Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce (R), the sponsor of SB-1070 who was recently elected state Senate president, has pushed and authored a series of other lesser-known immigration laws in his state. One of those was Proposition 300 — a referendum approved by Arizona voters in November 2006 which forces undocumented Arizonans to pay out-of-state tuition and bars them from receiving financial aid.

Recently, two undocumented students confronted Pearce and asked him if he believed they should be punished for the sins of their fathers. In response, Pearce — a lawmaker — told the students that he “doesn’t make the law”:

DREAMer: What do you think about you should not be punished for the sins of your father? — Because it wasn’t our choice to come here…

PEARCE: I understand, but blame your father. I agree with you. Shame on him.

DREAMer: Okay, do you believe that we should not be punished for that though?

PEARCE: Well, that’s not the issue. I don’t make the law. I will enforce the law. It’s illegal under federal law. All it is is a codification of the law. I will enforce it.

DREAMer: But the 14th amendment — that is the law, and you want it to change…

PEARCE: No it’s not! You can pervert the Constitution all you like. Doesn’t work well. I’m not gonna listen to this garbage.

Watch it:

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio often defends his draconian immigration tactics by pointing out that he doesn’t “make” the laws. However, Pearce does. His bills don’t codify federal law, but rather redefine the laws themselves. It’s true that Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) prohibits states from “providing a postsecondary education benefit to an alien not lawfully present unless any citizen or national is eligible for such benefit.” However, it doesn’t bar states from providing in-state tuition to undocumented students — a practice that the state of California implements. Pearce also erroneously claimed that “it’s illegal [for undocumented immigrants] to attend higher ed under federal law.”

Pearce is trying to “reinterpret” the 14th amendment to prevent the American-born children of undocumented immigrants from receiving U.S citizenship upon birth. As part of this new legislative project, Pearce has also toyed with the idea of charging undocumented children tuition if they receive a public elementary or high school education in Arizona. This proposal is clearly in conflict with federal law and the Plyler v. Doe Supreme Court decision, which determined that all children, regardless of immigration status, are guaranteed access to public education from kindergarten through 12th grade.

Besides the fact the Pearce does make the law, his response is also interesting in relation to his faith. Pearce is a “devout Mormon.” Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that the “sins of parents cannot be answered upon the heads of their children.” The Book of Mormon also states that “little children” are “not capable of committing sin.”

Yet the laws that Pearce authors cast a wide net that seeks to punish undocumented men, women, and children alike. SB-1070 begins with the proclamation that “attrition through enforcement” is “the public policy of all state and local government.” In other words, the law’s purpose is to make life so miserable for all undocumented immigrants that they choose to self-deport. Meanwhile, the federal government has a policy of focusing its limited resources on pursuing undocumented immigrants who are violent criminals.

You can watch the full video here.

Responding to recent statements by American conservatives supporting the “military option” against Iran, Iranian human rights activist Dr. Shirin Ebadi stated unequivocally that the use of such an option would be disastrous. “The military option will not benefit the U.S. interest or the Iranian interest,” said Ebadi. “It is the worst option. You should not think about it.” Ebadi said, “The Iranian people — including myself — will resist any military action.”

In an interview with ThinkProgress, Ebadi, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 “for her efforts for democracy and human rights,” said an attack on Iran “would give the government an excuse to kill all of its political opponents, as was done during the Iran-Iraq war.” For this reason, Ebadi suggested that the Iranian government probably “wouldn’t mind the U.S. throwing a missile at them.”

The Wonk Room reports more from the interview with Ebadi.

Responding to recent statements by American conservatives supporting the “military option” against Iran, Iranian human rights activist Dr. Shirin Ebadi stated unequivocally that the use of such an option would be disastrous. “The military option will not benefit the U.S. interest or the Iranian interest,” said Ebadi. “It is the worst option. You should not think about it.” Ebadi said, “The Iranian people — including myself — will resist any military action.”

In an interview with Think Progress, Ebadi, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003, said an attack on Iran “would give the government an excuse to kill all of its political opponents, as was done during the Iran-Iraq war.” For this reason, Ebadi suggested that the Iranian government probably “wouldn’t mind the U.S. throwing a missile at them.”

The last time Ebadi was in Iran was several days before the June 12, 2009 elections, when she departed for a conference in Spain. “I took nothing but a small bag and my blood pressure medicine,” she said. From her hotel in Spain, she watched the post-election protests unfold on Iran’s streets, and then the crushing of those protests by government security forces. She hasn’t been home since.

Ebadi disagreed with critics who said that President Obama should have spoken more forcefully in support of the Green movement in June 2009. “The Green movement is the Iranian peoples’ movement,” she said. While it’s important for the U.S. and other democracies to voice support for human rights, Ebadi said, real change “must come from inside Iran.”

“I believe Obama’s Middle East policy is correct,” Ebadi said. By showing a willingness to engage with Iran, Obama helped create international consensus “that it is the Iranian regime that doesn’t want to talk.”

In contrast, Ebadi criticized the Bush administration’s “axis of evil” approach in the Middle East, saying that Iran and Ahmadinejad, had become more popular in the region because of U.S. policies, particularly the invasion and occupation of Iraq. “You paid money, Iraqis died, and Iran has benefited,” said Ebadi. “Saddam was Iran’s enemy that was removed by the U.S.,” and Iran’s power and influence, both in Iran and elsewhere, has been increased as a result.

Asked what the U.S. could do to help democracy in Iran, Ebadi replied that, in addition to continuing to voice support for human rights, the U.S. should “help make peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”

“We have to be realistic, ” Ebadi said. “If there’s peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the Iranian government would lose” an important propaganda tool. Right now, any leader who stands up for the Palestinian cause is “will be a hero” in the Middle East, Ebadi said, something Ahmadinejad has used very effectively to his advantage.

This morning, conservative Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has an op-ed in the Washington Examiner titled “What Republicans Can Accomplish In The 112th Congress.” In the op-ed, Coburn lays out a legislative agenda that he thinks Republicans should pursue in the new Congress. Many of these are boilerplate conservative ideas, like refusing to raise the debt ceiling and relying entirely on spending cuts instead.

Yet at one point, Coburn breaks with many of his Republican colleagues — and his party’s own much-touted “Pledge For America” — by calling for cuts to the defense budget. He writes that “Republicans also should resist pressure to take all defense spending cuts off the table.” He advocates for taking “common sense steps like freezing defense spending until the Pentagon can pass an audit and remove all nondefense spending from the Pentagon’s budget.” Coburn concludes that “taking defense spending off the table is indefensible. We need to protect our nation, not the Pentagon’s sacred cows“:

Republicans also should resist pressure to take all defense spending cuts off the table. Newly elected Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky had the courage to say he’d go after defense waste during his campaign, and I look forward to working with him.

We should start by taking common sense steps like freezing defense spending until the Pentagon can pass an audit and remove all nondefense spending from the Pentagon’s budget. Our nation’s military leaders understand the need to cut spending.

As Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “Our national debt is our biggest national security threat.” History shows that every nation eventually adopts the foreign policy it can afford. Taking defense spending off the table is indefensible. We need to protect our nation, not the Pentagon’s sacred cows.

As Coburn notes with his praise for Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-KY), he isn’t the only Senate Republican calling for reining in the military budget. Paul told PBS’s Gwen Ifil last month that that cutting defense spending “has to be on the table.” The same month, Pennsylvania candidate Pat Toomey criticized Congress for voting for “programs the Pentagon doesn’t even want.” The week before, Illinois Senator-elect Mark Kirk said we need “across-the-board” reductions in defense spending. Earlier that same month, Johnny Isakson (R-GA) told a local news station that reducing the deficit “begins with the Department of Defense.” And two weeks ago, Bob Corker (R-TN) said on CNBC that defense cuts have to be “on the table” because there’s “a lot of waste there.”

If these Republicans are really serious about reining in the defense budget, they can look to The Sustainable Defense Task (SDTF) report released earlier this year. The SDTF — which comprises Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and some of the nation’s leading defense and budget experts — identified nearly $1 trillion in waste that can be cut from the defense budget over the next ten years simply by eliminating outdated Cold War-era programs. They could also reference a recent report by CAP experts Lawrence Korb and Laura Conley that lays out $108 billion in defense cuts in the current 2015 budget forecast.