Former President George W. Bush made some interesting remarks on immigration last week that largely fell under the radar. At a Southern Methodist University forum, Bush was asked if he believed that there would be any significant progress on immigration over the next decade. He responded that although he believes that “a rational immigration policy” will eventually be passed, “I think there’s going to have to be some time.” The reason for that, according to Bush, is the nativism that has percolated around the country:

What’s interesting about our country, if you study history, is that there are some “isms” that occasionally pop up. One is isolationism and its evil twin protectionism and its evil triplet nativism.

So if you study the [19]20′s for example, there was an America-first policy that said “who cares what happens in Europe.” Well, what happened in Europe mattered eventually because of World War II. There was Smoot–Hawley which was part of an economic policy which basically said we don’t want trade and there was an immigration policy that I think during this period argued that we had too many Jews, too many Italians, therefore we should have no immigrants. And my point to you is that we’ve went through this period of isolationism, protectionism, and nativism.

I’m a little concerned that we may be going through the same period. I hope that these “isms” pass which would then allow for a more orderly look at immigration policy.

Watch it:

Bush also claimed that “the reason immigration reform died wasn’t just because of one party.” However, while a majority of Democrats voted in favor of the Bush administration-backed immigration reform bill 0f 2007, most Republicans voted against it. Bush also failed to call out his party for being the primary driver of nativism in mainstream politics.

Meanwhile, Bush’s brother, former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL), has tepidly criticized his own party’s nativist strain. When asked by Univision’s Jorge Ramos if “Republicans behaved well towards Hispanics and immigrants,” Jeb Bush admitted, “Well, some Republicans have not behaved well in that aspect, some have.” He also advised Republicans to adopt a “civility and tone that draws people toward our cause rather than rejects them.”

However, the Bush brothers don’t appear ready to fully acknowledge the role their party has played in stoking nativism and killing the chances for sensible immigration reform in the near future. In 2009, the ultra conservative American Cause hosted an event aimed at convincing Republicans that “support for border security, national sovereignty, and immigration control rallies the GOP and brings Reagan Democrats back into the GOP.” Many Republicans heeded their advice in 2010 and the nasty immigration landscape we are facing in 2011 is largely a result of that strategy.

Last month, Jared Lee Loughner shot 19 people in Tuscon, AZ — including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), a federal judge, and a nine-year-old girl — with a semi-automatic pistol equipped with a previously illegal high-capacity magazine. Only days later, a Crossroads of the West gun show was held in Phoenix, and investigators from New York City were on hand to see if they could purchase guns and high-capacity magazines without background checks. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R/I) announced the findings at a news conference today: indeed, the investigators got their weapons easily.

Bloomberg played the disturbing videos at the press conference — first showing a gun purchase with no background check, and then showing a purchase of a gun even after the undercover investigator told the vendor “I probably couldn’t pass” a background check — and then blasted gun show sellers who “continue to flout the law” by selling weapons to people who “have no business buying them.” Bloomberg said the footage highlights the need for a “better system that respects the Second Amendment while upholding the laws designed to protect innocent Americans.” Watch it:

Federal laws require guns to be sold by licensed dealers that must record the sales and perform background checks. However, exemptions in the law intended to allow private citizens to sell or transfer a small amount of guns are frequently exploited by large gun shows, where “private sellers” have large amounts of guns for sale, with no background checks. (Bloomberg noted that in a similar sting in 2009, one “private seller” was found to have a 800-weapon inventory). Bloomberg called for Congress to close these loopholes and require background checks for each gun sale, and for gun shows to begin enforcing these standards anyway in the meantime. “Congress should act now, but gun show operators shouldn’t wait,” he said. “They can do the right thing today by making sure that every gun sale at their shows is subject to a background check.”

Bloomberg also wants “resources and leadership to enhance enforcement of existing gun laws.” Even under the current lax regulations, when the undercover investigator suggested he would not pass a background check, the vendor should have immediately terminated the sale. Federal law prohibits gun sales where the vendor “knows” or “has reason to believe” the buyer would not pass a background check, but Bloomberg’s investigators demonstrated this often does not happen. (In the 2009 investigation, 19 of 30 sellers made the sale after the buyer raised a red flag about himself). “We have demonstrated how easy it is for anyone to buy a semiautomatic handgun and a high-capacity magazine, no questions asked,” Bloomberg said.

A former agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms spoke at the press conference, and said that ATF “doesn’t have the resources or the leadership it needs to cut down on this crime for good.” Broken U.S. Senate rules and relentless lobbying from the National Rifle Association have kept the ATF without a director since 2006. This morning, ATF officials told the Washington Post that budget cuts proposed by the White House “would effectively eliminate a major initiative in the fight against firearms trafficking on the Mexican border.”

Former Arkansas governor, Fox News personality and likely Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee joined Israeli officials at a ceremony yesterday laying the cornerstone for a new Israeli settlement in occupied East Jerusalem. As he has in the past, Huckabee used the opportunity to slam U.S. policy against settlements, saying:

It is inconceivable in many ways that we would have to even argue and debate whether or not Israelis could live in Israel, not just in parts of Israel but anywhere in Israel they wished to live.

Settlements on land conquered and occupied by Israel in the 1967 war are considered illegal under international law, and U.S. administrations have consistently held that continued settlement construction negatively impacts the prospects for a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians.

But, as Huckabee has made clear in the past, he doesn’t believe that the Palestinians have any claim to a state in their homeland, because, according to Huckabee, “there’s no such thing as a Palestinian.” In language that comes dangerously close to advocating ethnic cleansing, Huckabee has also suggested that Palestinians should be forced to find a homeland “elsewhere.”

Last Monday, Deaborn, MI police arrested Vietnam War veteran Roger Stockham, 63, for plotting to blow up the Islamic Center of America, the largest mosque in North America. Stockham drove from his home in Imperial Beach, CA in a car packed with illegal fireworks and explosives, including M-80s, and parked outside the mosque. More than 500 members were attending a funeral at the time. Police found Stockham after receiving a tip that Stockham had threatened to harm the mosque while drinking in a Detroit bar earlier that day:

Dawud Walid, executive director of CAIR’s Michigan chapter, said he learned from police that the suspect had been drinking in a Detroit bar on Monday when he threatened to do harm to a mosque in Dearborn. A bar employee followed the man outside and wrote down his license plate and called Detroit police who in turned contacted authorities in Dearborn, Walid said.

Dearborn police began searching areas around mosques in the city and allegedly found Stockham inside his vehicle outside the Islamic Center of America, Walid said, with a load of M-80s in his trunk and other explosives. Inside more than 500 members had gathered for a funeral service, Walid said. It was not known whether the suspect knew a funeral was underway.

Members of the Islamic Center of America were alerted to the threat during Friday’s prayer service, Walid said.

“We thank law enforcement authorities for their quick and professional actions in this troubling incident,” Walid said. “The increased number of bias incidents targeting American Muslim institutions must be addressed by local, state and national officials and law enforcement authorities.”

Stockham has been charged with “one count of a threat of terrorism” and one count of explosives. Possessing a long history of anti-government activities, Stockham has “served time in federal prison for threatening to kill President George W. Bush and bomb a Vermont veterans’ clinic in 2002.” In the Vermont incident, Stockham called a local paper twice to say he was going to explode bombs in the neighborhood and identified himself as “Hem Ahadin,” a “local Muslim terrorist on a roll.” According to the affadavit filed at the time, he threatened to carry out “jihad” against the VA office. Two weeks ago, he posted a “rambling statement” on Facebook where he again “refers to himself as ‘Hem Ahadin,’ calling it his Muslim name.”

While it appears Stockham was acting alone, police did not immediately release details because, while they believed “there was no ongoing threat,” they “were also worried that the alleged plot could inspire copycats.” After all, this mosque has been targeted before. In 2004, two New York men sent threatening emails to the mosque and was vandalized in 2007 when someone scrawled “9/11 Terrorists Go Home” on the side of the building. And this is only the latest incident in the growing number of hate-filled attacks on Muslim places of worship, let alone Muslims themselves. As the Islamic Center’s Imam Sayid Hassan Al-Qazwini puts it, “When America only talks about Muslims being terrorists, they will turn a blind eye on their own terrorists.”

And while there’s no indication that Stockham was influenced by any political figure or faction, his actions are by no means isolated. As more and more pundits and politicians encourage paranoia and vilify Muslim Americans rather than responsibly speaking out against it, they cultivate an Islamophobic atmosphere of hate that make incidents like this more likely. After all, with the House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-NY) preaching that “80 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by radical Imams,” it seems only a matter of time before someone like Stockham offers a “radical” solution.

Thousands of Egyptians continue to take to the streets in protest of President Hosani Mubarak’s 30-year-long authoritarian regime. But while the Obama Administration inches towards public support for the Egyptian people, many Republican hardliners are throwing up roadblocks to U.S. endorsement of democratic reform. Their delusion-du-jour? The threat of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Those who subscribe to Rep. Thaddeus McCotter’s (R-MI) and Amb. John Bolton’s fear-mongering warn that the inevitable result of this pro-democracy movement will be the enfranchisement of the Muslim Brotherhood and other anti-American “jihadist nutjobs.”

Today on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS, former International Atomic Energy Agency director, Egyptian activist, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei blasted the delusion as a “myth” lacking “one iota of reality.” Intimately familiar with both Iranian and Egyptian politics, ElBaradei pointed out that the Muslim Brotherhood is not actually an extremist group and the idea that extremists would takeover the government is just a myth “perpetuated and sold” by the Mubarak regime:

ZAKARIA: One of the visions that haunts Americans is of the Iranian Revolution where a dictator was replaced by an even worse regime that was more anti-American and more threatening to the region. People worry about the Muslim Brotherhood. Are you confident that a post-Mubarak Egypt will not give rise to some kind of Islamic fundamentalist force that will undermine the democracy of Egypt?

ELBARADEI: I’m quite confident of that, Fareed. This is a myth that was sold by the Mabarak regime, that it’s either us — the ruthless dictators — or a Muslim al-Qaeda type. The Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with the Iranian movement, has nothing to do with extremism as we have seen it in Afghanistan and other places. The Muslim Brotherhood is a religiously conservative group. They are a minority in Egypt. They are not a majority of the Egyptian people, but they have a lot of credibility because of liberal parties have been a struggle for thirty years. They are in favor of a secular state. they are of –they are in favor of an institution that have bread lines, they are in favor that every Egyptian have the same rights, that the state is in no way a state based on religion. And I have been reaching out to them. We need to include them. They are as much a part of society as the markets that started here. I think this is a myth that has been perpetuated and sold by the regime and has no iota of reality. You know Fareed, I worked with Iranians, I’ve worked here. It’s 100 percent difference between the two societies.

Watch it:

While the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood had supported violence at one time, the conservative group is “Egypt’s largest opposition group” and “has disavowed violence and sought to participate in Egyptian politics” legitimately since the 1970s. Now allied with legal Egyptian political groups and tied to Egyptian professional unions, university campuses, and social welfare programs, the Brotherhood is a “peaceful” group that “could draw moderate Muslims who identify with [its] ideology to participate in electoral politics, thereby isolating violent jihadis.” Indeed, the Brotherhood denounced a recent terrorist attack in Egypt as a “cowardly act” and is not on the U.S. State Department’s terrorist list.

Though banned by Mubarak’s regime from participating in parliamentary elections, the Brotherhood has 17 supportive representatives in the Egyptian Parliament and is supporting ElBaradei’s leadership role in forming a new government without Mubarak. ElBaradei, who is now in Cairo to join the protests, called on Mubarak to resign “today” to allow for a “smooth transition to a national unity government to be followed by all the measures set in place for a free and fair election.” While avoiding support of his ouster, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed the idea of fair elections today.

For the first time during the uprising in Egypt, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who appeared on all the major Sunday talk shows this morning, called for Egypt to hold free and fair elections that would ensure “real democracy.” This was another sign that the Administration was distancing itself from Egypt’s President, Hosni Mubarak, since a transition to democratic government would clearly result in his removal from power. On ABC’s This Week, Clinton, after saying that Egypt had in the past been a close partner, said:

Real stability only comes from the kind of democratic participation that gives people a chance to feel that they are being heard. And by that I mean real democracy, not a democracy for six months or a year and then evolving into essentially a military dictatorship or a so-called democracy that then leads to what we saw in Iran.

Watch it:

The Administration has been accused of being too slow in calling for the removal of Mubarak, a long time US ally. But in calling for an “orderly transition,” which Clinton did on Fox News Sunday, she seemed to be suggesting, as Massimo Calabresi interpreted, “that the administration is beginning to view embattled President Hosni Mubarak’s days as numbered.” Clinton’s comments today are therefore the strongest yet and seem to clearly recognize that Mubarak’s situation has become untenable.

As ThinkProgress reported earlier today, a number of high-profile right-wing figures have risen to the defense of the embattled Hosni Mubarak government in Egypt. Yet as thousands of Egyptians continue to fight for their freedom, the eyes of the international community are falling squarely on the Obama administration.

Today, the Egypt Working Group — “A bipartisan group of former U.S. officials and foreign policy scholars” that includes CAP’s Brian Katulis — released a statement calling on President Obama to suspend military and economic aid to Egypt until the government endorses free and fair elections and ends its crackdown on civil liberties and civil rights:

Only free and fair elections provide the prospect for a peaceful transfer of power to a government recognized as legitimate by the Egyptian people. We urge the Obama administration to pursue these fundamental objectives in the coming days and press the Egyptian government to:

- call for free and fair elections for president and for parliament to be held as soon as possible;
- amend the Egyptian Constitution to allow opposition candidates to register to run for the presidency;
- immediately lift the state of emergency, release political prisoners, and allow for freedom of media and assembly;
- allow domestic election monitors to operate throughout the country, without fear of arrest or violence;
- immediately invite international monitors to enter the country and monitor the process leading to elections, reporting on the government’s compliance with these measures to the international community; and
- publicly declare that Hosni Mubarak will agree not to run for re-election.

We further recommend that the Obama administration suspend all economic and military assistance to Egypt until the government accepts and implements these measures.

The position of the Obama administration has been unclear. While administration officials have condemned abuses of civil liberties, they’ve also fallen short of endorsing Mubarak’s ouster or ending support for the regime, with Vice President Joe Biden even going as far as to say that Mubarak isn’t a dictator.

The United States gives nearly $2 billion in aid to the Egyptian regime every year, and offers diplomatic and military cooperation that helps bolster Mubarak. As protesters continue to be beaten, tortured, and killed by internal security forces, it’s important to know that these abuses are being subsidized by U.S. taxpayer dollars. Threatening to reduce or eliminate this monetary assistance to the Egyptian regime would be a powerful tool that the United States could use to help advance democracy and promote freedom in the country.

As ThinkProgress reported today, former Bush administration official and U.N. Ambassador John Bolton abandoned his supposed belief in “democracy promotion” and told right-wing radio host Mark Levin that the Egyptian pro-democracy protests are a “big opportunity” for jihadists, siding with the Mubarak dictatorship.

Now, yet another high-profile Republican is disparaging the protest movement and openly siding with Egypt’s dictator. In a statement posted on his website last night, GOP Conference Chair Rep. Thaddeus McCotter wrote that “the Egyptian demonstrations are not the equivalent of Iran’s 2009 Green Revolution” and that “America must stand with her ally Egypt to preserve an imperfect government capable of reform.” He even went as far as to say that “freedom’s radicalized enemies are subverting Egypt” with the demonstrations:

“The Egyptian demonstrations are not the equivalent of Iran’s 2009 Green Revolution. The Egyptian demonstrations are the reprise of Iran’s 1979 radical revolution.

“Thus, America must stand with her ally Egypt to preserve an imperfect government capable of reform; and prevent a tyrannical government capable of harm. [...]

“This is not a nostalgic “anti-colonial uprising” from within, of all places, the land of Nassar. Right now, freedom’s radicalized enemies are subverting Egypt and other our allies.

McCotter’s remarks are as offensive as they are ignorant. To start with, the congressman is right that the demonstrations in Egypt are different than those in Iran. The protest movement in Iran was organized around its candidate in the election, who actually was literally an Islamist. Meanwhile, the demonstrations in Egypt were mostly spontaneous and led by younger progressive Egyptians; it was days before the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood even began taking part in the protests, and even now, they are far from the dominating force.

And while there are many legitimate concerns about the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egyptian politics, it is important to note that the Egyptian Brotherhood has long denounced violence, even taking part in the movement to end violence against Coptic Christians.

Furthermore, it is almost comical to claim that Mubarak’s government is “capable of reform” and to say that the current government is opposed to a future “tyrannical government.” After all, in a desperate attempt to appease the democracy movement, Mubarak appointed vice president and prime minister who are essentially loyal to him; the appointed vice president was actually the head of the country’s notoriously brutal intelligence service.

Needless to say, it is insulting to the thousands who are demonstrating and many who have given their lives battling the Mubarak dictatorship for McCotter to baselessly suggest that they are actually the tools of violent jihadists and that we should continue our bankrupt policy of backing the dictatorship in Egypt.

During the Bush years, one of the justifications the administration most relied on for many of its policies in the world was that it was engaging in “democracy promotion.” One of the most vocal members about this supposed cause was Bush administration U.N. ambassador John Bolton.

Throughout his tenure as a high-level administration official, Bolton repeatedly insisted that one of his top priorities was helping spread freedom, respect for human rights, and democracy throughout he world. He was instrumental in the Bush administration’s refusal to join the U.N. Human Rights Council, supposedly out of his objection to the poor human rights records of several of the council’s members.

Yet during an interview with right-wing radio host Mark Levin yesterday, Bolton used his time on the show to attack and undermine the pro-democracy protest movement currently underway in Egypt. The former U.N. ambassador claimed that the “real alternative” to the Mubarak government is not “Jeffersonian democracy” but rather the opposition Muslim Brotherhood. After Levin postulated that “every Jihadi nutjob is probably pouring into Egypt right now,” Bolton followed up by saying this is the “big opportunity” for jihadists and mocked the calls of the international community to restore internet services, saying that the “Muslim Brotherhood knows how to use Twitter just like naive college students do”:

LEVIN: So what do you make with what’s going on in Egypt right now?

BOLTON: Well, I think it’s a real crisis for the regime. I think the outpourings in the street that have now been joined by the Muslim Brotherhood really do put the issue squarely on the table [...] My take is that they are digging in for a fight, they intend to resist, and that the real alternative is not Jefferson democracy versus the Mubarak regime, but that it’s the Muslim Brotherhood versus the Mubarak regime, and that has enormous implications for the U.S., for Israel, and our other friends in the region.

LEVIN: See, that’s my take on it too. I’m not aware of these spontaneous Jeffersonian democracy drives in the Arab world. Maybe I could be missing something. Mike Ledeen makes the point, I think he’s right, that every Jihadi nutjob is probably pouring into Egypt right now.

BOLTON: Oh, this is the big opportunity. That’s why so much of the Obama administration opposition to it has been feckless. [...] And the Muslim Brotherhood knows how to use Twitter just like naive college students do. So I don’t disagree. There are a lot of people in the streets who have legitimate grievances, they want more open government, so even if Mubarak were to fall, those idealistic people aren’t going to create the new government, the Brotherhood is.

Listen to it:

For starters, Bolton is conflating a much wider movement for democracy with the Egyptian Islamist political movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood. The current demonstrations started on January 25, a date which had no religious significance but rather marked the date of an anticolonial police revolt against the British. The protests, largely lead by Egypt’s more progressive younger generation, went on for days before the Brotherhood even became involved.

Second of all, while there are many legitimate concerns about the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood’s politics, they are not equivalent to anti-American jihadists. The Egyptian brotherhood “renounced violence years ago, but its relative moderation has made it the target of extreme vilification by more radical Islamists. Al Qaeda’s leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri, started their political lives affiliated with the Brotherhood but both have denounced it for decades as too soft and a cat’s paw of Mubarak and America.” In other words, Bolton is attacking a mostly nonviolent Islamist movement that has acted as a bulwark against violent extremism. Following brutal attacks against Coptic Christians late last year, the Muslim Brotherhood unequivocally condemned the terrorism, calling for peace.

Lastly, and most importantly of all, as former CIA officer and chair of the Obama administration’s 2009 Afghanistan and Pakistan strategic policy review Bruce Reidel writes, “Egyptians will decide the outcome, not Washington. We should not try to pick Egyptians’ rulers. Every time we have done so, from Vietnam’s generals to Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai, we have had buyer’s remorse. … [We] should not be afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood. Living with it won’t be easy but it should not be seen as inevitably our enemy. We need not demonize it nor endorse it. In any case, Egyptians now will decide their fate.” In other words, supporting democracy overseas does not mean supporting only leaders who we have no disagreements with.

If Bolton is siding with Mubarak against the legitimate aspirations of the Egyptian people — which include but are far from limited to nonviolent Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood — he should no longer pretend to be a friend of democracy (something he admitted in 2010 when he said that democracy is “not always the answer“).

Yesterday, Arizona Republicans introduced HB-2561, legislation that would prevent the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants from acquiring citizenship at birth. However, the 14th Amendment explicitly states that anyone born in the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is automatically a citizen. State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-AZ) — the chief sponsor of the bill — told a skeptical Greta Van Susteren last night that his bill merely seeks to define citizenship based on the “correct interpretation” of the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” language. According to Kavanagh, it requires full allegiance to the United States:

KAVANAGH: We believe that that bestowing of citizenship, like a door prize, is based upon an erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment. And we have crafted two companion bills, the purpose of which is to trigger a judicial review, hopefully at the Supreme Court level, of the phrase in the 14th Amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which we believe is the reason for this erroneous interpretation that grants citizenship when it should not be granted.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Big problem that you have is — or at least — and I assume you’ll agree with me — that citizenship is a nationwide — it’s a USA-conferred thing — matter. And it is — you are — you are an American. You are part of the United States of America. What your bill is, is filed in the state of Arizona that doesn’t confer citizenship. How do you — even if you were to get your bill passed, how do you even think that it would have any muscle at all and not be usurped by the federal question here?

KAVANAGH: Well, our bill is not granting citizenship. Our bill is defining Arizona and U.S. citizenship based upon what we believe to be the correct interpretation of that phrase. And we make that assertion based upon written statements by the authors of the 14th Amendment and the first couple of Supreme Court decisions, Slaughterhouse and Elk, which defined “subject to the jurisdiction” as not being you can be arrested and tried in our jurisdiction, but that you owe sole allegiance to the U.S.

Watch it:

What Kavanagh doesn’t mention is that there were two cases which followed the Slaughter-House Cases and Elk v. Wilkins which essentially invalidate his position. In Plyler v. Doe, the court wrote, “the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. That a person’s initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State’s territorial perimeter.”

Meanwhile, James Ho, a former Bush administration lawyer, has provided a pretty straightforward definition of “jurisdiction.” “The plain meaning of this language is clear,” wrote Ho. “A foreign national living in the United States is ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ because he is legally required to obey U.S. law.” Ho also argues that “[d]uring congressional debates, both proponents and opponents of the citizenship clause agreed with this interpretation of the 14th Amendment.”

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that Wong — the child of Chinese immigrants who were “subjects of the emperor of China” — was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents owed their allegiance to a foreign power. NYU Law professor Cristina Rodriguez explains, “The Court’s rejection in Wong Kim Ark of the notion that children born to parents ineligible for naturalization were not themselves the subject of the Citizenship Clause is a powerful rejection of the idea that one’s status depends on his parent’s status.” (Except for when a parent is employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under another foreign government).

Finally, the fact that Kavanagh and his cronies are purposefully going out of their way to instigate costly litigation on the taxpayer’s dime is deplorable. The state of Arizona has already spent over $1 million in less than six months to defend SB-1070. Kavanagh is now essentially asking Arizonans to dish out more money to fight for a bill which will likely lead nowhere and would create an ugly situation for the nation’s burgeoning Latino population in the unlikely event that it does.

Former Bush administration “democracy czar” Elliott Abrams thinks that “The revolt in Tunisia, the gigantic wave of demonstrations in Egypt and the more recent marches in Yemen all make clear that Bush had it right”:

In November 2003, President George W. Bush laid out this question:

“Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even have a choice in the matter?”

The massive and violent demonstrations underway in Egypt, the smaller ones in Jordan and Yemen, and the recent revolt in Tunisia that inspired those events, have affirmed that the answer is no and is exploding, once and for all, the myth of Arab exceptionalism. Arab nations, too, yearn to throw off the secret police, to read a newspaper that the Ministry of Information has not censored and to vote in free elections.

Abrams offers no examples of anyone who claimed that Arab nations don’t yearn to throw off the secret police, don’t want to read a newspaper that the Ministry of Information has not censored and don’t want to vote in free elections, which is the sort of thing might one might do if one was trying to disprove an argument someone has actually made.

But, of course, no one claimed any of those things. What Bush’s critics did say was that promoting democracy in the Middle East through invasion and occupation of Middle Eastern countries was a bad idea. Those critics were, of course, correct. Bush’s democracy agenda was a huge failure for a number of reasons, but not least because it featured as its main advertisement the smoking ruins and charred bodies of Iraq. There was also the Bush administration’s tendency to pull the plug when it became obvious that democracy might mean the political victory of people the U.S. didn’t like, as happened in Egypt. Or, as in Gaza, to try to reverse the outcome through a coup, a disaster in which Abrams himself played a key role.

These sorts of lame attempts at retroactive self-vindication (along with constantly trying to scare Israelis about Obama) have been Abrams’ main occupation since leaving Bush’s employ. For Abrams, there’s really no event that occurs anywhere in the world that can’t be spun as evidence of how awful Obama is.

For example, last week, Abrams suggested that Hezbollah’s steadily increasing power in Lebanon, most recently evidenced by their insistence on naming the new prime minister, “reflects the continuing reduction in American sway in the region, and especially the ‘engagement’ with Syria”:

The last straw may have been the decision to send an ambassador to Syria by recess appointment despite the Senate’s unwillingness to confirm the Administration’s candidate. That foolish gesture must have indicated to the Syrians and to Hizballah that the Administration had learned nothing from two years of insults and rebuffs by Damascus.

It should be obvious that the idea that Obama’s sending an ambassador to Syria triggered Hezbollah’s takeover of the Lebanese government is ridiculous on its face, but then, that’s how neocons think: Talking to one’s adversaries is itself a form of appeasement.

Consider, for comparison’s sake, that the Bush administration withdrew the U.S. ambassador after the assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005, in which Syria was implicated, and spent the next three years scolding the Syrians and denying them the honor of our diplomacy. This cunning strategy resulted in… Syria-backed Hezbollah increasing its power in Lebanon for three years. It was not, in any sense, a successful approach. But, of course, in the reality neocons create for themselves, bad things only ever result from not taking a hard line.

Consider also that the Tunisian government was a close ally in the Bush administration’s war on terror. The State Department’s Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), one of the Bush administration’s key democracy initiatives, (headed by Liz Cheney, by the way, which I’ve heard made it lots of fun for MEPI officials to advocate against nepotism) had its regional office there.

Now here’s what Abrams had to say about the recent demonstrations:

The revolt in Tunisia has thrown both that nation’s dictator, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, and the Obama administration’s democracy-promotion policy onto the ash heap of history. The revolt undermined — indeed, destroyed — two years of effort in Washington to move toward a policy of “engagement” with hostile and repressive regimes.

The price for this policy has been paid by men and women from China to Russia to Iran to Egypt to Venezuela, who had expected a louder voice and a firmer helping hand from the United States. Now, watching the Tunisians try to move from a rapacious dictatorship to a stable democratic system, the president should say that in Tunisia, and everywhere else, we will side with those working to build democracies.

Again, this is almost too silly to merit a response, though I would note that if this sort of critique came from the left it would probably be attacked by conservatives as “blaming America.”

Specifically in regard to Iran, however, I’d suggest that if Abrams doesn’t like the impact that Obama’s engagement policy has had there, he should try talking to actual Iranians like Shirin Ebadi and Akbar Ganji, both of whom credit Obama’s shift in tone away from Bush’s belligerence with helping to create political space in Iran.

But that’s beside the point, because obviously Abrams’ goal here isn’t to tell the truth, it’s to try and score points, which is neatly emblematic of the Bush administration’s instrumental approach to democracy promotion itself. It was simply something to threaten regimes with to get them to do what we want, something nice to talk about while we go about imposing our will on everyone. This, of course, ends up discrediting the U.S. and devaluing the democratic brand, which is why, as I wrote yesterday, it’s desperately important that the democracy agenda be taken up by progressives and others who actually support it, and not left to the cynics.

As Egyptian protests continue to rage and thousands of people in that country continue to demand democratic reforms, many commentators are rightly calling upon the international community to show solidarity with the demonstrators and join them in battling the Mubarak regime.

However, there is at least one powerful, multinational entity that has continually stood by Mubarak and the Egyptian elite and has continually fought efforts to democratize the country. As ThinkProgress previously reported, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce maintains a network of foreign affiliates known as Amchams, “which are foreign chambers of the Chamber composed of American and foreign companies.” In Egypt, this foreign affiliate is known as the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, known in short as AmCham Egypt.

AmCham Egypt’s relation to the Mubarak dictatorship stretches back decades. In fact, the Egyptian dictator even personally intervened to create the organization. In 1981, Mubarak issued an order to allow for the creation of the AmCham by giving it an exemption from Egypt’s strict NGO laws — which help limit the influence human rights and democracy promotion organizations. Since then, the chamber has grown to have hundreds of members. While roughly 75 percent of the organization’s members are Egyptian businesses, many of them are also large Western multinational corporations, like Coca Cola and BP. The Chamber’s member companies account for nearly 20 percent of Egypt’s GDP.

When a powerful corporate-backed entity like the AmCham Egypt gains favorable treatment, it is natural for it to try to protect its patron. So last year, when a group of U.S. Senators — lead by Russ Feingold (D-WI) — introduced legislation that called on the government of Egypt to end crackdowns on pro-democracy activists and hold free and fair elections, AmCham Egypt, at the behest of the Egyptian dictatorship, sprung into action.

As Al Masra Al Youm, a major Egyptian paper, reports, the Mubarak regime tapped AmCham Egypt President Shafik Gabr to do its bidding. Gabr was “dispatched expressly” for the purpose of scuttling the bill:

American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) in Egypt President Shafik Gabr arrived in Washington on Wednesday to meet with members of US Congress in an effort to persuade them to refrain from issuing a resolution demanding that Egypt “hold fair elections, allow international monitoring of elections, and respect democracy and human rights.”

Informed sources told Al-Masry Al-Youm that Gabr, who is also a leading member of the ruling National Democratic Party of President Hosni Mubarak, had been dispatched expressly for this purpose by the Egyptian government.

By asking a non-American who technically worked for a nongovernmental organization to do their advocacy for them, the Mubarak regime successfully skirted numerous laws dealing with lobbying disclosure, making it easier to hide its role. But thanks to the intervention of AmCham Egypt as well as a multi-million dollar official lobbying campaign by Mubarak, the bill died a quiet death as it wasn’t brought to the floor before the Senate’s recess.

And stunningly, just days before massive protests erupted all over Egypt demanding democracy — protests which were widely expected given events in neighboring Tunisia and the upcoming anniversary of a police massacre at the hands of British colonizers — AmCham Egypt hosted former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, who blamed the media for its “sensational coverage” of the Tunisian revolution and said it was in American interests to “continue to support ‘our friends’ in the region, such as Egypt, Jordan and Gulf countries.” “Chaos is in no one’s interest,” he concluded, disparaging the protests:

Negroponte said it will be crucial for US interests to continue to support “our friends” in the region, such as Egypt, Jordan and Gulf countries. [...]

During a brief question-and-answer session at the conclusion of his address, Negroponte said he was surprised by the unrest in Tunisia that ended the 23-year presidency of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. He said that what happened in Tunisia is “not necessarily transferable” to other countries. He blamed the news media for sensational coverage of self-immolation protests in Egypt, Algeria and Mauritania, and urged “a little bit of patience.” “Let’s hope the country doesn’t descend into chaos,” he said. “Chaos is in no one’s interest.”

While backing dictatorships is nothing new for Negroponte, it should be noted that he has financial interests at stake in Egypt as well. He is on the board of Agility DGS, a defense company that has major operations in Egypt.

In 2006, AmCham Egypt, in a particularly outlandish move, put out a statement in its Business Monthly that bragged that President Mubarak “became Egypt’s first president to be directly elected in a multiparty contest” in 2005 — a reference to an election where almost all the independent opposition was banned and Mubarak won 88 percent of the vote. For years, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been using its massive amounts of corporate money to distort American democracy. Let the record show that its foreign affiliates appear to be dead set on doing much worse in foreign countries, even if it means backing a brutal dictator like Mubarak.

Following the tragic shooting in Arizona, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik became the target of right-wing criticism when he noted that his state is “the mecca for prejudice and bigotry” at a local news conference. “I think that people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol,” said Dupnik about the person suspected of shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ).

Dan Baltes of the Salt Lake City-based Americans Against Immigration Amnesty wasn’t too happy with Dupnik’s remarks. In fact, he is now spearheading an effort to recall Dupnik even though he is not even a resident of the state of Arizona where the sheriff lives and works. The Pima County elections director has indicated that his efforts can indeed go forward. Fox11 reports:

In the wake of the Tucson tragedy, not everyone is thrilled with the job done by Pima County sheriff Clarence Dupnik. In fact, some want to remove him from office. Pima County elections director brad nelson announced this afternoon an effort to recall dupnik will go forward.

Salt Lake City resident Dan Baltes, head of Americans Against Immigration Amnesty, filed the appropriate paperwork, and can begin compiling signatures. Baltes said Dupnik’s comments on the day of the shooting spurred the decision to begin the process.

Watch the report:

It’s still unclear whether the hate and vitriol that Dupnik cited played a role in the Arizona shooting. However, Dupnik’s assessment of the environment in which Giffords was carrying out her work in Arizona was spot-on.

Meanwhile, groups like Baltes’ have contributed to the hate and vitriol which has spread across the nation. His own organization’s website once stated, “Many of those seeking amnesty refuse to assimilate to our culture or language and refuse to respect our citizens and laws. Rather, they demand we assimilate to them and their culture, teach our children their language and shamelessly fly their country’s flag over ours.” It also falsely claims that immigrants commit higher rates of crime, specifically sex crimes. At Glenn Beck’s rally last year, Baltes told USA Today, “It’s time for Americans to let themselves be heard instead of being spoken to or spoken for by people who don’t represent us…the government has a deaf ear to our best interests.”

The focus of Dupnik’s controversial statements was not immigration. However, it is no coincidence that Americans Against Immigration Amnesty is going after one of the most vocal critics of Arizona’s immigration law.

Yemen has now apparently joined Tunisia and Egypt on the list of Middle Eastern countries experiencing large anti-government demonstrations:

Thousands of Yemenis took to the streets in the country’s capital and other regions on Thursday to demand a change of government, in demonstrations that organizers said were inspired by protests in Tunisia that toppled the president there.

At least 10,000 protesters led by opposition members and youths activists gathered at Sana University and around 6,000 more elsewhere in the Yemeni capital of Sana, according to local news media reports.

The government responded by sending a large number of security forces into the streets, said Nasser Arabyee, a Yemeni journalist in Sana reached by phone.

While it’s good to see the Obama administration coming out more strongly behind the protesters, it’s imperative now that the administration formulate a more robust and strategic response to these events. While I think it’s generally correct for the U.S. not to simply inject itself into the demonstrations, it’s also worth noting that the U.S. has significant influence, and, given that we’ve sponsored them for decades, responsibility to pressure these regimes away from violent crackdowns.

Many progressives were thrilled by what we saw as a promise in the president’s Cairo speech to move away from a Middle East policy in which political freedom was subordinated to the perceived imperatives of counter-radicalism, in which “democracy promotion” amounted to little more than a cynical veiled threat to get regimes to do what we want. We’ve been likewise disappointed at the lack of follow through. These continuing uprisings offer the president an opportunity to make good on that promise.

To that end, it’s worth revisiting a paper written by my colleague Brian Katulis back in February 2009 urging President Obama to reclaim the mantle of democracy promotion, and offering a number of steps that the administration could take toward developing a more progressive strategy for the region.

The Russian Duma voted to ratify the New START treaty today, thereby ensuring that the treaty will enter into force. While this was more or less a forgone conclusion, START’s completion represents a significant achievement for the President. In fact, the past two years have seen remarkable progress on nuclear non-proliferation that has not simply moved the ball forward on non-proliferation but as Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association noted, “has put the United States back in the role of global nuclear risk-reduction leader.”

So what was accomplished?

Set the goal: Obama’s Prague speech in April of 09, which set the goal of the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, essentially went there. He said what past leaders, with the exception of Reagan, had been reluctant to say: that nuclear weapons ultimately make the world a more dangerous place.

Reset and START: The US and Russia have more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons, therefore the White House effort to reset relations with Russia has been critical to paving the way for nuclear arms reductions. The successful negotiation and ratification of the New START treaty that verifiably lowers nuclear arsenals and nuclear delivery vehicles lays the groundwork for future cooperation.

The Nuclear Posture Review: While not going as far as some hoped, the NPR that came out last spring significantly moved the ball forward by reducing the role of nuclear weapons in our military posture.

Nuclear Security: The Administration organized for the first time a Nuclear Security Summit in Washington this past April to secure loose nuclear materials in Washington. The summit brought together the largest number of heads of state to the US since the creation of the United Nations and saw real commitments from countries to reduce vulnerable nuclear materials.

NPT Review Conference: In May, the Administration was able to forge a consensus agreement at the five-year Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, which stood in stark contrast to the acrimony that occurred five years ago during the Bush administration.

Nuclear stockpile: The Administration has allocated an enormous sum to fully modernize the nuclear stockpile, ensuring its reliability for decades and eliminating any possible need for new explosive testing.

Iran and North Korea: The administration was able to forge an international consensus at the UN to levy sanctions against Iran and North Korea. On Iran, it seems clear that sanctions have served to hinder Iran’s nuclear development.

The extent of the accomplishments lays the groundwork for future progress. Action can now begin on a new round of arms reduction talks with the Russians, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and further action on nuclear threat reduction and nuclear security programs. As the chairman of the international affairs committee in the Russian senate, Mikhail Margelov, remarked upon START’s passage:

The arms race is a thing of the past… The disarmament race is taking its place.

Some may point to the knock-down drag out fight in Congress over the START treaty as evidence that ratifying future treaties will be too hard to do. But this ignores the extent of the defeat suffered by the nuclear-right. The Administration was able to get the treaty through despite opposition from the leadership of Senate Republicans, every Republican Presidential candidate, the Tea Party and the Heritage foundation. How did that happen? Because opposition to START was nuts and the country knew it. Fights over future treaties will be similar, making them hard but doable.

Today, the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement will be holding a hearing entitled, “ICE Worksite Enforcement – Up to the Job?” Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) made the case that more worksite immigration enforcement is necessary in order to protect American workers — an argument which is undoubtedly at the crux of today’s hearing. “While more than 14 million Americans are struggling to find jobs, 7 million illegal workers remain in the U.S. workforce,” stated Smith. “U.S. citizens and legal immigrants should not have to compete with illegal workers for scarce jobs.”

However, while Republicans like Smith have repeatedly made the case that their immigration efforts are guided by a commitment to fighting for the American worker, their voting record on labor issues does not reflect that position in the least bit. America’s Voice recently released a report chronicling the votes of House Judiciary Republicans on several bills that were championed by labor unions and would have gone a long way in improving the lives of all working people. America’s Voice reports:

While House Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are now framing their long‐standing policy of expelling millions of immigrants from America as a jobs program, these ratings paint a dramatically different picture of their motivations. They have a long record of voting against the interests of American workers, and an equally long record voting for policies advocated by the anti‐immigrant lobby. [...]

Specifically, House Judiciary Committee Republicans opposed landmark legislation that would raise wages and improve the working conditions of U.S. workers multiple times. For example:

71% Voted Against Increasing the Minimum Wage

100% Voted Against Equal Pay for Women

100% Voted Against Wall Street Reform

100% Voted Against the Employee Free Choice Act

100% Voted Against Foreclosure Relief

94% Voted Against Providing Parental Leave for Federal Employees

The expansion of E-Verify — a federal electronic employment verification program — is one of Smith’s stated goals and will likely be at the center of today’s hearing. Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) proposed the system that eventually became E-Verify in 1995. He’s now chairman of the immigration subcommittee and will be overseeing the hearing.

On his website, Gallegly proclaims, “I am focused on the removal of illegal immigrants from the workforce and protecting American jobs for those with a legal right to work in the United States.” However, besides having a pretty abysmal voting record on workers’ issues himself, expanding his prized E-Verify pet project might actually hurt the people he claims to protect.

Last week, I wrote on a report released by the General Accountability Office (GAO) which found that though the program has significantly improved, it still contains some troubling problems including data inaccuracies, and fraud and employer misuse vulnerabilities. Other studies have shown that E-Verify has caused U.S. citizens to be mistakenly identified as undocumented workers while many of those who are ineligible to work may have fallen through the cracks. GAO went as far as to conclude that if E-Verify became mandatory in its current form, “more unscrupulous employers could have the opportunity to hire unauthorized workers without much risk of detection.”

While most of President Obama’s speech last night focused on domestic issues, he also briefly touched on foreign policy matters. At one point, the president said that “what sets us apart must not just be our power — it must be the purpose behind it.” He cited the recent US-backing of the referendum that created the nation of South Sudan, and also praised the recent revolution in Tunisia, where he said that “the will of the people proved more powerful than the writ of a dictator.” He concluded, “And tonight, let us be clear: the United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia, and supports the democratic aspirations of all people.” His declaration was met by standing applause by Congress:

OBAMA: Recent events have shown us that what sets us apart must not just be our power – it must be the purpose behind it. In South Sudan – with our assistance – the people were finally able to vote for independence after years of war. Thousands lined up before dawn. People danced in the streets. One man who lost four of his brothers at war summed up the scene around him: “This was a battlefield for most of my life. Now we want to be free.”

We saw that same desire to be free in Tunisia, where the will of the people proved more powerful than the writ of a dictator. And tonight, let us be clear: the United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia, and supports the democratic aspirations of all people.

Watch it:

Obama’s praise for the Tunisian revolution and declaration that the United States “supports the democratic aspirations of all people” is particularly relevant in the face of the massive pro-democracy protest movement that has erupted in Egypt over the past week, timed to coincide with the anniversary of Egyptian police revolting against their British colonizers. Hundreds of thousands of Egyptians have taken part in these protests, and the Egyptian government has responded with a heavy-handed crackdown, banning protests by the demonstrators and warning that anyone who marches against the government will be arrested.

One nation that has been mostly silent during these demonstrations is the United States. This is particularly important given that the United States is a close economic, political, and military ally to the Egyptian government, which receives nearly $2 billion annually in aid from the United States. Given these facts, the United States has leverage over the Egyptian government and could exert pressure that would help hasten a transition to a more democratic Egypt.

The one major statement that U.S. government officials have made about the situation from Egypt came from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people,” Clinton said. “We support the fundamental right of expression and assembly for all people and we urge that all parties exercise restraint and refrain from violence.” Former IAEA director and Egyptian human rights activist Mohamed El-Baradei responded to Clinton’s comments during an appearance on CNN International this morning. He said he was “stunned” by Clinton’s words and said that Egypt’s “basis” for stability was on “29 years of martial law.” He called on the U.S. to champion “democracy, human rights, basic freedoms, all the stuff the U.N. is standing for”:

ELBARADEI: I was stunned to hear Secretary Clinton saying that the Egyptian government is stable. And I asked myself, at what price stability? Is it on the basis of 29 years of martial law? Is it on the basis of 30 years of [inaudible] regime? Is it on the basis of rigged elections? That is not stability, that is living on borrowed time. Stability is when you have a government elected on a free and fair basis. We have seen how elections have been rigged in Egypt. We have seen how people have been tortured. And when you see today almost over a 100,000 young people getting desperate going to the street asking for basic freedom. I expected to hear from Secretary Clinton, stuff like democracy, human rights, basic freedoms, all the stuff the U.N. is standing for.

Watch it:

Given Obama’s praise of the Tunisian revolution and his promise to support “the democratic aspirations of all people,” it is likely that Egypt’s pro-democracy protesters are looking for the United States to practice what it preaches.

Last week, Colorado state Sen. Kent Lambert (R) introduced an Arizona copycat immigration bill. Last night, in an interview with CNN’s John King, Lambert defended his proposed legislation and denied that the GOP will face any substantial political implications for being the party behind the vicious anti-immigrant legislation that is being proposed throughout the nation:

KING: Senator, do you worry at all about the long-term prospects for the Republican Party? The political implications of this? I understand you stand by your law on principle. You believe it’s the right thing to do, but your state now has a 21 percent, 20.3 percent of Colorado’s population is Latino. You know the demographic growth. Not just in your state, but across the United States. Do you have any concerns, it’s essentially the Karl Rove question on immigration, that you will do generational damage to the Republican Party by pushing these proposals?

LAMBERT: Well, again, I think that’s really naive. We’ve seen the polling in Arizona, where Arizona 1070 was passed. It was passed on a wide bipartisan basis. The people, the Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and Hispanic, more than 50 percent of them all support Arizona bill 1070. Also, Jan Brewer, the governor, won by a landslide after signing that legislation. So the people of the United States want this law.

Certainly, I think the man on the street in Colorado wants to see, first of all, enforcement of our borders. Second, we want to enforce the current laws that we have on the books. Right now the federal government’s not doing that, and it’s time for the states, as many states are doing right now, take on the responsibility that they have for enforcing the law.

Watch it:

Lambert may think it’s naive, but not all of his Republican colleagues agree. It is naive to assume that the 2011 Inaugural Conference of the conservative Hispanic Leadership Network wasn’t in part an attempt by some Republicans to improve their party’s image amongst Latinos after the highly charged debate that Arizona’s immigration law sparked last year. Alfonso Aguilar, a conference participant and the executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, told NPR: “Latinos are inherently conservative: They’re socially conservative; they are entrepreneurial; they’re pro-business. Immigration…is that one issue that prevents us from winning the support of Latino voters.” Former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) proclaimed, “it would be incredibly stupid over the long haul to ignore the burgeoning Hispanic vote.”

Lambert seems to be ignoring the fact that an overwhelming majority of Latinos oppose laws like SB-1070, and, as the years pass by, it’s increasingly likely that the “man on the street in Colorado” is going to be Latino. Half of the U.S.’ population growth has been driven by the Latino population. 15.5 million Latinos are U.S. citizens who are currently too young to vote and many Latinos are legal immigrants who may one day become naturalized citizens.

The likelihood of Lambert’s law passing is still unclear. Unlike Arizona’s law it allows (rather than requires) local law enforcement officers to arrest someone if they have probable cause the person is an undocumented immigrant. Don Christensen, director of the County Sheriffs of Colorado, has said that Colorado sheriffs don’t want to enforce federal immigration law and cherish discretion when deciding whether to make an arrest.

Meanwhile, back in November, prominent Colorado Republican Steve Schuck slammed Lambert’s plan to introduce an Arizona-style immigration bill in his state. “Making headlines by coming out of the chute with an immigration bill as our initial, signature effort appears to evidence some serious tone deafness,” wrote Schucklan. “[E]verything, absolutely everything, should be subordinated to rebuilding the economy and we repubs should own the issue.”

The Tea Party has come to town and is excitedly proposing to cut everything under the sun – from Social Security to Medicare – and of course the item that always blows a huge hole in the budget: foreign aid. And by huge hole, I mean the one that accounts for just 0.015 percent of the total federal budget — an amount so small it makes the United States the most miserly aid provider of any developed country per capita. 165 House Republicans have now endorsed defunding USAID. Josh Rogin of Foreign Policy reports that the Republican Study Committee, which is made up of 165 conservative Republicans, unveiled a plan that:

calls for $1.39 billion in annual savings from USAID. The USAID operating budget for fiscal 2010 was approximately $1.65 billion.

If enacted, this bill would all but defund USAID, the agency responsible for administering foreign aid. To make the proposal even more ludicrous, the Republican plan, according to Republican development expert Connie Veillette of the Center for Global Development:

does not really cut foreign assistance, which is the presumable target. Instead, it cuts USAID’s ability to manage already appropriated funds.

If enacted, this would only create administrative chaos — a fact that demonstrates how little thought is going into Republican proposals. But the Republican eagerness at cutting the agency points to the broader question of whether they actually want the United States to remain a superpower because the current proposal might as well have been written by Hu Jintao.

Besides the moral importance of significantly helping people in need by providing food assistance and basic health provisions, foreign aid is critical to US foreign policy. Ensuring people aren’t starving and finding ways to kick start development in the impoverished parts of the world is essential to maintaining stability. From a geopolitical perspective, aid buys influence in countries and regions. The massive economic growth in China has led them to drastically increase the amount of aid they send abroad. China’s influence is now growing not only in their region, but in Africa and Latin America where Chinese development and investment projects are buying influence and even propping up odious regimes, leading some to refer to it as a “rogue donor.”

But this isn’t just about China. Foreign assistance is also critical to our hard national security objectives. In an interview with Foreign Policy, the head of USAID Rajeev Shah noted that the cuts would:

puts our national security in real jeopardy because we are working hand and glove with our military to keep us safe.

Following the calamity in Iraq and the struggles in Afghanistan the military saw first hand the importance of civilian assistance programs and have become outspoken proponents of them. But they have also been shocked at the lack of capacity at State and USAID to actually deliver on their stated missions. Gates and the Pentagon, unlike House Republicans, recognize USAID’s importance, as it is on the ground working in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and the Horn of Africa — areas all critical to our military and our national security.

But these agencies continue to lack the resources to adequately do what is asked of them. This has prompted Secretary Gates to call for increases to the budgets of State and USAID and has noted that when he first left government in 1993 there were about 15,000 USAID workers that were deployable, now there are just 3,000. During this 15 year period, Republicans — particularly during the 90s under the leadership of former Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) — significantly cut foreign aid and the State Department’s budget. This has gutted these agencies capabilities and has made them less able to adequately support efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the US foreign policy objectives overall.

So the question for House Republicans is do they want the US to be a superpower that remains the most important and influential actor abroad or do they want to facilitate the rapid erosion of US hegemony? They would no doubt say the former, but in reality, their proposal results in the latter and is exactly how America declines as a great power. The effects of budget cuts like these don’t have immediate impact on our global status, but in the near term, 5, 10, and 15 years they serve to gradually, but in the end significantly, erode our influence and importance abroad.

Last year, the Center for American Progress (CAP) released a report which showed that the cancellation of events and conventions in Arizona related to the state’s immigration law will result in a loss of $253 million in the state’s economic output and more than $86 million in lost wages over the next two to three years. Today, CAP released a second study which shows that those figures are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the costs associated with passing anti-immigrant legislation at the state and local level. CAP reports:

Hazleton, Pennsylvania, the leader of the court fights for local immigration enforcement, is in the tank for at least $2.8 million with some estimates totaling $5 million as it defends its ordinance all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Riverside, New Jersey suffered a local economic downturn before the city rescinded its anti-immigrant ordinance and welcomed the return of immigrants.

Farmers Branch, Texas, has spent nearly $4 million in legal fees and is expected to spend at least $5 million to defend its anti-immigration statute with no end in sight.

Prince William County, Virginia dramatically scaled back a tough immigration statute after realizing the original version would cost millions to enforce and defend in court.

Fremont, Nebraska, increased the city’s property tax to help pay the legal fees for its anti-immigration ordinance which it intends to defend.

The report also specifically highlights one figure who has been profiting off of these cities’ woes: Kris Kobach. The activist lawyer and newly elected Kansas Secretary of State has had his hand in just about every piece of anti-immigrant legislation proposed in the nation over the past several years. In the meantime, he has “run up an estimated $6.6 million in fees for his efforts.”

A second report which was released by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) today describes Kobach as a Harold Hill, the protagonist of the musical The Music Man. “Like Hill…Kobach comes to town with big ideas and a can-do attitude but leaves behind a trail of tears — huge legal bills and unworkable laws coupled with social turmoil,” writes SPLC.

One of Kobach’s colleagues at the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) — the legal outfit which employed Kobach as chief legal counsel — has explained in the past that all of these local laws are “field tests,” or experiments which are meant to test the legality of various approaches to immigration enforcement. In other words, the laws Kobach and IRLI have written are specifically designed to invite costly litigation which not only aims to challenge standard notions of what is legally acceptable, they have also made Kobach and his organization a lot of money on the taxpayer’s dime.

Meanwhile, SPLC notes that most of these legal efforts have so far been futile. “The towns that passed nativist laws in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Texas and Nebraska, along with the state of Arizona, have spent millions of dollars to defend them in court, and almost every judicial decision so far has gone against them.”