Rachel Maddow and others are implying an absurd claim: that Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 - that state's new immigration law - in part to profit Corrections Corporation of America. CCA has a contract with the Department of Homeland Security's ICE agency to provide immigration detention facilities, and two people linked to Brewer are also linked to CCA. For background from far-left illegal immigration supporters, see this and this; the Morgan Loew report from KPHO is here; Brewer's campaign manager responds here [1].

On the video at peekURL.com/v19y5iz (transcript here) Maddow states:

The uptick in anti-immigration stuff isn't really about immigration at all. It's about what makes good politics for anti-immigration [2] politicians. And, it is about what makes big profits, apparently, for some very well-connected people.

The claim that Brewer signed the law to profit CCA is absurd on its face. Under Maddow's scenario, Brewer and her advisors would have otherwise been opposed to signing the law, but lobbying and contributions by CCA would have changed their minds. Does that make sense? If there were no connection between her advisors and CCA, can anyone imagine her not signing the law? If CCA stood to benefit from her not signing the law, and that's what she did, Maddow's smear might be a bit more believable.

Maddow's smear might have legs if the bill in question were something more obscure and the signing of which was a bit odd. That's not the case here: SB 1070 was national news before Brewer signed the bill and the bill had already generated wide support across the nation.

Further, SB 1070 was originated by Russell Pearce, a "true believer" in curbing illegal immigration. He also originated a bill intended to prevent reconquista-style classes from being taught in the public schools, and Brewer signed that bill as well. Would Maddow like to claim that CCA stood to profit from that? How about the two dozen or so other states that are considering Arizona-style immigration bills; did CCA get to them too?

What Maddow gets right is that this is political: some politicians are waking up to the fact that a large majority of Americans oppose illegal immigration.

It's also political in an ironic way: the only reason Maddow is smearing Brewer is because the Democratic Party sees illegal immigration as a source of political power.

And, Maddow and others spreading this smear have almost zero likelihood of following the money on who profits from illegal immigration such as low-wage employers, banks, and countries. Rather than opposing exploitative companies and crooked banks, Maddow is in effect enabling them.

Now, the above doesn't mean that Brewer's advisors shouldn't take steps to avoid any appearance of impropriety and it doesn't mean that there aren't major issues with private prisons. It just means that - once again - you can't trust what Rachel Maddow tells you.

[1] Morgan Loew of KPHO interviews Caroline Isaacs of the American Friends Service Committee and uses her in the role of "the person who says the things the reporter would like to say". Loew only describes the AFSC as a group "which advocates for social justice issues". He doesn't reveal that they're far-left supporters of illegal immigration with an indirect link to the Mexican government.

[2] Maddow also misleads with her terminoloyg. There aren't too many "anti-immigration politicians"; there are very few politicians who oppose both illegal and legal immigration.