest- worker program that is robust and responsive to market demands without disadvantaging or displacing American workers. This framework reflects that.

A reliable system for employers to check the immigration status of job applicants is also critical. The framework reflects that, too.

The most controversial part of the plan creates "a tough but fair path to citizenship" for millions of men, women and children living in this country without proper immigration documents.

"We cannot continue as a nation with 11 million people living in the shadows," McCain said.

Those who have long opposed comprehensive reform instantly screamed: Amnesty! This is the tired, old battle cry that has long been used to stall progress.

Political realities suggest it has lost its power. During the press conference to announce the framework for reform, McCain pointed to the high stakes. "The Republican Party is losing the support of our Hispanic citizens," he said.

Democrats also feel the push of politics. President Barack Obama, who benefitted greatly from the Latino vote, will offer his immigration proposals today. We hope they demonstrate a desire to foster cooperation and compromise.

Beyond politics, this is about the nation's need for immigration policies worthy of our commitment to human rights and dignity. As McCain reminded his party years ago, undocumented immigrants are God's children, too.

What's more, the nation's security is best served by knowing who is here.

The plan devotes a great deal of emphasis to border security, promising more resources for an effort that already has seen years of extensive expenditures on infrastructure, technology and Border Patrol agents.

We are intrigued by the idea of establishing a commission of border political and community leaders to monitor progress toward securing the border. The voices of those most closely affected should be heard. But this committee should not become an exercise in moving the goal posts or retreating to a security-first model.

Been there. Done that.

It's past time to move beyond the status quo. This bipartisan framework does that.

The support of Arizona's two senators gives comprehensive reform added credibility in Congress and puts Arizona at the forefront of fixing an immigration system that has enormous human, economic, environmental and social costs for our state.

Posted

View the original article here

Monday, February 25, 2013

Immigration worries GOP base

DENVER — DENVER Republicans in the U.S. Congress are inching toward a deal on immigration, but will they lose part of their base as a result? Since last year's election, many top conservatives have distanced themselves from the idea that the country's 11million illegal immigrants must be removed, instead signaling a new openness to allowing them to eventually become citizens.

Demographics and election returns are pushing Republican leaders away from many of the party's conservative voters, many of them white and from more rural regions.

In 2007, a grassroots rebellion led Republicans to reject then-President George W. Bush's immigration overhaul because it included a process in which otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants could eventually become citizens. Activists derided the provision as an "amnesty." After conservative tea party groups toppled various Republicans in primaries over issues that included their immigration stands, the party's rhetoric and proposals became increasingly tough.

That's changed since the drubbing the Republican Party took last November as President Barack Obama won a second term. Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney received underwhelming support from voters in the two fastest-growing minority groups: 27percent of Hispanic voters and an even smaller share from Asians, according to exit polls. In contrast, George W. Bush won an estimated 44percent of the Hispanic vote in his 2004 re-election.

Prominent Republicans now support legalizing the status of some illegal immigrants. The outline of a bill to do just that was unveiled Monday by a group of eight senators, four from each party, and Obama reiterated his support for a similar overhaul Tuesday.

Even in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, a half-dozen bipartisan members are nearing completion on wide-ranging legislation that would include a pathway to legalize the immigration status of those here without authorization.

It's unclear what, if any, immigration bill could pass Congress. Still, the shift in tone signals to some who favor tighter restrictions on immigration that parts of the Republican Party are ready to be flexible. They warn that the party will squander a valuable resource by alienating its base.

"I don't know how you can even quantify the loss of enthusiasm," said former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., a longtime thorn in party elders' sides for his aggressive stance on illegal immigration.

Other Republicans dismiss that worry. "Where else are they going to go?" asked Sig Rogich, a veteran Las Vegas-based Republican operative who has long pushed for a more immigrant-friendly Republican Party.

"They'll get over it."

Michael Long, a retired Air Force employee in Colorado Springs, is resigned to the Republican Party cutting a deal.

"The last election scared the heck out of Republicans, and the numbers aren't going to go down for the Latino vote," said Long, 50.

Posted

View the original article here

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Brewer still thinks it's 2010

(PNI) Gov. Jan Brewer vaulted to national attention when she signed Senate Bill 1070. She's not about to let go now.

Much of her Republican Party, recognizing that a tough enforcement-first stand leads to political irrelevance, have begun to push for a different future. Brewer has turned down every opportunity to join them.

She offered little encouragement to Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake when they helped broker an immigration-reform framework. She gave no support to a budding statewide coalition seeking to change Arizona's image on this issue.

And this week, she reiterated her stand that young immigrants granted legal status by President Barack Obama cannot get Arizona driver's licenses.

It is a coldhearted decision that slaps the most-sympathetic faces in the immigration debate: those brought into this country at a young age and who, because of that, are American in every way but one.

Other GOP governors with an eye on the future have altered their stances. But not Brewer. She seems content to remain in 2010.

We wish she could make the pivot so many other Republicans have. Brewer could be a gust in the sail of those seeking to remake Arizona and the GOP's image. Instead, she's an anchor holding them back.

Posted

View the original article here

Brewer faces political struggle to expand Medicaid

(PNI) From the political notebook:

A lot of attention has been paid to the substance of Gov. Jan Brewer's Medicaid-expansion proposal. Less attention has been paid to a political and legal question that may be more important in determining its fate: How many Republican votes does it need in the Legislature to be enacted?

The assumption is that all the Democrats in the Legislature will vote for it. They may be tempted to attempt to bargain for something else in exchange for their support. If they are serious about the priority they claim to put on the expansion, they will forgo that temptation.

Republican votes for expansion will be tricky to come by. If Brewer has to sell not only the expansion but what Democrats want in exchange for their votes in favor, it might become a bridge too far.

So, assume Democrats play it straight and Brewer can pocket their votes. If the expansion only needs a simple majority to be enacted, that would require just three Republican votes in the Senate and seven in the House. Not much of a hill.

But Brewer's Medicaid-expansion proposal arguably needs more than a simple majority. Brewer is asking the Legislature to give the state agency that administers Medicaid authority to levy a provider assessment to pay the state's cost of providing Medicaid coverage for childless adults.

In 1992, voters approved an initiative that requires a two-thirds approval from both houses of the Legislature for any "net increase in state revenues." It explicitly includes "the imposition of any new state fee or assessment or the authorization of any new administratively set fee."

That would certainly seem to cover what the governor is proposing. The Governor's Office, however, is arguing that the assessment falls within an exception to the rule for "fees and assessments that are authorized by statute but are not prescribed by formula, amount or limit, and are set by a state officer or agency."

That's a stretch. While there might not be an amount set in the authorization to the penny, there's a clear understanding about its size. The number is in the governor's budget and proposal. Claiming that exception would be a dubious wink and a nod at a voter-approved constitutional requirement.

If the two-thirds approval applies, that raises the number of Republican votes Brewer needs to seven in the Senate and 16 in the House. The hill just became steeper.

There is an informal rule in both the Senate and the House that leadership will not bring any bill to the floor that doesn't have the support of a majority of the majority. That would require nine Republican votes in favor in the Senate and 18 in the House. Even steeper.

Put another way, if "the majority of the majority" requirement prevails, just nine of 30 senators or 19 of 60 House members could block the expansion.

The governor might be able to bargain for an agreement from leadership to bring Medicaid expansion to a vote without "the majority of the majority" requirement as part of a broader deal. But it would require pretty bruising negotiations. Permitting a vote on a Medicaid expansion opposed by a majority of his caucus would be particularly difficult for Senate President Andy Biggs.

My bet is that sequestration at the federal level occurs. Those are the budget cuts Congress adopted on a standby basis if the so-called supercommittee didn't come up with an alternative way to cut the deficit. They were designed to be so unpalatable that the supercommittee couldn't fail. It did anyway, and Congress and President Barack Obama are no closer today than then to agreeing on an alternative.

Republicans don't like the sequestration cuts because they fall disproportionately on defense. The House has passed an alternative that puts more of the burden on domestic spending.

Democrats aren't willing to come up with alternative cuts. They insist on more revenue and fewer cuts overall. It's becoming increasingly obvious to Republicans that the choice isn't between sequestration cuts and some alternative set of spending reductions. The real choice is between sequestration cuts and no cuts.

Despite deep misgivings about the effect on defense, I think Republicans will opt for the sequestration cuts rather than no cuts. At this point, deficit hawks in the Republican Party are stronger than the defense hawks.

Reach Robb at robert.robb @arizonarepublic.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Win or lose, immigration risk for GOP

As comprehensive immigration reform continues to gain momentum, many Republicans are hopeful that passing a bill that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants will draw more Hispanics into the party.

Younger voters offer potential gains for gop

According to a June poll by Latino Decisions, 31percent of Latinos said they would be willing to vote Republican if Republicans took a lead role in passing reforms that include a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

The Republican Party also has the potential to make gains with younger Latino voters, said Gary Segura, a political-science professor at Stanford University and a principal at the polling firm.

Younger voters are less likely to have party affiliations and more likely to be open to efforts to reach out to them than older voters, he said.

About 50,000 Latino citizens in the U.S. reach voting age every month, Segura said.

But it's a big gamble for Republicans, who took a beating in November, when President Barack Obama won re-election with more than 70percent of the Latino vote and congressional candidates saw similar results.

If the effort fails, Latinos will likely blame Republicans, many of whom -- especially in the House -- remain opposed to any sort of legalization program for illegal immigrants. That result would further tarnish the party's image among Latino voters, pushing them in even greater numbers to the Democratic Party, analysts say.

If the effort succeeds, some Republicans fear it could eventually have the same effect. The reforms being debated propose giving undocumented immigrants a chance to eventually legalize their status and citizenship, which could create millions of new Democratic voters, because Latinos tend to vote Democratic.

There are an estimated 11million illegal immigrants in the U.S.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, as of March 2010, Mexicans made up about 58percent of the unauthorized immigrant population, with an estimated 6.5million people. Other nations in Latin America accounted for 23percent of unauthorized immigrants, or 2.6million people. Asia accounted for 11percent, or about 1.3million people, and Europe and Canada accounted for 4 percent, or 500,000 people. African countries and other nations represented about 3percent, or 400,000 people.

Analysts and Republican backers of reform are urging skeptics to take the long view, saying that passing immigration reform is necessary for the Republican Party to have any hope of attracting more support from the fast-growing Latino electorate, which made up 10percent of the voters in November's presidential election and includes huge numbers of young U.S.-born Latinos who are turning 18 -- voting age -- every day.

They say it is unlikely that the Republican Party will split the Latino vote with Democrats any time soon.

But passing an immigration-reform bill that includes a pathway to citizenship could help burnish the party's brand with Latinos turned off by the tough stance some Republicans have taken on immigration, helping draw at least a larger share of the Latino vote.

"I am under no illusion -- and I don't think any of my colleagues are on the Republican side -- that when we pass this, even if we are out front leading the parade, that we are going to get 50percent of the Hispanic vote next time," said Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. Flake, a longtime supporter of immigration reform, is among the so-called Gang of Eight senators leading the way on reform.

Passing an immigration bill would help Republicans move beyond the immigration issue, Flake and other Republican leaders say, allowing the party to begin reaching out to Latinos on other issues, such as jobs and the economy. Those are issues Republicans believe resonate with Latino voters but have been drowned out by angry rhetoric on immigration from some members of the party.

"It's tough to talk to them about those issues when they don't think you like them," Flake said during a recent meeting with The Arizona Republic and 12 News. "And rightly or wrongly, fair or unfair, I think that's been the case over the past couple of cycles. They have a view that we don't like them very much, and I do think that has to change."

It's not just Latinos who have been put off by the Republicans embrace of tough immigration policies, Flake said.

"I don't see this just as a Hispanic problem," Flake said. "There are a lot of Republicans who have left the party or don't vote for the Republican on the ticket because they think, 'Can't we have a party or somebody running for office that has a realistic view on some things?' And I think on immigration we have not had a realistic view. I don't think self-deportation was a realistic view. So, it goes beyond the Hispanic vote."

During last year's presidential campaign, Mitt Romney said during a GOP debate in Tampa that he favored "self-deportation" over providing a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Obama played up the comment on the campaign trail, and it prompted Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist who worked on Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, to say on Twitter on Election Night: "Mitt Romney self-deported himself from the White House."

Principles for reform

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held the first immigration hearing in the chamber since a bipartisan group of senators released a blueprint for overhauling the nation's immigration system. The principles call for creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants once the nation's borders have been deemed secured, among other reforms.

In addition to Flake, the group includes three key Republicans -- Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Marco Rubio of Florida -- all of whom will play key roles in persuading other Republicans to reach a compromise with Democrats over the highly contentious issue.

The Democrats in the group are Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Charles Schumer of New York and Michael Bennet of Colorado.

Over the weekend, USA Today obtained a draft of a White House immigration proposal that would allow illegal immigrants to become legal permanent residents within eight years.

The plan also would provide for more security funding and require business owners to check the immigration status of new hires.

In addition, illegal immigrants could apply for a newly created "Lawful Prospective Immigrant" visa.

White House spokesman Clark Stevens told USA Today that the administration supports bipartisan efforts on immigration reform in Congress, but some read the leaked legislation as intended to pressure lawmakers into moving more quickly.

Rubio was critical of the administration's draft proposal, saying it repeats the failures of past legislation and would be "dead on arrival" in Congress.

Mark Garces, a Florida lawyer who is a spokesman for the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, a group that works to increase the number of Hispanic Republicans, said passing a bill would help prevent Latino voters from flocking to the Democratic Party.

In the past, he said, Democrats have successfully used immigration as a political "wedge issue" to divide the Republican Party and draw Latino voters away from the GOP, he said. That would be harder to do if Republicans helped pass a compromise bill with Democrats, he said.

Garces said he favors the approach proposed by the Gang of Eight, which calls for giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship as long as the border has been deemed secured, they pay fines and other penalties, and they don't receive permanent residency before others who have been waiting for years to come to the U.S. legally.

Latinos a political force

Latino voters are a powerful political force.

They made up 10percent of the electorate in the November presidential election.

And the number of eligible Latino voters is projected to skyrocket from 23.7million in 2012 to more than 40million in 2030, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

Latino voters come from diverse backgrounds, but they tend to vote largely Democratic, said Joe Garcia, director of Arizona State University's Morrison Institute Latino Public Policy Center.

Even so, there are several issues important to Latino voters that "line up well" with Republicans, Garcia said.

Those issues include "family, faith, patriotism and small-business entrepreneurship," in addition to the economy and jobs, he said.

"When you get the harsh immigration-hardliner issue off the table, the GOP thinks it matches very nicely with some other key elements of what Latino voters are looking for," Garcia said. "They don't need to get all the Latino votes, they just need to get a larger chunk in order to make a difference in the elections."

The 27percent of the Latino vote that Romney received was the lowest for a Republican presidential candidate since Bob Dole received 21percent in 1996 against President Bill Clinton, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

Yet while some Republican leaders have begun calling for immigration reforms, others continue to advocate for harsh immigration policies that Latino voters interpret as being anti-Hispanic, said Gary Segura, a political-science professor at Stanford University and a principal at Latino Decisions, a polling firm.

Mixed feelings

Rudy Peña, 60, a plumber who lives in Tolleson, is on the board of directors of the Arizona Republican Latino Association.

Although Peña is a "lifelong" Democrat, he usually votes Republican and voted for Romney in November.

He is adamantly opposed to Republicans supporting immigration reform for the sake of drawing more Latino voters to the Republican Party. "What it amounts to is pandering, and Latinos recognize that is pandering," Peña said.

Peña would rather see the Republican Party push for border security first as well as greater enforcement of existing immigration laws while reaching out to Latino voters on other issues such as jobs and the economy.

He has mixed feelings about giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship.

On one hand, working in the construction industry, he said he has seen firsthand "how hard they work," Peña said. On the other, he believes giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship would reward people who entered unlawfully and would be unfair to others who have tried to come to the U.S. legally.

"It really does shortchange the 5million or so who are going through the process the right way," he said. "It can't just be a question of the 11million (undocumented immigrants) who are here. What happens to the 5million who are waiting?"

Attracting more Latino voters to the Republican Party won't be easy, Segura said.

The Republican Party's image already has been badly damaged with Latino voters because of the tough stances some Republicans have taken on immigration.

"I don't hear a GOP message on immigration. I hear some senators who have reached a less-hostile position," Segura said. "But the noise coming out of the House of Representatives today and throughout the entire period has not been encouraging by any stretch. So, I don't think there is a unified Republican message on this by any measure."

In the past, Latinos tended to join the Republican Party as they gained affluence, Segura said.

But that support has been eroded because immigration tends to be a deeply personal issue for Latino voters. In a June poll by Latino Decisions, 60percent of Latino voters surveyed said they have a relative who is undocumented or know someone who is undocumented.

"The issue for the Republicans is not whether doing immigration reform is going to save them," Segura said. "It's whether not doing immigration reform is going to doom them forever."

USA Today contributed to this article.

Posted

View the original article here

Arpaio 'army' gearing up for recall war

(PNI) Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has 700 deputies under his command, along with roughly 2,000 detention officers and a volunteer posse said to number 3,000.

Apparently, that's not enough to combat his latest enemy: voters.

The sheriff's friends in the county Republican Party are mustering volunteers for yet another Arpaio army. They are hoping to attract recruits to a gathering over the weekend where, according to an e-mail sent to Arpaio supporters:

"The purpose of the meeting is to muster and organize a 'shadow army' of 'shadow warriors' that are willing to volunteer their time to stand toe-to-toe at the majority of the locations here in Maricopa County where the paid progressive socialists are collecting petition signatures to recall Sheriff Joe."

Not long ago, some of the same people who successfully recalled former Senate President Russell Pearce announced they would launch a recall effort against Arpaio, who was elected to a sixth term in November.

Arpaio immediately cranked up his political-campaign machine, sending out a fundraising letter to his many donors that read, in part:

"These sore losers just never stop. They figure if they can force an election in an off-year they'll be able to turn out every pro-illegal-immigrant voter and steal this election. We saw them do the very same thing to an Arizona state senator just over a year ago."

The sheriff's friends want to bolster his campaign war chest by putting boots on the ground.

The e-mail seeking "shadow warriors" calls local activist Randy Parraz and the rest of those behind the Arpaio recall "domestic terrorists" and "thugs."

"What are they so afraid of?" Parraz told me. "If Joe is such a great guy, why would they even give the recall a second thought? It sounds like what they have planned will just give us an opportunity to catch people doing illegal things on videotape. At the Pearce recall, it got ugly. You can't try to intimidate people. If they do that, we'll get it on tape."

One of those helping to organize Arpaio's army, John DeCarlo, said volunteers will be respectful when trying to persuade folks not to sign a recall petition.

"The idea is to have a presence and be informative but not get in anyone's way," DeCarlo told me.

He works in the same office as Arpaio's campaign manager, Chad Willems, although Willems said his people are not in command of the "shadow army" but only offering advice and assistance.

"What happened is that there is a group of very active supporters of the sheriff who have been wanting to do something to stop the recall," he told me. "The chairman of the county (Republican) party said that he would like to send people out and stand next to circulators and voice their opinions. Our phones have been ringing off the hook with people wanting to know what they can do."

What will these "shadow warriors" tell voters trying to decide whether to sign a recall petition?

"One thing will be the cost," DeCarlo said.

The price of a recall election has been estimated at over $5million.

Parraz calls that a small amount compared with what Arpaio has cost the county in lawsuits over the years, not to mention the department's other problems, like the 400-plus uninvestigated child sexual-abuse cases about which the sheriff just released a 10,000-page report.

"The election in November doesn't wipe away what Arpaio has done," Parraz told me. "People know why they should sign a recall petition. We don't have to persuade them. These Arpaio people are just drawing attention to why Arpaio should be recalled. They're helping us."

No petitions are being circulated yet. The recall group, like the Arpaio group, is meeting this weekend.

Recall supporters have 120 days to collect roughly 350,000 signatures. It won't be easy.

"We don't have the resources they have, but we have a lot of support," Parraz said.

The odds of success are heavily against a ragtag guerrilla force taking on a well-equipped, well-funded army. At least that's what military and political strategists have been saying since way back in -- when was that? -- 1776.

Reach Montini at 602-444-8978 or ed.montini@arizonarepublic.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Friday, February 22, 2013

Legislators finally do right thing

(PNI) Every now and then, the most astonishing things happen. Pigs take flight, Phoenix freezes over on the Fourth of July, and the most improbable of all? The Arizona Legislature does a good thing.

I know. Amazing, right?

It's hard to believe, but there it is, House Bill 2204.

It's a simple bill, really. It says that a city (or county or state) will continue to pay a portion of the health-insurance costs for the families of its fallen police officers, firefighters and correctional officers.

The bill was prompted, in part, by Glendale's treatment of Cindy Jones. Her 25-year-old husband, Glendale Officer Brad Jones, was killed in the line of duty in October 2011, leaving her with two young children. The city continued the family's health insurance for a year, as required by law.

Several months after his death, Cindy approached city officials to ask if they would continue paying the premiums after the year was up, or at least give her the employee rate -- the one the family would be paying if her husband were still alive.

"Brad's no longer here," she told me a few months ago. "I still have to provide for my kids, not just five years from now, not just 10 years from now, but until they're the age of 18. For me, that's a big worry."

In response, the city offered her the retiree rate: $688 a month, and that's after a subsidy from the police pension fund is applied. That's about 21/2 times what the family would be paying if Officer Jones hadn't been shot to death one night while answering a call to assist a probation officer.

Glendale's incoming mayor, Jerry Weiers, told me in December that he would work on changing the city's policy once he took office. Six weeks into his term, he has followed through on that pledge. As a result, he says Glendale will now pick up the entire insurance tab for the family of any employee who is killed while performing his or her job.

"Doing the right thing is not always hard to do," he told me. "It's just a matter of making people understand it's the right thing."

Which brings us to the Legislature, where the right thing is so often elusive. But not, apparently, this time. At least, not for most of our leaders.

Rep. Bob Robson's HB 2204 would require cities, counties, the state and private prisons to continue offering insurance at the employee rate to the families of law-enforcement officers who die in the line of duty. It would continue until the surviving spouse either remarries or is eligible for Medicare and until the children are grown.

The bill sailed through the Public Safety, Military and Regulatory Affairs Committee on a unanimous vote and cleared the House last week on a 54-5 vote. It now heads to the Senate.

The five who opposed it are Reps. Steve Smith of Maricopa, Carl Seel of Phoenix, Darin Mitchell of the bare mattress, Adam Kwasman of Oro Valley, and Steve Montenegro of Avondale. All five happen to members of Constantin's Army, led by my favorite right-wing Republican Party operative, Constantin Querard.

What they have against police officers' widows, I do not know.

Smith is the legislator with some of the silliest bills going nowhere this year. Among them is one bill to suspend all federal firearms laws and another to reimburse ex-Sen. Russell Pearce for his recall expenses.

I tried calling Smith to find out why he found it unacceptable to use public funds to insure the widows and children of fallen police officers but a moral imperative to use public funds to reimburse Pearce for his non-existent recall expenses. Alas, Smith didn't return my call.

Robson says the bill is simply the right thing to do. He was on the Chandler City Council in 1999 when Officer James Snedigar was shot and killed in a SWAT raid. Officer Snedigar was the first Chandler police officer killed in the line of duty, and Robson says it was an easy call to continue his family on the employee insurance plan.

"We expect these people to do extraordinary things," he told me. "The least we owe them was this."

He's right. It is the least we owe them, and good for him and his colleagues for doing it.

Well, he and 53 of his colleagues, that is.

Reach Roberts at laurie.roberts@ arizonarepublic.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Expanding an already bloated federal government

(PNI) President Barack Obama's State of the Union address illustrated what a dead letter federalism is among Democrats. Not that further illustration was necessary.

Federalism holds that the national government should limit itself to things of truly national scope. Things that are primarily of local concern should be left to state and local governments.

Federalism was a big deal to the founders. They wanted an energetic national government, but one that was confined to enumerated national functions. The founders also envisioned a bright line between the federal and state governments, each sovereign within their own spheres.

We are a long way from that. Today, the Democratic Party sees virtually nothing as outside the purview of the federal government. The Republican Party talks a good game about federalism, but usually ends up undermining the principle when it acquires national power.

Today, the lines between the federal government and state and local governments are hopelessly blurred. The federal government spends over $600 billion a year on grants to state and local governments. Arizona state government receives more in federal funds than it raises in general-fund taxes.

Today, state governments operate principally as service delivery mechanisms for federal social-welfare programs. This means that there is no real political accountability for the programs, which is why they grow and function like a blob.

If Medicaid costs are spinning out of control, who's to blame and who should do something about it? The federal government that provides most of the funding and sets up the basic rules, or the state governments that actually administer the program? The food stamp program has grown astronomically of late. Purely a function of a bad economy, or is there something else going on? Whose job is it to figure that out?

President Ronald Reagan wanted to sort out the blob with his new federalism initiative, clearly making some functions, such as Medicaid, fully federal, while making other functions, including most welfare programs, fully state and local. There were some Democratic governors at the time, including Arizona's Bruce Babbitt, who were also interested in a sorting out of responsibilities.

But agreement was never reached, nothing of significance happened. So, the blob endured and grew.

Obama proposes to feed it even more. The federal government should establish manufacturing innovation institutes in economically distressed areas and provide incentive grants to states to increase the energy efficiency of homes and businesses.

The federal government should fix 70,000 bridges and create a federal fund to modernize ports and pipelines. The federal government should have a new grant program to get high-school graduates better ready for high-tech jobs. And, according to Obama, the federal government should make sure that every kid has access to high-quality preschool.

The federal government, however, does not have a greater interest in the recovery of economically distressed areas than the states in which they are located, or greater insight into how to turn them around. Every bridge in America is located in a state and local community that has a greater interest in its condition than the federal government.

Every port and pipeline in the United States is located in a state and local community. If there are gains to be had from modernizing them, local governments have a greater incentive to get it done and done right than the federal government.

Every kid in America lives in a state and local community that is more interested in his education and workplace preparedness than the federal government. What do we really have to show for the increased federal involvement in education, under George W. Bush or Obama?

The federal government is broke, and broke in a way that threatens the American economy. Proposals that it do even more are surreal, even if they are supposedly paid for. If there's loose change to be had, the federal government should use it to reduce the deficit, not further expand its reach.

It's nowhere on the horizon, but a revival of Reagan's new federalism discussion is badly needed.

Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Different backgrounds but a common purpose

The eight senators who banded together to pursue bipartisan immigration reform span the political spectrum from conservative to liberal. Some are longtime lawmakers while others are rising stars who represent the future of their parties. But each brings talents to the table that reform advocates hope will culminate in an overhaul of immigration laws.

The Republican side includes a former presidential nominee and a likely future White House contender. The Democratic side includes the chairman of the Senate's immigration subcommittee and a top-ranking leader.

The heavyweight group includes both of Arizona's senators, Republicans John McCain and Jeff Flake. The other members are Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.; Marco Rubio, R-Fla.; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Robert Menendez, D-N.J.; and Michael Bennet, D-Colo.

"It's quite a set," said Mark Peterson, a political-science professor at UCLA. "It's got John McCain back in the game. He's back, and I think that's an important signal."

Rubio and Flake speak the language of the right, while Schumer, Durbin and Menendez anchor support from the left, Peterson said.

Where immigration reform is concerned, conservatives are the critical bloc because Democrats traditionally have backed reform efforts. For their part, President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies are eager to deliver on promises of reform. Proponents are hoping Republicans may be more supportive if only to help rehabilitate their party's image with Latino voters, who overwhelmingly backed Obama in November.

Still, whether the powerful personalities can marshal legislation into results remains to be seen. Six years ago, a group that included the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and then-Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., as well as McCain, couldn't get a bill out of the Senate.

Since then, the Republicans have lost two presidential elections, which could change the political dynamic. Days after Obama won more than 70 percent of the Latino vote in his re-election victory over GOP challenger Mitt Romney, prominent Republicans began talking about the need for reform.

So far, there's no bill. The group of senators on Monday unveiled a framework of principles that will guide the drafting. And even if it passes the Democrat-controlled Senate, the legislation likely would face more resistance in the Republican-controlled House.

The outline proposes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the United States that would be contingent on a new commission's declaration that the border is secure. The senators' plan also would include a guest-worker program and workplace-verification requirements.

One Republican member of the group, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, parted company with his colleagues because of what he described as a disagreement over "a policy that will grant special benefits to illegal immigrants based on their unlawful presence in the country."

Although McCain and Graham are veterans of past bipartisan efforts -- two attempts failed in 2006 and 2007 -- one expert cited Rubio as the most important GOP figure because of his status as a "tea party" conservative.

Even though McCain and Graham staked out a tougher position on border security in recent years, the duo may already have worn out their welcome with the party's right wing, which traditionally has resisted proposals that it perceives as granting "amnesty" to undocumented immigrants, said John J. "Jack" Pitney Jr., a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California.

"If there is any chance for this measure to move, those chances depend on Rubio," Pitney said. "He's in a unique position on the one hand to appeal to Hispanics, but on the other hand he has appeal to party conservatives. If John McCain or Lindsey Graham say something, party conservatives just roll their eyes."

While Rubio, a possible 2016 White House hopeful, this past week was selling the bipartisan ideas to conservative opinion-shapers such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, McCain has been talking on mainstream networks such as ABC, CNN and CBS.

Others say McCain and Graham bring a lot to the table, too.

"What if there was a rollout of principles that didn't include McCain and Graham?" asked Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, a national organization that advocates for comprehensive immigration reform, and an expert on the politics of the issue. "People wouldn't take it nearly as seriously, because they both have been so identified as leaders on this issue over the years and as champions who have stood up to those in their own party. They are incredibly persuasive with their colleagues."

McCain said he was glad that Rubio, a late-comer, joined the bipartisan talks.

"I certainly think he is an important participant," McCain told The Arizona Republic.

Here is a closer look at the members of the "Gang of Eight":

Charles Schumer,

D-N.Y.

Besides being chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, Schumer, 62, also has a reputation as a deal-maker and coalition-builder. "He knows where to find the common ground and get others there," said Frank Sharry, a reform advocate.

John McCain,

R-Ariz.

McCain, 76, and Edward Kennedy co-authored a 2006 reform bill that passed the Senate but not the House. He also championed a 2007 bill, which stalled amid an outcry from conservatives. McCain pivoted to insisting on a secure border as a condition for a pathway to legal status.

Dick Durbin,

D-Ill.

Durbin is the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate and carries clout with his party's caucus. Durbin, 68, has been a leader for years on the Dream Act, introducing a version of the measure in every Congress since 2001. Durbin is viewed as an advocate for the so-called "dreamers" in the ongoing negotiations.

Marco Rubio,

R-Fla.

A potential 2016 presidential candidate and "tea party" favorite, Rubio, 41, has been a voice for border control. A Cuban-American and one of two Hispanic GOP senators, Rubio has stature with conservatives. His support for broader reforms could help consolidate GOP support for a reform bill.

Robert Menendez,

D-N.J.

The son of Cuban immigrants, Menendez, 59, is the sole Hispanic Democratic senator. He is still involved with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, a voice for House Latino leaders on immigration reform. He has framed immigration reform in economic terms and as a matter of family reunification.

Lindsey Graham,

R-S.C.

A longtime ally and friend of McCain's, Graham was derisively dubbed "Lindsey Grahamnesty" by some conservatives for his support of past immigration-reform efforts. Graham, 57, has long warned that anti-reform positions threaten the long-term viability of the Republican Party.

Michael Bennet,

D-Colo.

Bennet, 48, is the group's youngest Democrat and its only Democrat from a Western state with a growing Latino population. Bennet understands the politics, having defeated a "tea party" Republican and "amnesty" foe in a tough race where Hispanic turnout may have tipped the balance.

Jeff Flake,

R-Ariz.

New to the Senate after six terms in the House, the libertarian-leaning Flake, 50, is considered one of the most articulate and well-versed conservatives on immigration reform. Like McCain, Flake has returned to a comprehensive approach after campaigning for office on a security-first platform.

Posted

View the original article here

Google Search

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Monday, February 25, 2013

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Friday, February 22, 2013

Thursday, February 21, 2013