The Battle for Arizona: Endorsement Brings Stormy Weather To Grand Canyon State

Here is a link to the latest Caleb Report put out by Life Decisions International. Douglas Scott, another former Executive Director of Arizona Right to Life, heads LDI based in Virginia, published the latest newsletter which details much of what happened in the Arizona Right to Life endorsement. Already almost a dozen leaders of the organization have denounced the PAC decision and endorsed JD Hayworth. Here is an excerpt:

 

Arizona Right to Life (ARL) is facing intense criticism over the decision of its political action committee (PAC) to endorse U.S. Senator John S.McCain III in his bid for a fifth term.McCain actively promotes taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell experimentation and has never been an enthusiastic supporter of pro-life initiatives. His career pro-life voting record averages at 77 percent—a figure that dropped to just 33 percent one year.

 

 

Tom Horne Runs From Amnesty But Can’t Hide Support

Thomas v. Horne
Stopping Illegal Immigration v. Supporting Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants

PHOENIX, ARIZONA. JUNE 10, 2010.  The problem with trying to be someone you’re not, as liberal Attorney General candidate Tom Horne is doing, is that veracity usually trumps phoniness.
Unable to compete with former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas’ successful record fighting illegal immigration Horne is downplaying his own deficiencies on the subject.   Indeed, at last week’s GOP debate Horne tried to avoid his support for amnesty but his past record can’t be ducked.
The public record makes it very clear that, just three years ago, Horne proposed his own plan for granting amnesty to illegal immigrants who graduate high school and pass a test.  Furthermore, Horne is on record opposing efforts to count the number of illegal immigrants in Arizona schools, and opposing efforts to overturning Plyler vs. Doe, the Supreme Court decision that ordered free public school educations for illegal immigrant students.

The Horne Amnesty Plan

In a February 17, 2007 article, the East Valley Tribune feature titled “Arizona taxpayers spend up to $1.2 billion annually to educate children of illegal immigrants”, Horne is on record with a plan of his own for granting amnesty and citizenships to illegal immigrants who graduate high school and take a test.  A portion of the Tribune article discussed Horne’s plan:

CITIZENSHIP WITH DIPLOMAS?

Horne has a plan that would reward high school graduates with citizenship. All they would have to do is pass a test.

“If there’s a standardized test that confirms it, that the student does well and learned, I would have no objection to that,” Horne said.

But Rodriguez said Horne’s proposal would create an incentive for immigrants to break the law while there are other people waiting in line to become citizens.

“They’re doing it the right way,” Rodriguez said. “Why should these people step in the front of the line and break another rule?”

The bottom line, Horne said, is that illegal immigration is the parents’ fault – not the children’s fault.

“Let’s fight the Supreme Court again,” Rodriguez said. “And let’s see what happens.” The article can still be read on the Tribune’s website here:  http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/article_42d1e9c7-6997-5863-930f-4af0c650d70f.html

Horne supported free education for illegal immigrant students

At a June 18, 2009 meeting of the Pachyderm Coalition, Horne told the group that he was opposed to overturning Plyler vs. Doe and stated that, “I am a proponent of education for illegal immigrant children,” and, “I would not let kids stay uneducated.”

Also, in 2009, Horne opposed legislation that would have Arizona schools ask students whether they were in the country legally.  This legislation would not have stopped giving tuition-free education to illegal immigrant students.  However, it would have set up a legal challenge to 1982 Supreme Court ruling Plyler vs. Doe.  This ruling said that all children have a constitutional right to a free, taxpayer-funded public education, even when those children are living in the United States illegally.  Since 1982, the court has become more conservative, and many legal analysts believe that today’s court might rule differently on the issue were the court presented with a similar case.

An article by Howard Fischer that appeared in the Arizona Daily Star article on April 28, 2009 (seehttp://azstarnet.com/news/local/education/precollegiate/article_513c62d6-3675-5680-9b49-d7e801b0c57b.html ) quoted Tom Horne opposing this bill.  Interestingly, Horne was aligning himself with Terry Goddard vs. Jan Brewer and Joe Arpaio, as both Brewer and Arpaio supported the bill.  A portion of the Arizona Daily Star article:“…a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decisionappears to make it illegal for school officials to ask. In a 5-4 decision, the justices overturned a Texas law that authorized school districts to refuse to enroll anyone who couldn’t prove legal residence.

But Dupnik said it may be time for Arizona to have a test case to put the issue back before the high court — to see if the current justices agree.

Dupnik has the backing of Yuma County Sheriff Ralph Ogden and Joe Arpaio, his Maricopa County counterpart. And Gov. Jan Brewer said she sees no reason why youngsters shouldn’t be asked to prove they are U.S. citizens or legal residents.

“When I grew up, when I went to school, when I moved from Nevada to California, I had to bring my birth certificate to prove I was a citizen,” she said.

But Attorney General Terry Goddard said he doesn’t think schools have the expertise to determine legal status. And state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne said he believes the federal government should just do a better job of protecting the border.

“But as long as kids are here, they should be in school,” he said. “You don’t want them on the street corner.”


While Horne is supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants, Andrew Thomas has been fighting to stop illegal immigration:

Thomas has a track record of successfully defending illegal immigration crackdowns in our courts, including his successful efforts to prosecute illegal immigrants for conspiring to violate the state’s human-smuggling law and to defend Prop 200′s voter ID requirements and the employer-sanctions law, which he defended along with the Attorney General’s Office.
If elected Attorney General Thomas has pledged to expand that office’s prosecutions of illegal immigrants under the state’s human smuggling laws. The office is not currently pursuing such prosecutions.
During Thomas’ time in office, crime rates plummeted.  The 19 percent drop is more than twice the national rate of decline, in despite of an 11 percent increase in the county’s population during that time.  The illegal immigrant population has dropped by anywhere from 18 percent (Dept. of Homeland Security estimate) to 30 percent (Center for Immigration Studies estimate). Like the fall in crime rates, this dramatic decline in illegal immigration is far greater than the average in the rest of the nation.
Thomas has been endorsed by notable Arizona law enforcement leaders including Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Yavapai County Sheriff Steve Waugh, Mohave County Attorney Matthew Smith, Mohave County Sheriff Tom Sheahan, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, the National Border Patrol Council Local 2544 and former Arizona Attorney General and NRA President Bob Corbin.  State Senator Jonathan Paton and Arizona Right to Life endorsed Thomas as well.
To schedule an interview please contact Jason Rose. For more information on Andrew Thomas, please go towww.ThomasForArizona.com.

Thinking About the Overton Window

by Dan Guerin
Goldwater Institute

What if you discovered a diabolical plot decades in the making to transform America into something sinister that could strip away your freedoms? Would you do all you could to reveal the plan and try to save the country, even if speaking out might destroy your life? That is the question facing the protagonist of Glenn Beck’s new novel The Overton Window.

Set for release on June 15, the political thriller is based on a theory developed by the late vice president of Michigan’s Mackinac Center, Joseph Overton, called The Overton Window. The theory states that policy proposals in any given area can be arranged from the most freedom to the least free. But only a narrow window of those policy options is considered politically acceptable to politicians. This smaller list of policy options does not necessarily reflect the stance a lawmaker would prefer to take on an issue. Rather, this “window” looks onto the range of choices the lawmaker believes he or she can support and still win re-election. As ideas change in society, the window shifts to include new policies or exclude old ones.

Policy research organizations such as the Goldwater Institute and the Mackinac Center play a critical part in shifting the Overton Window in the right direction. We call attention to good ideas that the public doesn’t know about. In turn, lawmakers recognize where these ideas fit within the range of policy options they can support. As Mackinac Center President Joseph Lehman puts it: “Today’s unacceptable ideas become acceptable. Yesterday’s acceptable policies become unacceptable. Change ideas to shift the Overton Window. Shift the window, and you change policy.” The Goldwater Institute has, and always will, work to move the Overton Window toward those policies that protect and expand your liberty.

Dan Guerin is a communications associate with the Goldwater Institute.