Candidates running for office in Legislative District Two laid out their plans for Arizona during last night’s Clean Elections debate at Sahuarita High School.

Senate candidate Andrea Dalessandro (D) and House candidates Anthony Sizer (R) and Rosanna Gabaldón (D) are Clean Elections candidates, so they were required to participate in this debate in order to receive campaign funding from the Citizens Clean Elections Commission.

Joining them were House candidates Daniel Hernandez (D) and John Christopher Ackerley (R) and Senate candidate Shelley Kais (R), who are running traditionally-funded campaigns.

Unlike other races, these candidates are not new to the world of politics. Four out of the six have previously served in elected office on the state level.

The debate started off strong with the ever-present controversy over how Arizona’s government should tackle education funding. Republicans and Democrats responded with pro-education philosophies and expressed frustration with how this fight has been playing out.

"The Democrats are playing politics." "The Republicans are playing politics." "Mitch McConnell is playing politics." "Chuck Schumer is playing politics."

And your point is?

Of course they're playing politics. It's what politicians do. Politician: practitioner of politics. It's in the name. It's in the job description. Politicians pick their causes, they pick their moments, they plot, they strategize, they use tricks of the trade to get what they want. Meanwhile, politicians on the other side of the aisle do the same. Politicians who don't play politics either aren't very good at their jobs or they're back benchers who sit quietly, vote aye or nay, then sit quietly again.

Politicians who accuse other politicians of "playing politics" are playing politics.

It's the word "play" that makes "playing politics" sound like it's something politicians shouldn't do, like they're playing games with something that should be taken seriously. If you say "practicing politics," or "strategizing," it doesn't sound nearly as petty. It's like when people talk about "throwing money at education." The word "throwing" makes funding education sound like it's foolish and wasteful.

Politicians should be called out when they practice dirty politics. Lying. Cheating. Ducking legitimate questions. Selling their souls and their votes to special interests. Call the political sins by their names. Saying politicians are "playing politics" is accusing them of plying their trade. 

Millions of immigrant families who use public federal assistance could find it harder to obtain permanent residence status under new rules being proposed by the Trump administration.

On Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security proposed to limit access to green cards for immigrants who use or qualify for public assistance. According to DHS, these changes would be a way to ensure legal immigrants can financially support themselves when they enter the U.S.

“This proposed rule will implement a law passed by Congress to promote immigrant self-sufficiency and protect finite resources by ensuring that they are not likely to become burdens on American taxpayers,” DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said.

The proposed new policy targets foreigners who use public benefits – also known as “public charges” – who may be processing their permanent residency. “Public charge” is a term used by the Trump administration to identify anyone who uses public benefits, including nutritional support commonly called food stamps, Medicaid and public housing.

This proposal is aimed at those who are in the process of applying for their green card, not those who already possess one.

Any person who received benefits of more than 15 percent of federal poverty guidelines for a one-person household during 12 consecutive months would be classified as “public charge.” In 2016, that amount equaled $1,821.

Abril Gallardo Cervera works closely with families who receive assistance through LUCHA, a pro-immigrant advocacy group in Phoenix. Despite the potential changes, Cervera said it’s important for those families to continue applying for residency, even if they are using public benefits and to consult an immigration attorney in case of doubts.

“They want people to be scared and not continue with that process,” she said.

According to a June study by the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, roughly 27 million people with at least one family member who receives public support from the government could be impacted by these new proposals. The report also says it can cause a chilling effect and defer immigrants from applying for green cards due to the risk of deportation or disqualification.

However, Phoenix immigration lawyer Rafael Tirado advises those seeking public benefits to refrain from applying, given the proposal released Saturday, until further notice.

“They are basically increasing the definition of public charge and those who are going to be most affected are those immigrant families who live under the poverty guidelines,” Tirado said.

As it stands, there will be a period of 60 days where the public has the opportunity to comment on the proposal. This leaves at least two months of uncertainty for an applicant regarding the safety of requesting assistance.

“Consult a lawyer to see if that’s good for you,” Tirado said about inquiries immigrants might have about the use of public benefits.

“This is a larger conversation about the immigrant community being attacked by this administration directly,” Cervera added. “We’re talking to people at their door’s about why it’s important to continue their processes.”

The administration is expected to formally publish the draft rule Monday in the federal register. That will open a 60 day period for public comment, which the administration will review and revise. The final version would come out in a matter of months and will go into effect 60 days after it’s published.

According to Cervera, these new rules put immigrant families at odds between choosing services they need or a pathway for legal residency and ultimately citizenship.

“They’re giving them an option to get something they need to survive and choosing a process that they need, also, to survive.”

For more stories from Cronkite News, visit cronkitenews.azpbs.org.

Incumbent Gov. Doug Ducey and Democratic rival David Garcia clashed Monday night over education and border security during a live, televised debate on Arizona PBS.

The debate, sponsored by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission and moderated by “Horizon” host Ted Simons, featured frequent back and forth and the two candidates talking over one another. Green Party candidate Angel Torres also was part of the debate but often was overshadowed by the main-party candidates.

Garcia opened by saying Arizona’s education system is in crisis. The Arizona State University educator brought up the Red for Ed movement, blaming Ducey for the walkout of thousands of teachers last spring, highlighted by a large protest at the state Capitol in April. Garcia noted Arizona ranks near the last among states in education and said teachers still are not receiving what they demand.

“The key area that we need to develop is education, specifically,” Garcia said. “A change in education is Arizona’s number one issue. It is my strength, it is Ducey’s weakness, and it’s going to be the difference.”

Ducey was quick to respond, speaking before Simons finished his question.

“I will be held accountable for the last three plus years for Arizona education, not for the past 20 years,” Ducey said.

Following the six-day #RedForEd walkout, Ducey announced he would provide a 20 percent teacher pay increase by 2020 and $371 million in additional funding over the next five years.

Ducey mentioned his 20 by 20 plan but agreed there’s more to do. Ducey said Arizona teachers are already receiving a portion of the promised 20 percent.

Across the state, however, the pay raises have varied greatly by school district, according to azcentral.com.

Torres said K-12 teachers and staff members need raises and improved infrastructure and technology.

Ducey criticized Garcia, saying the Democrat didn’t want to talk about his plan to fund education, which he said would double income taxes.

In response, Garcia said that was his plan but it’s no longer on the ballot; the Invest in Education initiative was removed by the Arizona Supreme Court. Garcia said he intends to present a new plan to the Legislature. He accused Ducey of being a follower, not a leader.

Ducey responded by asking viewers to go to FactcheckGarcia.com because Garcia “is deceiving.”

Immigration and border control were other hot topics.

Garcia said we need an immigration system that works, one that includes border security, lawful entry for those eligible to enter the United States and provides a place of refuge. He also said Arizona highways need to be patrolled 24/7.

Ducey responded by saying that Garcia’s team has attacked efforts to control the border, and that the Democrat wants to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He also touted the Arizona Border Strike Force, which he said is keeping drugs out of Arizona.

Garcia said he wants ICE to be reformed.

Torres said it’s important that Mexican and Central American economies are strengthened and free of poverty to prevent illegal immigrants from entering Arizona.

In their finishing statements, Ducey and Garcia once again brought up education. Ducey said he hoped viewers could see the dramatic differences between him and his opponent. Garcia concluded saying there would never be another governor more devoted to public schools.

Ducey, Garcia and Torres will debate again Tuesday night in Tucson. The general election is Nov. 6.

For more stories from Cronkite News, visit cronkitenews.azpbs.org.

Find more Claytoonz here.

Find more Claytoonz here. 

Join Tucson residents to support Democratic candidates and connect with other voters who want to create a positive change in the community.

The event is free and will be providing food and live music by Santa Pacha, a nine player band that features multi-genre music influenced by rumba, salsa and bands like Manu Chao. Other musical acts of the night include Mariachi Aztlán de Pueblo High School and the Wayback Machine.

Special guests that will be joining the event are Gubernatorial candidate David Garcia, Superintendent of Public Instruction candidate Kathy Hoffman, Steve Farley, and Kelly Fryer.

The Together We Win event will be on Sunday, Sept. 23, at the Rialto Theatre located at 318 E. Congress St. from 4 p.m. to 7p.m.

For more information, contact [email protected] or visit the Facebook event page.

On this week's edition of Zona Politics with Jim Nintzel: Dylan Smith of the Tucson Sentinel and Hank Stephenson of the Arizona Daily Star discuss Southern Arizona's congressional races, legislative races, recent controversies with charter schools and more. Tune in online or watch tonight at 6:30 p.m. and Sunday morning at 9 a.m. on the Creative Tucson network, Channel 20 on Cox Cable or Channel 74 on the Xfinity/Comcast system.

Find more Claytoonz here.

Nancy MacLean will make two appearances at the University of Arizona Monday, Sept. 24. From 1:30-2:45 p.m., she will be at the UA Bookstore and will be available for an author signing after the event. From 6:30-8 p.m., she will give a book talk at the UA Student Union Memorial Center, Catalina and Tucson Rooms.

The full title of MacLean's recent book is Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for the United States. The book, which was a 2017 National Book Award finalist, puts well known right wing, libertarian figures like the Koch brothers into the context of a larger, sustained effort by billionaires, academics and political operatives to make fundamental changes to our economic and governmental systems.

It's among the best, most revelatory books I've read in recent years, deeply researched and well written. Though I didn't attend MacLean's appearance at Tucson Festival of Books in March, people who attended have said MacLean is an excellent speaker.