Earlier this evening, I was able to call in to a tele-townhall on the important and urgent issue of immigrant dumping in Arizona. The tele-townhall was hosted by gubernatorial candidate Doug Ducey and also included Maricopa County Attorney, Bill Montgomery. Approximately 3,000 individuals also joined in on the call.
The issue of immigrant dumping began last week when the federal government began busing illegal border crossers from Texas to Arizona and other locations. What is especially disturbing is that many of these immigrants are unaccompanied minors and women and small children.
Many of these individuals are being dropped at the Greyhound Bus depot in Phoenix in the middle of the Arizona heat. (Breitbart’s Brandon Darby wrote a feature article about this last week.)
Tonight’s call with State Treasurer Doug Ducey and MCAO Bill Montgomery revealed that the Obama administration is the driving force behind the immigrant dumping taking place. Montgomery even went as far as to describe the situation as a humanitarian crisis in the making. Because many of these immigrants are being dropped off in the heat of summer, Montgomery explained how under normal Arizona law this type of offense (abandoning a minor under 16) would be prosecuted as a class 4 felony child abuse.
Doug Ducey affirmed Montgomery’s claim that this was a humanitarian crisis developing and that President Obama had created yet another “national scandal” that it was not willing to take responsibility for.
Both Ducey and Montgomery were adamant in their charge that the federal government was not acting in the best interest of the immigrants, taxpayers, law-abiding citizens or the State of Arizona.
Several callers asked question during the call including Diane in Mesa who wanted to know how much illegal immigration was costing Americans. Another caller asked why or what the Governor could do. One caller asked about the response of Republicans to which both Ducey and Montgomery agreed that faith-based organizations can and are playing a role in addressing the immediate need to help.
Given Arizona’s inherent geographical location, this issue is not going away anytime soon and both Montgomery recognize that. But Doug Ducey remains committed to border security and putting pressure on the federal government to enforce existing laws and empowering Arizona to fulfill its role.
As Arizona’s next Governor, I am confident that Doug Ducey will mount a proper response to federally-manufactured crisis like this while advocating and soliciting humanitarian assistance from Arizonans who understand the need to enforce the law while being compassionate to those in need.
To send a message to the Obama Administration on this issue and others, please sign the petition Stop Obama!
Watch this video from a recent town hall in LD-29.
Aaron Borders, the only Republican who appeared in this town hall panel, blew the Democrat candidates away with his responses on issues.
Let’s hope the voters single-shot Aaron Borders in the General Election so he can take a seat in the Arizona Legislature in 2015.
Hugh Hewitt: Memo to the States’ Governors and AGs on The Decision On Obamacare’s Exchanges: Go Churchill Or Go Home
By Hugh Hewitt
So brilliant needed to be reposted from Townhall.com.
With the president mobilizing for a barnstorming tour in support of massive tax hikes and to, in effect, overturn last week’s vote to keep the House in GOP hands and the gavel in John Boehner’s —details here on the president’s plan— the GOP is getting organized in the House and laying down markers.
The media is focused on speculation about the “big deal” and the various scandals, but a huge story is brewing that few are watching.
The deadline for the most important political and legal decisions of the near term is being made in every state: Whether or not to establish a state health insurance exchange pursuant to Obamacare. The original deadline for each governor to decide was this Friday, but HHS has graciously given the states another month to decide which poison to pick: Subservience via establishment of a puppet exchange or takeover of the state’s insurance business via a big foot federal health exchange. The rules the feds have dictated the states must follow in making their choice are here.
Yesterday, Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama announced that Alabama would not be establishing the exchange or expanding Medicaid. The latter is not surprising, as the expansion will quickly eat away at state budgets.
But Bentley’s position on the exchange –he joins at least Alaska, Florida and Texas in just saying no– is very welcome and hopefully a model for other Republican governors who must by law indicate their decisions on the exchange set-up by mid-December. Other states ought also to study the example set by Oklahoma, and sue to overturn the Hobbesian choice on exchanges being forced on them.
Only one state lawsuit against the forced choice on health exchanges has been filed —by the Sooners’ AG, and the amended complaint is here— and the national opposition to Obamacare should be looking for other governors to say no and other attorneys general to file similar challenges to the health exchange jam down.
II. The New Claims
8. In addition to that claim, Plaintiff raises new claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to final federal regulations (the “Final Rule”) that were issued under Internal Revenue Code Section 36B, as added by Section 1401 of the Act, while proceedings in this action were stayed. The Final Rule was issued in contravention of the procedural and substantive requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (“the APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 702; has no basis in any law of the United States; and directly conflicts with the unambiguous language of the very provision of the Internal Revenue Code it purports to interpret.
9. More specifically, Sections 1311 and 1321(c) of the Act allows States to choose to establish an “American Health Benefit Exchange” to operate in the State to facilitate execution of the Act’s key provisions. If a State elects not to establish an Exchange under Section 1311, Section 1321(b) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create an Exchange to operate in that state.
10. Under the Act, this choice has important consequences for the State’s people and the State’s economy, because health insurance premium tax credits for low-income employed individuals and employer obligations under the Act both depend on which alternative the State chooses. If the State elects to establish its own Exchange, the Federal Government will make “advance payments” of premium tax credits to insurance companies on behalf of some of the State’s residents to subsidize health insurance enrollment through the State-created Exchange, but the payment of the subsidy for even one employee triggers costly obligations on the part of the employer that would not be triggered in a non-electing State, placing the electing State at a competitive disadvantage for jobs and job growth.
11. The Act leaves this policy judgment to each State and provides a mechanism for each State to choose the alternative it thinks is better for its people. The Final Rule upsets this balance by providing, contrary to the Act, that qualifying taxpayers are eligible for premium tax credits and “advance payments” if they enroll for health insurance through the Exchange where they live, regardless of whether it is a State-established Exchange or an HHS-established Exchange. Thus, if the Final Rule is permitted to stand, federal subsidies will be paid under circumstances not authorized by the Congress; employers will be subjected to liabilities and obligations under circumstances not authorized by Congress; and States will be deprived of the opportunity created by the Act to choose for itself whether creating a competitive environment to promote economic and job growth is better for its people than access to federal subsidies.
12. Oklahoma has not established or elected to establish an Exchange, and does not expect to do so. As a result, under the plain terms of the Act, employers in Oklahoma should not be subject to the Employer Mandate because of a determination that an Oklahoma resident employed by the employer in Oklahoma is entitled to advance payment of a premium tax credit because of enrolling for coverage through an Exchange established by HHS to operate in Oklahoma. However, the Final Rule purports to make such an individual eligible for a premium tax credit based on enrolling for coverage through an Exchange established by HHS to operate in Oklahoma, with the result that an Oklahoma employer employing such an individual will be exposed to liability under the Employer Mandate under circumstances not provided for under the Act. Thus, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief declaring the Final Rule invalid.
This is a narrow argument aimed at a specific rule, but there are other arguments to make, including the damage done to federalism when, upon saying no, the enormous supertanker of Obamacare sails into a state’s legal harbor via the federal exchange and smashes all the docks and other ships, displacing not merely the opportunity to run an exchange but destroying countless other state-administered relationships and regulatory balances.
States have to defend themselves against the giant takeover of states’ powers and duties by Obamacare. The decision to “just say no” so has to be taken by mid-December. Encourage your governor to say no and to sue alongside of Oklahoma, perhaps engaging one of the country’s leading experts on structural federalism like Georgetown’s Randy Barnett or my own colleague at Chapman John Eastman to make the arguments to preserve the state’s legislative integrity and their independence from D.C. Not only is this the right way to proceed for a state intent on protecting its citizens from an ever-expanding federal government, it may also present the Supreme Court with a second bite at the Obamacare apple via a different set of issues not dependent on the “is the penalty a tax” debate.
Some states are tired of the fight and their law departments not eager to spend another year battling the DOJ.
But that isn’t their choice. That choice belongs to their governor and their attorney general. Those who don’t choose to fight now cannot expect conservatives to fight for them in the future. Go Churchill or go home.
The left is attempting to declare the Obamacare fight over. It isn’t. It is a 15 round fight. Conservatives won rounds when they elected Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell and then Scott Brown after the debate was begun. The left won a round when the law passed was passed, and it won a round when the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, but conservatives won in that opinion as well, on Medicaid and on the reach of the Commerce Clause.
The left scored a knock-down with the president’s re-election, but the fight isn’t over if the conservatives opposed to the law get up off the canvas and fight on. Oklahoma has, and some states have joined them, though not yet in the courts. They should, and soon. Obamacare was nightmare before the election, and it is a nightmare still. The president’s re-election was manifestly not about Obamacare, and the decision is not final and won’t be until every good argument is made and every opportunity given the Supreme Court to review the law in full.
Even if the legal fight should fail, it is important for federalism that many states pass on becoming puppets of the feds via the state exchanges. The fiasco-in-waiting of the federal exchange should be on the president’s head, with blame not easily shifted to bungling governors. The president broke it, so he should buy and operate it.
But only after every argument has been made, and the Supreme Court offered the opportunity to rule on the law as a whole.
The Arizona Energy Forum cordially invites you to a Town Hall Forum featuring:
Congressman Paul Gosar (AZ-01)
Tuesday, May 1st
Prescott Resort & Conference Center
1500 State Route 69
Prescott, AZ 86301
Prescott Valley Mayor Harvey Skoog
Come listen to Congressman Paul Gosar speak about national energy
policy, rising gas prices, and other issues affecting our community.
This forum is free and open to the public.
For more information or to RSVP, please call Paul Layeux at 602.955.2186
or email email@example.com.
The Arizona Energy Forum is a bipartisan coalition of Arizona citizens that support energy
policies that protect our nation’s energy and economic security, hearby protecting American jobs, and keeping energy prices low for American families.
This video was created as part of YouTube Town Hall, answering the question “GOVERNANCE: Why has partisan bickering taken hold in Congress? Compromise is necessary for the benefit of the American people. Do you have to always vote along party lines? Can we learn to compromise again?”. To view the debate and choose the side, please visithttp://www.YouTube.com/YTTownHall.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 18, 2011
CONTACT: Richard Cullen
Media Advisory: Rep. Quayle Participates in Town Hall Discussion Focused on Energy Issues
WHAT: Congressman Ben Quayle (R-AZ), a member of the House Energy Action Team (HEAT), participates in a town hall discussion hosted by the Arizona Energy Forum
WHEN: Wednesday, October 19 at 6:30 p.m. (Doors open at 6:00 p.m.)
WHERE: Camelback High School
ADDRESS: 4612 North 28th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85016
PARTICIPANTS: Congressman Ben Quayle (R-AZ), Rep. Kate Brophy McGee (LD11 Energy Committee), Troy Hyde, Chair of the Arizona Energy Forum
Radisson Phoenix City Center
3600 N. 2nd Avenue
Sedona A & B
This event is FREE and open to the public.
Contact Susan Leeper if you have any questions at 480-998-5022