Category Archives: Immigration

Senators Bennet and Udall: Make Farm Bill History

9
  by: MichaelBowman Sat May 18, 2013 at 7:11 PM MDT

"Why use up the forests which were centuries in the making and the mines which required ages to lay down, if we can get the equivalent of forest and mineral products in the annual growth of the hemp fields?"

~Henry Ford

 

The United States Senate will have the opportunity to make history this week while debating the 2013 Farm Bill: a full debate on the re-legalization of industrial hemp via an expected floor amendment.  The crop of our forefathers.  A crop deemed so critical to our nation's future that farmers in Colonial America were under a mandate to grow the crop.  The crop that made possible Ben Franklin's Colonial Free Press.  The crop that clothed our early military; protected our pioneering ancestors as they crossed our vast prairies -  and counted 16 million acres of production in the 1862 Census. The crop USDA deemed so critical to national defense the federal prohibition was lifted during WWII.

It was a tragic confluence of events that lead to the demise of hemp.  Prohibition was in its waning days, and the federal bureaucracy built around alcohol seizure no longer had a mission – a focus on narcotics would be the lifeline for the bureaucracy.  Our nation was on the cusp of launching an economy mobilized by Rockefeller's new-found 'black gold'; the synthetic clothing market and the advent of the agricultural chemical industry was in its infancy at DuPont.   And media titan Randolph Hearst,  the owner of significant forestry assets, had launched an all-out media war on Hispanic immigrants and marijuana.

Thus was borne the "Marihuana Tax  Act of 1937";  legislation devised by Henry Anslinger and his uncle, Andrew Mellon of Mellon Banks to tax the production of industrial hemp.  And with the new tax, the production of hemp became an uneconomical alternative to the newly developed energy, synthetic clothing and chemical industry derived from fossil resources controlled by titans DuPont and Rockefeller.  Mellon was the banker of both DuPont and Rockefeller.  It's not terribly hard to do the math.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

And with the enacting of the Marihuana Act came the demise of Henry Ford's "Iron Mountain" project where he had developed a sedan made of industrial hemp composites that was powered by ethanol fermented from hemp.  He had also developed an entire line of hemp-based  lubricants and industrial products.  

Forward to 1970 and the birth of our nations failed 'War on Drugs'.  Marijuana is defined as a Schedule 1 narcotic, on par with cocaine and heroine by the DEA, despite the fact the Congressional intent stated emphatically: 

 

    "nothing in this Act is meant to prohibit the production of hemp for industrial purposes"

 

In 2012 Colorado voters passed a constitutional amendment, Amendment 64, which in addition to legalizing adult use of marijuana also legalized the cultivation of industrial hemp by Colorado farmers.  Touting wide bi-partisan support, the amendment garnered more votes than our President.  The Colorado legislature acted swiftly and by Sine Die 2013 had put in place a regulatory framework for hemp.  The legislation passed third reading in both chambers with a unanimous vote.

Thus, an industry was borne.  Now the conflict between Federal and State law must be resolved.  And from this growing conflict between state and federal law (18 states took various legislative action on industrial hemp this year) was borne the "2013 Industrial Hemp Farming Act", known in Congress as S. 359 and H.R. 525.  Both Chambers tout broad, bi-partisan support.  But this legislative journey remains unclear.  The Judiciary Committees were given jurisdiction in their respective chambers.  In both cases, no hearings have been scheduled.  It's even more unclear whether the bills will be heard at all this year, given they are in the queue behind Immigration Reform.

Is there a better, more efficient way to move this legislation on an issue that broad support from across the political spectrum?  Yes – a floor amendment during the full Farm Bill debate in the Senate this week.  And we need the pro-active leadership of our two Senators.

Industrial Hemp has the potential to add a new, vibrant  addition to our agricultural 'horn of plenty' in Colorado.  The crop requires few chemical inputs; its water requirements are minimal when compared to many traditional crops across the eastern plains and western slope.  Its ability to remediate soils has at the potential to heal salt-laden agricultural soils and mitigate heavy metal contamination from old mines and superfund sites.  The United States is the largest consumer market of hemp products in the world – a $400 million annual market demand met exclusively from imports.  American farmers remain the only agriculturalists in the industrialized world to be prohibited from its cultivation.  

And while giving Colorado farmers a crop alternative to help them meet their ever-growing water resource challenges, the crop also gives us significant environmental benefits:  its ability to extract enormous amounts of atmospheric carbon from the atmosphere.  Hemp extracts four times the CO2 annually per acre than does a standing forest.  Annual dry biomass yields per acre range from 2-3x the amount of biomass produced by either a corn or switchgrass crop;  ethanol-from-hemp reduces the greenhouse-gas-emissions by 86% when compared to transportation fuels from petroleum.

It is expected that Senator Mitch McConnell will introduce a floor amendment to the 2013 Farm Bill on Tuesday that would remove hemp as a Schedule I narcotic, legalizing its cultivation under federal law, and moving jurisdiction of the crop from DEA to USDA.

Despite recent demands on House members from the Heritage Foundation to not move on any legislation, (which also includes the Farm Bill) the action will be in the Senate on Tuesday.  A unique opportunity for our Senators to lead the fight for the passage of this amendment – and stand with the 55% of their fellow Coloradans who so wisely legalized the crop six months ago.  

Senators Bennet and Udall, please take a proactive role on this potentially historic event.  Farmers, conservationists, the environment, our natural resources and the state economy will be the benefactors of your leadership.  

 

 


Full story: Senators Bennet and Udall: Make Farm Bill History

Heritage Foundation: A BSing Too Far?

2
  by: Colorado Pols Fri May 10, 2013 at 8:33 AM MDT

Politico:

The Heritage Foundation has gone into damage-control mode in the last few days, after coming under fire from Republicans and conservative outside groups over a report it published that puts the price tag of immigration reform at $6.3 trillion.

The conservative think tank is considering hiring a high-profile public relations firm to help deal with the fallout of the report that was supposed to be their big play in the immigration debate, according to two sources familiar with Heritage.

The group has also come under scrutiny after it was reported that one of the authors of the report asserted previously that white Americans have higher IQs than immigrants…

Adds the Washington Post:

The Post’s Wonkblog pointed out that the study’s co-author has argued that there are deep-set, likely genetic IQ differences between races and that low-IQ immigrants should be kept out of the country. Heritage distanced itself from that argument, saying “its findings in no way reflect the positions of The Heritage Foundation.” The American Prospect highlighted the fact that the anti-”amnesty” study is featured far less prominently on Heritage’s Spanish-language site…

That’s not to say the opposition to immigration reform is dead or that Heritage’s numbers won’t again be used in the argument against it. But thanks to a divided right and a more nimble left, supporters are no longer easy to catch by surprise.

For decades, the Heritage Foundation has been the conservative "gold standard" for research and talking points. In this way, Heritage serves the same role nationally that the Independence Institute does in Colorado, with numerous working groups churning out ideological backup on the broadest possible range of issues.

Well folks, it seems somebody has taken a look at the changing demographics in this country, and realized that Heritage's ideological hard line against immigration reform is now a liability. And suddenly the same methodological problems Heritage has always had, even relied upon to fill gaping holes in their logic, are a huge problem that Republicans must pre-emptively smack down in the name of factuality! Good on them regardless, we guess.

Maybe they'll step up next time Jon Caldara says "guns in Colorado will never be able to get a magazine again."


Full story: Heritage Foundation: A BSing Too Far?

“Overreach” is Overwrought. Give it a Rest.

23
  by: Colorado Pols Wed May 8, 2013 at 3:06 PM MDT

There are 65 members of the Colorado House of Representatives, and 35 members of the Colorado State Senate. The Colorado legislature as a whole is a representative body, with each Senator representing about 143,691 constituents, and each House member standing for 77,372 Coloradans.

The Colorado Constitution outlines the makeup and duties of the state legislature, but it is a guarantee in the United States Constitution that every state shall have a republican form of government (with representatives elected by the people), rather than a direct democracy governed by the citizens.

Even Dawson doesn't cry this much.

Even Dawson didn’t cry as much as Colorado Republicans in 2013

Why the brief history lesson? As the legislature closes out its 2013 session, Republicans and some political pundits are busy accusing Colorado Democrats of "overreaching" for passing a lot of progressive pieces of legislation, yet they seem to forget that this "republican form of government" is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Members of the Colorado legislature are elected by popular vote, the purpose of which is to see that the majority of Colorado citizens are not overruled by the minority. It is a logical extension of the process that the minority may not be happy with the results of an elected body chosen by the majority.

To put it bluntly, that's kind of the point. The system is working as designed.

But don't tell that to Colorado Republicans. Take this recent press release from the Colorado House Republicans titled: "ICYMI: Democrats continue to run up the score."

The posting from the House GOP quotes liberally from an April 28th story in the Denver Post, though they notably failed to quote the sillier parts of the story about a "marathon legislative session":

Rep. Frank McNulty of Highlands Ranch raced to the microphone and, in a thundering voice, accused Democrats of "doing a touchdown dance at the expense of the minority." [Pols emphasis]…

…Republicans have accused Democrats of "overreaching," waging war on rural Colorado and introducing bills to reward unions and trial lawyers while harming businesses.

Rep. Dan Pabon, D-Denver, disagrees.

"Overreaching? No," he said. "I think we've been listening to the people of Colorado and they've told us, 'We put you in charge and we want you to get something done.' "

Hey McNulty, ask Carly Simon if this is about you.

Hey McNulty, ask Carly Simon if this is about you.

Pabon is absolutely right here, and we've made the same argument before in this space. But before we get to that, let's examine how Republicans are so upset at the Democrats for continually beating them in elections that they think the 2013 legislative session is actually about them. To quote Carly Simon (no, seriously):

You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you

You're so vain, I'll bet you think this song is about you

Don't you? Don't You? Don't You?

There are many, many reasons why Republicans have never come close to regaining control of the state legislature since their surprise ouster in 2004, and their reaction to being steamrolled in 2013 is just another number on the list. Democrats are pushing ahead with progressive issues because Republicans don't do anything but get in the way. They don't offer reasonable amendments or attempt to debate in good faith — they just try to gum up the works and play procedural games. Anyone who has heard Republican Rep. Bob Gardner's version of a filibuster can understand what we mean here; Gardner just talks comically slow for as long as he can, his only goal to try to bore people into submission. Yet Republicans are annoyed when Democrats try to move things along and actually, you know, do their job?

Republicans call this "overreaching," and take it as a personal affront. But it's not about them, and it never was. It's about Democrats understanding that Colorado voters want them to lead; voters gave McNulty and the GOP a narrow majority in the House in 2010, and they promptly yanked it back from them two years later when it became clear that Republicans still have no intention of actually legislating.

Voters are tired of Republicans who can't figure out if they should still hate gay people. They're sick of Republicans who compare abortion to the Holocaust while everyone else is worried about schools and the economy. They're fed up with Republicans who persist with their ridiculous "Personhood" policy ideas that keep…getting…rejected…again…and again. "Personhood" isn't even about the issue anymore — it's a symbol of Republicans refusing to listen to even the most loudly shouted opinions of voters.

The simple truth of the 2013 session is this: Democrats were given a significant mandate from voters in 2012, and they are putting it to use. Some would say it is long overdue, and perhaps they learned their lesson from Congressional Democrats who did next to nothing with their 2008 mandate and then lost the House of Representatives in 2010. In fact, a closer look at the election results from the past decade tells a story that makes you wonder why Democrats waited so long to push harder on their agenda in the first place…

(more…)


Full story: “Overreach” is Overwrought. Give it a Rest.

Gardner’s GOP Tent Is Still too Small for the Dreamers

12
  by: Jason Salzman Thu May 2, 2013 at 10:47 AM MDT

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Just after the November election, a chastened Cory Gardner told Fox 31's Eli Stokols:

Gardner: “Republicans have always talked about having a big tent, but it doesn’t do any good if the tent doesn’t have any chairs in it. Bringing Latinos to the forefront, bringing women in, is absolutely critical.”

So you'd think Gardner, who represents Colorado's 4th Congressional District, would, over the ensuing six months, at least make room in the GOP tent for the children of illegal immigrants, who were brought to this country through no fault of their own.

You'd think Gardner would get on board with Colorado's ASSET law, which allows colleges to offer these so-called "Dreamers" the normal in-state tuition rate.

But on Monday, the same day that Gov. John Hickenlooper signed ASSET into law, Gardner told KNUS' Steve Kelley, that he still opposes Colorado's new policy of granting in-state tuition to the Dreamers, because Gardner does not believe the U.S. borders are secure enough, and that's his first priority. 

(more…)


Full story: Gardner’s GOP Tent Is Still too Small for the Dreamers

GOP attacks Romanoff on immigration, even though Coffman is their candidate

28
  by: Jason Salzman Wed May 1, 2013 at 9:51 AM MDT

(It's called "chutzpah" – promoted by Colorado Pols)

POLS UPDATE: This messaging could soon get very complicated for Rep. Coffman. The Hill reports that House Republicans may take up Mitt Romney's infamous "self-deportation plan" as part of their immigration package in an effort "to make a comprehensive overhaul acceptable to conservatives." This idea did more than anything to kill Romney's chances with Hispanic voters in 2012, and if it gains traction in the House, it would be a nightmare for Coffman.
—–

The National Journal reported last week that the National Republican Congressional Committee has released an ad attacking Democrat Andrew Romanoff for favoring "the strictest immigration laws in the nation" which Romanoff "passed as Speaker of the Colorado House." Romanoff is challenging Rep. Mike Coffman, who's seen as in danger of losing 6th Congressional District seat in Colorado.

The 2006 anti-immigration law cleared the Colorado Legislature with bi-partisan support, including the backing of Romanoff and Gov. Bill Owens.

But if Republicans attack Romanoff on immigration, reporters should obviously spotlight Coffman's own record on the issue. The Journal's Ben Terris did a pretty minimalist job of this, pointing out the following about Coffman:

When he first ran in 2008, one of his planks was to “deny amnesty and a path to citizenship to those who violate our laws. But this year, he had a change of heart and all of a sudden supports a path to citizenship."

Terris should have written more about Coffman and immigration. 

(more…)


Full story: GOP attacks Romanoff on immigration, even though Coffman is their candidate

Colorado ASSET Act Signed Into Law

11
  by: Colorado Pols Mon April 29, 2013 at 3:41 PM MDT

assetsigning
Photo by Colorado House Democrats

UPDATE: FOX 31's Eli Stokols:

“It’s perseverance,” [former Rep. Val] Vigil told FOX31 Denver afterward. “You know when you truly believe in an issue, you don’t give it up.”

…Sen. Mike Johnston, D-Denver, a former teacher and principal, described the despair of one of his former students who graduated high school only to watch state lawmakers, for the last three years, defeat legislation aimed at making college more affordable for undocumented students.

“That student right now is working in a fast food restaurant, waiting for the chance to fulfill his dreams of one day becoming an engineer,” Johnston said. “Well, today, we’re here to tell you that the doors are open and the dream is alive.” [Pols emphasis]

——

Another long-sought goal achieved by the 69th Colorado General Assembly, reports Huffington Post's Matt Ferner:

Undocumented immigrant students in Colorado can celebrate today — a bill that grants undocumented students in-state college tuition rates was signed into Colorado law by Gov. John Hickenlooper today.

Colorado now joins thirteen other states to allow undocumented immigrant students who graduate from state high schools to attend college at an in-state tuition rate. According to The Associated Press, some of Colorado's undocumented students had been paying more than three times higher than the rate in-state students pay.

A congratulatory statement from Sen. Mark Udall:

Mark Udall, who has been a vocal advocate for comprehensive and accountable immigration reform, welcomed the signing into law of Colorado's ASSET bill — legislation that secures fair tuition rates for students who attend at least three years of high school in Colorado, regardless of their immigration status. Udall said Colorado's leadership on this issue should spur Congress to follow suit and pass common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform and the DREAM Act.

"Colorado is leading the way to ensure that every Colorado student, regardless of where they come from or their immigration status, has equal access to opportunity. I am proud to stand with Gov. Hickenlooper and my colleagues in the Colorado General Assembly in welcoming this important milestone, the signing of the ASSET Bill, and what it means for high-achieving high school graduates and our future economic growth," Udall said. "I will take Colorado's example with me to Washington and continue fighting for a balanced, bipartisan immigration-reform proposal. I stand with business, religious, agricultural and labor leaders — and Coloradans of all backgrounds — when I say the time has come for Congress to set partisanship aside and follow suit. We must pass comprehensive immigration reform and the DREAM Act."

We'll round up more statements and coverage as they come in.


Full story: Colorado ASSET Act Signed Into Law

Heck’ve-a-Job Brownie having a heck’ve-a-hard time understanding federal immigration bill

5
  by: Jason Salzman Wed April 24, 2013 at 10:26 AM MDT

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Michael "Heck've-A-Job" Brownie took to the airwaves Monday to slam Sen. Michael Bennet for promoting the immigration bill that Congress is currently considering.

On his KHOW show, Brown called the bill a "bologna bill" and said he's "so tired of the BS" from Bennet and others, like Bennet's statement in an email, quoted by Brownie, that the bill is "our best chance in a generation to fix our broken immigration system."

Bennet "doesn't give a rat's ass about immigration," Brown said, adding that the bill does "nothing to secure the borders" and "Boston ought to be telling them to secure the borders first, and do everything else later."

Brownie overlooks the fact that, guess what, the bill stipulates that no one goes down the pathway to citizenship until the border is demonstrably secured, as Sen. Marco Rubio tried to explain to Brownie in an interview with Brownie Thursday.

Rubio told Brownie that the bill "creates a program whereby if the [Department of Homeland Security] doesn’t achieve 90% apprehension rate..then control goes to border state governors to finish the job."

"I guess it's my experience within the Department of Homeland Security," Brownie said on air Monday, "I simply do not trust the system to work."

Great. He doesn't trust the system to work. So what's his alternative?

"I don't have all the answers," he said Monday. "…it's going to take some sort of radical action."

OK. So when the Brownies of the world come up with their solution, even if it's some sort of radical action, they should tell us about it. Meanwhile, we can assume they favor doing nothing.


Full story: Heck’ve-a-Job Brownie having a heck’ve-a-hard time understanding federal immigration bill

Delving in to the immigration reform package

2
  by: nwdenvergirl Tue April 23, 2013 at 5:22 PM MDT

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

In the midst of the craziness of the news of the last week, it’s little wonder that the largest reform to our nation’s immigration policies ended up taking a back burner in news coverage.  Lost in the shuffle were a few items worth of our consideration here in Colorado.

The bi-partisan bill from the Senate’s Gang of Eight includes both a fund for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and an increase of the H-1B visa cap. An increase in the cap was needed to help companies fill the thousands of vacancies in high-skilled jobs. The bill proposes increasing the cap from 65,000 per year to 110,000, and allowing the number of H-1B visas available to continue to expand up to a maximum of 180,000 to better track with demand. Given that all the H-1B visas were snatched up within the first few days of them becoming available this year, it is clear that this expansion is necessary.

It is also encouraging to see a national fund to provide a significant stream of money to all states, which would expand opportunities for more students to pursue STEM fields. The STEM education fund would be paid for with an increase in fees on green cards and wouldn’t present a new cost to the American taxpayer.  Our country faces an immediate and long-term crisis with the shortage of qualified workers in STEM fields as the number of available science, technology, engineering, and mathematics jobs far outpaces our ability to fill them.

While the increase in H-1B visas helps patch this significant current problem, providing a fund to encourage and retain students in STEM fields is needed to support the jobs of the future. As evidence: Over the last few years, Colorado employers requested on average 2,735 H-1B visas per year for foreign, temporary workers, 74% of which were requested to fill STEM jobs.

If anything, the designated STEM fund in the reform package should be even stronger. The U.S. ranked 41st out of 42 nations in innovation based capacity, according to the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation and 35 states are spending less on education than they were five years ago.

If we’re going to improve, there is also important work to be done in erasing disparities in STEM fields. African Americans and Latinos are 28 percent of the U.S. population, but only seven percent of the STEM workforce. Additionally, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women will fill just 29 percent of the 1.4 million computing jobs expected to open through 2018.

Strengthening the nation’s STEM education pipeline as a part of immigration reform will also strengthen America’s economy and its ability to be an innovation leader well into the future.


Full story: Delving in to the immigration reform package

Video: Former Denver Mayor Bill Vidal on Immigration Reform

6
  by: Colorado Pols Tue April 23, 2013 at 11:24 AM MDT

UPDATE: FOX 31's Eli Stokols:

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Vidal told his own personal immigration story: how he came to the U.S. from his native Cuba at the age of four as part of Operation Peter Pan because his parents wanted him to have more opportunities.

“I am fulfilling their American Dream for me,” said Vidal, who spent his career working for the Colorado Dept. of Transportation and as Denver’s Public Works Director before becoming mayor to finish out the final six months of Gov. John Hickenlooper’s second term.

“My personal story represents two great truths about this country: first, that anyone, regardless of their humble beginnings, can become whatever they set their mind to, like the mayor of a large city.

“The second truth is that immigrants make contributions to the success of this country daily, especially when they’re allowed to live out of the shadows, as I’ve been able to do.”

—–

Video courtesy C-SPAN yesterday of Guillermo "Bill" Vidal, the first foreign-born citizen to serve as Mayor of Denver, and President and CEO of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, testifying in Washington DC before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday on behalf of comprehensive immigration reform. Yesterday's Senate hearing turned acrimonious for reasons that had nothing to do with Mayor Vidal's testimony, and we wanted to make sure his very good presentation yesterday in favor of immigration reform was noted in the record.


Full story: Video: Former Denver Mayor Bill Vidal on Immigration Reform

Bennet Raising Big Money for DSCC

9
  by: Colorado Pols Mon April 22, 2013 at 12:05 PM MDT

It came as little surprise when Sen. Michael Bennet confirmed in December that he would take over as Chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) for the 2014 election cycle. Bennet had withstood entreaties to run the DSCC for the 2012 cycle, which he could reasonably avoid after having just finished a brutal 2010 election of his own, but this is one of those "requests" that you really can't continue to refuse if you want the Majority leadership to actually consider your interests for key Senate committee assignments.

If you're wondering why Senate Democrats wanted Bennet to Chair the DSCC, it comes down to one word: fundraising. Bennet is pretty damn good at raising money, and as the Denver Post explains, the DSCC just set a new fundraising record for the first quarter of the year:

The fundraising arm for the Senate Democrats, headed by Sen. Michael Bennet, has raised more money in the first quarter of 2013 than at any other time in the committee's history, according to documents obtained by The Denver Post.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee — which exists primarily to keep and gain Democratic seats in the U.S. Senate — raised $5.3 million in March and has brought in $13.6 million in 2013 alone, according to documents the committee will file with the Federal Elections Commission on Monday…

…While it's still early in the 2014 election cycle, Senate Democrats are far out-raising the similar fundraising arm of the Senate Republicans. In the first quarter, Republicans raised $6.8 million, compared with the $13.6 million brought in by the Dems.The Republicans reported raising $3.2 million in March.

Senate Democrats have their work cut out for them when it comes to keeping the majority in 2014, and Bennet will play a significant role in the outcome. We have no doubt that being Chair of the DSCC is a pain-in-the-ass, but a successful 2014 would ensure Bennet a position near the top of the Senate Democratic ladder and would certainly give him a nice head-start into his own re-election efforts in 2016.


Full story: Bennet Raising Big Money for DSCC

Udall, Bennet Back Colorado Dems As Federal Gun Control Dies

23
  by: Colorado Pols Thu April 18, 2013 at 8:09 AM MDT

Joe Hanel and Stefanie Dazio of the Durango Herald report:

Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall voted Wednesday in favor of a failed amendment that would have strengthened federal gun controls.

Both Colorado Democrats supported a bipartisan amendment that would have expanded background checks to gun shows and the Internet.

That amendment, one of seven that failed in the Senate on Wednesday night, was rejected 54-46. None of the seven amendments received the required 60 votes to pass.

“It’s a sad day for our nation when a minority of the U.S. Senate has blocked commonsense legislation that is supported by 90 percent of Americans,” Udall said in a statement. [Pols emphasis]

FOX 31's Eli Stokols:

Obama blamed the gun lobby that “willfully lied” about the amendment and members of his own party who “caved to the pressure” and voted against the amendment.

Five Democrats voted against the measure, most of them representing more conservative states and facing uncertain reelection prospects next year (Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, voted no for procedural reasons only so that he can re-introduce the amendment should it magically garner additional support).

Four Republicans voted in favor of the proposal, which would have closed the so-called “gun show loophole”, something Colorado did a decade ago, and require background checks for all online gun sales.

In addition to their vote to expand background checks on firearm sales, Colorado Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet also voted for the amendment to limit magazine capacity. These votes resolve what was a significant concern among local Democrats, the possibility that one or both U.S. Senators would essentially vote against the similar legislation passed in the Colorado General Assembly this year. It's politically very good for Colorado Democrats that everybody got through this debate more or less on the same page at all levels.

Sens. Udall and Bennet did vote against the amendment from Sen. Diane Feinstein to ban some 180+ specific models of so-called "assault weapons." There is some consternation about that among supporters, but in Colorado this year, no attempt was made to ban any specific model of firearm–and the closest to a bill regulating assault weapons was a liability measure that was pulled by its sponsor. In the near term, especially after yesterday's result, any kind of federal assault weapons ban campaign is likely to be at best a flanking effort in a campaign to get background check expansions passed. Of all the amendments debated yesterday, federal background check expansion is by far the most popular, and we do expect to see it again very soon.

Opposition to background check expansion at the federal level relied on many of the same absurd arguments we heard at the state level: that the bill would lead to a "gun registry," that it "bans private gun sales," and our favorite idiotic tautology, "criminals don't obey laws." Despite the polls that show support for closing background check loopholes of all descriptions at near-unanimous highs, 80% or more reliably, the gun lobby's legendary influence in Washington killed this legislation with many of the same tired falsehoods we've already refuted in Colorado.

Those who opposed the proposal argued that it would lead to a federal registry of all firearms, something Democrats and even Republican Sen. John McCain, who voted yes on the amendment, dismissed as a scare tactic.

It's another sad story of Washington gridlock, but Colorado Democrats can at least be a little proud.


Full story: Udall, Bennet Back Colorado Dems As Federal Gun Control Dies

Gardner Mostly Silent as Radio Host Urges Him to Protect America from Mexican Freeloaders

0
  by: Jason Salzman Mon April 1, 2013 at 2:33 PM MDT

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

You get the feeling that some Republicans are trying to sneak Hispanics into the GOP tent through the back tent flaps, for fear that welcoming them though the tent's front door will offend the dwindling number of Republicans already in the tent.

That's what I was thinking when KFKA morning show host Devon Lentz insulted the entire country of Mexico last week, and Rep. Cory Gardner, who was a guest on the program, acted as if he'd heard nothing rude or inappropriate.

"We’re going to deal with this immigration thing," said Lentz, who's a former Larimer Country GOP official. "Except that, how do we also keep from advertising in countries like Mexico that when you come here, here’s how to get on the food stamps, here’s how you take advantage of this system, and get housing assistance, and food assistance? How do we at least keep from advertising how to take advantage of our system?"

Who knew the hard-working people from Mexico are out to freeload on America? Are Italians similarly inclined? Brits?

Rather than throw that question back at Lentz or, perhaps, even praise Hispanics' current contributions to our nation, Gardner said:

"Well, and those are questions that are being asked regularly to the administration about how they’re doing it, and what they’re doing, and how they’re marketing various programs."

Gardner has said he wants Hispanics in the GOP tent, but with Lentz lurking around inside, and Gardner refusing to stand up for a country like Mexico, will Hispanics want to enter? 

(more…)


Full story: Gardner Mostly Silent as Radio Host Urges Him to Protect America from Mexican Freeloaders

At least he’s not your Congressman

7
  by: JeffcoBlue Fri March 29, 2013 at 11:01 AM MDT

(He…didn't know this was an insult? - Promoted by Colorado Pols)

POLS UPDATE: Full retreat, reports ABC News this afternoon:

“I apologize for the insensitive term I used during an interview in Ketchikan, Alaska,” Young, R-Alaska, wrote in his second statement of the past 24 hours. “There was no malice in my heart or intent to offend; it was a poor choice of words.”

An earlier statement from Young excused his use of the smear as “a term that was commonly used” during his days growing up on his father’s ranch in central California, but the 21-term congressman’s second statement leaves no ambiguity about his remorse.

—–

NBC News:

"My father had a ranch; we used to have 50-60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes," [GOP Rep. Don] Young [of Alaska] said in an interview with radio station KRBD. He was discussing the number of jobs that have been made irrelevant due to advances in automation.

[...]

While the veteran congressman wasn't referring directly to immigration reform, his remarks certainly cut against the broader Republican effort to repair the party's dismal image with Latino voters.

Rep. Young says he he didn't know "wetback" was an insult. Seriously.

Republicans have a problem with Latinos, all right. Every time they open their mouths.


Full story: At least he’s not your Congressman

Tancredo says Coffman’s proposal for “legal status” without citizenship is “a distinction without a difference”

10
  by: Jason Salzman Wed March 27, 2013 at 8:40 AM MDT

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo and Rep. Mike Coffman have a tight political history, each endorsing the other at various points along the way. (Tancredo endorses Coffman here and vice versa here.)

So I wondered how Tancredo, who's known for his hard-line stance against illegal immigration, felt about Coffman's recent announcement that Coffman favors giving "legal status" to millions of undocumented immigrants, giving them permission to work here without granting them the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

"It's a distinction without a difference," Tancredo told me, regarding the difference between "legal status" without citizenship and actual citizenship. "Five years, ten years from now, you think we can stop 11 or 12 million people from being citizens, no no.

"It's kind of like the civil union issue. If they could only get civil unions through, then that would be it. But of course the day civil unions passed, they announced that was not it. It needs to be marriage."

Coffman's 6th Congressional District, which Tancredo represented from 1999 to 2009, was substantially changed after the 2010 census, making it one of the most competitive congressional seats in the country.

As a result, multiple journalists have essentially put Coffman on the Endangered Congressmen List, and Coffman has responded, they say, by singing a different tune on immigration and other issues, even if the overarching song remains the same.

"I don't know if the new district is the reason for [Coffman's] moves on immigration.” said Tancredo, “but if it is, it’s a mistake. If I had a chance to pounce on [Coffman], which i do not, I would tell him it's not going to help."

"We've seen that trying to woo the Latino is a losing proposition," said Tancredo. "Latinos vote for Democrats because they want big government. It has nothing to do with immigration."

"He's going to have a tough race," said Tancredo. "Romanoff is a good candidate. Mike has shown himself to be a good candidate. It will not be a presidential year, so the possibility of having a lower turnout will certainly help Mike.

"I want to see him re-elected, and that's why I am concerned that he thinks he can mollify the Hispanic community due to his moves on immigration. It won't help."


Full story: Tancredo says Coffman’s proposal for “legal status” without citizenship is “a distinction without a difference”