The Nashville City Paper reports that Sheriff Daron Hall of Davidson County, Tennessee has pulled out of an event hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Local immigration activists brought the group’s nativist history to his attention and Hall canceled his meeting with CIS so as not to “cause discord among the people [he's] trying to building bridges with.”

Hall was set to appear Thursday at a CIS event dedicated to perpetuating the myth that “immigrants have relatively high rates of criminality.” It’s unclear what position Hall was going to take at the event, but there certainly won’t be any dissenting opinions in his absence. The panel now solely consists of CIS staff: Director of Research Steven Camarota, Director of Policy Studies Jessica Vaughan, and Executive Director Mark Krikorian. When questioned about Hall’s cancellation, Krikorian remarked that CIS’ nativist ties have been exaggerated as part of a “broader, concerted effort to delegitimize any skeptic of amnesty or increased immigration”:

“They don’t have the balls to describe us as a hate group, they have to do this McCarthyite kind of guilt by association thing…Their function is to provide information for this campaign of vilification…The sheriff can do whatever he needs to do, we’re going to be disappointed he’s not here but that’s his call to make. It’s the advocacy groups that are essentially lying to him that are at fault here.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) describes CIS as a “think tank [which] bills itself as an ‘independent’ organization,” despite the fact that it “has never found any aspect of immigration that it liked.” SPLC explains that “the organized anti-immigration ‘movement,’ increasingly in bed with racist hate groups, is dominated by one man, John Tanton.” CIS, along with its unofficial sister organizations, NumbersUSA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a designated hate group, were all founded by Tanton — the “nativist impresario.”

Hall faced “a firestorm of criticism” when he headlined a white supremacist event sponsored by the Middle Tennessee chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC).

In an interview this morning on Fox & Friends, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the proposals she offered as part of her first comprehensive discussion on immigration reform. Last Friday, Napolitano announced that immigration reform should consist of “serious and effective enforcement,” a rational system for dealing with future flows of immigrants, and — perhaps most importantly — a path to legalization for those who are already here.

Today, Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson asked Napolitano to explain her “controversial comments.” Napolitano responded:

I don’t think they’re controversial. I think they’re commonsense…

The notion that somehow you’re going to find and deport the 11-12 million who are here illegally is illusory. So if you don’t do anything, you basically have amnesty by inaction. What we’re saying is look, you gotta come out, you’ve gotta report, you’re gonna have to pay a fine, you’re gonna have to learn English, you’re gonna have to be a taxpayer — those are the things that bring people out of the shadows.

Watch it:

Jon Feere over at the Center for Immigration Studies is one of those individuals who opposes Napolitano’s “controversial” solutions and favors an “illusory” strategy of “attrition through enforcement.” Feere proposes shrinking the population of undocumented immigrants through hardline enforcement measures that include deporting as many immigrants as possible and making life so unbearable for those that aren’t caught, that they choose to “deport themselves.” Besides the questionable moral implications associated with Feere’s recommendation, attrition through enforcement just isn’t feasible.

The estimated costs associated with any mass deportation effort would likely be at least $206 billion over five years, and could be as high as $230 billion or more. Meanwhile, the estimated revenue associated with the 2006 immigration reform bill which would’ve put undocumented immigrants on a path to legalization totaled $66 billion over a ten year period. Most undocumented immigrants come to the US out of economic desperation and it’s unlikely that there’s much the government could legally do to make their life harder here than it is for them abroad.

Ultimately, it’s unlikely that the federal government will start pouring billions of dollars into an “illusory” strategy that’s only supported by a vocal minority. Requiring undocumented immigrants to register with the government, pay all taxes they owe, and face certain penalties as part of earning legal status is a “tough and fair” path to legalization that’s supported by the majority of voters, not un-endorsed amnesty. Meanwhile, inaction on immigration reform would represent a silent pardon of the status quo that wouldn’t go unnoticed.

A year ago, there was a rising fear that the US and Russia were on the verge of a new Cold War. Today the relationship seems to have gone 180. The US and Russia are now on the verge of signing a new nuclear disarmament agreement and look increasingly in sync on Iran. Yesterday, Obama met directly with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit in Singapore where both leaders said negotiations on a new START agreement were close to completion. Medvedev also expressed his displeasure with Iran, giving another indication that Russia may back Obama should the Iranians reject the nuclear deal on the table. Following the meeting and Medvedev pronouncements, Obama concluded that “the reset button has worked.”

The turnaround in US-Russian relations is a huge foreign policy accomplishment for President. In the final years of the Bush administration US-Russian relations deteriorated to the point where many in the Bush administration were advocating an outwardly confrontational approach. This only escalated further following the Russia-Georgia war in August of 2008, as John McCain actively pushed for escalating the hostility. However, sensible foreign policy experts from both parties rejected this dangerous approach, arguing that the US needed to prevent relations from deteriorating further and should seek to establish a more grounded business-like relationship with the Russian. In September of last year, five former Secretaries of State all emphasized this point. Henry Kissinger, hardly a liberal softy, insisted:

We have a number of common issues that we have to settle, if possible, with Russia. We need Russia for a solution of the Iranian problem. We may need Russia if Pakistan evolves in some of the directions that it might. And it is helpful to cooperate with Russia not just on the [nuclear] question, but on the issues of energy.

James Baker added:

Look at it [Russia] in a strategic context and not tactically…we have some big-picture issues that we need to be conscious of when we think about our future with Russia, and we ought to cooperate with them where we can, where they fit, but we ought to also be willing to confront them where our vital interests are involved.

This past year has seen the Obama administration successfully implement this approach. Unlike President Bush, Obama has kept the relationship in the right context, avoiding naïve pronouncements of a new beautiful friendship (as Bush did in 2001 when he looked in Putin’s soul). Instead, the relationship is now about getting stuff done on issues of key strategic importance like nuclear proliferation, Iran, and Afghanistan. This level-headed policy has resulted in major progress in reducing the dangers of nuclear proliferation, as well as potentially removed one of the biggest obstacles to a cohesive international response on Iran. There is still a long way to go on all these issues, but the turn around in relations is clear.

Yet neoconservatives today seem to see improved relations with Russia and the fact that a new Cold War has not materialized as not a cause for rejoicing, but one for panic. What does it say about a political movement that sees improved relations as a form of bad news?

Last week, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) revealed the legislative timeline for a repeal of the military’s discriminatory Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy. “Military issues are always done as part of the overall authorization bill,” Frank told the Advocate. “’Don’t ask, don’t tell’ was always going to be part of the military authorization.”

Now, the movement to repeal the ban on gay men and women from serving openly in the military has gained even more momentum. Three former military chaplains are announcing today that they support a full repeal of the DADT. In a Q&A released by VoteVets, the three men, Charles D. Camp, Chaplain (Colonel), USA (Ret.), John F. Gundlach, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret.), and Jerry Rhyne, Chaplain (Colonel), USAF (Ret.), also addressed implementation concerns regarding a repeal:

What would be the impact of changing the current law on unit cohesion and morale?

The 2009 Joint Forces Quarterly article states clearly, “After a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.” A 1993 RAND Corp. report concludes the same, as do several other military-commissioned reports. In addition, 68 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan troops said, according to a 2006 Zogby poll, they either knew for certain (23%) or suspected (45%) there were gays in their own unit. That means there are tens of thousands of known gay service members currently working and fighting alongside their straight peers, and there is no demonstrable negative impact on unit morale, cohesion or combat readiness. In fact, 73% of troops in the poll said they were “comfortable” in the presence of gay peers. [...]

Polling data from current U.S. troops combined with the experience of our foreign military allies demonstrate that known gays in a unit do not degrade morale, cohesion or operational readiness.

Disputing the claims often made by supporters of DADT, Camp, Gundlach, and Rhyne argue that repealing the policy would actually help the military’s recruitment and retention:

What would be the impact of changing the current law on recruiting and retention?

Repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” would help recruiting and retention. The recent issue of Joint Forces Quarterly, an article—reportedly signed off on by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen–convincingly makes the case that current law has been “costly both in personnel and treasure,’’ referring to the cost of discharging service members and recruiting replacements, including those with language or other specialized skills. Approximately two service members are discharged each day under DADT. This number includes linguists, physicians, pilots and others highly trained personnel in mission critical specialties. Costs for the training of replacements are in the hundreds of millions. According to the UCLA’s Williams Institute, an estimated 2500-3000 service members either leave the service, or choose not to re-enlist, because of the law. When the number of involuntary discharges under “don’t ask, don’t tell” is combined with the voluntary attrition because of this law, the result is an annual loss of 4000 trained, experienced and often combat tested troops. Replacing these veterans with recent graduates of recruit training or newly commissioned officers would naturally reduce unit readiness.

VoteVets is “gathering names of veterans to give to the White House and Congress to let them know now is the time to overturn this discriminatory policy.” Veterans can sign the petition here and civilians can sign a petition of support here.

Access the full release and Q & A here (pdf).