In stark contrast to the angry “tea party” activists who marched on the nation’s capital today to protest excessive taxation, crowds of peaceful immigration reform supporters gathered outside post offices in several cities yesterday and today bearing signs with slogans stating “We Love Taxes!” and “Viva Taxes!” The demonstrators wanted to display that while tea party protesters are retaliating against what they perceive as their “burden” to the government, there are millions of undocumented immigrants who are eager for a chance to be brought in to American civil society and pay taxes as part of their civic duty.

In January, the Immigration Policy Center and the Center for American Progress found that legalizing undocumented immigrants through comprehensive immigration reform would generate $4.5 to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue within three years. The study predicted that ultimately the benefits of immigration reform would go beyond pure tax revenue and would yield at least $1.5 trillion in cumulative U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years. It also found that any mass deportation strategy would result in a cumulative reduction in GDP of $2.6 trillion over 10 years.

While many undocumented immigrants don’t receive W-2 forms because they are paid under the table and therefore can’t pay federal income taxes, there are millions more immigrants who are able to pay taxes by using an alternative to the Social Security number offered by the IRS. As a result, the Social Security Administration estimates that about three-quarters of all undocumented workers already pay taxes that contribute to Social Security and Medicare coffers. In 2005, the last year for which figures are available, undocumented immigrants contributed approximately $9 billion in federal income taxes. Meanwhile, the Immigration Policy Center has found that, on average, each immigrant — regardless of his or her immigration status — ends up paying between $20,000 and $80,000 more in taxes than that individual consumes in public benefits.

Later today, the Reform Immigration for America Campaign will be delivering blank tax forms to the office of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). Advocates hope to show that, by submitting tax forms that could’ve been filled out and sent to the IRS along with millions in tax revenue, they are illustrating the cost of inaction. Many have suggested that Hutchison is open to immigration reform, with some pundits suggesting it would be a smart career move after the devastating loss of her bid for Texas governor.

Our guest bloggers are Winny Chen, Policy Analyst and Manage for China Studies, and Megan Adams, an intern with the National Security and International Policy team at the Center for American Progress.

Iran was on the top of the agenda when Presidents Barack Obama and Hu Jintao met on the sidelines of this week’s nuclear summit in Washington, but what was agreed upon in that conversation depended on whom you asked.

National Security Council Senior Director for Asian Affairs Jeff Bader stated in a briefing Tuesday, “The two presidents agreed the two delegations should work together on sanctions [on Iran].” However, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Jiang Yu had a different take: “China has always believed that sanctions and pressure cannot fundamentally resolve the issue, and dialogue and negotiation are the best ways.” Chinese officials have also continued to press for a diplomatic solution. So what should we expect to happen next?

A look at China’s past positions could shed some light. China’s foot-dragging on sanctioning Iran isn’t new. Its interests in the Middle East have given it reason to shield Iran from sanctions in the U.N. Security Council. For one, China is concerned with protecting its access to energy. In recent UNSC discussions, officials from other countries have argued for sanctions targeting Iran’s energy sector, which would be most crippling to the Iranian economy. China has opposed such a strategy, probably because it imports around 460,000 barrels of Iranian oil a day and invests heavily in Iran’s energy sector.

On a more fundamental level, China has historically abstained from measures that infringe on other states’ sovereignty. Two of China’s Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, which serve as the foundation of China’s foreign policy, are mutual respect for sovereignty and non-interference in others’ internal affairs. These principles not only help China’s relations with other countries but prevent foreign powers from intervening in its domestic affairs as well, namely on human rights, Tibet and Taiwan issues. To the Chinese, economic sanctions would cross over the line into domestic affairs. They would not only violate the spirit of territorial integrity but also prove counter-productive, the Chinese have argued.

Recently, Iran appealed to China’s commitment to sovereignty and called on the Chinese to resist international pressure, specifically pressure from the United States. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast commented in March, “We are hopeful that China will not be affected by others’ demands and will have its own independent policy. We hope such independent, powerful countries will block bullying powers…” Iran has also offered financial incentives to China to further solidify their economic relationship.

Despite this, China has now shown a reluctant willingness to join with other UNSC members, just as it has in the past when under international pressure. In 2003, China thwarted the U.S.-backed attempt to condemn North Korea after it left the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, only to turn around and enforce sanctions against North Korea in 2006, when international pressure ratcheted up. Similarly, China supplied the International Atomic Energy Agency with intelligence on Iran’s secret nuclear build-up in 2008, after initially opposing sanctions against Iran. It seems that when China is isolated in its opposition, and especially when Russia agrees to cooperate with the other members of the UNSC, China finds its way back to the majority.

China has also shown considerable progress with global nuclear non-proliferation efforts, providing optimism on China’s dedication to nuclear security issues. Since signing the NPT in 1992 and the CTBT in 1996, China has been increasingly more active in the international arena in curtailing the spread of nuclear weapons. It has applied the same dedication at home as well with the development of domestic monitoring systems for nuclear related exports. China’s agreement Monday to work with the P5+1 on Iran mark another step in the country’s evolution toward a more responsible steward in the regime.

Now that it has agreed to work with the UNSC, China’s statements remain ambiguous as to what their version of an ideal sanction package would look like. How China behaves at the nuclear disarmament conference in Tehran next week will be very telling of how committed it is to working with the UNSC and the world on the non-proliferation issue. In the meantime, it is important the administration continues to ramp up international pressure on Iran, both to ensure China’s continue cooperation and to nudge Iran toward a solution.

This past Tuesday, the Arizona legislature passed what will probably end up being the toughest set of state immigration laws in the country. According to America’s Voice, the approved bill, entitled the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” would “make every undocumented worker in Arizona guilty of a criminal offense and require state and local police to go after them.” More specifically, it would allow police to arrest anyone who is in this country illegally and charge them with trespass, require police to attempt to determine the immigration status of anyone they encounter, outlaw the hiring of day laborers off the street, and prohibit anyone from knowingly transporting an undocumented immigrant for any reason.

Advocates are urging Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) to veto the measure. On the Rachel Maddow Show last night, current Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary and former governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, provided insight into why she choose veto at least two similar bills during her term as governor:

MADDOW: Your home state of Arizona this week has passed a very very strong anti-immigration bill. I think of it as the papers please bill. It compels police officers to demand papers from anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant. It’s now a misdemeanor to not carry your immigration paperwork with you at all times in Arizona. Didn’t you veto something like that when you were governor there?

NAPOLITANO: I think I vetoed things like that at least twice. And I did because first of all, immigration is primarily federal — not exclusively, but primarily federal. But, secondly, it doesn’t allow law enforcement to focus on where law enforcement needs to focus and to prioritize the way law enforcement needs the ability to prioritize for the protection of the public safety. There were other reasons as well. But it was no surprise to me when I was governor of Arizona that by and large, law enforcement — the men and women who are in charge of protecting public safety — oppose legislation like that.

Watch it:

In a letter accompanying one of the immigration bills Napolitano vetoed in 2006, the former governor described the legislation as “a weak and ineffective illegal immigration bill that offers complete amnesty to employers, violates the constitution, and is overwhelmingly opposed by law enforcement and top border elected officials in the state.” The “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” faces similar criticisms. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police strongly opposes it. The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona claims it “rewrite[s] the Constitution by turning the presumption of innocence on its head.” Arturo Venegas, director of the Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative, issued a statement accusing the Arizona legislature of “playing politics with public safety.” “By creating new mandates forcing police to track down undocumented immigrants, the bill will result in police spending less time keeping the streets free of violent criminals,” stated Venegas. Yesterday, Mesa Police Chief Frank Milstead expressed additional concerns that the bill would require “people to prove their innocence” before even charged with a crime.

Milstead is also worried about the cost associated with the potential new laws. While the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency funds a six-week training course for police officers enrolled in their immigration policing program, Milstead’s police department — which is already pinching pennies as it faces a $6.4 million budget cut for the upcoming fiscal year — would be largely on its own. Milstead’s fiscal concerns are legitimate. Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has built the latter part of his career out of going after undocumented immigrants, created a $1.3 million deficit in just three months as a result of his immigration-enforcement crusade. Meanwhile, violent crimes and homicides in his jurisdiction have gone up by 166%. And despite ICE’s training, Arpaio is still facing piles of racial profiling and discrimination law suits, a Department of Justice investigation, and a Federal Bureau of Investigation probe. Arpaio has turned to taxpayers to cover his legal fees, asking the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors for $7 million to pay his lawyers.

Gov. Brewer’s spokesman Paul Senseman ambiguously told the Arizona Republic today that the governor has not commented on this particular bill yet but “has a strong and consistent track record of supporting responsible immigration-enforcement measures.” Meanwhile, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon has blasted the legislation, stating, “It will do exactly the opposite of what it intended to do — provide a secure Arizona.” “It drives companies away, it drives employees that are needed away, and it drives people who spend money away.”