The Politico discusses how this continually fluctuating primary calendar can reveal tensions between the aims of national party leadership and those of state parties. The Democratic National Committee is considering what to do with states that push their primaries earlier (contrary to national party policy). It could ask candidates to boycott primary contests (as Clinton and Dole did not, according to this story, not campaign in Delaware in 1996) that violate the rules, but it might also consider more forceful measures:

The DNC could also strip the rogue states of 50 to 100 percent of their delegates to the nominating convention. The most likely option right now is to strip them of all delegates, at least two rules committee members told me.

“You are going to see big signs on the floor of the Democratic Convention that say ‘Florida’ and ‘Michigan’ and you are going to see rows of empty seats beneath them,” one DNC member warned.

But is this an empty threat?

However heated tempers are now, they will have cooled considerably by the time the convention rolls around in August of 2008. And the credentials committee for the convention, whose membership will be packed by the presumptive nominee, can overrule anything the rules committee decides now.

In the interest of party unity and because withholding delegates from a candidate who has already won the nomination would be meaningless, the delegates from Florida or any other rogue state would probably be seated.

Or not so empty?

One member of the rules committee told me, however, that in an extremely tight race, the missing Florida delegates, about 10 percent of what a candidate needs for the nomination, could make the difference, and stripping Florida of its delegates, therefore, could be a meaningful act.

Certainly, if both Florida and Michigan were stripped of their delegates, and the race were somewhat tight, this stripping could lead to some serious tension by the time the national convention rolls around. And this front-loaded campaign cycle might make a close primary result more likely (since fewer candidates will have dropped out by the time of the big primaries). The DNC hopes it can work out some compromise with Florida; it meets tomorrow morning.
And these tensions may not be confined to Democratic candidates, either. A quote from the chair of the Michigan Republican party encapsulates some of the tenor of the current conflict between state and national parties (e.a.):

On Tuesday evening, Michigan Republican party chair Saulius "Saul" Anuzis, told me: "On Wednesday the Michigan senate will pass a bill choosing Jan. 15 as the date for the primary. We understand that this violates the rules of both the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee. We don't care."

Reporting on a conflict between Sen. Coburn (R-OK) and Sen. Nelson (D-NE) over earmarks, the Hill shows how being a single letter off in typing out an email address could reveal some behind-the-scenes conflict. The backdrop:

The senators had been at odds over the matter for much of the summer, but it would reach a new level when John Hart, communications director for Coburn, forwarded a news article detailing his boss’s request for an investigation of a defense contractor.

Sen. Nelson had requested an earmark for 21CSI, triggering a heated battle between the senators that has raged for weeks.

“This will shut that f---er up,” Hart stated in an Aug. 1 e-mail sent from his Senate account to several of his colleagues. “I can’t wait to send an In Case You Missed It to Nebraska press that will be forwarded to a--face.”

The mistake (e.a.):

When Hart typed out the three recipients for that first e-mail, he was one letter off on one colleague’s name. That meant that when he hit “Send,” the e-mail went to a staffer in the office of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska.)

It was a mistake that could have happened to anyone, but not every senator spent much of 2006 trying to strike an earmark for a bridge in Alaska, as Coburn did.

When Hart realized his error, he sent another e-mail to Murkowski aide Brian O’Leary apologizing for the exchange and asking him not to pass it on.

Aides in Murkowski’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

The Hill makes an interesting assertion about the dynamic of some of the partisan quarrels on the Hill:

But House and Senate staffers say the e-mails are also a natural extension of the kind of aggressive strategy that many believe is necessary to keep their bosses afloat in a partisan atmosphere as cutthroat as ever. That glimpse of intra-office banter puts on display the fact that the loss of comity in the Senate, frequently mourned by congressional observers and lawmakers themselves, more often than not begins among the unelected — staffers who are rewarded for protecting and defending their bosses with everything they’ve got until the moment they go too far.

The Washington Post has more on the debate to move the date of Michigan presidential primary. A deal for Jan. 15, 2008 may be in the works--but Sen. Levin (D) is pushing for an even earlier date.

Sen. Specter (R-PA) meets with his constituents and talks about Iraq, immigration, and AG Alberto Gonzalez. On Iraq, he's keeping his options open:

Mr. Specter, was circumspect on what course he might endorse after the much anticipated report on Iraqi progress next month from the administration. But he said repeatedly that barring a showing of "light at the end of the tunnel," a significant change in tactics would be warranted.
[...]

Mr. Specter's reservations about war tactics weren't reserved for the administration of his own party, however. He dismissed Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign trail promises to end the war as "rhetoric, that's all it is," noting that neither she nor any of the leading Democrats are calling for an immediate troop withdrawal.

Mr. Specter also flayed the parliamentary tactics of Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the Democratic leader. He maintained that, in refusing to allow a floor vote either on a proposal from Republicans Sens. John Warner and Richard Lugar to order the president to draft a new Iraq plan, or an endorsement of the Iraq Study Group, Mr. Reid had both abused his authority and short-circuited measures that might have spurred a shift in administration war planning.

He offers a few hints on his immigration policy. While this story says that the "vast majority of those who spoke up [at this meeting] were sharply opposed to eased immigration rules and irate that the ones in existence hadn't been enforced more vigorously," Specter still hopes for a renewed push towards some "comprehensive reform"--perhaps modeled on his own proposal. Specter also speculates that the new worker verification rules could encourage a new push for "reform" (e.a.):

While he conceded that his own aides disagree with his analysis, he predicted that an administration crackdown on undocumented workers, announced after the failure of the immigration bill, would prod a search for new legislative solutions.

"I think we're in for a real shock when these Social Security letters hit,'' he said of the Labor Department initiative to curb the use of false identifications by illegal workers. "They're going to eliminate a vast part of the labor force in this country.''

He noted a Senate colleague's prediction that the crackdown would mean, "These crops are going to rot in the fields,'' and said "When we go back in September, we may find a near panic situation . . . and people are going to start to say what's the best deal we can make.''

We'll have to see if such a panic arises (or if some claim the existence of a panic)...

According to this report, some employers worry about the new worker verification rules.

Will Sen. Hagel (R-NE) retire and not run for re-election in 2008? Some think so. Former NE senator Bob Kerrey (D) says that he's thinking of running of Hagel does retire, but, if he doesn't retire, Kerrey would--it seems--be glad to financially contribute to his campaign (or so he says).

An interesting AP story about the way the meatpacking industry is changing the social/economic dynamic of a number of small towns in the Midwest; as meatpacking plants moved out of the cities and into smaller towns, they created a demand for workers in those areas--and found immigrants ("legal" and "undocumented") to fill those jobs. These changes can bring their own tensions as well as opportunities. This story offers a striking description of Cactus, Texas (pop. 2500 in 2000):

It's a hard life. In Cactus, the population is more than 90 percent Latino. There are no doctors or banks. Most plant workers deal only in cash, making them easy targets for theft. As much as 70 percent of offenses in town relate to alcohol use, especially on weekend nights when cars cruise up and down the main drag for hours.

There seems to be some confusion over when the Michigan presidential primary will be. It seems as though state leaders are engaged in negotiations over the date.

(Via Hotair), a Border Patrol official claims that the aim of the agency is not to stop "illegal immigrants" or illegal narcotics:

Border Patrol agents don't have the responsibility of apprehending illegal immigrants, Carlos X. Carrillo, chief patrol agent for the Laredo sector, said at a town hall meeting Wednesday."The Border Patrol is not equipped to stop illegal immigrants," Carrillo said, noting that illegal narcotics are also not on the agents priority list. "The Border Patrol mission is not to do any of those things," he emphasized.

The Border Patrols mission is to keep the country safe from terrorist and terrorist weapons, he said. Carrillo added that when and if terrorists come into the country, the agents will be ready.

This history of the Border Patrol certainly draws attention to the BP's interest in stopping "illegal" crossings, and this paragraph on the BP today references "illegal" crossers and illicit drugs:

New dangers confront our nation's borders. As part of Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol is taking on the additional challenge of protecting our borders against terrorism. History has shown that it matters little whether the drug is alcohol or marijuana; the illegal migrants, Chinese or Mexican;
or the terrorists, hijackers, or suicide bombers - in any scenario, we can count on the Border Patrol to protect us from threats to the safety and security of our borders.

The Border Patrol's mission statement also says that the organization will "steadfastly enforce the laws of the United States."

The Politico has a story on a new report released discussing the different levels of coverage immigration has received in the media in the second quarter of 2007. It draws attention to the differences between "conservatives" and "liberals" covering this issue on the radio:

Among conservative talk radio hosts, the immigration debate was the # 1 topic in the second quarter, filling 16% of the airtime. (The second-biggest topic was the campaign at 13%). That is eight times the amount of attention that conservative talkers paid to the immigration debate in the first quarter of the year, when it accounted for only 2% of the newshole.

(Those listening to liberal radio hosts such as Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes, in contrast, were not hearing nearly that much. They spent about a quarter as much of their time on the subject, 5%, which ranked immigration as the sixth-biggest liberal talk subject.)

According to this report, radio devoted more time (proportionately) to this topic than TV and print media.

McCain says that his stance on immigration has been "harmful to" him in the Republican primary for president, but he still believes in a "comprehensive approach."

Anne Arundel County in Maryland announces a new policy for county contractors:

Contractors doing business with a Maryland county will be required to certify they have no illegal immigrants on the payroll, according to an executive order issued by the county executive.

The Anne Arundel County order, issued this week by Republican County Executive John R. Leopold, requires contractors to sign an affidavit swearing they do not employ people living in the country illegally.

Evidence that a company has hired illegal immigrants would constitute a "material breach of contract," allowing the county to drop the contractor from the job.

The county's press release on this policy is here.

Rasmussen releases a new poll showing majority-level support for cutting off federal funds for "sanctuary cities," working on a fence on the US-Mexico border, and issuing foreign visitors an identification card:

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters nationwide favor cutting off federal funds for “sanctuary cities” that offer protection to illegal immigrants. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 29% are opposed. Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney proposed such a plan earlier this week.

By a 71% to 16% margin, voters also favor a proposal that would require all foreign visitors to carry a universal identification card as proposed by another GOP Presidential hopeful, Rudy Giuliani. Seventy-four percent (74%) also favor the creation and funding of a central database to track all foreign visitors in the United States.

By a 56% to 31% margin, voters want the government to continue building a fence along the Mexican border.

GOP voters even more strongly believe in these policies:

A quick look at the opinions of Republican voters makes it easy to understand why Romney and Giuliani are so eager to engage on this issue. Seventy-three percent (73%) of GOP voters favor cutting off funds for sanctuary cities and 75% want the government to keep building the border fence. Eighty-one percent (81%) favor a universal identification card for foreign visitors and 88% of the GOP faithful support a central database to track all foreign visitors.

By a 58% to 33% margin, Republican voters also agree with Giuliani’s assertion that it’s possible to end illegal immigration. Democrats and unaffiliated voters are evenly divided on that question.

In a NYT story on the various strategies and tactics of presidential campaigns this cycle, an interesting observation:

All the candidates try to anticipate questions and plot their answers. So when Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama clashed over foreign policy at a recent event — with a comment from him that he would be willing to hold diplomatic talks with the leaders of hostile nations, and one from her that it would be a mistake to do so without preconditions — the dustup was a product of preparation and strategic decisions on both sides.

Mr. Obama was primed for the question: Aides had seen it among the videotaped questions submitted on YouTube to CNN for the debate. Mr. Obama and his advisers did not script an answer beforehand, aides say, but they were all clear that if the question were asked, Mr. Obama would speak about why he would break with the Bush administration’s diplomatic approach.

So it seems as though Obama did know about the "Will you meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?" question in advance. There had been some debate about whether Obama's (unequivocal and seemingly unconditional) "yes" was a prepared answer--and, from this report, it sounds like it was at least somewhat prepared (or at least the question wasn't a complete surprise).

US Immigration officials say they will not cease their enforcement efforts for the 2010 census:

"We won't entertain any request to scale back our efforts," Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Kelly Nantel said Friday.
[...]
"I don't want there to be any question in the American people's mind as to whether or not ICE would suspend enforcement efforts," Nantel said. "The answer to that is emphatically no."

WaPo and the Politico offer some reporting on Fred Thompson's trip to Iowa; the Post wonders about the "lateness" of his entry, and the Politico's Richard Allen Greene has a snappy opener:

Fred Thompson let another silk drift gently to the straw-covered ground of the Iowa State Fair on Friday as he continued his Dance of the Seven Veils toward declaring his candidacy for president.

There seems to be some growing online anger (including calls for his resignation) about RNC Chairman Mel Martinez's derogatory comments about those Republicans who opposed the "grand bargain" (such as Romney). Meanwhile, Jim Boulet reminds readers about some of Martinez's commitments from the past:

[Martinez] said he was committed to NOT use his position as General Chairman to push any issue nationally or advance his personal agenda through the RNC.

Do his recent remarks constitute "using his position as General Chairman to push any issue nationally"? Are these notes of anger the opening salvo of a wider push against Martinez? Or will this controversy die down?

The Politico has a roundup of some reactions to the new worker-verification rules.

Australia changes its immigration system:

The changes - which will target workers in the medical profession, the IT sector and tradesmen and women - will result in the country's points-based immigration system being adapted to make it easier for fluent English-speaking professionals between the ages of 30 and 35 to gain work visas.

The president of the Food and Commercial Workers union is not happy with the tactics of immigration raids and wants congressional hearings into them.

It seems as though the prosecution for violations of the new worker-verification rules may depend, in part, upon citizen tips (e.a.)

A week after unveiling a major crackdown on businesses that hire illegal immigrants, the Bush administration is now conceding that its most heavily touted weapon in pursuing employers - an assault against Social Security fraud - will be nearly useless.

That's because when the Social Security Administration warns employers about bogus identification numbers, it remains barred from also alerting the Department of Homeland Security, the agency that's supposed to hand out penalties.

In addition, federal promises to hold companies responsible for hiring illegal immigrants could potentially be stymied by several other issues: Employers are still not required to check a new employee's Social Security number against a free federal database, there could be long gaps between when an employee is hired to when the warnings are issued each year, and there is no way to follow up on employees who have been fired. In many cases, illegal workers could still hop from job to job without being caught.

The only way the government can punish an employer - with fines or criminal charges - is if someone first tips them off about potential fraud and then, during the course of the investigation, authorities discover evidence that Social Security warnings have been ignored.

Are these tips effective? Some DHS and ICE folks say they are:

"There are a number of people who do come forward and tell us an employer is not conforming with the law," said Veronica Valdez, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security. "While we don't get information directly from the Social Security Administration, we do see that we get a lot of tips."

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the department's investigative branch, will aggressively work off such tips - using, among other tactics, raids - with an eye for those who are knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice said.

Time will tell what the effects of this new policy are--though some wonder how much last week's announcement was merely a "scare tactic." An attempt to inspire a renewed push for "comprehensive immigration reform"?

This story also says:

Still, leaders of California industries that rely heavily on illegal labor, like agriculture and restaurants, say they aren't taking any chances. Trade groups that represent the sectors said they have strongly recommended that employers follow the new rules, regardless of the government's ability to trace its own threats.

Giuliani defends his immigration policies as mayor of NYC.

Some judicial polling points. A new Quinnipiac poll was released today that asked respondents about their opinion on the recent Supreme Court cases, Parents Involved in Community Schools Inc. v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson County (KY) Board of Education, which limited the way in which public schools could use race to shape student enrollment. It reports a majority in favor of this decision:

39. As you may know, the Supreme Court recently ruled that public schools may not consider an individual's race when deciding which students are assigned to specific schools. Do you agree or disagree with this ruling?

                        Tot     Rep     Dem     Ind    



Agree                   71%     79%     64%     71%    
Disagree                24      17      30      24     
DK/NA                    5       3       6       5      

However, a Washington Post-ABC News poll taken in July shows a different result:

43. As you may know, the Supreme Court recently restricted how local school boards can use race to assign children to schools. Some argue (this is a significant setback for efforts to diversify public schools), others say (race should not be used in school assignments). On balance, do you approve or disapprove of this decision?

             Approve     Disapprove     No opinion
7/21/07        40            56             4

Why this discrepancy--71% v. 40%? The Post speculates it's because the Post's question includes "context"--"Some argue (this is a significant setback for efforts to diversify public schools), others say (race should not be used in school assignments)."--while the Quinnipiac poll does not. While this "context" inclusion may indeed have shaped the response of individuals to this question, couldn't one perhaps also wonder if changes in date might also explain part of this difference? The Quinnipiac poll was taken from Aug. 7-13 (a few weeks after the Post poll), so couldn't another possibility be that Americans thought more about this ruling and decided they agreed with it? So both polls could be accurate for their respective polling periods--but some Americans might have changed their minds. Maybe? Perhaps another new poll will come out to confirm or disprove this speculation?

Do US Census officials want a hold on immigration raids during the time of the 2010 census?

The Census Bureau wants immigration agents to suspend enforcement raids during the 2010 census so the government can better count illegal immigrants.

Raids during the population count would make an already distrustful group even less likely to cooperate with government workers who are supposed to include them, the Census Bureau's second-ranking official said in an Associated Press interview.

Deputy Director Preston Jay Waite said immigration enforcement officials did not conduct raids for several months before and after the 2000 census. But today's political climate is even more volatile on the issue of illegal immigration.

In a Washington Post story on the complications of Romney's and Giuliani's approaches to immigration, Dan Balz offers this political speculation:

Romney's advisers have two goals. The first is to narrow the race as much as possible to a contest between Romney and Giuliani. The second is to cast Romney as the conservative and Giuliani as out of the GOP mainstream. They hope that will open up a path to the nomination by allowing Romney to seize the conservative mantle before voters have a chance to make a real judgment about the conservative bona fides of Fred Thompson, who won't enter the race officially before September.

The debate over immigration between Romney and Giuliani does seem to have, for the moment, somewhat concentrated the media on these two candidates; after all, the media does seem to like a good public spat between politicians.

Giuliani expatiates on immigration reform (e.a.):

I [BALZ] asked him after his exchange with Redeker about his broader views, particularly his willingness to allow many illegal immigrants to remain in the country and become citizens. That, I suggested, sounded very similar to the kind of comprehensive immigration package President Bush and John McCain pushed with no success earlier this year.

"I don't think comprehensive reform is politically possible right now," Giuliani replied. "I've come to the conclusion in studying this now for six months or eight months... It seems to me you first control the borders. Give everyone a little relief from the debate for awhile. Then we revisit in it a situation of more order, more confidence the border can be controlled. Then we have to say what's the best answer to deal with the people who are here."

When does he think this "comprehensive reform" will be more possible? What would this "reform" entail?

An interesting David Broder column talking about some of the issues Fred Thompson may focus on in his campaign.

Though some stories have focused on the anxiety of employers over the announced new worker verification rules, some employers are, according to some sources, more hopeful about the new rules:

Several employer groups supported the new no-match rules, saying the revisions provide a set of guidelines that employers have never had.

“Employers never really knew what to do when they received these letters, so they generally just ignored them,” said Mike Aitken, director of governmental affairs for the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). “The new rules now provide a clear outline of what employers must do when they get these letters and how to comply with the law.”

While we often hear about the effects of immigration policy on agriculture and construction, there's some controversy in Canada about immigration and exotic dancers: could a proposed Canadian law limit immigration work permits for exotic dancers?

Increasing--or at least persistent--tension in the Republican party over immigration? The Washinton Times has a story today about RNC Chair Mel Martinez criticizing Giuliani and Romney (and maybe others) for their opposition to the "grand bargain." The St. Petersburg Times's summary of Martinez's remarks:

"Presidential contests are about leadership. ... It's about leading on the tough issues," Martinez told the St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce. "It was easy to say, 'This wasn't good enough, this isn't right, I don't agree with Martinez.' ... But at the end of the day what is your answer? How would you solve this?"

In his remarks, Martinez did not directly refer to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney or former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, but he later suggested both candidates, who were critics of the controversial Senate immigration proposal, had mischaracterized the plan.

Well, Giuliani has announced his own plans (though some opponents of the "grand bargain" are skeptical about these plans).
Random theory: if some Bush insiders believe (as some critics believe) that Giuliani's immigration policy may be, in significant ways, a continuation of the president's, could this criticism of Giuliani be an attempt to make it seem as though he is "tougher" on immigration enforcement: many critics of the administration's approach to immigration policy have focused on the lack of enforcement and the president's attempt to offer a "pathway to citizenship" to the "undocumented," so if the Bush-picked Martinez is criticizing Giuliani (who also supports a "pathway" and has been criticized for his immigration record while mayor of NYC), then he must be "tougher" on immigration enforcement! This criticism could give Giuliani an appearance of difference of opinion with the president over immigration (something, it seems, that much of the Republican base--and, perhaps, the nation as a whole--would like)--even if there may not be that much of a difference in actual policy. But there may also be significant differences; time will have to tell. Maybe Giuliani's immigration advisers will weigh in on this issue.
Of course, Martinez may just be angry about the difficulties the "grand bargain" has faced and be striking out at two opponents of the "bargain." In any case, his remarks do show some tensions in the national GOP over the "grand bargain" and immigration policy as a whole...

CQ has an interesting list of 25 vulnerable House seats for Republicans and 25 vulnerable Democratic House seats. Many of the House seats--on both sides--were decided in 2006 by a few percentage points. It seems like one of the noteworthy questions of the 2008 House race will be to see how safe many of the newly-elected 2006 Democrats are in their incumbency--though the GOP is also looking at some seats whose holders were not first elected in 2006. Democrats seem to have their eyes on a number of Republican House seats in New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania; Republicans may hope to gain a number of seats in Indiana, and it doesn't look like they intend to give up New York and New England (they seem to have their eyes on seats in Connecticut and New Hampshire)--they also have their eyes on seats in NM/AZ and Georgia.

Sen. Graham (R-SC) assures everyone that he hasn't given up hope on "immigration reform":

It's those Republicans Graham is talking about when he says there are conservatives in his corner and advocating immigration reform.

"The problem doesn't get solved by saying no (to reform)," Graham said. "That's why I'm going to get back up on the horse. As a U.S. citizen, I feel I owe more to South Carolinians than to say `no.' "

The Politico reports that the administration's announced new employer-verification rules might face some resistance:

Laura Reiff, co-chairwoman of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, said her organization had sought support from Congress to block funding for the enforcement of the no-match rule, which would require employers to fire workers unable to clear up discrepancies between their Social Security numbers and government records.

“But with Congress being so gun-shy about opposing anything dealing with enforcement, we didn’t get very far,” Reiff said.

So Reiff, along with Monica Guizar, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, told immigration advocates on a conference call Wednesday that they were exploring other options. Among the ideas under consideration are seeking approval of a resolution under the Congressional Review Act, a rarely used tool that allows Congress to review and overrule regulations, or raising the question of whether the rules violate the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which require agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory actions on small businesses.

So it looks like Congress rebuffed an attempt to deny funding for these new rules (I wonder whom they "didn't get very far" with). Could these other tactics have much success? From reports that I've seen, it looks like the Congressional Review Act has been used very rarely (only one successful use as of March 1, 2005). Are there any other legal challenges in the works?

A new report may show some lack of cooperation between ICE and the FBI on terrorism-related matters--seemingly because some ICE agents don't like to work with the FBI.

In CQ's report on Hastert's decision to retire from Congress, it offers this paragraph on the way, partly under Hastert, caucus leaders in the House were able to concentrate power:

Under Hastert, a Republican-written term limit on the Speakership was abandoned even as six-year limits on chairmen were kept in place. The move solidified the caucus-elected leaders as permanent power centers. Meanwhile, the seniority system eroded. When chairmen cycled out they were not necessarily replaced by the next-most-senior member on the committee. Instead, they were forced to compete with each other by proving their loyalty to the party through their campaign fundraising efforts and voting records.

The chairmen and subcommittee chairmen owed their allegiance to the leadership, which in turn was elected by the caucus at large. The system, which Democrats have largely followed, gave tremendous authority to party leaders to develop and deliver a legislative agenda.

One wonders what this shift away from the seniority system might mean. Could it lead to a more dynamic House, in which new players continually jockey with old players for this newly centralized power? This shift might--in addition to giving party leaders more power--also make the position of party leader a little more unstable; with fewer limits on the power of party leaders, others might find this position more desirable and easier to achieve in the absence of a seniority system. And various congressmen and congresswomen might be more inclined to engage in party leader conflicts (since their positions would even more depend on these conflicts). Of course, with these new controls, the right party leader under the right circumstance could exercise even more rigid control over the House than under the earlier, seniority-balanced system. And you could have both: rigid control with some level of uncertainty bubbling beneath the system. Or so it seems to me at the moment...

An interesting NYT story on the way Fred Thompson's "testing-the-waters" campaign has used the internet.

A WaPo story on the immigration debate between Giuliani and Romney.

The Washington Times reports on some possible corruption in US federal immigration services (H/T Bryan at Hot Air):

criminal investigations report says several U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services employees are accused of aiding Islamic extremists with identification fraud and of exploiting the visa system for personal gain.

The confidential 2006 USCIS report said that despite the severity of the potential security breaches, most are not investigated "due to lack of resources" in the agency's internal affairs department.

[...]

According to the document, other potential security failures include reports that:

Employees are sharing detailed information on internal security measures with people outside the agency.

A Lebanese citizen bribed an immigration officer with airline tickets for visa benefits.

A USCIS officer in Harlington, Texas, sold immigration documents for $10,000 to as many as 20 people.

[...]

Last week, The Times disclosed a confidential DEA report substantiating the link between Islamic extremists and Mexican drug cartels. The 2005 DEA report states that Middle Eastern operatives, in U.S. sleeper cells, are working in conjunction with the cartels to fund terrorist organizations overseas. Several lawmakers promised congressional hearings based on the information disclosed in the DEA documents.

The DEA report also stated that Middle Eastern extremists living in the U.S. — who speak Spanish, Arabic and Hebrew fluently — are posing as Hispanic nationals.

USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez in March told Congress that he could not establish how many terror suspects or persons of special interest have been granted immigration benefits.

Some are concerned about the national security implications of this potential corruption.

Sen. Chambliss (R-GA) also thinks that these new enforcement rules could be used to support a "guest worker" program (H/T a reader):

“This approach is probably the best approach right now. It may move us toward an overall immigration reform package down the road, but if we have border security first, I really do think that the American people are going to immediately demand in the near term a good temporary worker program and figure out some way to accommodate these people who are here illegally. I don’t know what it would be,” Chambliss said.

He also made some comments about streamlining certain worker visa programs and doing away with "birthright citizenship."

Kaus isn't the only one who thinks that the new employer verification rules may be used to support a renewed push for "comprehensive immigration reform"; Sen. Craig (R-ID) has reportedly claimed that "[p]ressure to pass immigration reform will intensify as millions of undocumented workers lose jobs as a result of a crackdown by the Social Security Administration." Meanwhile, Chertoff still hopes for "comprehensive reform."

The Hill has a story about some of the preparations leading up to (what could be) a battle over Iraq policy after Gen. Petraeus makes his report on the "surge." It does look like some Democratic leaders (e.g. Speaker Pelosi) will argue that, despite any seeming military success of the "surge," the "surge" was really about political reconciliation--and, since they think no (or at least insufficient) progress has been made on that front, they will continue to argue for forced timetable for withdrawal. We'll see if that persuades the Blue Dogs; we'll also have to see how Republicans organize their strategy.

Giuliani reveals his new immigration proposals:

The Mayor’s commitment recognizes that illegal immigration is an issue of national security for America and change begins with securing our borders because the federal government has failed to solve the problem. To help protect our nation in the Terrorists’ War on Us, Rudy Giuliani is committed to ending illegal immigration by enforcing immigration laws and controlling America’s borders. The Mayor’s commitment calls for deporting any illegal alien who commits a felony and building both a physical and a high-tech border fence, while deploying a larger and better-trained border patrol.

Rudy’s plan also includes the tamper-proof Secure Authorized Foreign Entry Card (SAFE Card) for all foreign workers and students, a single national database of non-citizens to track their status, and tracking those who leave the country. In addition, Giuliani will encourage Americanization by requiring immigrants to truly read, write and speak English.

According to the AP (e.a.):

Giuliani wants a tamperproof ID card that includes fingerprinting for everyone entering the country and a central database to track when they leave.

The ID card and other immigration proposals have been part of Giuliani's campaign speeches for several months. He says he would allow a pathway to citizenship only for illegal immigrants who identify themselves as illegal, who learn English and who go to the back of the line to apply.

We'll have to see if Giuliani releases any other details of his plan for a "pathway to citizenship." And if any other candidates have anything to say about these plans.

The Border Patrol is looking for some agents to volunteer to help build parts of the border fence.

More on Giuliani's immigration advisers:

Serving as the Mayor’s Chief Homeland Security Advisor is Robert Bonner, former Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency and former Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency. Stewart Verdery, Jr., the former Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning at the Department of Homeland Security, will serve as Senior Immigration Advisor. Other members of the advisory board include Victor Cerda, Michael Petrucelli, Nicolle Sciara Rippeon, Ray Shepherd, and Jan Ting.

The Washington Times has a story up about how Giuliani's advisory board has a number of former Homeland Security/Border Protection officials on it and says that these individuals are "pro-enforcement."

But what else do these individuals support? I've done a little bit of research on the web, and here's what I've been able to find out about some of them.

Robert Bonner spoke in favor of a "guest worker" program in 2004 (claiming that this program would increase border security)--though he still held his official position as head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection then, so maybe he believed he had to support the president's position. Though Bonner expressed some skepticism about the "Minutemen" patrolling the border, he later showed some interest in considering having the Border Patrol coordinate with volunteer citizen groups.

In addition to testifying in favor of a "guest worker" program (and otherwise speaking in favor of such a program), Stewart Verdery pretty much supported the Senate's 2006 attempt at "comprehensive immigration reform" (saying that its approach was "correct"). In a 2006 column at the National Review, he urged for passing a reform that allowed for increased visas for foreign workers, increased border security, and legalization of the "undocumented." He claimed that the lack of "reform" was, in fact, "another day of amnesty by default." I don't know where he ultimately stood on the "grand bargain"--but, on June 15, he did write in support of the "grand bargain"'s requirements for the use of Real ID.

In a (somewhat well-known) July 2006 letter, 33 individuals (who are usually associated with the right)--such as Jack Kemp and Bill Kristol--wrote in support of "comprehensive" reform. Verdery and Michael Petrucelli were both signatories of this letter. This letter declared that the US needed a

comprehensive solution, one that includes border security, interior enforcement, a guest worker program and status for the illegal immigrants already here.

Here's an interview with Victor Cerda in which he stresses the importance of increased enforcement--but claims that we need to "look at" a "guest worker" program. He also seems to believe that our immigration system is "broken."

Jan Ting was an opponent of the Senate's 2006 attempt at "comprehensive immigration reform"--calling it an "amnesty" measure--and did not seem to support attempts to legalize the "undocumented." In his 2006 Senate run in Delaware, he was endorsed by Tancredo's Team America PAC and by Mark Krikorian. Certainly, he spoke in favor of "enforcement" in the Washington Times story mentioned above. In May 2007, he testified before the House against a legalization program and a "guest worker" program--but in favor of increased enforcement and moving towards a skill-based immigration system.

Chris Cillizza reports that Giuliani is planning on announcing the creation of an "Immigration Advisory Board" today and further outlining his position on immigration--perhaps as a result of Romney's attacks on Giuliani's record on immigration.
UPDATE: Guiliani announces his board of advisers:

Serving as the Mayor’s Chief Homeland Security Advisor is Robert Bonner, former Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency and former Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency. Stewart Verdery, Jr., the former Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning at the Department of Homeland Security, will serve as Senior Immigration Advisor. Other members of the advisory board include Victor Cerda, Michael Petrucelli, Nicolle Sciara Rippeon, Ray Shepherd, and Jan Ting.

CQ has more on the proposed rule to require contractors with the federal government to use the E-Verify system to ensure the legality of their workers.

Norman Ornstein has a column up in which he is very critical of both Republican and Democratic leadership in the House over the vote "meltdown" that occurred before the congressional recess--and suggests that much of the reporting of this issue has been misinformed. He offers this summary of voting procedure in the House:

First, some basics on rules and procedures on the House floor. Contrary to what many Republicans said, and many reporters wrote, there is no such thing as "gaveling the vote." The gavel, for purposes of finality, simply is irrelevant. Gavels get banged by presiding officers all the time, including during votes, to restore order or before an announcement. What matters is the announcement from the chairman. Even an announcement can change if new information comes in on a timely basis. The occupants of the chair often make premature announcements and then update them.

What about the voting screen? It is even more irrelevant than the gavel. Presiding officers are told before they take on the role to ignore the screens, which are not official or relevant information for a vote count by the chairman.

So what matters? The sheets compiled by tally clerks, who give them to the presiding officer with running counts; when the counts are complete--and they may be viewed as complete but then change as Members arrive two minutes late or signal that they are going to switch--the chairman announces the total. The final tally on a vote can come only when the chairman, using information from the tally clerks, reads a final vote and moves on to other business.

Thus the notion that at one moment frozen in time, when the gavel banged and the vote screen read 215-213, the vote was final--as if it were a basketball game that ended when the horn sounded and the final shot had not yet left the shooter's hand--simply is bogus. Standard practice for a 15-minute vote is to take an extra minute or two to let stragglers vote and switches to occur--but only for at most a handful of minutes to accommodate those on their way to vote or signaling a desire to change, not to cut them short or, at the other end, to prolong a vote so leaders can change the clear outcome.

He also cites some Republican actions from the past:

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who was one of former Majority Leader Tom DeLay's (R-Texas) major allies, said after the fiasco, "Never once in the majority did we ever try to steal a vote." Whoa, remember the three-hour vote on the Medicare prescription drug bill, during which an absolute majority of the House, 218, voted "nay," which was ignored by the chair and the majority and resulted in several rare rebukes by the ethics committee? Or the occasion in 1995, when Republican John Linder (Ga.) declared a vote over when several Democrats were openly and actively clamoring in the well to record their votes--a vote that was vacated by unanimous consent the next day after an uproar?

In a column on the federal government's "new rules" for immigration enforcement, Krikorian draws attention to another considered government rule:

Along the same lines is another, less-noticed measure in last week’s announcement. The administration says it will begin to draft a new rule to require all federal contractors to use the online system, redubbed E-Verify, that enables employers to check if new hires are authorized to work in the United States. This probably won’t identify a large number of illegal workers, but it will change the environment, representing an important step toward internalizing legal status as a labor standard.

Rasmussen suggests that there may be significant public support for the newly announced employer verification rules--and would support other "enforcement" measures:

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of American adults favor a proposal requiring employers to fire workers who falsify identity documents. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 9% are opposed while 12% are not sure.

The survey was conducted as the Bush Administration announced a series of proposals designed to crack down on illegal immigration. One proposal would require companies to fire workers if proper documents are not provided by the employee within 90 days. While this proposal has upset some immigrant-rights leaders, most Americans would like to go even further—74% believe that if a person wants to rent an apartment they should be required to provide documents proving they are in the country legally. Just 17% are opposed.

This level of support contrasts somewhat to the public's reaction to the "grand bargain." But the public is still skeptical of the federal government's response to illegal immigration:

The government currently has little credibility in this arena. Just 12% of Americans believe the federal government is doing enough to secure the border and reduce illegal immigration. Seventy-one percent (71%) say it is not doing enough.

A money game snapshot. An interesting table of candidate contributions (released on July 30) from the Center for Responsive Politics (I've slightly edited this table to make it fit):

Candidate	% from Donors of $200 or less	% from Donors of $2,300+	% from Donors of $4,600
Obama, Barack	28%	44%	9%
Clinton, Hillary	9%	70%	44%
Romney, Mitt	11%	49%	1%
Giuliani, Rudy	12%	63%	22%
McCain, John	19%	51%	12%
Edwards, John	23%	42%	17%

Both New York candidates--Clinton and Giuliani--seem to have a relatively high reliance upon donors giving the maximum $4,600. (Romney's numbers are a little skewed because 20% of his contributions so far have been from himself, but he doesn't have that many $200-or-less donors, either.) Indeed, Clinton's reliance on high-level donors (44% of her individual contributions coming from those giving the most allowed by law) far supersedes that of any other candidate at the moment (Giuliani, her closest rival in this regard, only has one half of that dependence at 22%). Among the front-running declared candidates, Obama has the most dependence on the $200-and-under demographic on the Democratic side, and McCain has the most on the Republican side. The declared candidate with the most dependence on the $200-and-under crowd? Republican Tom Tancredo: 79% of his individual contributions are $200 and under.
These figures are likely to change, but this does provide an interesting snapshot for the moment.

Sen. McCain (R-AZ) hears from some New Hampshire voters on immigration--and they seem unhappy with his support of the "grand bargain."

In a story speculating about some of the economic effects of these new rules, the LAT offers a history of their creation:

Administration officials began meeting to discuss these steps in June, immediately after the Senate failed to overhaul the nation's immigration laws. The White House presided over sessions that included the Departments of State, Labor, Commerce, Homeland Security and Education. Officials from Treasury and the Social Security Administration also took part.

Chertoff said the administration held off on implementing these measures in the hope that a legislative overhaul would provide a tougher arsenal. "We looked at these programs late last year, early this year, and we thought, 'You know, this is kind of a half-measure. Wouldn't it be better to get the full measure and the sharpest, newest tools if Congress passes them and gives it to us?' " he said.

So can we attribute these new rules to the seeming failure of the "grand bargain"? Could these new rules be a way of gaining support for a revival of "comprehensive immigration reform"? Chertoff thinks so:

Chertoff suggested that once the provisions had been in force for a while, Congress would see immigration reform in a different light.

"Everybody who criticized comprehensive immigration reform for being too complex, maybe now they're going to realize it's complex because there are a lot of interconnected pieces to this and when you try to deal with only one corner of it, you wind up with a huge impact on something else," he said.

"I would still like to believe Congress is capable of doing big things and not just producing bumper-sticker solutions to problems. I haven't given up yet."

So could this be the first step of a wider effort? According to some reports, Specter and Bush have spoken about Specter's new immigration proposal. Could they be coordinating strategy? (Probably a random question--but maybe still worth asking.) Is there some other plan afoot?

An interesting possible division between Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) and Speaker Pelosi (D-CA):

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein predicted a "catastrophe" in the state's $32 billion agriculture industry as the new rules become effective with the fall harvest. But the proposal met no opposition from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, who issued a statement saying, "Securing our border remains a top priority for the New Direction Congress."

Georgia senators Chambliss and Isakson also support the president's new "rule" changes for employer verification, but they also want an emergency supplemental measure to fund increased border security measures. An interesting point in their remarks (e.a.):

“This news is certainly encouraging, and I am pleased the many, many months of dialogue and concerns expressed by countless Georgians are resonating with the administration,” said Chambliss. “The Southern border of this country has been an open sieve for far too long and while today’s announcement is a good step, we believe an emergency supplemental spending bill is the best solution to ensuring border security. Johnny Isakson came up with the idea for the trigger, and I am pleased the administration has recognized the importance of this border security first concept in their announcement. Only when the border is secure will credibility be restored with the American people, and we’re going to continue to press this issue.["]

Which issue? Increased enforcement? "Comprehensive immigration reform"? Chambliss also likes the notion of "reforming" the H-2A visa program--but what are the details of this "reform"?

The WSJ has an interesting story on occasional tensions between native Quebeckers and French immigrants:

However the Quebec dream can sometimes turn into a nightmare. Every year hundreds of these immigrants return home to France with the bitter aftertaste of failure.

The exact number of returning immigrants is the object of fierce debate. The Delegation of Quebec in France, the organization in charge of recruiting immigrants, claims that 18% to 20% will be back within five years. The demographer Marc Termotte, however, argues that these figures are wide of the mark. "One out of every two French people who decide to settle in Quebec will go back to France within eight years of their immigration," says this professor from the University of Montreal, who based his study on census statistics.

This story speculates that these immigrants may return to their native France in part because of economic and social differences. On employment and (especially) health care issues, some sound very dissatisfied:

A Frenchman who has been living in Quebec for 11 years but now plans to leave, Yann complains among other things that he was not made aware of the appalling quality of health care. "Sometimes you have to wait a whole day to see a doctor. Patients even have to wait on stretchers in the corridors, resources are so limited," he explains.

Other bones of contention are the education system that he claims is run by incompetent teachers and a labor market that is hostile to immigrants. His main complaint, however, is the difficulty of achieving recognized professional status. The province has a large number of protected or regulated professions: doctors, engineers, dentists, accountants, architects etc. "In order to join their ranks, a number of professionals who were already practicing in France find themselves having to retake exams, attend classes or sometimes even retrain completely," Yann says.

This story also has more on some of the cultural differences between France and Quebec.

The Hill doesn't sound very optimistic about the future of "comprehensive immigration reform":

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Friday the administration has to be “realistic about what this Congress is going to be willing to do” with regard to comprehensive immigration reform, all but pronouncing chances for a bill dead.
“I think that the leaders in Congress have decided that this is not something that they’re going to take up,” Perino told reporters. “And so I think the president, while he would like to have seen comprehensive immigration reform, does not believe that the Congress will be able to get that done.”

But some are skeptical about this declaration (e.a.):

“Perhaps it’s my previous experience with this administration that is making me hesitant to jump for joy, but it seems to me that many of these tough-on-illegal-alien programs have existed for some time, and this may simply be cover for the White House to bring back their amnesty push next year,” Tancredo said.

So is "comprehensive reform" still napping? Due to be revived under another name? After all, when the first cloture vote on the "grand bargain" failed early in June, a lot of folks called that legislation dead--and, as we all know, it came back later that month.

UPDATE: Some agree with Tancredo's suspicions. The Chicago Tribune writes (e.a.):

As conservatives gave cautious praise to the plans while unions, business groups and immigrant advocates predicted massive layoffs and other heartaches, both sides wondered whether the vise on the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants is intentionally being tightened to make more friendly measures easier to pass when Congress returns from its summer recess.

"If they're trying to make another effort at amnesty in the fall, then this is a pretty smart thing they're doing," said Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, a Virginia-based organization that helped engineer a fierce grass-roots campaign in June to defeat a bipartisan Senate bill that would have offered legalization to undocumented immigrants.

The Politico has more reactions.

House Minority Leader Boehner praises the administration's new immigration rules, but Sen. Grassley (R-IA) wants to see some results:

“The American people want our borders secure and our laws enforced and the Administration should be commended for taking additional steps to achieve those goals,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). “First and foremost, Republicans believe our efforts must start with strong border security and interior enforcement and today’s news are positive steps in the right direction.”

However, some Republicans were cautious with regard to the new initiatives on immigration, an issue in which the GOP base has split with its president.

“While I appreciate today’s announcement, the Administration can talk until they’re blue in the face about proposed reforms to improve our immigration system,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa.). “I won’t be happy until I see action that’s more than just a press conference and words on a piece of paper.”

A press release on the new rules proposed by the administration.

Rep. Pence (R-IN) continues to press against the "fairness doctrine." And he cites some past history:

As a candidate back in 1988, Bush's father threatened a similar veto after President Reagan had had to veto one fairness doctrine reimposition bill and threatened a second to keep the doctrine off the books.

Will any present presidential candidates promise a similar veto if he or she becomes president?

In terms of Pence's "Broadcaster Freedom Act," he says that "every Republican member of Congress and one Democrat--he did not identify the Dem--have co-sponsored the bill." Now, a number of Democrats voted to keep the FCC from re-instituting the "fairness doctrine" for the next financial year; is there any reason why only one has become a co-sponsor of this legislation? Do that many representatives only want the FCC not to re-institute the "fairness doctrine" next year--but don't mind if it re-institutes it some other year? Has Democratic leadership discouraged people from supporting this legislation? Or is there some other tactical reason for this? Will more be co-sponsoring soon?

Pence hopes to keep this issue alive:

Pence said that when Congress returns, he will try to bring the bill to the floor using "every tool in the box." Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) twice tried to introduce the act as an amendment to bills in the Senate, but was unsuccessful.

UPDATE 8/10: Pence identifies his sole Democratic co-sponsor: John Yarmuth from Kentucky

The AP has more on the new worker verification rules due to be announced tomorrow:

An outline of the announcement, obtained by The Associated Press from a congressional aide, said the administration plans to expand the list of international gangs whose members are automatically denied admission to the U.S., reduce processing times for immigrant background checks and install by the end of the year an exit system so the departure of foreigners from the country can be recorded at airports and seaports.

In addition, employers will face possible criminal sanctions if they don't fire employees unable to clear up problems with their Social Security numbers.

Also, the Homeland Security Department will ask states to voluntarily share their driver's license photos and records with the agency for use in an employment verification system. The sharing is meant to help employers detect fraudulent licenses, according to the summary.

A press conference on these rules is expected on Friday.

UPDATE: And the Politico has more. It lists some other qualities of the changes:

As part of the new measures, the secretary of Homeland Security will deliver regular “State of the Border” reports beginning this fall.

In one of the most interesting revelations, the plans call for the administration to “train growing numbers of state and local law enforcement officers to identify and detain immigration offenders whom they encounter in the course of daily law enforcement,” according to a summary provided to The Politico by a congressional source.

“By this fall, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will have quintupled the number of enforcement teams devoted to removing fugitive aliens (from 15 to 75 in less than three years),” the summary says.

More on worker verification:

Employers will face tough new scrutiny and requirements. “There are now 29 categories of documents that employers must accept to establish identity and work eligibility among their workers,” the summary says. “The Department of Homeland Security will reduce that number and weed out the most insecure.”

“The Department of Homeland Security will raise the civil fines imposed on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants by approximately 25 percent,” the summary continues. “The administration will continue its aggressive expansion of criminal investigations against employers who knowingly hire large numbers of illegal aliens.”

There are some other interesting elements dealing with "guest workers":

—The Department of Labor will reform the H-2A agriculture worker program so farmers can readily hire legal temporary workers, while protecting their rights.

—The Department of Labor will issue regulations streamlining the H-2B program for non-agricultural seasonal workers.

—The Department of Homeland Security will extend, from one year to three, the length of the NAFTA-created TN visa for professional workers from Canada and Mexico, removing the administrative hassle of annual renewals for these talented workers.

We'll have to see what these changes might mean. The press conference announcing this package is scheduled for 10:30 am EST tomorrow.

Even as Mitt Romney attacks Rudy Giuliani for supporting "sanctuary city" policies when Giuliani was mayor of New York City (Giuliani disagrees with this characterization--though ABC News posts some statements from his time as mayor that may trouble this disagreement), Tom Tancredo attacks Romney as supporting "amnesty."

Some reports suggest a drop in foreign remittances--particularly in states with less established Latin American (and Mexican) immigrant communities:

A significantly lower percentage of Mexican migrants are sending money to their homeland from the United States than last year, according to the results of a survey released today by the Inter-American Development Bank’s Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF).

The percentage of Mexicans who regularly make remittances fell to 64% in the first half of 2007, down from 71% last year. The drop was the steepest in states where Latin American immigration is most recent, like Georgia, North Carolina or Pennsylvania. In “new destination” states the percentage plunged to 56% this year from an average 80% in 2006.

States that have long had large Hispanic communities, such as California, Texas, Florida and New York, have not seen similar falls. In “traditional destination” states the percentage of Mexicans who regularly send money home slipped to 66% from 68% over the same period.

And some think that fears of increased immigration enforcement may be part of the reason for this decline:

Bendixen says this group of Mexicans faces difficulties that have made them less optimistic, such as the lack of well-paying jobs, education and proficiency in English, as well as difficulty getting immigration documents.

He also suggested that immigrants might be saving more money instead of sending it abroad because they feel uncertainty about their future.

About half of the 900 immigrants, Mexican and Central American, interviewed for the survey were illegal immigrants, he added.

"They just don't feel welcome in the United States any longer," Bendixen said.

The US Chamber of Commerce has now joined the lawsuit attempting to stop Arizona's new employer sanctions law. In addition to Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform and the Arizona Contractors Association, other groups supporting this lawsuit include:

Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Wake Up Arizona! Inc., which includes former Phoenix Suns CEO Jerry Colangelo; Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Arizona Farm Bureau Federation; Arizona Restaurant and Hospitality Association; Associated Minority Contractors of America, based in state; Arizona Roofing Contractors Association; National Roofing Contractors Association, based in Illinois; and the Arizona Landscape Contractors Association.

Gov. Napolitano (D) says that this new law is constitutional and the press secretary for the AZ attorney general says that they will defend this law "aggressively."

The AP reports on the responsibilities of Border Patrol agents to fix the holes cut into border fencing:

Every day, Eddie Lujan and fellow members of his Border Patrol welding team go out and fix holes cut in a 12-mile border fence the night before by illegal immigrants sneaking across from Mexico.

Then he and the others get up the next day and do it all over again.

The Weekly Standard (while offering some interesting analysis on its implications) posts a video of a CNN interview with Sen. Durbin and Sen. Casey in which both say that the "surge" in Iraq demonstrates military progress (but express doubts about the political progress on the ground). In this video, Sen. Durbin says that the "surge" has troops going into areas where they haven't operated for years--and rounding up al Qaeda. Could this be a signal of a shift in Democratic policy for Iraq?

As proponents of forced withdrawal from Iraq quarrel in the House, activists supporting forced withdrawal also seem to be suffering some divisions.
As the Politico outlines the conflict:

The two approaches clashed vividly last week in a behind-the-scenes battle among House Democrats over a measure sponsored by Abercrombie, backed by some liberals and many moderates, requiring Bush to report on the status of an Iraq plan. The measure was poised to win the support of many Republicans -- until Woolsey and her allies stopped it cold.

The weeklong legislative tussle underscored the difficulty anti-war forces face in agreeing on political strategy -- a problem that threatens to hamstring Democrats when they return in September and face a series of confrontations with Bush over Iraq.

Woolsey feared that any measure which allowed Republicans to argue that they were holding the administration's feet to the fire -- without actually imposing policy changes -- could be worse than nothing.

"I don't want legislation that takes us backward," Woolsey said, noting that the House had passed a bill several weeks ago calling for a complete redeployment of combat troops by April 1, 2008. "While we're standing here, our troops are dying, and we're not moving the ball forward to bring them home."

Abercrombie argued that his approach would have demonstrated that the anti-war movement is not just a partisan cause.

"We attracted the overwhelming majority of Republicans to go with us, which is the most powerful element working in this right now," Abercrombie said. "If you keep passing bills on issues that have a bare majority, then it becomes Democrats versus Republicans and people make up their own minds as to who is really participating and who isn't."

The game of chicken (no half-way measures) vs. the game of consensus.

The Washington Times reports that some Republicans--including Newt Gingrich and declared presidential candidates Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee--are skeptical of Sen. Specter's new immigration proposal. It doesn't include any words from any current senators, however. And some sound more supportive of Sen. Specter's proposal--including the chair of the Michigan Republican Party:

Allowing illegals to remain in the country is different than granting them citizenship, said Saulius "Saul" Anuzis, chairman of the Michigan Republican Party.

"My principal objection is giving amnesty and citizenship to someone whose first act in the United States is to break the law," he said. "I would not oppose a system to legalize them and give them a different status to work and pay taxes here ... but no citizenship."

Sec. Chertoff says that he will increase immigration enforcement:

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a national gathering of state lawmakers today that he would ratchet up enforcement of immigration laws, including at the workplace, in lieu of comprehensive immigration reform.

[...]

We shouldn’t have a patchwork of laws. We should be doing a comprehensive federal solution, but we haven’t got that thing done,” he said. “What I can tell you is we will certainly use every enforcement tool that we have, and every resource that we have available, to tackle the problem.”

Chertoff, both in his speech and in a brief interview with The Associated Press, did not offer specifics of what he called “tool sharpening.”

“We are currently looking at all of the tools that we have, without congressional action,” he told The AP. “We’re going to see where we can sharpen some of those tools up. We’re going to throw everything that we have on the federal side into this issue of trying to address our immigration problem.”

The NYT reports that some "new rules" may be coming down:

In a new effort to crack down on illegal immigrants, federal authorities are expected to announce tough rules this week that would require employers to fire workers who use false Social Security numbers.

Officials said the rules would be backed up by stepped-up raids on workplaces across the country that employ illegal immigrants.

How these rules would work:

The expected regulations would give employers a fixed period, perhaps up to 90 days, to resolve any discrepancies between identity information provided by their workers and the records of the Social Security Administration. If workers’ documents cannot be verified, employers would be required to fire them or risk up to $10,000 in fines for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

Immigrant rights groups and labor unions, including the A.F.L.-C.I.O., predicted the rules would unleash discrimination against Hispanic workers. They said they were preparing legal challenges to try to stop them from taking effect.

Would these lawsuits succeed? What else could be in store?

One of the critics of the "grand bargain," Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) says that he is skeptical about a border wall and supports the DREAM Act--according to this report:

The senator also said he supported the DREAM Act, a bill that would allow the legalization of undocumented immigrant teenagers headed for college.

NJ Gov. Corzine (D) forms a panel that will investigate how to "integrate immigrants" into the state.

The Hill reports that Sen. McCain comes out strongly against Kelo-type rulings about private property rights:

The senator, who is trying to revive his struggling White House campaign, told a crowd in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, that he plans to appoint constructionist judges to the Supreme Court who “respect the Constitution and understand the security of private property it provides.”

"If need be, I would seek to amend the Constitution to protect private property rights in America," he added.
McCain was referring to the 2005 Supreme Court “eminent domain” decision, which he blasted as “disastrous.” The ruling gave local governments the right to take the house of a homeowner and use it for economic development.

“Property is the fruit of one’s labor,” the senator told the crowd. “Property-rights protection means that the individual reaps the rewards from the sweat of his brow, not the government or those who control the government.”

Will this move prompt other GOP and Democratic candidates to offer their own opinions on eminent domain law and property rights?
UPDATE: I see that Fred Thompson has a commentary on eminent domain up at his site.

In Colorado, there's some confusion about the tuition rates of "undocumented immigrants":

Based on an attorney general’s opinion from five years ago, Metropolitan State College of Denver charges nonresident tuition to children of illegal immigrants. However, such students pay in-state tuition at the University of Colorado based on the advice of its lawyers, spokesman Bronson Hilliard said.

Some officials want to clarify and standardize Colorado's policy about this matter...

The NYT has a roundup of some various new state laws about immigration.

In Carpentersville, IL:

The Village Board passed a non-binding resolution in June declaring English the town's official language, and is considering an ordinance to ban employers from hiring or landlords from renting to illegal immigrants.

ABC News talks about some of the various ways Republican presidential candidates are responding to proposed federal immigration legislation.

The NYT has an interesting story on foreign worker rights and conditions in the United Arab Emirates. Foreigners comprise, according to this story, 85% of the population of the UAE and 99% of its private work force. This number of foreign "guest workers" has led to some tension:

Change here is constrained by rival concerns of the sort that shape the prospects of workers worldwide. Like many countries, only more so, the United Arab Emirates needs the foreign laborers but fears their numbers. The recent focus on the workers’ conditions still leaves them under close watch, segregated from the general population, with no right to unionize and no chance at citizenship.

This story has more details on the conditions these workers labor in and on how some consider trying to change these conditions.

In a Washington Post column, Sen. Specter (R-PA) continues to press his immigration proposal.

The disputed House vote on Thursday could lead to some far-ranging consequences. The House has agreed to establish a six-member select committee to investigate what happened on Thursday. CQ has a helpful summary:

The panel would be directed to make an interim report to the House by Sept. 30 and to deliver a final report by Sept. 15, 2008. The resolution also instructs officers of the House to preserve documents and recordings related to the vote in question. The panel, made up of three appointees of the Speaker and three of the minority leader, would have the power to subpoena documents and testimony.

It is this power of subpoena that could make this panel rather distinct, Paul Cane suggests (differentiating it from, say, a special committee on global warming that has no subpoena power), and WaPo calls this decision "extraordinary." Select committees have been called in the past to investigate executive power (e.g. Watergate), and those have had far-reaching consequences; could this committee also have such effects?
Who will be appointed to this committee? The Politico has a report on tensions within the Republican caucus of the House and how some Republicans are disappointed with Boehner's response to the disputed Thursday vote. How might these tensions shape Boehner's choices in appointing individuals to this committee? It seems to me that he may be under some pressure to appoint some "tough" Representatives to make sure that they pursue this investigation aggressively....
And whom might Speaker Pelosi pick to be on this committee?