Over the past month, the state of Arizona has come into the national spotlight since it enacted the nation’s harshest immigration law, SB-1070. In another controversial move, this week Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) signed into law a bill that will ban ethnic studies in public schools. A couple weeks ago, the Arizona legislature approved a “birther bill” that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate and prove his own citizenship status. A sharp critic of Arizona’s nativist efforts has been Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon. Today, Gordon sat down to talk with the Wonk Room about what has led Arizona to take such drastic measures.

Gordon described a “perfect storm” consisting of three factors. First, the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine radicalized the political discourse. Second, beefed up border security along the California and Texas borders with Mexico redirected smugglers and cartel operatives toward Arizona. And lastly, the economic recession. Gordon explains that “politicians who love their job a lot more than they love their state or their country” exploited the three factors and led Arizona into the predicament it’s in now:

This became a perfect storm….we had the ending under Reagan of the Fairness Doctrine, which not only allowed both sides of an issue, it required both sides of an issue to be discussed. [...] Language that was spoken in the dark rooms, but not out in front became acceptable. And it became acceptable on television and radio. Particularly the extreme right radio. [...]

The second in Arizona was the fact that we are right on the border when Texas and California were tightened up. [...] It made Arizona the gateway and continues to do so because it is an impossible border to secure.

As a result of that, and the issue of the economy, the three came together and were exploited politically by individuals like Hayworth, and Russell Pierce — the local senator — and the governor [Jan Brewer], and those that love their job a lot more than they love their state or their country. The more extreme these issues became, the more leadership these individuals took on and scared off other more moderates, particular Republicans.

Watch it:

Gordon also listed another element which has exacerbated the extremism that is present in Arizona. When President Barack Obama was elected president, he appointed then governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano (D), to serve as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. According to Gordon, when Napolitano left, her successor (Brewer) filled the void left behind by appointing a lot “extremists” who “hijacked” the system. The Wonk Room previously reported that Napolitano stated that she vetoed bills similar to SB-1070 “at least twice.”

Today, former President Bill Clinton delivered the keynote speech at an event hosted by the Center for American Progress Action Fund commemorating and reflecting on the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing and what we can learn from it today. This week, the Arizona legislature passed the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” a bill which will probably end up establishing the toughest set of state immigration laws in the country. In his speech, Clinton explained that the Oklahoma City Bombing occurred in an environment of widespread insecurity and disorientation and that similar sentiments underlie Arizona’s response to the problem of illegal immigration:

Now, we have the highest percentage of Americans who have been out of work for six months or more than we’ve had in decades. This is disorientating and people are looking for anchors to make life simple and understandable and digestable again and sometimes with the idea that they need to go back to an idyllic time that never existed. That’s a big part of the explanation for this anti-immigration law that Arizona just passed or the idea that we out to bring back Confederate month in Virginia without saying anything about slavery. [...]

I’m not defending the specifics of any of these, I’m just telling you this is what’s going on: there’s an enormous psychological disorientation today and that’s also the way it was in the early nineties.

Watch it:

Arizona has often been referred to as “ground zero” of the nation’s immigration fight. It is home to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who instructs his officers to arrest someone for being an undocumented immigrant based solely on their “speech,” “clothing,” and “erratic behavior.” It’s the state where a nine-year-old girl and her father were shot and killed by anti-immigrant Minuteman vigilantes this past summer. It’s also the place where the brutal murder of prominent rancher Robert Krentz leads politicians to publicly blur the line between dangerous drug cartel operatives and undocumented workers looking for nothing but a better life — all in the absence of any proof regarding the killer’s country of origin, immigration status, or motive.

Arizona is only a microcosm of the nation as a whole. Over the past few years, what started as a debate on immigration policy has spiraled into unrestrained immigrant bashing, finger-pointing, and insults. In an atmosphere of federal stalemate and inaction, state and local governments have over-compensated with a flurry of anti-immigration laws. Clinton got at the point that most Americans who support such policies aren’t “bad people,” but that their reaction is in some ways a natural response to the economic and demographic changes the country has experienced this decade. Speaking in broader terms beyond immigration, Clinton warned that “we must not forget that when that happens we have to pay special care…we can’t let the debate veer so far into hatred that we lose focus of our common humanity.”

The “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” 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. Today, Courthouse News Service pointed out that the bill goes as far as to fine those who allegedly seek work through a “gesture or a nod.” The bill is still awaiting the signature of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ), who hasn’t commented on it other than saying she has “a strong and consistent track record of supporting responsible immigration-enforcement measures.”

Last weekend, a prominent Arizona rancher was shot and killed while in his SUV near the Mexican border. Anti-immigration hawks like former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and senatorial candidate J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) quickly jumped to describe the murder as having been committed by an undocumented immigrant before the local police department even had the chance to release any details. Tancredo and Hayworth, along with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Arizona Gov Jan Brewer (R-AZ), have all called on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to deploy the National Guard to the Arizona border.

Yesterday afternoon, Tancredo took his demands a step farther by calling for the dismissal of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano whom he accuses of lying about border security in order to move immigration reform forward:

She lies about border security in order to push the Obama agenda: amnesty for 15-30 million illegal aliens presently in this country. The harsh and unpleasant truth is that we have no border security…[...] I think it’s time for Janet Napolitano to go. We should demand her resignation. She is not a person that should be in charge of Homeland Security when she purposefully lies about the condition in or around that border. [...]

We’ve gotta tell him to stop talking about amnesty. Every time he bring up amnesty, every time he uses that word…the flood of illegal aliens coming into this country turns into a tsumani…Don’t take no for an answer. Don’t let them weasel their way out with “I’m against illegal immigration, but we have to have a pathway to citizenship.” HOGWASH.

Watch it:

However, it seems Tancredo is the one who is conveniently exaggerating — if not outright lying — about the facts in order to obstruct immigration reform. Napolitano has never said that DHS’ work at the border is done. What she has said is that over the past few years, the U.S has seen “improve[d] immigration enforcement and border security within the current legal framework.”

However, that legal framework is broken and border security is one of many things that comprehensive immigration reform could fix. Currently, funds are being dedicated to both apprehending dangerous illegal border-crossers like the one that may have killed Krentz, along with non-threatening migrants who are simply looking for work and a better life. In other words, resources are spread thin. If immigration reform created a legal immigration system that responds to fluctuating labor demands, economic-driven illegal immigration would be greatly reduced and DHS could focus its time and resources on pursuing threats to security. “We will never have fully effective law enforcement or national security as long as so many millions remain in the shadows,” Napolitano has stated.

Furthermore, neither Napolitano or Obama have promised anyone amnesty. Napolitano has explicitly stated that any earned path to legalization will be “tough and fair.” Even if some potential migrants interpreted their words as “amnesty,” it doesn’t seem to be motivating a “tsunami” of “illegal aliens.” Rather, largely in response to the economic recession, illegal immigration has plummeted since Obama was elected to office.

Finally, while it certainly is possible that Krentz was killed by a foreign border crosser, as recently as yesterday evening, the local Arizona Sheriff’s office was still emphasizing that they have “no suspect, no motive in the killing, and no proof of the killer’s country of origin or immigration status.”

In addition to calling for Napolitano’s dismissal, Tancredo also suggested that the U.S. should place active duty personnel on both the Southern and Northern borders.

Last month, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) reelection campaign called on challenger and former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) to disavow the endorsement of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), an anti-immigrant group that the Anti-Defamation League accuses of promoting “virulent anti- Hispanic and anti-immigrant rhetoric” and “adopting the tactics and rhetoric of racist groups and moving it into the mainstream.”

The McCain campaign isn’t letting up the pressure. In a statement issued today, campaign spokesman Brian Rogers slammed Hayworth once again for accepting ALIPAC’s endorsement. Politico reports:

Let’s be clear: Congressman [J.D.] Hayworth’s continued flirtation with extreme groups that condone racism only opens the door for liberals to falsely paint all opponents of illegal immigration as bigots. Congressman Hayworth should immediately disavow this group’s support and commit to never again associating himself with groups that accept this kind of hateful and counterproductive rhetoric,” McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said in a statement Friday.

It’s the latest iteration of one of McCain’s most consistent messages: that Hayworth, a vocal immigration hawk, holds views that go beyond the conservative mainstream and into the fringe.

Hayworth isn’t just facing heat from McCain. Somos Republicans — an Arizona group which disassociates itself from the local and state Republican Party in an effort to register more Latinos — released a statement pounding Hayworth:

Arizona Hispanic Republicans will not be supporting J.D. Hayworth who was recently endorsed by ALIPAC…The Arizona Republican Party cannot afford to have their politicians embrace organizations like ALIPAC who use racial slurs such as “wetbacks,” “taco-benders,” and the like, especially in our State of Arizona where the legal Hispanic population is 30%. Supporting these types of politicians will thrust the State of Arizona into a Democratic State, much like we recently witnessed in our neighboring State of New Mexico.

When asked about these “racial slurs,” ALIPAC director William Gheen told Phoenix New Times writer James King to “contact him by e-mail in the future so he could shove a hard copy of our questions ‘up [our] ass.’” Gheen also threatened to “sue the s$*& out of” the New Times for even asking about racist language on the Web site.

Somos Republicans have recommended that Arizona Republicans learn a lesson from Colorado — a state where former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) alienated Latinos with his anti-immigrant rhetoric and caused the state to turn from “red to blue.” That’s probably why FreedomWorks chairman and tea party strategist Dick Armey, who has identified Tancredo as the “cheerleader of jerkiness in the immigration debate” and an un-wanted tea party patriot, has decided not to back Hayworth. “J.D. had a fairly short, undistinguished congressional career with virtually no initiative on his part. I just don’t see any reason why we should be concerned about that race,” stated Armey.

While the McCain campaign, Somos Republicans, and even Dick Armey all make good points, they side-step the fact that the Republican Party has repeatedly legitimized — if not elevated — its anti-immigrant fringe. The Republican National Committee’s 2008 party platform offered nothing but enforcement-only solutions to the country’s broken immigration system and outright opposed “amnesty.” Meanwhile, right-wing Republicans did everything in their power to block comprehensive immigration reform in 2006 and 2007. This year, no other Republican — not even McCain — has demonstrated willingness to push for immigration reform in 2010. Quite the contrary, McCain has allowed himself to be intimidated by Hayworth’s hard line immigration views and has moved his own immigration platform further to the right.

Earlier this week, the anti-immigrant group, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), endorsed senatorial candidate and former U.S. representative, J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ). While Hayworth proudly touts ALIPAC’s endorsement on his website, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) campaign claims that it’s nothing to be proud of. James King of the Phoenix News Times reports:

“J.D. Hayworth’s lavish praise for the social theories of noted anti-Semite and xenophobe Henry Ford sparked a major controversy during his losing 2006 campaign, causing many Arizonans to question Mr. Hayworth’s judgment. It is astounding that Mr. Hayworth would today accept the endorsement of a group that the Anti-Defamation League reports is backed by white supremacists, neo-Nazis and anti-Semites. Mr. Hayworth should immediately disavow this group’s support,” says Brian Rogers, the McCain campaign’s Communications Director…

Rogers claims some of the country’s most notorious hate-mongers support the group, including members of the National Socialist Movement and David Duke, a former “Grand Wizard” of the Ku Klux Klan and one-time presidential candidate from Louisiana.

ALIPAC was quick to jump on Rogers and dismiss his comments as “offensive false information.” However, Rogers was simply citing public facts. The Center for New Community has extensively documented ALIPAC’s nativist ties, describing the group as being “characterized by hysterical fear-mongering and xenophobic, anti-Latino conspiracy theories.” The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that ALIPAC “is supported by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, recently designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project, and allied with various Minuteman factions.” ADL accuses ALIPAC of promoting “virulent anti- Hispanic and anti-immigrant rhetoric” and “adopting the tactics and rhetoric of racist groups and moving it into the mainstream.” Members of Hayworth’s own Party have pointed out that his anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy platform cost him his House seat in 2006.

While the McCain campaign is wise to highlight Hayworth’s nativist ties, McCain has allowed himself to be intimidated by Hayworth’s hard line immigration views and has moved his own platform further to the right.