"I have not heard one example in Arizona where a business owner's religious liberty has been violated. The bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences."There ya have it! Interestingly, the brou-ha-ha over Arizona's measure resulted in the death of several similar "license to discriminate" measures in other states like Mississippi, Georgia and Ohio.
PHOENIX — The Arizona Legislature passed a measure on Thursday that allows business owners asserting their religious beliefs to refuse service to gays and others, drawing backlash from Democrats who called the proposal “state-sanctioned discrimination” and an embarrassment.
The 33-to-27 vote by the House sent the legislation to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican.
Governor Brewer does not comment on pending legislation, but she vetoed a similar measure last year. That action, however, came during an unrelated political standoff, and it was not clear whether she would support this plan.
Similar religious protection legislation has been introduced in Ohio, Kansas, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, but Arizona’s plan is the only one that has passed. The efforts are stalled in Idaho, Ohio and Kansas.It should be noted that Phoenix, the nation's 6th largest city, only enacted an LGBT rights ordinance last year and that if this measure becomes law all someone would have to say is that the have a "sincerely held religious belief" to justify denying service to LGBT people in Phoenix or anywhere in the state.
That said, there is polling evidence that GOP voters are become more interested in a national popular vote as 2000 fades into the distance and Democrats expand their reach into more swing states. A Gallup poll this month found 63 percent of respondents supported replacing the Electoral College with a national vote. But the big news was that 61 percent of Republicans now favor the change, a huge shift in support since 2000, when only 41 percent said they were were pro-popular vote. Even in 2011, only a slight majority of GOPers wanted to ditch the current system.
This might have something to do with the previous race. A week before the 2012 election, Republicans were a lot more worried that Mitt Romney might win the popular vote and lose the election than Democrats were about President Obama thanks to the latter’s relative strength in Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa.
Meanwhile, the conservative movement’s electoral reformers may not have the biggest megaphone in the party, but it is getting louder. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) came out for a national popular vote shortly after the election, complaining it put too much attention on swing states. (So did Donald Trump, for what it’s worth.)I don't know how I feel about supporting an idea that both Jan Brewer and Donald Trump both support! But that doesn't mean that NPV is a bad idea; if it passed then every single person's vote everywhere in the country would have equal weight in deciding the presidential election, which is a much more democratic system than the system we have now based on the electoral college.
I, _______, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God.Anyone see any problems with forcing all high school seniors in Arizona to state an oath containing the word "God" in it?
The administration plan is to stop deporting many undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. To be eligible, immigrants must prove they arrived in the United States before they turned 16, are 30 or younger, have been living here at least five years and are in school or graduated or served in the military. They also cannot have been convicted of certain crimes or otherwise pose a safety threat.
Under guidelines that the administration announced Tuesday, proof of identity and eligibility could include a passport or birth certificate, school transcripts, medical and financial records and military service records. The DHS said that in some instances, multiple sworn affidavits, signed by a third party under penalty of perjury, also could be used. Anyone found to have committed fraud will be referred to federal immigration agents, the department said.
Alejandro Mayorkas, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said being approved to avoid deportation "does not provide lawful status or a path to citizenship."
The paperwork for the program can be downloaded from the Immigration Services website. Applicants must pay a $465 fee and provide proof of identity and eligibility.A decision on each application could take several months, and immigrants have been warned not to leave the country while their application is pending. If they are allowed to stay in the United States and want to travel internationally, they will need to apply for permission to come back into the country, a request that would cost $360 more.
In her executive order, Brewer essentially said that undocumented immigrants granted deferred action will not be recategorized as lawful residents. The order is intended to cut through some confusion created by the president's program, Brewer spokesman Matthew Benson said.
"As the (DHS) has said repeatedly ... these individuals do not have lawful status," Benson told The Republic. "They are able to remain in the country and not be deported and not be prosecuted, but they do not have lawful status."
Regina Jefferies, a Phoenix immigration lawyer who chairs the Arizona chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said Brewer's order contradicts state law.
She said that deferred action existed before the program started on Wednesday and that there are "many, many" instances in Arizona of immigrants granted deferred action for other reasons who have received licenses.
She said Brewer will likely face a lawsuit.
Brewer's order bars undocumented immigrants who receive deferred action from public benefits that include state-subsidized child care; KidsCare, a children's health-insurance program; unemployment benefits; business and professional licenses and government contracts, Benson said.This is Brewer just being an asshole. Of course states get to determine whom they issue state issued benefits to, and they can decide to not issue any benefits to undocumented immigrants. The fact that the federal government is providing employment benefits and reprieve from deportation to these same individuals is irrelevant to state actions. But the timing of Brewer's action was really just to make sure her xenophobic (some would say nativist) perspective is included in any media coverage about the Obama administration's new program.