Anthony Weiner. (Photo: Getty)

Today's front-page New York Times story detailing Anthony Weiner's lack of congressional accomplishments hadn't been published yet, but last night, Mr. Weiner suddenly found himself defending his record.

It was at a Latino-focused forum and the topic was immigration. And, as he's done before, the former congressman blamed Republicans for the lack of movement on the issue.

"Unfortunately, every member of the Democratic caucus, you can say, didn't get much done during the Bush years while I was on immigration committee," the slender-framed Democrat said, pivoting to a joke. “When I got on that committee, I was six-four, 290 pounds. This is all that is left of me."

Mr. Weiner, who resigned from Congress seat in 2011 after his infamous Twitter scandal, has often been faulted for showboating more than legislating in Washington. At last night's forum, a moderator accordingly pressed Mr. Weiner to elaborate on what he achieved while serving on the Subcommittee on Immigration.

But, while he defended his record of advocacy, Mr. Weiner had no concrete accomplishments to highlight.

"I was the only member of the New York City delegation on the immigration subcommittee during a very difficult time when President Bush was in the White House and he was, in a rare moment for a Republican, trying to do that right thing on immigration," he replied. "One of the things that I found was important-- ... representing a fairly conservative district where the number one negative letters I always got ... said, 'Slam, the door, slam the door, stop the immigrants from coming in'--I stood up and made the argument then that holds true today: solving the problem of the undocumented is not a very difficult problem."

Mr. Weiner then offered several solutions, though the panel of Latino moderators appeared unimpressed as he did so.

"One, we do have to secure the border. Two, we have to make sure that we have people who play by the rules, who're working." he said. "And then we have to make sure they have a national federal I.D. card that allows them to work so the people who that hire them, they don't get in trouble."

He futher compared himself to one of his frequent targets of derision, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in order to make the case for an advocacy-based record.

"I was an advocate," he said, his voice rising. "I was an advocate in a minority Congress, but now I'm going to be an advocate just as Mayor Bloomberg does on guns, I'm going to do on immigration--if I'm fortunate enough to be mayor."

Adolfo Carrión Jr. (Photo: carrion2013.com)

City Republicans--and Adolfo Carrion Jr.--slammed proposed city legislation that would allow non-U.S. citizens to vote in local elections, calling the idea offensive, illegal and just plain dumb.

The City Council held a hearing earlier today on a bill that would allow any resident legally living in the city for six months or longer to vote in municipal elections. The bill, which is opposed by the mayor, has wide support on the council, with 34 sponsors--a veto-proof majority.

But Mr. Carrion, the former Bronx Borough President who worked in the Obama administration and would be the city's first Hispanic mayor, took a cue from Mayor Bloomberg, slamming the bill as "well intentioned" but "one of the dumbest things I've ever heard."

"There are very few things that bring me to the point of being almost speechless. This is one of them. Being a citizen of the US is a privilege that carries with it an awesome and sacred responsibility--the right to vote," said Mr. Carrion, who is running on the Independence Party line. "If we water that down, we are essentially removing one of the building locks of our democracy, let alone violating state law."

He also argued elected officials already represent non-citizens. "How about we focus on the fact that there is a crisis of confidence already amongst the citizenry, and address the fact that only 3 in 10 registered voters are going to the polls in New York right now?" he asked.

Supporters, inducing City Councilmen Danny Dromm and Ydanis Rodriguez, say the bill would give the right of representation to thousands of New Yorkers who pay taxes and live here legally, but still cannot vote.

"We currently have an estimated 850,000 legally residing, taxpaying New Yorkers, who are not represented at any level of government," Mr. Rodriguez said in a statement.  "Our country was founded on fighting taxation without representation and we are simply looking to uphold this central belief today."

But Republican supermarket magnate John Catsimatidis, who was born in Greece and immigrated to the the U.S. when he was six months old, slammed the council for pandering and said he thought the legislation would never hold up in court.

“It's silly to even bring it up and I don’t know who they’re trying to make happy," he said. "I believe this is a Constitutional issue ... I don't think it passes the smell test of federal law."

He used a barbershop analogy when asked who he thought lawmakers were trying to make happy:  “When the barbers  have nothing to do they give each other haircuts. I believe they're giving each other haircuts," he said.

Joe Lhota also expressed his opposition. "He believes that you must be a citizen to vote," he said via a spokeswoman. And Doe Fund Founder George McDonald agreed that, "No matter how well-intentioned, voting is a right reserved for citizens."

Republicans from the City Council and State Legislature also slammed the bill, saying they were "offended" by the idea.

"The right to vote and select those who represent us in government is one of the most cherished and important privileges of our citizenry," said the group, which includes State Sen. Martin Golden and council members James Oddo, Vincent Ignizio and Eric Ulrich. "To extend this privilege to non-citizens not only devalues United States citizenship but is inconsistent with New York State Election Law."

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said she planned to consider the bill after the hearing.

None of the other major Democratic mayoral candidates' campaigns responded to requests for comment on the bill.

Disclosure: This reporter is not a U.S. citizen and also cannot vote in local elections.

Congresswoman Grace Meng (Photo: Thos Robinson/Getty Images for Women's Campaign Fund)

It's not just conservatives who are critiquing Sen. Chuck Schumer and the rest of the so-called "Gang of Eight" for their immigration bill.

Freshman Congresswoman Grace Meng, a steady liberal hand, is also urging to re-assess the latest version of the proposed federal immigration overhaul. But her warnings come with a unique twist: potential damage to Asian-American immigrant families.

In her first such letter to lawmakers on a major piece of legislation, Ms. Meng, New York’s first Asian-American Congresswoman, told Mr. Schumer, New York's most politically powerful voice in Washington, that she has concerns about certain provisions of the sweeping reform bill, which is set to be taken up by the Senate Judiciary Committee this week.

Specifically, she pointed to provisions she said would limit family reunifications by effectively eliminating the ability of U.S. citizens to sponsor their adult siblings and married adult children for permanent residency.

“In its current form, the Senate plan contains a number of provisions that are particularly disadvantageous to the Asian American community and detrimental to our immigration system and the American economy at large,” wrote Ms. Meng, who has been building ties with fellow female lawmakers. “The Asian American community faces unique challenges that are not addressed in the current proposal and deserve further consideration.”

She noted that 60 percent of the current foreign-born population from Asian, and argued that helping families re-unite would cut down on money sent out of the country to family members who can't immigrate.

“The need for family reunification is foremost in the hearts of the Asian American community, and the underlying assumption that these particular relationships are attenuated is simply false,” she said.

The letter was endorsed by a host of immigration advocacy groups, including the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Greater Chinatown Community Association.

Mr. Schumer’s office did not immediately respond to a call for comment on Ms. Meng's concerns.

Reshma Saujani. (Photo: Facebook)

Later this morning, Reshma Saujani will officially launch her public advocate campaign, an ambitious bid for one of two competitive citywide races this year. But as she lays out her agenda, it won't be the same Reshma Saujani politicos remember from her 2010 primary against Upper East Side Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. In that campaign, she embraced her "Pro-Wall Street Democrat" label, but now, Ms. Saujani says she's focused on a whole new slate of issues.

"Oh my God, so much!" she told Politicker when asked if she's learned from her experiences since then, including a stint in the public advocate's office. "Since 2010, I have a record--a progressive record--of accomplishment. There are people in the city who I have helped put on a path of economic prosperity, that are in college because I fought for them. There are people in jobs because I fought for them ... In 2010, that was harder to demonstrate, right? Because I was working as a lawyer in the private sector."

Ms. Saujani, a former hedge fund lawyer, further claimed that her heart was never in finance industry. Rather, she said that career choice was forced by circumstance.

"When I graduated law school, I was almost $200,000 in student loan debt," she explained. "I wanted to work at the N.A.A.C.P. or the A.C.L.U., working on civil rights issues. But when I looked at my loan statement, I didn't have a choice. My family had certain financial commitments that I had to help them keep. And going into the private sector--I never wanted to be the C.E.O. of Morgan Stanley--I always wanted to do what I'm doing today, which is public service."

Today, Ms. Saujani mostly talks about the work she's done since 2010. In our interview, Ms. Saujani often pivoted to topics like women, immigrants and the technology sector, a multi-pronged embodiment of both her own status as the daughter of South Asian political refugees and her non-profit, Girls Who Code, which teaches teenage girls technology skills. Indeed, in her 5-day, 5 borough “Opportunity For All Tour," Ms. Saujani's campaign indicated that she will be talking about immigration in Queens and the Bronx, women-owned small businesses in Staten Island and tech-based businesses in the Dumbo neighborhood of Brooklyn. In Manhattan, she'll attend a Wednesday fund-raiser hosted by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey--held exactly 140 days before Election Day.

Jose Antonio Vargas, an immigration activist who wrote a prominent Times article outing himself as undocumented, told Politicker that Ms. Saujani's work on behalf of a New York City-based "DREAM Fellowship," which gives scholarships to undocumented students, should speak for itself.

"As somebody who's been an undocumented person, ... I never thought that DREAM Act would be as mainstream. Everyone now knows what the DREAM Act is, right?" he said. "What's really important to underscore about Reshma is that she's been a leader on this issue, nationally and locally, even before it was a thing. I also think that what makes her perfect for this job."

In order to get that job, however, Ms. Saujani will have to beat back several other candidates vying for the same position. The field includes State Senator Dan Squadron, Councilwoman Tish James and teacher Cathy Guerriero.

One labor leader told Politicker he wasn't sure who he would ultimately endorse, listing the pluses and negatives of the various top-tier contenders.

"Has she changed as a candidate?" he said when he got to Ms. Saujani. "I'm not sure. Has her presentation changed? Absolutely."

SWAT team prepares at the Watertown Mall (Photo: Getty)

With the news that two of the suspected terrorists from last Monday's Boston Marathon bombing have roots in the Russia's Muslim-dominated Chechnyan region, Long Island Congressman Pete King says the United States "can't afford to be politically correct" with its immigration policies anymore.

"I do believe that whether it's Chechnya or whether it's really any countries from areas where there is fighting going on--particularly terrorist fighting--that we have to be extra careful, extra scrupulous," Mr. King argued during a PIX 11 interview earlier this afternoon. "That would include, to me, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Somalia [and] obviously .... somebody of a Chechnyan background. All of that, to me, we can't afford to be politically correct and say that somebody coming from a country where there's a Muslim war going on is the same as somebody ... from Switzerland, for instance. There's a difference."

Mr. King, who is also the former head of the House Committee on Homeland Security, pointed to the fact that both suspects have been in the country legally for a number of years, one of whom immigrated when he was very young. Although the motives for the Boston attack are still very much unclear, Mr. King concluded that there's a problem of radicalization in the local Muslim community.

"This person was 9 years old when he to this country," he said. "Basically, he was raised as an American. It's not like he came over here as some kind of a terrorist. So what in the community radicalized him? We have to look at the whole issue of radicalization as to why someone--who was 9 years old who he came to this country, has received scholarships to an excellent school--what would prompt him to kill and maim and cause such carnage to innocent people and kids?"

Of course, this is not the first time Mr. King has brought up the "radicalization" of America's Muslims--the Republican congressman previously held high-profile committee hearings on the very subject that drew controversy and accusations of Islamophobia. Regardless, Mr. King feels it's a simple issue as he pressed his case today.

"This is just something that has to be faced," he said. "There are people in this country that want to kill us and we have to face up to that."

Rand Paul. (Photo: Getty)

Earlier this week, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul reportedly endorsed a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. And although Mr. Paul disputes that exact phrasing to describe his speech, it was a notable announcement from the Tea Party conservative as the U.S. Congress debates the issue. Indeed, New York's own Senator Chuck Schumer, part of a bipartisan octet negotiating a comprehensive immigration bill, praised the move last night.

"I think the bottom line is having Rand Paul come out for something not that far away from our group of eight is really helpful," Mr. Schumer said on Inside City Hall. "After all, he's the hard right. He's the Tea Party. And if he can be for it, so can most Republicans. And that gives me a lot of hope we can pass a bill in both the Senate and the House. And the House will be even tougher than the Senate."

In the same interview, Mr. Schumer also said he was "heartened" by the Republican National Committee's recent call for an immigration policy overhaul. He did cast doubt, however, on whether the party's congressional leadership will follow the organization's suggestions.

"I was heartened to see that in the Republican report, they called for immigration reform," he explained. "The bottom line is this, that no party can win if it appeals to only one segment of America. We are a big, broad, diverse nation and the parties that try to help a broad cross-section of people have a built-in advantage. Any party that writes off 25, 30, 35 percent of the American people is not going to be a winner. So I thought the Republican National Committee was right to issue the report, but the $64,000 question is will the Republican leadership follow through or will they sort of stay in their foxholes and ignore the lessons of 2012?"

President Barack Obama delivering his State of the Union address this evening. (Photo: Getty)

President Obama included his discussion of environmental issues and climate change after outlining initiatives to grow manufacturing jobs and before discussing plans to improve national infrastructure and help home owners. He closed this portion of his speech by describing all of these proposals as potentially spurring job growth.

"These initiatives in manufacturing, energy, infrastructure, and housing will help entrepreneurs and small business owners expand and create new jobs," President Obama said in the prepared version of his remarks.

Sandwiched in between his policies on manufacturing jobs, road and bridge construction and housing, President Obama expressed a need for the government to "do more to combat climate change." To bolster this argument, he cited several weather events, including Hurricane Sandy."

"Yes, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods--all are now more frequent and intense," said the president. "We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science--and act before it’s too late."

President Obama went on to call for a "bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change" that would "make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth." Specifically, he called for expanding solar and wind energy initiatives, fastracking oil and gas permits to take advantage of a "natural gas boom" that he said has "led to cleaner power and greater energy independence" and funding research and technology to help natural gas burn "even cleaner." He also proposed using oil and gas revenues from public lands to "fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good." He hinted this was also a good economic move by noting it was supported by "a non-partisan coalition of CEOs and retired generals and admirals."

The President also stuck with the strategy of casting his policies on more controversial issues in terms of potential economic benefit when he brought up immigration.

"Our economy is stronger when we harness the talents and ingenuity of striving, hopeful immigrants," President Obama said. "And right now, leaders from the business, labor, law enforcement, and faith communities all agree that the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform."

On this front, President Obama said he would push for "strong border security" and for "establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship" including background checks, taxes and penalties, English language requirements and prioritization for those who have been attempting to come to the U.S. through legal channels. He closed his call for immigration reform by citing another potential economic benefit--an influx of "highly-skilled" workers.
 
"Real reform means fixing the legal immigration system to cut waiting periods, reduce bureaucracy, and attract the highly-skilled entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow our economy," said President Obama.
 
President Obama closed his speech by bringing up another potentially controversial issue, gun control. Though he didn't turn to economic arguments to support his plans for increased regulation of firearms, he framed the issue as a question of securing the safety of the nation's children, and as a result, far more important to the future of the nation than any plan to improve America's financial situation.

"Of course, what I’ve said tonight matters little if we don’t come together to protect our most precious resource--our children," the president began. "It has been two months since Newtown. I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence. But this time is different. Overwhelming majorities of Americans ... have come together around commonsense reform."

President Obama said these "commonsense" gun control reforms include background checks and banning high-capacity magazines.

"Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress. If you want to vote no, that’s your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote," President Obama said. "Because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, and anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun."
 
Though President Obama took on climate change, immigration reform and gun control in his speech, there were two notable hot-button issues he didn't address; gay marriage and abortion. The president only briefly alluded to gay and lesbian issues once in his speech when he described efforts to take care of the country's armed forces and cited the plan announced yesterday to provide benefits to same-sex spouses of servicemembers as an example of his administration's commitment to the troops.

"We must to protect those who serve their country abroad, and we will maintain the best military in the world," said the president. "We will invest in new capabilities, even as we reduce waste and wartime spending. We will ensure equal treatment for all service members, and equal benefits for their families--gay and straight."

Reproductive rights and the abortion debate were not mentioned at all in the president's speech. However, issue featured prominently in Senator Marco Rubio's Republican response to the State of the Union, which began on a loud, pro-life note.

"The State of the Union address is always a reminder of how unique America is," Mr. Rubio said. "But America is exceptional, because we believe that every life, at every stage, is precious."

(Photo: Getty)

Former Mayor Ed Koch is very upset with The New York Times at the moment.

The cause? An editorial on immigration, where the the publication of record saw a new opportunity to push for reform in the wake of Republican election losses this year. But Mr. Koch, in one of his regular missives typically containing movie reviews, instead used the space to accuse The Times of overreaching in its rhetoric.

"I have never read a more biased editorial than The New York Times editorial of November 18th," Mr. Koch began. "The Times in its editorials rarely refers to 'illegal' immigrants. It generally refers to them simply as immigrants, making no distinction between the legal and the illegal; sometimes, it refers to them as 'undocumented,' and its newest description is 'unauthorized.'"

Mr. Koch went on to castigate The Times for its "full-throated call for amnesty," and for using a straw man depiction, "hardliners against reform -- including the white-culture alarmists and the closet racists," to make their argument.

"I repeat, I have never seen a more intolerant editorial in language and tone appear in The New York Times," the former mayor said. "The Times editorial board should apologize for its outrageous description of opponents of amnesty and allow a debate to ensue presenting the arguments fairly on both sides."

View Mr. Koch's full commentary below:

The New York Times Editorial of November 18th On Immigration Reform Is A Disgrace

I have never read a more biased editorial than The New York Times editorial of November 18th, entitled, "New Hope on Immigration." It advocates, as it has for years, providing amnesty for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now residing within the borders of the United States.

The Times in its editorials rarely refers to "illegal" immigrants. It generally refers to them simply as immigrants, making no distinction between the legal and the illegal; sometimes, it refers to them as "undocumented," and its newest description is "unauthorized."

In its editorial ,The Times libels those Americans who believe that the U.S. should not have open borders. No country in the world has an open-door policy. The Times editorial refers to the opponents of open borders and amnesty as, "The hardliners against reform -- including the white-culture alarmists and the closet racists." It contrasts them with those "behind reform - student activists, business groups, farmers, labor unions, Catholic bishops, evangelical churches, African-Americans, civil-liberties organizations and regular American citizens who support legalization." I believe a majority of Americans oppose the amnesty legislation. Because of their opposition, the proposal has been defeated several times in Congress.

Many of those opposed to an amnesty providing a path to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants, support a compassionate response such as the "Dream Act." That act, which President Obama implemented by executive order, allows youngsters brought here by their parents illegally to remain here, receive a green card permitting them to work, and exempts them from deportation pending passage by the Congress of the Dream Act. Many would support keeping families together and include the parents in the amnesty ultimately provided the youngsters covered by the proposed Dream Act. Supporting such a broad amnesty is a good example of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's comment "defining deviancy down," meaning if you can't control illegality, accept it and make it legal.

The Times in its full-throated call for amnesty and a change in immigration policy denounces opponents by stating they "despise illegals." Untrue. The opponents believe the U.S. should enforce its immigration policy and not allow the law to be ignored and violated with impunity. Many of us believe that our current policy of permitting 750,000 aliens and 250,000 refugees to enter each year, all of whom are eligible for U.S. citizenship, should be amended to expand the number and allow more of those waiting in line for their turn to come in. The Times apparently believes no one should have to wait, and the walls should come tumbling down.

The Times even believes that those it refers to as "minor offenders" should be welcomed to stay, the "minor offenders" language generally referring to those who have committed misdemeanors where the crime is subject to up to a maximum one-year prison sentence. The Times states that "[t]here is enforcement work to be done like finding more effective ways to stifle illegal employment, but any strategy that fixates on deportation and the border is foolish and ineffective." Ridiculous.

The Times objects to President Obama's successful efforts to find and deport those who have committed crimes, other than the crime of illegal entry, resulting in 400,000 deportations annually. It opposes the federal government through Homeland Security using "state and local police officers" to help the feds in enforcing the law. President Obama's policy has been to secure the borders before providing amnesty legislation. Amnesty legislation did not solve the problem in the 1980s when it was employed and won't solve it now. Millions of people from around the world want to live in the U.S. and do not want to wait in line, as they must and do for every other country, including Mexico. Providing a blanket amnesty now simply encourages others to enter illegally and wait for the next amnesty.

I repeat, I have never seen a more intolerant editorial in language and tone appear in The New York Times. The Times editorial board should apologize for its outrageous description of opponents of amnesty and allow a debate to ensue presenting the arguments fairly on both sides. The Times editorial can be seen at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/opinion/sunday/new-hope-on-immigration.html?smid=pl-share

(photo: uskidsmags.com)

State Senator Adriano Espaillat would really prefer if Mitt Romney would stop beating immigrant communities with a stick so that candy will come out, figuratively, of course. Thus, on the eve of the second debate between Mr. Romney and the incumbent, President Barack Obama, Mr. Espaillat gathered with Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez and immigration advocates to "call out" Mr. Romney and push him into changing his tune on immigration.

"Mitt Romney has committed to the most extreme, xenophobic positions on immigration, including the promise that he will veto the Dream Act," Mr. Espaillat said in a statement to explain his protest, which took place in front of Hofstra University where tomorrow's debate will be held. "When he comes to New York, a state that prides itself on our immigrants; a state where we passed in-state tuition for undocumented students; and a state where we value diversity, Mitt Romney should explain his hypocrisy on immigration and why he’s used immigrants as a piñata to appeal to extremists in his party.”

This is not the first time Mr. Espaillat has used an especially colorful metaphor to refer to Mr. Romney. Previously, the state senator said Mr. Romney twisted himself into "a xenophobic pretzel" during the Republican primary season when more conservative positions were electorally advantageous.

"I’m Craig Romney. I would like to tell you how my father, Mitt Romney, thinks.  He values very much that we are a nation of immigrants.  My grandfather George was born in Mexico. For our family the greatness of the United States is how we respect and help each other, regardless of where we come from," Craig says in the ad. 

Mitt Romney has, thus far, refrained from outlining a specific immigration policy. In the new commercial, Craig simply says his father "will work on a permanent solution to the immigration system, working with leaders of both parties."

Polls show President Barack Obama beating Mr. Romney by a wide margin among Latino voters and Republicans believe it may be vital for Mr. Romney to close this gap. However, polls also show immigration isn't necessarily the most important issue for Hispanic voters.

Watch Mr. Romney's new ad below.