Dobbs recently left CNN, reportedly with an $8 million payoff, after Latino and immigrants’ advocates campaigned the network to oust him for vilifying Latino immigrants on his nightly news show. In announcing his departure, Dobbs promised to continue to “be a leader in [the] national conversation,” which he’s suggested could include a run for political office.

That may be why he told Maria Celeste on Telemundo that “I am one of your greatest friends and I mean for us to work together.”

The Los Angeles Times notes that the wealthy Texas-born host lives on a 300-acre farm in Northwest New Jersey, where he could launch a run for a Senate seat. Unless his sights are already on the presidency.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Arizona voters finds Arpaio, famed for his crackdowns on illegal immigrants, leading Goddard, the state’s current attorney general, by 12 points – 51% to 39%. Seven percent (7%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

According to the survey, Goddard leads Republican Gov. Jan Brewer by a comfortable nine-point margin, and Goddard is virtually tied with State Treasurer Dean Martin. Brewer is the only one of the possible candidates who is officially in the race.

With numbers like this, could Arpaio be enticed to run for governor? And could he win?

Rumors have been swirling in Arizona for the past few months that Arpaio is mulling a gubernatorial bid, fueled by his antipathy for Goddard. The 77-year-old Arpaio was first elected in 1992, and he won re-election in 2008 by a commanding 13-point margin, with 55 percent of the vote. During that race, Arpaio raised more than $600,000 — an eye-popping sum for a countywide election. Effectively a modern-day political boss, “Sheriff Joe” is well-known for his heavy-handed tactics to combat illegal immigration and bragging about the harsh conditions in county detention facilities. He has launched investigations of numerous political opponents, including Goddard, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, the Phoenix New Times and the Maricopa County Superior Court.

While Arpaio remains extremely popular in Maricopa County — the home of Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe accounts for approximately 61 percent of Arizona’s population — Goddard has already proven himself in statewide races, having been elected attorney general in 2002, and re-elected in 2006 with 60 percent of the vote (pdf). A poll released last month by the ASU Cronkite School of Journalism and KAET found Arpaio had a 61 percent approval rating among Maricopa County voters, while the same survey found 55 percent of Arizona voters approve of Goddard’s performance. Arizona has been trending Democratic in recent years, but a Gallup poll from January found party identification in the state was essentially a dead heat, and one would be hard-pressed to find anybody in Arizona without a strong opinion about Arpaio.

All of this seems to confirm Rasmussen’s findings: If Arpaio got into the race against Goddard, he would stand a pretty good chance of winning. It’s also a safe bet that Arpaio would raise a lot of money from out-of-state illegal immigration opponents.

The Obama administration has already clashed with Arpaio on a couple of occasions. In March, the Justice Department announced it was opening an investigation into allegations of racial profiling and unlawful searches and seizures, and last month Arpaio was stripped of his authority to enforce federal immigration laws under the controversial 287(g) program.

But if the Justice Department thought Arpaio was a handful as sheriff of Maricopa County, just imagine what he could do with control of the state’s Department of Public Safety, and Republicans in control of both houses of the state legislature.

(Via Eric Kleefeld)

This post has been updated.

Curiously, the meeting was not listed on the vice president’s schedule. But Arpaio told the Phoenix Business Journal that he’d said to Biden in their meeting that he needs more deputies and resources for his law enforcement unit.

Arpaio’s law enforcement actions, however, have not always gone over well with the Obama administration. The Arizona sheriff is under official investigation for civil rights violations, and just recently, the Department of Homeland Security revoked some of his powers to enforce federal immigration laws under the 287(g) program.

Arpaio has insisted that he has all the powers he needs to arrest illegal immigrants anyway, and vowed not to let up on his much-publicized efforts to crack down on them.

Last night, Dobbs told his audience that he would be leaving the network, saying that “some leaders in media, politics and business have been urging me to go beyond the role here at CNN and to engage in positive problem-solving, as well as to contribute positively to the great understanding of the issues of our day,” he said.

In fact, as the The New York Times and others reported last night, Dobbs had been told by CNN president Jonathan Klein to tone down his anti-immigration rhetoric and report a straightforward newscast. Although at first he agreed to go along, yesterday he announced that he’s no longer playing the game.

There’s been much speculation since Dobbs met with Fox News president Roger Ailes that Dobbs will join the Fox News Channel, but yesterday both Dobbs and Fox denied having any such arrangement.

Roberto Lovato, co-founder of Presente.org, an advocacy organization coordinating the BastaDobbs.com campaign, said he’s “thrilled that Dobbs no longer has this legitimate platform from which to incite fear and hate.”

Dobbs, however, is not likely to fade from the media spotlight anytime soon. As he put it yesterday, he feels he has an important role to play. Citing health care, jobs, immigration, climate change and the ongoing wars as the major issues of the day, he said:

“Unfortunately, these issues are now defined in the public arena by partisanship and ideology rather than rigorous empirical thought and forthright analysis and discussion. I will be working diligently to change that as best I can. And as for the important work of restoring inspiration to our great free society and our market economy, I will strive as well to be a leader in that national conversation.”

Vitter had claimed that counting illegal immigrants in the Census would allow Democrats to gain more seats in Congress than they’re entitled to have, but previous census directors and experts had warned that changing the census questions at this stage of the process would be extremely costly and basically impossible.

Since 1790, the U.S. Census Bureau has asked people whether they are native or foreign-born, but it has never asked about their legal status. Immigrants’ advocates say asking about legal status would deter many immigrants from participating, leaving the census with an inaccurate count of actual U.S. residents.

In addition to the distribution of congressional seats to states, census data are used to make decisions about what community services to provide and how to distribute federal funds to local, state and tribal governments.

Between 1990 and 2006, Mexican immigrants legalized under IRCA dramatically increased their education levels, reduced poverty rates and became more likely to buy their own homes. Real wages rose, many of them moved into managerial positions and the vast majority did not depend upon public assistance, the report finds.

Economic Progess via Legalization is one of three reports issued by the Immigration Policy Center today aimed at encouraging policymakers to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation. The other two look at the social and economic benefits of legalization, and at who should be allowed to benefit from an “earned legalization” program.

The operation was supposed to be part of an ICE program to deport dangerous illegal immigrants who had previously been ordered deported and had prior criminal records, reports The Arizona Republic. But of the 80 people arrested, only six had prior criminal histories, and only two of those were fugitives. According to the ACLU, “at least 23 of the 80 arrests were for people that ICE calls ‘incidentals’ — people who happened to be present at a residence or workplace when authorities showed up looking for someone else.”

This afternoon, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, who’s known for encouraging local law enforcement to search out illegal immigrants and is under federal investigation for racial profiling as a result, tweeted that “the ACLU doesn’t want ICE arresting illegals either,” with a link to the Arizona Republic story.

The Graham amendment is expected to come to a vote today during consideration of the Commerce/Justice/Science appropriations bill. The earlier Homeland Security and Defense Department spending bills already include restrictions on transferring Guantanamo detainees to the United States.

This restriction, which is reportedly backed by 150 family members of victims of the 9/11 attacks, would bar the trials of the alleged 9/11 plotters in civilian federal courts, effectively forcing them to be tried by military commissions.

The Obama administration has suggested that it wants to try the 9/11 suspects in federal court, and so far has fought to retain the power to decide where the terror suspects will be tried. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder warned Senate leaders that Graham’s amendment “would be unwise, and would set a dangerous precedent.”

The administration has said it will begin announcing where it wants to try the terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay by November 16.

I reported earlier that Amherst was considering taking a few of the detainees, at the urging of a group called No More Guantanamos. At least one of the men it was considering inviting still had not been cleared for release, however. The town’s resolution last night clarified that they’d only take those that the government has determined do not pose a security threat.

Of about 220 men still being held at Guantanamo, about 75 have been cleared for release. Many have not been returned home either for fear of persecution in their home countries, or because the United States does not trust the government of their home country to ensure they don’t join local terrorist groups upon their return.

Amherst Town Meeting is the town’s governing body. Its 250 members are elected by precinct to represent the town.