SATURDAY POLITICS: Partisan Difference In Views On Discrimination Prevalence

I previously blogged about the difference in attitudes towards LGBT discrimination by various religious denominationt, as reported by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI).

Today I want to discuss how perceptions of the prevalence of discrimination against various groups changes with partisan identification. The PRRI summarizes their findings by discussing how Republicans and Democrats view discro,omayopmthis way:

Discrimination Against Gay and Lesbian, Transgender People
More than six in ten Americans say gay and lesbian people (61%) and transgender people (64%) face a lot of discrimination in the U.S. today. 

However, there are sharp partisan differences on this question. Democrats are roughly twice as likely as Republicans to say gay and lesbian people face a lot of discrimination in the country today (79% vs. 40%, respectively). Notably, a majority (57%) of Republicans do not believe gay and lesbian people face a lot of discrimination. Independents largely reflect the views of the public overall. An identical number (79%) of Democrats believe transgender people face a lot of discrimination, while fewer than half (48%) of Republicans agree. Again, the views of independents generally align with Americans overall. 

Discrimination Against Whites vs. Blacks
Nearly six in ten (58%) Americans say blacks face a lot of discrimination in American society today, while only three in ten (30%) say the same of whites. More Americans now say blacks face a considerable degree of discrimination in U.S. society than in 2013 when slightly more than half (52%) of the public expressed this view.² 

Notably, Republicans are significantly more likely to say that whites, rather than blacks, experience a lot of discrimination in the U.S. today (43% vs. 27%, respectively). Democrats and independents are far more likely to say blacks experience a lot of discrimination than to say the same about whites (82% vs. 19% and 59% vs. 30%, respectively). The partisan gap in perceptions of discrimination against blacks has increased substantially over the last four years, driven primarily by shifts among Democrats. In 2013, about two-thirds (66%) of Democrats compared to roughly one-third (32%) of Republicans expressed the view that discrimination against blacks in the U.S. is common. Notably, white and nonwhite Democrats recorded nearly identical changes in opinion. 

Discrimination Against Christians vs. MuslimsA similar pattern emerges in views of the relative amount of discrimination faced by Muslims and Christians in American society. Americans are twice as likely to say Muslims face a lot of discrimination as to say the same of Christians (66% vs. 33%, respectively). Again, there are sizable differences by party affiliation, religious background, and generation. 

Democrats are more than four times as likely to say Muslims (85%) face a lot of discrimination as to say the same of Christians (21%). Republicans, in contrast, are about equally as likely to say both Christians (48%) and Muslims (45%) experience a lot of discrimination in the US today. Independents’ attitudes mirror those of Americans overall. 

Discrimination Against Immigrants
Nearly two-thirds (64%) of Americans say immigrants face a lot of discrimination in the U.S. today, while one-third (33%) believe they do not. Americans are sharply divided by party and generation. 

Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to say immigrants face a substantial degree of discrimination in society (82% vs. 41%, respectively). Roughly two-thirds (65%) of independents also believe immigrants confront a great deal of discrimination.

There's a lot more information at the PRRI website. I encourage you to check it out!

AZ & ND Block State Benefits for Undocumented Youth

The big news this week is that the Obama's administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which provides benefits to young undocumented immigrants that are similar to those of the DREAM Act, has gone into effect.

According to Huffington Post here are the details of the program:

The administration plan is to stop deporting many undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. To be eligible, immigrants must prove they arrived in the United States before they turned 16, are 30 or younger, have been living here at least five years and are in school or graduated or served in the military. They also cannot have been convicted of certain crimes or otherwise pose a safety threat. 

Under guidelines that the administration announced Tuesday, proof of identity and eligibility could include a passport or birth certificate, school transcripts, medical and financial records and military service records. The DHS said that in some instances, multiple sworn affidavits, signed by a third party under penalty of perjury, also could be used. Anyone found to have committed fraud will be referred to federal immigration agents, the department said. 

Alejandro Mayorkas, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said being approved to avoid deportation "does not provide lawful status or a path to citizenship." 

The paperwork for the program can be downloaded from the Immigration Services website. Applicants must pay a $465 fee and provide proof of identity and eligibility.A decision on each application could take several months, and immigrants have been warned not to leave the country while their application is pending. If they are allowed to stay in the United States and want to travel internationally, they will need to apply for permission to come back into the country, a request that would cost $360 more.

Of course Republicans view this program very differently. The infamously brainless governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, responded by announcing that in Arizona they will seek to deny any person who applies for deferred action to be ineligible for a driver's licence or any other state-issued benefits.

In her executive order, Brewer essentially said that undocumented immigrants granted deferred action will not be recategorized as lawful residents. The order is intended to cut through some confusion created by the president's program, Brewer spokesman Matthew Benson said. 

"As the (DHS) has said repeatedly ... these individuals do not have lawful status," Benson told The Republic. "They are able to remain in the country and not be deported and not be prosecuted, but they do not have lawful status." 

Regina Jefferies, a Phoenix immigration lawyer who chairs the Arizona chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said Brewer's order contradicts state law. 

She said that deferred action existed before the program started on Wednesday and that there are "many, many" instances in Arizona of immigrants granted deferred action for other reasons who have received licenses. 

She said Brewer will likely face a lawsuit. 

Brewer's order bars undocumented immigrants who receive deferred action from public benefits that include state-subsidized child care; KidsCare, a children's health-insurance program; unemployment benefits; business and professional licenses and government contracts, Benson said. 

This is Brewer just being an asshole. Of course states get to determine whom they issue state issued benefits to, and they can decide to not issue any benefits to undocumented immigrants. The fact that the federal government is providing employment benefits and reprieve from deportation to these same individuals is irrelevant to state actions. But the timing of Brewer's action was really just to make sure her xenophobic (some would say nativist) perspective is included in any media coverage about the Obama administration's new program.

Of course, it is only a matter of time before other Republican governors join Brewer in demonstrating their disapproval of immigrants. Governor Dave Heineman of North Dakota became the first to jump in the hateful pool after Brewer:

“President Obama’s deferred action program to issue employment authorization documents to illegal immigrants does not make them legal citizens. The State of Nebraska will continue its practice of not issuing driver’s licenses, welfare benefits or other public benefits to illegal immigrants unless specifically authorized by Nebraska statute.”

Well, duh.

SCOTUS Strikes Down (Most Of) AZ's SB 1070

The United States Supreme Court issued a split decision in the case of Arizona's controversial attempt to legislate immigration (and immigrants) with SB 1070. In Arizona v. United States, the nation's highest court  struck down 3 of the 4 provisions of the law by a 5-3 vote, but allowed what some viewed as the most offensive provision, dubbed the "papers, please" law to go into effect, unanimously. However, the Court also left open legal challenges (including on civil rights and equal protection grounds) after the law is actually operationalized by Arizona. If the "papers, please" results in racial profiling, it will be quite vulnerable to constitutional attack.

The U.S. Supreme Court was expected to rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ObamaCare) today, but that ruling will probably now happen at 10am on Thursday.

Republicans Divorced From Reality On Obama

A poll from a Dartmouth professor on American attitudes towards foreign policy also reveals that Republicans are absolutely divorced from reality about whether Barack Obama was born in the United States: Fully 55.6% of Republican respondents answer affirmatively to the statement "I have always believed President Obama was born in another country." This is a view shared by only 5.3% of Democrats and 24.6% of Independents.

Basically, birtherism (i.e. the idea that Barack Obama was born in a foreign country and ergo is unqualified to be President of the United States) has become a part of Republican orthodoxy, similar to what opposition to marriage equality is becoming. It is just one test in a series of signifiers of partisan loyalty and ideological purity. In other words, if you are a Republican you must believe that Obama is not a Christian, was born in a foreign country, that taxes must never ever go up, global climate change is a hoax (or not caused by humans) and that marriage is (and has always been) an entity created by God that consists of one man and woman.

The problem with this orthodoxy is that most of these statements are beliefs, and they are not supported by actual facts. Thus the nature of political debate changes to one between one side who provides its own facts and the other side which just looks on in disbelief, unsure how to even begin such a "debate." There can be no debate between orthodoxy and reality.
This really does not bode well for future actions that our political system must take in order to solve our nation's pressing problems.

The poll was conducted April 26 to May 2, 2012 and has a margin of error 3.3 percentage points.

Hat/tip to Kevin Drum.

Republican Hypocrite Of The Week: Paul Babeu

If it's Tuesday then there must be another news story about a conservative Republican caught up living his or her life privately very differently from the image and ideology he or she is promoting in public.

The latest Republican Hypocrite of the Week is Paul Babeu a 43-year-old conservative Republican who had some national renown in political circles as the elected Sheriff of Pinal County, AZ and who is a declared candidate for the 4th Congressional District of Arizona. He is also apparently a closeted gay man who while maintaining a sexual relationship with a Mexican immigrant has repeatedly aligned himself with Pima County Sherriff Joe Arpaio and the racist, xenophobic nutjobs that fueled passage of Arizona's virulently anti-immigrant legislation SB 1070 into law.

With the astonishing title of "Paul Babeu's Mexican Ex-Lover Says Sheriff's Attorney Threatened Him With Deportation" the Phoenix New Times revealed the house of cards which was Babeu's private, public and political lives on Saturday February 18:

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu — who became the face of Arizona border security nationally after he started stridently opposing illegal immigration — threatened his Mexican ex-lover with deportation when the man refused to promise never to disclose their years-long relationship, the former boyfriend and his lawyer tell New Times.

The latest of the alleged threats were made through Babeu's personal attorney, who's also running the sheriff's campaign for Congress in District 4, the ex-lover says.

He says lawyer Chris DeRose demanded he sign an agreement that he would never breathe a word about the affair. But Jose (New Times is withholding his last name because Babeu and his attorney have challenged his legal status) refused.

Babeu immediately resigned as co-chair of Mitt Romney's Arizona presidential campaign and held a press conference where he confirmed he was gay but denied all the other allegations in the New Times article. Other papers and political outlets have taken up the story, it was even repeated on NPR's Morning Edition today as a "distraction" for Romney as he tries to concentrate on winning the upcoming Arizona and Michigan Republican primaries.

In fact, the next Republican Presidential candidates debate is on Thursday in Phoenix, AZ! I wonder if Sherriff Babeu will show up? (And will he delete his adam4adam profile "studboi1" now?)

I will take the time to reiterate that I am boycotting the entire state of Arizona while SB 1070 is on the books. The United States Supreme Court should rule on Arizona v. United States by the end of June, resolving the constitutionality of the measure.

I have just two things to say about the entire story: hot mess!


UPDATE 02/21/2012 09:26AM PST
The full name and face of Paul Babeu's ex-boyfriend has been revealed by an Arizona television station. It is Jose Orozco and he is 34 years old and apparently NOT an undocumented immigrant.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God.

Haters Effort To Repeal CA DREAM Act #Fail

Ha-ha! This is excellent news. The California DREAM Act was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown last year and the racist xenophobes started circulating petitions to put a referendum on the November 2012 ballot. The CA Dream Act  allows undocumented youth to receive state financial aid and scholarships for college.

Today comes words that the haters have had a major #fail!

Opponents of the California Dream Act have failed to gather enough petition signatures to qualify an initiative for the November ballot that would have repealed the legislation, organizers said Friday. 

Volunteers and a small group of paid signature gatherers had hoped to collect more than 500,000 valid signatures by this week to stop the legislation, which gives illegal immigrants access to state financial aid at public universities and community colleges. They were able to gather nearly 450,000 signatures, Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-San Bernardino) said in a statement. 

Supporters of the California Dream Act have argued that many young undocumented immigrants came to the country through no fault of their own; those opposed stressed that the state should not use scarce resources on illegal immigrants.

The haters can still try and get signatures to put an initiative statute on the ballot in November but they have to collect twice as many signatures, and they have to have that done at least 150 days before the election.

I think even if the DREAM Act was up for debate on the ballot that California voters would re-affirm their commitment to equal opportunity and fairness.

Ha-Ha! Author of SB-1070 Gets Recalled

Ha,ha! This was the most encouraging election result in a night full of heart-warming election results (rejecting Mississippi's zygote personhood amendment, repealing Ohio's anti-union law and rejecting Maine's voter suppression law): the xenophobic author of multiple pieces of immigrant-bashing legislation (but most notably SB 1070), Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce was recalled by voters on Tuesday night.

KPHO reports:

Voters have ousted state Sen. Russell Pearce in an unprecedented recall election, a first for an Arizona legislator.

With a majority of the precincts reporting, the top vote-getter, Republican Jerry Lewis, steps into the District 18 legislative seat for the second year of a two-year term.

Lewis claimed victory at 9 p.m.  "Our opponent was the most powerful politician in Arizona and one who had deep-pocketed and powerful interests from outside our district backing him, as well as the entire muscle from our state Republican Party," Lewis said.

Lewis, 54, a charter school executive, has been a resident of Mesa for nearly 30 years.  His victory now forces the Senate's majority Republicans to pick a new leader for the chamber.

People on both sides of the debate said that removing Pearce would send a powerful message to the Legislature that uncompromising stances on immigration and other issues will not be tolerated by voters.

Pearce, a 64-year-old conservative Republican from Mesa, outspent his challenger by more than a 3-to-1 ratio and painted the recall advocates as liberal outsiders who targeted him because of his immigration stance.

Pearce was unabashedly racist and an asshole and it's a good riddance of bad rubbish. However, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Governor Jan Brewer are still elected officials in Arizona and should be removed from office by voters as well.

Majority Supports Path To Citizenship For Undocumented Immigrants

Matt Yglesisas posts this graphic demonstrating the results of a  poll which says that a majority of the public supports President Obama's position on immigration reform: we should include a path to citizenship for people who are living in the United States right now without the required legal documentation to work or immigrate. (This is what Republican conservatives like to call "amnesty.") Note that even staunch conservatives are split evenly on the question "Do you favor or oppose providing a way for illegal immigrants currently in the country to gain legal citizenship if they pass background checks, pay fines and have jobs?"

On a related note, Arizona is appealing it's illegal scheme to attempt to regulate immigration (better known as SB 1070) to the United States Supreme Court. Every federal court that has looked at SB 1070 has ruled it unconstitutional so far.

Connecting Federal Rulings on Prop 8 and SB 1070

My friend Sandip Roy has a great piece up on Salon magazine connecting the two recent federal rulings on Arizona's SB 1070 and California's Proposition 8. Called "Proposition 8 and S.B. 1070: Sisters under the skin?", Sandip writes from the perspective of a queer immigrant to point out that the two apparently disparate rulings validated two parts of his identity but stemmed from the same law: the 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution.

On July 28 Susan Bolton issued an injunction that defanged the anti-immigrant S.B. 1070 in Arizona. On Aug. 4, Vaughn Walker found California’s Proposition 8 that outlawed same-sex marriage unconstitutional. For this they will both be tarred as “judicial activists.” Judge Bolton has received death threats. Judge Walker is being denounced.

I have no idea if the two judges know each other, but within one week, they had suddenly brought together two parts of who I am. As a gay immigrant, I am used to juggling identities, never sure which one is acceptable in which setting, which one I should check at the door.

[...]

The fight over Proposition 8 in California rested on the 14th Amendment of the U.S. constitution. What Judge Walker found was Proposition 8 violated the due process and equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

The fight over illegal immigration is about federal jurisdiction and states' rights but it also boils down to the 14th Amendment. That’s the grand prize, the Holy Grail that the Russell Pearces of Arizona are really aiming to overturn. Pearce wrote in an e-mail obtained by CBS 5 News: "I also intend to push for an Arizona bill that would refuse to accept or issue a birth certificate that recognizes citizenship to those born to illegal aliens, unless one parent is a citizen."

[...]

Yes, both victories are just rest stops in much bigger fights. Both fights are probably headed for an uncertain future in the U.S. Supreme Court. But until today I didn’t realize that in some ways it’s the same fight. Supervisor David Campos told the cheering crowd that this was about "justice for all" -- not just "gays and lesbians, but immigrants and minorities and transgender."

That can sound like San Francisco big umbrella talk. But these cases touch each other in ways I didn’t realize. My numerologist friend said, "Of course they do, the digits in 1070 add up to, you guessed it, 8."

[...]

If the twin judgments show anything it's this. Though the crowd that celebrated Bolton’s decision in Phoenix might look different from the crowd celebrating Walker’s ruling, these are sisters under the skin. As [Equal Justice Society's Eva] Paterson reminded the crowd, "It’s the same law that gave equality and protection to immigrants in Arizona."

A great example of intersectional analysis at work..

POLL: Support for AZ Immigration Law Hits 57%

A new CBS national poll indicates that support for the arguably racist Arizona immigration law has hit 57%.

Support for the measure increased five points since May. Since then, the Justice Department has filed suit against the law, claiming that it usurps federal authority to enforce immigration laws.

The measure in question, signed into law in April and slated to go into effect later this month, makes it a state crime for a person to be in the country illegally. It also requires local law enforcement to question a person about his or her immigration status during all "lawful stops" if there is "reasonable suspicion" that person may be in the country illegally.

Twenty-three percent of Americans think the law goes too far, according to the poll, conducted July 9 - 12. That's down five points from the 28 percent who said in May that the measure goes too far. Another 17 percent said it doesn't go far enough.

About half of Americans - 52 percent -- say states should be able to enact laws regarding illegal immigrants, while 42 percent think only the federal government should able to do so.

There is a sharp partisan divide on this question: most Democrats (58 percent) say laws covering illegal immigration should be the responsibility of the federal government only, while Republicans (64 percent) and independents (58 percent) think the states should be allowed to pass such laws.

Half of Americans think illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans don't want, while fewer - 42 percent -- say they take jobs away from Americans.

The CBS poll also indicates that public support for the health care reform legislation has dropped seven points since May 20th.

Interestingly, a poll of LGBT respondents show that they overwhelmingly oppose the Arizona law.

20 LGBT Group Blast Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights groups and allies join
outcry against anti-immigrant measure in Arizona

More than 20 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) equality groups and allies today issued the following joint statement:

Arizona’s S.B. 1070 takes the state down a path that will lead to racial profiling, discrimination and anti-immigrant extremism. We stand in solidarity with other individuals, organizations and local governments in rejecting the misrepresentation of immigrants put forth in this unjust and ill-conceived measure.

S.B. 1070 essentially declares an entire class of people to be inherently criminal on the basis of their race and appearance. The consequences of S.B. 1070 are grave and troubling: the inevitability of racial profiling and infringement of civil liberties; the strong probability of violence and harassment against individuals and their families; and the reversal of progress toward creating a more inclusive society.

We also note that this bill was signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer, the same governor who last year stripped away earned health insurance benefits from the same-sex domestic partners of state employees. Brewer’s actions as governor demonstrate, at best, callous indifference — and at worst, willful malice — toward immigrants and LGBT people alike.

All Arizona families — lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and straight — have reason to be alarmed. The state’s new law threatens to tear apart families, separate children from their parents and rip apart loving couples who are building their lives together. The LGBT community knows all too well how easily people who “look different” or “act different” can be singled out for harassment and persecution. LGBT immigrants will be doubly vulnerable under this law, which gives license to discriminate.

We are united in our determination to stand for political and legislative change that will ensure just treatment of immigrants, people of color, and all people in Arizona. Such justice requires the repeal of S.B. 1070 and the passage and implementation of comprehensive federal immigration reform.

Today we join with groups such as Service Employees International Union, League of United Latin American Citizens, Asian American Justice Center, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Council of La Raza, National Action Network, the National Puerto Rican Coalition, and many others in the boycott against the state of Arizona until S.B. 1070 is repealed, overturned by the courts, or superseded by comprehensive federal immigration reform.

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund
Human Rights Campaign
GLAAD
Immigration Equality
National Black Justice Coalition
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs
Out & Equal Workplace Advocates
International Foundation for Gender Education
Family Equality Council
Two Spirit Press Room
Equality Federation
National Minority AIDS Council
National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce®
Freedom to Marry
Gay Men's Health Crisis
Lambda Legal
BiNet USA
International Federation of Black Prides, Inc.
Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals
UNID@S
SAGE
Atticus CircleNational Center for Lesbian Rights

Hey Arizona, This Is What An Immigrant Looks Like!

The newly crowned Miss USA is Rima Fakih, and she is an Arab-American immigrant whose Catholic Lebanese family came to the United States (legally) when she was a baby. Rima was Miss Michigan. Interestingly, the first runner-up, Miss Oklahoma Morgan Elizabeth Woolard expressed support for Arizona's anti-immigrant law SB 1070 during the very same beauty pageant.

I wonder if the new Miss USA will be traveling to Arizona in the next year?

Hat/tip Carlos in DC.

Immigration Equality Statement on Arizona Law

Immigration Equality, the premiere LGBT immigration rights group, issued the following statement on Arizona's new draconian immigration law:

“Immigration Equality joins immigrants, families and allies in Arizona and around the country in condemning the state’s new anti-immigrant law. The law is unjust, unconstitutional and unconscionable. Everyone of every ethnicity, faith, and sexual orientation should be concerned and appalled that a state has criminalized human beings based on who they are.

The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community knows all too well how easily people who “look different” can be singled out for harassment and prosecution. In addition, LGBT immigrant families are too familiar with the double burden of immigration discrimination. Now Arizona’s LGBT families have yet another reason to be alarmed. The state’s new law threatens to tear apart families, separate children from their parents and rip apart loving couples who are building their lives together. Forty percent of LGBT binational couples in the United States include a Latino family member. For them, and their loved ones, Arizona is now the most dangerous place in America.

We are confident our courts will strike down this heinous law, and stand in solidarity with all of those who are working for its demise. The need for comprehensive immigration reform that protects all families has never been more urgent, and we are working every day to make it a reality.”

Although, they do not call for a boycott of the state, several other organizations and people are doing just that.

Calls To Boycott Arizona Increase

In the wake of the enactment of SB 1070 in Arizona many people around the country are following my call for a boycott of the state of Arizona for as long as this law is in effect.

On Tuesday, seven members of the Los Angeles City Council signed a proposal for a boycott, calling for the city to "refrain from conducting business" or participating in conventions in Arizona. Councilman Ed Reyes, who coauthored the proposal with Councilwoman Janice Hahn, said he wants city officials to spend the next 90 days assessing the financial relationships that exist between various city departments and businesses based in Arizona

[...]

The leader of the California Senate, Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), called the law a "disgrace" and said the state also should consider a boycott. He sent a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asking for an inventory of Arizona businesses and government agencies with which California does business.

"The Arizona law is as unconscionable as it is unconstitutional, and the state of California should not be using taxpayer dollars to support such a policy," Steinberg wrote.

Already, several organizations have canceled planned conventions in Arizona. The American Immigration Lawyers Assn. announced that it is moving its fall convention, originally scheduled for Scottsdale in September.

Interestingly, according to Jon Stewart there is a provision in the law that if you declare that you are a citizen, then the police are supposed to take you at your word.

AZ Passes Bill To Criminalize Undocumented Status

The Republican-dominated Arizona legislature has passed a bill which would require police officers in the state to issue citations to people whom they have a "reasonable suspicion" is an undocumented immigrant, and determine their immigration status. Gee, I wonder how many blonde haired, blue-eyed Canadian immigrants are going to be cited!

Currently, officers can inquire about someone's immigration status only if the person is a suspect in another crime. The bill allows officers to avoid the immigration issue if it would be impractical or hinder another investigation.

Citizens can sue to compel police agencies to comply with the law, and no city or agency can formulate a policy directing its workers to ignore the law -- a provision that advocates say prevents so-called sanctuary orders that police not inquire about people's immigration status.

The bill cements the position of Arizona, whose border with Mexico is the most popular point of entry for illegal immigrants into this country, as the state most aggressively using its own laws to fight illegal immigration. In 2006 the state passed a law that would dissolve companies with a pattern of hiring illegal immigrants. Last year it made it a crime for a government worker to give improper benefits to an illegal immigrant.

Pity. I really enjoyed visiting Saguaro National Park outside of Tucson, but I will not be going to that state for as long as that state becomes law. Say, bye-bye to tourist dollars, Arizona!