When Arizona passed SB-1070 last year, the state began to feel the economic pain almost immediately due to a boycott that was organized in response. This past fall, the Center for American Progress, along with the consulting firm Elliott D. Pollack & Company, found that the boycott itself could cost the State Convention Industry 2,800 jobs and $141 million.

Today, the Center for American Progress, together with the Immigration Policy Center, released a report that details the more long-term economic effects of the law itself. According to the study, the SB-1070 approach “would have devastating economic consequences” if its goal of driving out undocumented immigrants was accomplished. “Driving the undocumented immigrants out of Arizona would lead to significant losses of jobs for both native-born and foreign-born workers,” states the report. “It would trigger a significant contraction of the state economy as it struggles to grow its way past the Great Recession. And it would lead to substantial lost tax revenue for the state government which is already reeling from the recession and high unemployment.”

The report compares the cost of mass deportation versus the economic benefits associated with legalizing Arizona’s undocumented population:

Deportation effects in Arizona

Decrease total employment by 17.2 percent

Eliminate 581,000 jobs for immigrant and native-born workers alike

Shrink state economy by $48.8 billion

Reduce state tax revenues by 10.1 percent

Legalization effects in Arizona

Increase total employment by 7.7 percent

Add 261,000 jobs for immigrant and native-born workers alike

Increase labor income by $5.6 billion

Increase tax revenues by $1.68 billion

The report does not include an analysis of the costs associated with defending SB-1070 in court. Since Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) signed the bill into law in April, the state of Arizona has spent over $1.5 million fighting legal challenges against it and will likely spend even more as the lawsuit moves its way through the courts.

Arizona is currently facing an estimated $825 million budget deficit. Brewer has already proposed a budget containing $1 billion in spending reductions to Medicaid and other services. Republicans are now demanding another $600 million in additional spending cuts, including $200 million from K-12 education.

Describing Islamism as “a relic of the 20th century, a discredited orthodoxy of limited appeal to the Arab masses,” Ray Takeyh warns that “History has shown“, however, that well-organized parties of circumscribed appeal can nevertheless assume greater influence by exploiting the disarray of transition periods and divisions within democratic camps”:

The problem is compounded by the temptation among many in the West to appeal to the “political” wing of militant organizations such as Hezbollah or to reach out to “moderate” elements of Islamist parties. The challenge for Washington today is not to cling to some kind of ecumenical spirit but to actively choose sides and fortify the political center against forces of intolerance.

Many in the West presume that once Islamist parties are integrated into the political order, the burdens of governance — compromise, coalition-building and constituency maintenance — will inevitably lead them to dispense with their ideological past. Such liberal conceits do a disservice to the Muslim Brotherhood and its many offspring, denigrating their commitment to their dogma.

Whether or not Islamism is a discredited relic of the 20th century, as Takeyh claims, he’s quite right that well-organized factions with limited appeal can exploit periods of transition to ensconce themselves in positions of influence (he should go down the hall and ask his CFR colleague Elliott Abrams about that). But the U.S. simply should not be in the business of picking winners in the new Middle East. Our focus should be on assisting in the creation of strong, accountable and transparent processes and institutions, not on selecting the people who should run them.

As for Takeyh’s claim that Islamists are not likely to “dispense with their ideological past,” we should note that, at least as regards their embrace of the democratic process, the Islamists of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood have already dispensed with a significant part of that past. Their critics among hardcore Salafists like Al Qaeda, who’ve labeled the Brotherhood a bunch of Westernized sell-outs, certainly seem to think so.

I would also offer — and I’m continually struck by how curious it is that an Iraq war critic like me has to be the one to keep pointing this out — that the behavior of Islamist politicians and parties in Iraq offers evidence against Takeyh’s claim. Despite being “discredited relics of the 20th century,” and despite U.S. attempts to empower slick, Westernized hucksters like Ahmad Chalabi, Islamist parties have consistently done pretty well in Iraqi elections. Once in power these actors immediately began transforming Iraq into an Islamic state behaving like politicians, squabbling over power and resources, both on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the constituencies to which they are now accountable. Iraq is still bedeviled by enormous problems, and probably will be for some time, but its elected Islamist leaders plotting to transform Iraq into the seat of the new Caliphate does not appear to be among them.

As I wrote in the American Prospect shortly after the Egyptian demonstrations began, developing a coherent approach to the fact of political Islam is imperative to establishing a new U.S. relationship with the peoples of the Middle East, one not governed by the transactional imperatives of counter-terrorism or access to oil (though, of course, both of those things will continue to be important, and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise). Obviously its important not to kid ourselves that Islamists are liberals in Islamic dress, or that they represent some sort of “authentic” voice that secular Arabs do not. But it’s unrealistic to think that we can marginalize religion in the politics of the Middle East, any more than we can in our own. And, frankly, given the religious nature of our own politics compared to those of other Western countries, Americans should know better than others that faith and politics can co-exist non-violently, if not always peacefully or comfortably, if contained within pluralistic systems that secure peoples’ basic rights.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has been criticized for going after students, teachers, seniors, and poor people in his attempt to balance the state budget without raising taxes or fees.

ThinkProgress recently reported that Walker is also proposing to repeal Wisconsin’s Contraceptive Equity Law that requires insurance companies to cover prescription birth control. It turns out that while Walker wants to deny women the right to plan their future, he also wants to prevent undocumented women who are already pregnant from accessing prenatal care.

Walker’s prenatal care proposal contradicts his own anti-choice position which has essentially translated into a crusade against abortion. Walker has often described himself “100 percent pro-life” and opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest. “I believe in protecting life from conception to natural death,” states Walker on his website. As an assemblyman, Walker fought to ban “partial-birth” abortions that could save a mother’s life and prevent state and local government employees from “promoting, encouraging, or counseling in favor of abortion services.” During his campaign for governor, he made a pledge to Pro-Life Wisconsin, an organization that opposes abortion without exception, that he would seek an absolute ban on abortion.

Anti-choice groups have embraced Walker’s position on abortion, but they may not agree with his attack on undocumented women. Anti-abortion activists have often been staunch supports of ensuring that undocumented women have access to prenatal care assistance, arguing that it “improves the chances that a woman will choose to give birth rather than seek an abortion.”

When Nebraska debated the prenatal care issue, Julie Schmit-Albin, executive director of Nebraska Right to Life, stated, “We don’t accept that borders should be put ahead of babies.” In 2010, a local newspaper reported that at least seven women in Nebraska had abortions because they couldn’t afford the cost of prenatal care since the state stopped paying for it.

In the long term, Walker’s prenatal care proposal will probably cost Wisconsin more money than it saves. Undocumented women who choose to follow through with their pregnancies give birth to U.S. citizens who are entitled to benefits. Jennifer L. Howse of the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation argues that “the cumulative weight of many studies is that prenatal care saves lives and money by reducing the number of babies born needing expensive neonatal care.” Dan Agin of the University of Chicago further notes that inadequate prenatal care is a tremendous health risk for both the mother and her child. “No pediatrician will deny this,” writes Agin.

Walker also wants to repeal in-state tuition for undocumented students and eliminate Food Share benefits for legal immigrants. He supports passing an enforcement-only immigration law modeled after Arizona’s that will likely cost his state millions of dollars.