The Washington Post reports on the diversity of new immigration laws being passed by various states. The story outlines three approaches to this diversity: alarm, support, or a (federalism-flavored) sense that this variety in state responses to immigration can allow the nation to test which laws might actually be the most effective:

Some observers are alarmed by the trend, calling the widely divergent laws further evidence of America's cultural divide and saying they could pose new hurdles in reaching a national consensus on immigration. Piecemeal policymaking is opening the door to a flurry of legal battles -- the Department of Homeland Security, for instance, is suing Illinois for banning businesses there from confirming an employee's legal status through the federal E-Verify database, which state officials have called flawed and unreliable.

Others argue that the inability to reach a national solution has left states no choice. Governors are grappling with cities and towns that, in the absence of a national or state policy, have taken it upon themselves to pass local immigration laws either protecting or cracking down on illegal immigrants. This has occasionally lead to radically different regulations within individual states.

Still others assert that the rush of state activism has created an unforeseen opportunity. By viewing states as laboratories and studying the successes and failures of their various policies, Americans may find useful information, even a road map, for developing a national strategy.

It also claims that Oklahoma's new immigration laws have begun to drive away the "undocumented":

Hispanic business groups, citing school enrollment losses and church parish figures, say the laws, which start going into effect later this year, have caused as many as 25,000 undocumented workers to flee the state in recent months. The loss is being decried by the Oklahoma State Home Builders Association.

"In major metro areas we are seeing people leave based on the perception that things are going to get bad for them and that this state doesn't want them here," said Mike Means, executive vice president of the association. "Now we're looking at a labor shortage. I've got builders who are being forced to slow down jobs because they don't have the crews. And it's not like these people are going back to Mexico. They're going to Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, Arkansas, anywhere where the laws aren't against them."

Don't Ask: CA Gov. Schwarzenneger (R) has signed a measure that prohibits landlords from asking about the immigration status of their tenants. The AP reports. The bill in question in AB 976. The measure both prohibits cities and towns from requiring landlords to check the immigration status of individuals and forbids landlords from deciding to check immigration status of tenants on their own. The bill was passed in both the CA Assembly and Senate on basically party-line votes (with R's against). Is signing this another demonstration of a difference between Schwarzenegger and CA Republican legislators?

It seems as though the mayors of some Texas towns are suing to stop a border fence from being built on their lands.

A reader draws my attention to a line buried in Chertoff's response to the "no match" injunction:

Today's ruling is yet another reminder of why we need Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform.

I wonder what Kaus would think of that...if Chertoff is trying to "heighten the contradictions," he can't be too disappointed with this injunction: it shows just how "unworkable" the current tools for enforcement are!

Dean Baker doesn't like copyrights:

It's long past time for a little reality check. Copyright dates back to 16th century Venice. It was a mechanism for allowing writers to profit from their work by giving them a state-enforced monopoly. It has continued since that time, with the state-granted monopoly being extended both in scope and duration. Copyrights now cover music, movies, video games, and a wide range of other material. The duration has also been repeatedly extended so that copyrights in the United States now persist for 95 years after the death of the author.

While copyrights do provide an incentive for creative work, they are an extremely inefficient mechanism for this end. It is most efficient when items are sold at their marginal cost. Economists generally get infuriated about the economic distortions that are created when tariffs of 10 percent or 20 percent are placed on items like steel or clothes. In the case of copyrights, material that could otherwise be transferred at zero cost, instead commands prices of $15 for CDs, $30 for movies, and even higher prices for other items, entirely because of the government-granted monopoly. For this reason, the economic distortions created by copyright dwarf the economic damage caused by other forms of trade protection.

There are many other mechanisms for supporting creative work, such as university funding (most professors are expected to publish in addition to their teaching), foundation funding, or direct public support. It is easy to design alternative mechanisms to expand this pool of non-copyright funding, such as the Artistic Freedom Voucher, which would give each person a small tax credit to support creative work of their choosing.

With the entertainment industry getting increasingly out of control, it is important that we start to develop better alternatives to copyright. We need to think of how we should support creative work in the 21st century and not let the entertainment industry drag us back into the 16th century.

Of course, it seems to me that the irony of Baker's approach is that it would encourage a return to 16th-century policy: artists and writers would be even more dependent upon elite patrons for support. We would have traded the Medicis for national foundations. Granted, there's always been a role for the wealthy patron in the arts (the Medicis sponsored some pretty nice stuff), and plenty of productive authors are now based out of universities. It's one thing to complain about the "trade protection" "damage" of copyright and arguing that it distorts the "market," but are vast, institutional structures going to be that much more responsive to the "market"? One would have to wonder what would be more "distorting": having to pay an author some percentage of a book's price as a result of his or her labor in producing this book or having authors fill out grant proposal after grant proposal to apply for funding from some institution (and having this funding be determined by a coterie of people)?
Baker, it seems to me, wants to trade the protections of free-market commerce for the largesse of institutions. Even if we lay aside any ethical objections to the destruction of copyright in a society, his policy certainly raises some practical concerns about some of the implications of a dissolution of copyright.
Interestingly, Baker omits another way of raising revenue for creative work: advertising. Certainly, advertising helps fund a lot of magazines and newspapers, and I know a few blogs are able to pay the bills (at least partially) through ads.
(Not that I'm against "Open Source" work or anything like that [I'm not charging for this blog! (not that anyone would pay!--ed)]--but there is a difference between forced "Open Source" and that of the voluntary kind. And one can support forced "Open Source" policies even while acknowledging the drawbacks of these policies.)

A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction to stop the Bush administration from enforcing its new "no match" policies. Chertoff says he's still hopeful:

The decision Wednesday was disappointing, said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, but wasn't more than a "bump in the road" in the agency's drive to vigorously enforce laws aimed at keeping illegal immigrants out of the workforce.

The government will evaluate the "modest legal obstacles" presented by the judge, addressing them in litigation or outside court, as it examines its options and determines whether to appeal the decision, Chertoff said.

"I don't think there's anything in the judge's ruling that is insurmountable," Chertoff told The Associated Press by telephone. "The key is to move forward. We're committed to using every tool available to enforce our immigration laws."

Opponents of the measure are pleased with this result:

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security could not go ahead with their plan to send joint letters warning businesses they'll face penalties if they keep workers whose Social Security numbers don't match their names.

Breyer said the new work-site rule would likely impose hardships on businesses and their workers. Employers would incur new costs to comply with the regulation that the government hasn't evaluated, and innocent workers unable to correct mistakes in their records in the given time would lose their jobs, the judge wrote.

"The plaintiffs have demonstrated they will be irreparably harmed if DHS is permitted to enforce the new rule," Breyer wrote.

The so-called "no match" letters, including a Department of Homeland Security warning, were supposed to start going out in September but were held after labor groups and immigrant activists filed a federal lawsuit.

An amendment (H/T Malkin) proposed by Sen. Boxer (D-CA) would discourage the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Bureau from enforcing immigration law during the time of the 2010 census. Some suspect that this amendment may be motivated by the fact that "undocumented immigrants" are counted in the US Census for purposes of Congressional representation.

ABC News has a poll up about US attitudes toward immigration. However, I think they might be misinterpreting a piece of data. The report on the poll claims:

most, 58 percent, favor a path to citizenship for those here now -- a program giving illegal immigrants the right to legal status if they pay a fine and meet other requirements.

However, the poll question (as released in the polling report) asks nothing about a "path to citizenship":

2. Would you support or oppose a program giving ILLEGAL immigrants now living
in the United States the right to live here LEGALLY if they pay a fine and meet
other requirements?

I thought a "path to citizenship" meant a path to citizenship--not a path to legal permanent residency. "Living here legally" need not imply citizenship.

An interesting WaPo story on sectarian negotiations and suspicions in Iraq. I might wonder, however, if, rather than being an alternative to national "reconciliation" (as this story implies), "streamlining the government bureaucracy, placing experienced technocrats in positions of authority and improving the dismal record of providing basic services" might be a way of arriving at some potential reconciliation. It seems to me that one of the many lingering problems Iraqis face is a lack of trust in each other and a national government. Having an actually functioning national government might help build this trust that would seem so important for national reconciliation. It seems that an Iraqi parliament member would agree with this:

Humam Hamoudi, a prominent Shiite cleric and parliament member, said any future reconciliation would emerge naturally from an efficient, fair government, not through short-term political engineering among Sunnis and Shiites.

"Reconciliation should be a result and not a goal by itself," he said. "You should create the atmosphere for correct relationships, and not wave slogans that 'I want to reconcile with you.' "

Tension in Switzerland over immigration--and a political party's position on it.

Update on Gov. Spitzer (D-NY)'s plan to issue driver licenses to the "undocumented":

The state association of county clerks voted on Thursday to condemn Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s executive order allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, and at least a dozen said they would not follow the new policy despite state laws obligating them to do so.

Some of the recent debate over immigration has focused on issues of federalism and the relationship of state powers (or, in some cases, local powers) to the federal government; this refusal now draws attention to a conflict between state and local power.

The Senate has passed 95-1--Voinovich (R-OH) voted against it, and McCain (R-AZ), Obama (D-IL), Specter (R-PA), and Warner (R-VA) did not vote--an amendment appropriating up to $3 billion for increased border security. The text:

SEC. __. BORDER SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Border Security First Act of 2007''.

(b) Appropriations for Border Security.--There is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $3,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2008--

(1) to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime border of the United States including the ability to monitor such border through available methods and technology, as authorized under the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-367);

(2) to hire and train full-time border patrol agents, as authorized under section 5202 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458);

(3) to install along the international land border between the United States and Mexico--

(A) fencing required under section 102(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note)); and

(B) vehicle barriers, unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors and cameras; and

(4) to remove and detain aliens for overstaying their visas, illegally reentering the United States, or committing other crimes for which they would be subject to removal; and

(5) to reimburse States and political subdivisions of a State, for expenses that are reimbursable under 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)).

(c) Employment Eligibility Verification.--Of the amounts appropriated for border security and employment verification improvements under subsection (b), $60,000,000 shall be made available for employment eligibility verification, as authorized under subtitle A of title IV of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).

(d) Emergency Requirement.--Amounts appropriated under subsection (b) are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 204 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress).

A federal judge has extended for another 10 days a hold order on the enforcement of the new Homeland Security/Social Security worker-verification rules.

In today's WSJ, Richard Nadler has a column (based on his "Border Wars" report) claiming that the GOP will suffer electorally for any seeming opposition to "comprehensive immigration reform." Nadler is the president of Americas Majority, a pro-"conservative" group. This group is now advocating in favor of "comprehensive reform," but with some interesting twists. It seems to be quite openly in favor of "amnesty" (something many supporters of the "grand bargain" said they were against). And it's on the verge of a scorched-earth campaign against opponents of "comprehensive" reform.
For example, in an ad against punishing employers for the hiring of the "undocumented," a voice asks:

Listening to the anti-employer rants on talk radio these days, I wonder: Is it illegality that the anti-immigrant crowd hates? Or is it really free enterprise?

Implication that supporters of enforcing employment laws are closet socialists? Check.
The "Economist" ad also pushes the claim that some are "smuggling Communist theories into the discourse of the political Right."

How will the UK Conservative party approach immigration?

A reader passes along an interesting WSJ story on some businesses' anxiety about a potential "crackdown" on "undocumented workers." An interesting bit of information on the number of construction workers who are thought to be "undocumented":

In the $1.2 trillion construction industry, at least one-third of the work force is undocumented, according to an estimate by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Industry experts believe the actual figure is much higher: Last year alone, nearly half of new construction workers were Hispanics who had arrived in the U.S. since 2000.

The Select Committee on Roll Call Vote 814 has issued a preliminary report:

The report outlined four areas of investigation, including an investigation of who is regularly on the Speaker’s dais and how their responsibilities relate to voting.

The panel’s final report is due no later than Sept. 15, 2008.

The probe will dissect the voting process, from the use of electronic voting machines to the proper duration of a vote, to determine what went wrong the night the House melted down into partisan chaos following a vote on a Republican motion to recommit that was gaveled early and ended in an unclear tally.

The panel, formally named the Select Committee on Roll Call Vote Number 814 and led by Reps. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.), will use the information to recommend changes to the House voting system in an effort to rectify any lingering problems that could lead to another chaotic situation such as the one of Aug. 2.

House Clerk Lorraine Miller told the six members of the Select Committee on Roll Call Vote Number 814 that while the voting tally has not been located, the paper voting cards located in the well of the Speaker rostrum had been preserved for the investigation. The voting tally is a piece of paper with the final count that is passed to the chairman to be read for the official record.

The reason the tally is missing was not detailed Thursday, but that likely will be tackled as the committee’s work progresses.

A video of the committee's first public hearing is available here. Both the chair, Rep. Delahunt (D-MA), and ranking member, Rep. Pence (R-IN), say they're hopeful about the success of a bi-partisan investigation.

Over at the Politico, Mike Allen reports that Robert Novak will report that the chair of the national GOP, Sen. Mel Martinez (FL), will be stepping down once someone "clinches" the GOP nomination:

Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, who was named general chairman of the Republican Party only nine months ago, has advised associates that he will leave the post as soon as somebody clinches the party's presidential nomination. That probably will come after the Feb. 5 primary elections next year. When Martinez took the party post Jan. 19, it was expected he would stay on through the 2008 elections as the GOP's principal national spokesman. Many Republicans now grumble that Martinez has been ineffective in that role, partly because he has been drowned out by the many presidential hopefuls. Kentucky lawyer Mike Duncan, who came on board with Martinez as chairman of the Republican National Committee, is expected to remain running day-to-day operations at national party headquarters for the balance of his two-year term.

It seems as though the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is pressing Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) for more unanimity among House Democrats on immigration-related measures; they're concerned about how some Democratic members of the House are supporting some Republican-back immigration measures. Maybe that's why Pelosi is now speaking out against the border fence?

Some anecdotal evidence of "illegal immigrants" leaving localities/states with stronger enforcement provisions?

A group of "illegal immigrants" has filed a lawsuit against Danbury, CT and the federal government over an immigration raid last year.

So who "won" in the pulling of the DREAM Act from the DoD bill--opponents of the act or supporters? At this point, I think it could be unclear. While pulling the act did probably indicate that supporters of it lacked the votes to get it passed at this time (which would seem to favor opponents), its separation from the DoD bill may be able to pull some senators into supporting it who had previously been opposed because they didn't think it should be attached to the defense measure (which would seem to be an advantage for supporters). Complaining about its attachment to the DoD bill could give some senators cover who had previously supported DREAM-like measure but now wanted to change their minds; they might not have the same cover for a stand-alone bill. It still sounds up in the air to me--and a few arms could be twisted between now and November.

Majority Leader Sen. Reid (D-NV) has apparently decided that the DREAM Act will not be voted on as an amendment to the DoD bill. He hopes, however, to have this measure voted on by some time in November. Some supporters of the DREAM Act sound disappointed; some opponents sound pleased. But both sides are gearing up for a renewed battle--and thinking about those senators who said they opposed Durbin's amendment because it was attached to the DoD bill. Reid has a press release up (in Spanish--not one in English yet [UPDATE: English version added]) reiterating his support for the DREAM Act and hopes for its passage.

The strike ends: the UAW and GM reach an agreement on a new contract.

The Washington Times has some information on the E-Verify system (aka the Basic Pilot Program). It reports that, in October, all new federal hires will have to be checked on this system.

Some are concerned about the constitutionality of an immigration law due to go into effect in Oklahoma on November 1. This measure

makes it illegal to transport, conceal, and harbor or house illegal immigrants. Violation of this order would be considered a felony, punishable by no less than a year in prison or a $1,000 fine.

The Hill has some information on the back-room struggle over the DREAM Act:

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the majority whip, wants to offer the legislation, dubbed the DREAM Act, as an amendment to the defense authorization bill, which the Senate could vote on this week.

But the Illinois Democrat has yet to strike a deal with Republicans, who may block the amendment from consideration, and he faces intense competition from Senate colleagues fighting to attach other provisions to the defense bill.

Although procedural obstacles could bottle up the amendment, the possibility of a vote has spurred groups on both sides of the immigration debate to ratchet up their lobbying efforts, three months after sweeping immigration reform collapsed in the Senate.

What was the sticking point in negotiations between GM and the UAW? The UAW claims it is job security for they future; the autoworkers' union wants guarantees from GM that certain future car models will be built in the US:

UAW officials said the 73,000 UAW members who work at about 80 U.S. facilities for the nation's largest automaker didn't strike Monday over what many thought would trip up the talks: A plan to shift the retiree health care burden from the company to the union. They said they also didn't strike over wages.

They said union members walked out because they want GM to promise that future cars and trucks such as the replacement for the Chevrolet Cobalt small car or the still-on-the-drawing board Chevrolet Volt plug-in electric car will be built at U.S. plants, preserving union jobs.

CQ reports on some struggles in the House between "moderate" and "conservative" Republicans over influence in various committees. Boehner seems to be trying to keep the peace:

So far, Boehner has kept mum about whom he will favor for the most coveted committee slots in the next Congress — and about what factors will be the most important in making those choices.

In addition to seniority, Boehner has signaled that legislative accomplishments will be weighed in the next round of deliberations over leadership posts, along with other factors like whether aspirants meet or exceed their National Republican Congressional Committee fund-raising quotas.

The old system, long presided over by DeLay and inherited by Boehner, tended to reward conservatives and punish

moderates. Financial service to the party was important, but so was ideological cohesion.

A helpful reader passes along a (subscriber-only)Roll Call story on a resolution House Democrats are considering putting forward on immigration:

House Democratic leaders are drafting a resolution designed to inoculate freshman lawmakers on the issue of immigration, despite concerns from within their own Caucus about reopening debate over the contentious topic.

According to several freshman Democratic lawmakers in attendance at a weekly breakfast meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), Members were told to prepare statements on the resolution, which will endorse laws already on the books that prevent illegal immigrants from participating in taxpayer-funded programs, such as Social Security or food stamps.

In a draft of the resolution obtained by Roll Call, the measure expresses the sense of the House “with respect to the importance of upholding federal immigration laws and ensuring the integrity and security of the borders of the United States.”

In addition to the language on public benefits, the draft resolution also contains provisions calling on the executive branch to enforce laws on voter fraud and border security.

But one House lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said some senior Members have objected to the proposal over concerns that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to limit the scope of the debate. The House largely abandoned plans to pursue a comprehensive immigration reform bill earlier this year after the Senate failed to cut off debate on its own version of the legislation, effectively killing the bill.

Some think that this measure could be on the floor within a week--others think it could be longer.

According to Rasmussen, Sen. Chambliss (R-GA) is ahead in re-election polling for 2008, but his level of support lingers around the 50% mark--a mark most incumbents want to go beyond. He was originally more supportive of the "grand bargain" (though he ultimately voted against it), and Georgian voters seem to want greater enforcement. 76% think it is very important that the government increase border security and "reduce illegal immigration."

A story reflects on the effects of a federal judge's temporary restraining order on the Bush administration's announced new rules for employer verification.

Gov. Spitzer (D) of New York has issued a new policy so that "undocumented immigrants" will be able to receive driver's licenses. The NYT gives some details on how the governor got to make this decision:

State law requires license applicants to prove their identity, date of birth, and fitness to drive, and to provide a Social Security number. The last requirement was added in 1995 as part of an effort to punish parents who were not paying child support. In 2002, a state regulation was adopted to allow applicants who are ineligible for a Social Security number to also apply for driver’s licenses.

But at that point, Gov. George E. Pataki, Mr. Spitzer’s predecessor, issued a policy that stipulated that the only way to define “ineligibility” would be through obtaining a formal letter of ineligibility from the Social Security Administration, a letter that is only obtainable by individuals who have legal immigration status. That step made it effectively impossible for illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses.

Gov. Spitzer has changed this policy. Now, applicants for driver's licenses can use "foreign passports, previous state driver’s licenses and 'other valid and verifiable documents' to prove their identity." Some debate the security implications of this new policy. It seems there might be an attempt to overturn NY's new policy.

The Hill has some updates on the committee investigating a voting irregularity in the House in August. Though members of the House leadership may show a little uncertainty about even the title of the committee, members of the committee (3 D and 3 R) are hopeful about the prospect of cooperation. Committee members are trying to resolve funding disagreements (how much? who pays?) and hope that funding will come from both parties. Background here.

The Levin-Reed withdrawal amendment has failed 47-47. In June, a Levin-Reed amendment for withdrawal could not overcome a filibuster at 52-47. Who switched their votes? No senator switched from opposition to Levin-Reed to support. The following switched from support to opposition:

Dodd (D-CT)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AL)
Collins (R-ME)

Republicans Hagel (NE), Snowe (ME), and Smith (OR) backed this measure. Six senators did not vote: Bennett (R-UT), Domenici (R-NM), Lott (R-MS), Boxer (D-CA), Durbin (D-IL), and Sanders (I-VT). These 6 presumably break 3 in favor (the Democrats) and 3 against (the Republicans). Some had expected Levin-Reed to get more support for this vote. The latest draft of Levin-Reed required troop withdrawals to start within 90 days--rather than the 120 days of an earlier draft.
Dodd says he opposed this draft of Levin-Reed because it does not require a "complete redeployment."

The NYT reports on how some of the "undocumented" appear to be fleeing from the US to Canada.

DREAM Act Update: NumbersUSA thinks that a vote on the DREAM Act may occur sometime next week. It also posts a text of the latest version of the act (SA2919), which has a few changes: it sets the maximum age to gain a path to citizenship from this act to 30 and also does not include the former in-state tuition language. However, this 30-year age limit may only go so far:

[Section 3303 1](F) the alien is under 30 years of age on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) WAIVER.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary of Homeland Security
may waive the ground of ineligibility under section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act and the ground of deportability under paragraph (1)(E) of section 237(a)
of that Act for humanitarian purposes or family unity or when it is otherwise in the public
interest.

So there can be exceptions to this measure it seems....

Also, Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) does not support this act being attached to the DoD bill--but that he wants to see the details before he offers a final decision (or so it seems).

The Hill reports that some Democratic presidential candidates are promising to "reform" our immigration system early in a potential first term:

The campaigns of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) say their candidates will seek comprehensive reform, a phrase that sometimes implies a guest worker program, as soon as they get to the White House.

Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), speaking at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) political action conference Monday, said: “We’re going to ensure that every single person living in the United States of America has a completely achievable path to American citizenship so that they don’t live in the shadows.”

Members of Congress, however, are not as optimistic about passing "reform." Some activists are accusing these presidential candidates as posturing but unwilling to actually push for "reform."

The Webb amendment has failed 56-44. It failed last time 56-41. Johnson (D-SD) did not vote last time and voted in support of the amendment this time. Warner (R-VA) voted in favor of the amendment last time but switched to oppose it this time. Democrats supported the measure. Lieberman (I-CT) and most Republicans opposed it. The following Republicans supported it: Coleman (MN), Collins (ME), Hagel (NE), Smith (OR), Snowe (ME), and Sununu (NH).

Polipundit posts a new NumbersUSA email that implies there may some divisions in the Democratic caucus over the attempt to attach the DREAM Act to the DoD bill:

It appears that many of the Democratic Senators are questioning Senate Democratic Leader Reid about the wisdom of allowing the Defense bill to get all tied up with immigration bickering.

There has been a lot of speculation over how/whether immigration divides the Republican party--could this be some evidence of possible divisions amongst Democrats over immigration as well?

CQ has an update on the behind-the-scenes debate over the Webb amendment:

Bush administration officials have been furiously lobbying moderate Republican senators to oppose the measure.

The Webb amendment would require military personnel to be given at least as much time at home as they spend deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. National Guard and reserve forces would have to be allowed three years at home for each one at war.

As the Senate debated the measure, the operations chiefs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Army huddled with a small group of centrist Republicans in a Russell Senate Office Building room.

The group included Republicans John W. Warner of Virginia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Afterwards, several sounded as if they had been won over.

“My goal is not to create a management nightmare for our commanders,” said Alexander.

Alexander, Murkowski, and Specter had been thought of as potential supporters of the Webb amendment. I've heard from a source that Webb and supporters are concerned that Warner's alternative proposal--which would be a non-binding "sense of the Congress"--would be used as "cover" for wavering senators to avoid supporting the (requirement-backed) Webb amendment.

Debate over this Webb amendment seems to be on two levels: its constitutionality and its worth as a policy measure. Many opponents of the amendment think that it is unconstitutional for Congress to decide troop movements and also claim that it could lead to a "backdoor" withdrawal from Iraq--in addition to raising fears of a"management nightmare." Backers of the amendment argue that soldiers need more time to recover between tours of duty--and often launch into wider critiques of the administration's Iraq policy. Debate over this measure seems often to be really a debate about Iraq and our capacity for success there.

UPDATE: It looks like there may be a vote on Webb at 5:15 EST (or that's what leaders are planning at the moment).

The Senate's currently debating the Webb (D-VA) amendment, which would mandate a certain troop rotation schedule. Warner (R-VA) has offered a competing amendment, which would offer a non-binding "sense of Congress" about extended troop deployments.

Some More DREAM Act Numbers: Let's try for a master list of DREAM Act potential votes at the moment. Numbers USA lists the following 18 senators as declared in opposition to this act:

Alabama: Sessions; Shelby
Arizona: Kyl [UPDATE--Maybe not--see below]
Georgia: Chambliss; Isakson
Kansas: Roberts
Kentucky: Bunning; McConnell
Louisiana: Vitter
Mississippi: Lott
Missouri: Bond [UPDATE]
North Carolina: Burr; Dole
Oklahoma: Inhofe
South Carolina: DeMint; Graham
Tennesee: Alexander; Corker
Wyoming: Enzi

Activist group Grassfire.org has been contacting senators, and they say the following are confirmed against the measure (in bold are those not on the NumbersUSA list):

TN Alexander
WY Barasso
KY Bunning
NC Burr
GA Chambliss
OK Coburn
TN Corker
OK Inhofe
GA Isakson
AL Sessions
AL Shelby
LA Vitter

If both these counts are right, there are 20 declared opponents of the DREAM Act--and Martinez (R-FL) says he does not support adding immigration legislation to the DoD bill, so that number might be at 21.
These lists indicate that declared supporters of the DREAM Act might include Brown (D-OH), Bingaman (D-NM), and Bayh (D-IN). Obviously, Durbin (D-IL), a sponsor of this bill, is also a supporter.

UPDATE: Sources are telling me that Thune (R-SD) will also vote against the DREAM Act. So it could be 21 firmly against.
UPDATE: I see that NumbersUSA has dropped Kyl from their committed "No" list: 20 against.
UPDATE 5:35EST: NumbersUSA has added Bond (R-MO) to "No": 21 against.

Some members of the House are considering a new immigration proposal:

A group of House Republicans has introduced legislation designed to "send a loud and clear message" to a growing number of "sanctuary cities" across the country, saying those who offer safe harbor to illegal aliens will not be tolerated.

The bill, written by Rep Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, would make illegal immigration a felony and would clarify that state and local law enforcement has existing authority to investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain and transfer to federal authorities any illegal alien apprehended in the course of routine duties.

Known as the Accountability in Enforcing Immigration Laws Act of 2007, it also would require U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to take illegal aliens into custody or pay state and local governments the per-diem rate to detain them until they are removed.

DREAM Act Update: The Washington Times posits some possible divisions within the administration:
The Bush administration has not taken an official position, but Defense Department officials are quietly urging members to support the bill. Meanwhile, Homeland Security officials, alarmed by the prospect of massive fraud resulting from Mr. Durbin's proposal, have been opposing it.

John Hawkins has a post up on the progress of the act and an interesting IM conversation between himself and a Senate source:

Anonymous Senate Aide: Still need to get some more info, but it is certainly going to be offered this week on the DoD authorization bill. There is some question as to whether it will be adopted. I think we will find a way to require them to get 60 votes, at that threshold, we should win. If we lose, there is still some question as to whether DoD Auth will ever be signed into law anyway.

John: Why do you think it might not be signed into law?

Anonymous Senate Aide: Because I am pretty sure the Dems will succeed in attaching some sort of timetable retreat measure on to the bill, if they do, the President will veto it.

[...]

Anonymous Senate Aide: Me too. I think it has kind of snuck below the radar. Sessions is gearing up on this now though. Word is that he will lead the floor fight against it.

John: When is the vote?

Anonymous Senate Aide: Still unclear

John: This week though?

Anonymous Senate Aide: I believe so.

It looks like Reid's no-compromise Iraq strategy is back on--or so the Politico suggests. The Democratic Senate leadership is reportedly abandoning some compromise measures and is back to stressing forced-(timetables-for-)withdrawal-or-nothing. Could this unify Senate Republicans? Increase the pressure? Both?

Defense Amendment Watch: Some reports indicate that Webb's troop rotation amendment could be inching closer to the crucial 60-vote mark. It currently has, it's estimated, 57 votes, so 3 more are needed. The measure is backed by most Democrats and a few Republicans, and it sounds like 4 more Republicans are considering switching to back Webb:

“I’d like to find reasonable ways to limit some in a volunteer army on how long our military men and women are expected to serve, but I don’t want to vote for something that will become a backdoor deadline,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who added he was “studying” the Webb amendment to determine whether it could win his support this time around.
The other three Republicans — Sens. George Voinovich of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina — all said Tuesday they were considering whether to reverse course and support the measure.

If three of these four switch, Webb's amendment would pass (if nothing else changes)...
UPDATE: But it looks like something may have changed. This Politico story suggests that some of the backers of this amendment no longer believe that Warner (R-VA), who previously voted in favor of this amendment, will back it. If so, that sets Webb and supporters back to 56--and in need of 4 more votes.

For those of you who are interested in some vote possibilities for the DREAM Act, you might check out the NumbersUSA main page, which has a breakdown of how different senators voted on cloture for the "grand bargain" and where they stand on the DREAM Act.

The DREAM Act has now been proposed on the Senate floor. Durbin's speaking in support.
Update: And now we're onto some new amendments....

(Via Krikorian), NumbersUSA has some lists of where various senators stand on the DREAM Act. The following have committed to voting against the measure:

Alabama: Sessions; Shelby [Update]
Arizona: Kyl
Georgia: Chambliss; Isakson
Kansas: Roberts
Kentucky: Bunning; McConnell
Louisiana: Vitter
Mississippi: Lott
North Carolina: Burr; Dole
Oklahoma: Inhofe
South Carolina: DeMint; Graham
Tennesee: Alexander; Corker
Wyoming: Enzi

That's 17 votes. [UPDATE: 18 votes with Shelby] "Grand bargainer" Graham is against this measure, and Sen. Martinez, who isn't included above, sounds skeptical about it being attached to a defense bill.
It also has a list of those who are not committed to voting against the DREAM Act (though some on this list have declared that they will vote in favor of it--e.g. Durbin).
UPDATE: NumbersUSA has added Shelby (R-SC) to the confirmed "No" list. (H/T a reader)

Cloture vote to move to debate on the DC voting rights measure fails 57-42.

According to CQ, the Department of Homeland Security says that it should get 70 miles of border fencing built during FY 2007. The department says that the construction of the fence is now underway:

At the end of last week, new border fencing was being built at a rate of 2 miles a day, but before the fence could be built, DHS had to acquire land, conduct environmental assessments, design the fencing and follow federal contracting laws, Benson said.

Update on DC Voting Bill: According to John J. Miller, Sen. Brownback (R-KS) is going to be opposed to the bill to give DC a full representative in the US House. Also, Sen. Byrd (D-WV) has come out against the measure (though he's reportedly likely to miss the vote on it today). Both Brownback and Byrd had been lobbied by both sides and were thought to be potential swing votes.

The US Senate may soon be holding a hearing on a measure that would propose a national regional rotating primary system:

The Senate Rules and Administration Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday on a bill authored by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) to create a rotating regional presidential primary.

Under the “Regional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act of 2007,” beginning in 2012, a region-by-region primary would be initiated, taking place after the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. The four national regions (West, Midwest, South and East) would rotate going first each cycle, with votes occurring on the first Tuesday of each month running from March to June.

So Iowa and New Hampshire will still get to go first, and then the differing regions will have a shot.

A new UPI/Zogby poll has some interesting results. Many Americans place immigration and border security as the most pressing domestic security policy:

Immigration and border security was far and away “the number one issue facing the United States in terms of domestic security,” the poll results show. Fifty percent of all respondents chose it above port security, at 20 percent, transit security, 10 percent. Aviation security, the final choice, was picked by just 4 percent.

Whom do Americans think is most likely to "solv[e] America's immigration issues"? Guiliani and Thompson are currently leading, but many are unsure:

Thompson was rated that way by 14 percent of the 7,102 adults who responded, Giuliani by 15 -- a difference within the poll’s 1.2 percent margin of error. The third rated candidate was Sen. Hilary Clinton, D-N.Y., with 11 percent.

But, not unexpectedly given that the election is still more than a year away, the largest group of respondents was the 22 percent who were not sure which of the 16 named candidates would be most capable.

It also sounds like almost 2/3 of Americans would support more "restrictive" immigration policies and believe that such policies would help the US economy, but adherents of different political parties felt a little differently:

The support for more restrictive immigration policies was also more pronounced among Republicans and independents, the UPI/Zogby poll found. GOP supporters favored more restrictions over more open policies 89 percent to seven; Independents by 70 percent to 21. Overall, restrictions were favored 65 to 25.

But among Democrats, a small plurality favored more open policies over more restrictive ones, 46 to 39 percent.

[...]
More than a third of respondents, 37 percent, believed more restrictions on immigration would benefit the U.S. economy -- a conviction at odds with the conclusions of most experts who agree with 30 percent of the respondents that the economy would suffer.

The belief that restrictions would be beneficial was especially pronounced among African-Americans (41 percent), independents (40 percent) and Republicans (48 percent), and less prevalent among Hispanics (28 percent) and Democrats (23 percent).

This poll also points to Republican dissatisfaction with their own party's leadership on immigration (e.a.):

Respondents narrowly favored the Democratic Party when asked which they had more confidence in to deal with immigration, 32 to 29 percent who favored the GOP.

Among independents, the gap was even narrower than that, a statistically insignificant 21 percent for Democrats to 20 for Republicans. By far the majority of independents, 57 percent, and more than a third of respondents overall said neither.

The Democrats inched ahead because though 24 percent of their own supporters had no confidence in either party on the issue, that was still better than the abstention rates for GOP supporters, where almost a third, 32 percent, said neither party had their confidence.

The LA Times gives a snapshot of what may be the legislative immigration debate to come over the next few months:

As early as this week, Democratic senators are set to introduce an amendment that would give conditional legal status to young illegal immigrants.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) hopes to bring up a visa program for farmhands that eventually would allow them to gain citizenship, while Republican senators are discussing a short-term guest-worker program for low-skilled laborers.

Republicans also are mulling a bill that would overhaul visas for high-skilled foreigners.

In the House, Republicans have been steadily introducing initiatives aimed at ensuring that illegal immigrants cannot gain access to federal benefits.

"We may be heading for another immigration battle," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said of the measures headed for the Senate floor. "Hopefully it can be avoided."

How hot could this "battle" get--or would "battles" be better?

The Washington Post reports that the upcoming (probably on Tuesday) vote over a bill giving Washington, D.C. a full Congressional representative could be tight:

The vote could be a cliffhanger. Almost all of the Senate's 51 Democrats and independents back the bill, as do at least five Republican members.

The vote needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Who's in play?

The bill's supporters are focusing on a small group of senators who are publicly uncommitted, including Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan).

Many opponents of the bill claim that it is unconstitutional--that Congress cannot legislate a seat to the District of Columbia, which is not a state. They cite Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution to support this claim (e.a.):

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States

Some argue that Congress still has the power to grant DC a seat even if it isn't an official state.
Sen. Warner (R-VA) has announced that he will not support this measure--though he is interested in a Constitutional amendment to grant DC a full representative in the House. Other opponents of this bill might be interested in a similar amendment.
A similar bill has already passed the House, and the White House has threatened to veto this bill.

Defense Secretary Gates says that he will urge Bush to veto Webb's troop rotation amendment if it passes. Sen. Reed (D-RI) thinks that Webb's measure has "at least" 57 votes, three short of ending a filibuster. The Washington Post is doubtful that we're on the verge of some grand bi-partisan accord on Iraq.

Drudge offers this cryptic clue:

IMMIGRATION RAIDS: Thousands of people are being detained in homes and deported, sometimes with aid from police and sheriffs... Developing...

We'll see how it develops--especially the part about the "aid from police and sheriffs"....

The NYT reports that some industries are now turning to the federal government for more mandatory regulations. This story speculates that these industries may hope to avoid harsher penalties in lawsuits from individual states by these national regulations and that they may be attempting to use these regulations as leverage against foreign manufacturers (who might not abide by voluntary US industry safety standards).

The Miami Herald has a summary of the debate about the proposed federal "DREAM Act." Interestingly, it says that Sen. Martinez (R-FL), who used to back the "DREAM Act" (and perhaps still does), does not support it as an amendment to the defense bill:

Pro-Dream Act groups are unlikely to have Martinez's support this time around. Durbin plans to offer it as an amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill. A spokesman for Martinez said Friday that the senator doesn't support ''adding immigration-related amendments'' to the defense bill.

Sen. Sessions (R-AL) thinks that the "DREAM Act" could affect more than just students and could have further-reaching consequences (e.a.):

Among Sessions' complaints: it would eliminate a federal provision that discourages states from providing in-state tuition to undocumented immigrant students.

The act, he says, would ``allow future illegal aliens to qualify for in-state tuition even when it is not offered to citizens and legal permanent resident students living just across state lines.''

And Sessions argues that the act ''is not just for children and young adults.'' It only requires that the immigrant's illegal entry occur before they were 16 years old and says nothing about their current age.

Kris Kobach casts a skeptical eye at the "DREAM Act" and points out some ways in which it could offer a relatively broad sweep of legalization (e.a.):

There is no upper age limit. Any illegal alien can walk into a U.S. Customs and Immigration Ser­vices office and declare that he is eligible. For example, a 45 year old can claim that he illegally entered the United States 30 years ago at the age of 15. There is no requirement that the alien prove that he entered the United States at the claimed time by providing particular documents. The DREAM Act's Section 4(a) merely requires him to "demonstrate" that he is eligible—which in practice could mean simply making a sworn statement to that effect. Thus, it is an invitation for just about every illegal alien to fraudulently claim the amnesty.

The alien then has six years to adjust his status from a conditional green card holder to a non-conditional one. To do so, he need only complete two years of study at an institution of higher edu­cation. If the alien has already completed two years of study, he can convert to non-conditional status immediately (and use his green card as a platform to bring in family members). As an alternative to two years of study, he can enlist in the U.S. military and spend two years there. This provision allows Senator Durbin to claim that the DREAM Act is somehow germane to a defense authorization bill.

An illegal alien who applies for the DREAM Act amnesty gets to count his years under "condi­tional" green card status toward the five years needed for citizenship. (Section 5(e)) On top of that, the illegal alien could claim "retroactive benefits" and start the clock running the day that the DREAM Act is enacted. (Section 6) In combi­nation, these two provisions put illegal aliens on a high-speed track to U.S. citizenship—moving from illegal alien to U.S. citizen in as little as five years. Lawfully present aliens, meanwhile, must follow a slower path to citizenship.

It would be absurdly easy for just about any ille­gal alien—even one who does not qualify for the amnesty—to evade the law. According to Section 4(f) of the DREAM Act, once an alien files an application—any application, no matter how ridiculous—the federal government is prohib­ited from deporting him. Moreover, with few exceptions, federal officers are prohibited from either using information from the application to deport the alien or sharing that information with another federal agency, under threat of up to $10,000 fine. Thus, an alien's admission that he has violated federal immigration law cannot be used against him—even if he never had any chance of qualifying for the DREAM Act amnesty in the first place.

To follow up on Kobach's claim about deportation--in Section 3304 of one draft of this Act:

(f) Removal of Alien.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may not remove any alien who has a pending application for conditional status under this title.

How long could an application be pending for?

While some talk about a federal "Dream Act," the California legislature has passed this week its own "California Dream Act," which would allow "undocumented" students to achieve certain types of financial aid from the state:

The California Dream Act, SB 1 (Cedillo) allows U.S. citizen and undocumented AB 540 students to apply for community college fee waivers and eligible for the Cal Grant which can be applied at

California colleges and universities. However, SB 1 specifically excludes students from the Competative Cal Grant Program.

An earlier "California Dream Act" was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger (R). Will he sign this newer version?

Tony Snow reflects on the fight over the "grand bargain."

Kaus wonders if there may be a "comprehensive" reason for Fred Thompson reportedly not meeting with "conservative theoretician" Jeff Bell:

Was it maybe because Thompson has distinguished himself from the field by strongly opposing Bush's misguided illegal-immigrant semi-amnesty proposal, while Bell a) supported it; b) worked for La Raza, which helped draft it and c) erroneously (and self-servingly) declared to pro-legalization pundit Fred Barnes that the political tide had turned Bush's way? ...

K-Lo posts a CQ story on the attempt to bring back pieces of the "grand bargain":

Senate Democrats plan to use the defense authorization bill next week to revive a provision from the failed immigration overhaul that would put some children of illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.

Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is working to bring to the floor another provision from the immigration bill (S 1639) that would create a guest worker program for up to 1.5 million agricultural workers (S 340).

[...]

Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., is expected to offer an amendment to the defense bill (HR 1585) that would attach legislation (S 774) to allow children of illegal immigrants who entered the United States before age 16 and lived here at least five years to gain conditional legal status and eventual citizenship if they attend college or join the military for at least two years.

Durbin said Wednesday he is working on the amendment and contacting colleagues to gauge support.

“The Department of Defense has endorsed this, and I think it would be of value,” he said in an interview.

Durbin said Feinstein is searching for the right vehicle. One possibility could be the upcoming five-year farm bill, which is expected to reach the Senate floor next month.

Sen. Sessions (R-AL) says that these measures could "put more than 4 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship." He also thinks Sen. Chambliss (R-GA) may be collaborating with Feinstein on AgJobs:

The reason for Sessions’ alarm was a July 25 colloquy in which Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., assured Feinstein of a vote on the so-called AgJobs measure, which she introduced earlier this year as a freestanding bill (S 340). “I will do everything I can to make sure it is part of the farm bill,” Reid said.

Sessions said Feinstein is negotiating a potential compromise with the ranking Republican on the Agriculture Committee, Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia.

The WaPo reports on how Congressional Democratic leaders have now shifted to more "incremental" measures for proposed Iraq legislation in order to attract uncertain Republicans to their side. Some are hopeful of passing Webb's troop rotation amendment to the defense bill. Last time, it got 56 votes. Now that Sen. Johnson (D-SD) is back, supporters of the amendment are at 57. They need 3 more to break a filibuster. Webb says that he is in talks with Sen. Murkowski (R-AK) and Sen. Voinovich (R-OH). If he can get them, he's at 59. Vote 60?

An interesting NYT story on the details of the search for an agreement on oil laws in Iraq.

Despite what has been characterized as a "warm" reception at a Senate hearing for Julie Myers, Bush's nominee for assistant secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (she currently holds this position through an expiring recess appointment), Sen. McCaskill (D-MO) sounded very skeptical about Myers's (and the administration's) enforcement policies (or lack thereof):

Sen. Claire McCaskill indicated she might vote against Myers. McCaskill, D-Mo., said the administration is not doing enough to crack down on businesses that employ illegal workers.

McCaskill challenged Myers to say how many employers, under her tenure, have faced criminal or administrative penalties for hiring illegal employees.

Myers did not provide a number and said law enforcement statistics do not break out records that way. She said businesses have paid $30 million in criminal fines and forfeitures this year, compared with just $600,000 in 2006.

"I agree with you on targeting egregious employers and getting U.S. attorneys to take these cases," Myers said. "The bottom line is that we are looking to change behavior."

But McCaskill said it was "outrageous" that Myers would appear at the hearing without having an answer.

McCaskill says that she's been trying to get the statistics for employers "for months."

The Transportation bill (the one including the measure against the NAFTA Mexican trucking pilot program) has passed the Senate with a veto-proof majority: 88-7. It goes substantially (almost $6 billion) over the budget for the bill requested by President Bush.

A lot of little bargains? From the Capitolist, a hint of the strategy to move some pieces of the failed "grand bargain" through Congress (e.a.):

Senate Democrats plan to revive the contentious debate over immigration policy by cherry-picking pieces from a comprehensive bill that collapsed three months ago and offering them as amendments to other measures moving on the floor.

The strategy for advancing selected provisions of the failed legislation on other bills is being crafted by Majority Whip Ricahrd J. Durbin.

Durbin is likely to offer an amendment to the defense authorization bill when debate begins next week that would attach legislation allowing children of illegal immigrants who entered the United States before age 16 and lived here at least five years to gain conditional legal status and eventual citizenship if they attend college or join the military for at least two years.

Which parts?

Thirteen state governors have written a letter to Congress asking it to increase number of the H-1B worker visas:

Besides Schwarzenegger [R-CA], the letter was signed by Govs. Christine Gregoire (D-Wash.), Mitch Daniels (R-Ind.), Bill Ritter (D-Colo.), Dave Freudenthal (D-Wyo.), Deval Patrick (D-Mass.), Eliot Spitzer (D-N.Y.), Janet Napolitano (D-Ariz.), Jim Doyle (D-Wis.), Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kan.), Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.), Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.) and Rick Perry (R-Texas).

Bouncing all over: A new LA Times/Bloomberg poll offers some numbers to show how unsettled the race for the GOP presidential nomination is; a lot of GOP voters in IA/NH/SC are not firmly committed to their preferred candidates. Of those Republican voters who support a GOP candidate, 72% might vote for someone else in Iowa, 50% in NH, and 64% in SC. A lot's still in play, it seems. The LAT has more analysis, too.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union wants to stop ICE immigration raids on workplaces and is filing a lawsuit in federal court to request an injunction. The Union's press release about the matter is here:

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), today, sought court intervention to protect the 4th Amendment rights of all Americans and enjoin the government from illegally arresting and detaining workers including U.S. citizens and legal residents while at their workplace.

The lawsuit—filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas—names the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency as defendants. The suit calls for an injunction against the excessive, illegal and unnecessary worksite raids conducted by ICE agents.

The text of the lawsuit is here.

Hot Air reports that the US Senate has voted 74-24 to put the brakes on a program that would have allowed Mexican truck companies the unrestricted ability to drive around within the US. This amendment was sponsored by Byron Dorgan (D-ND). A similar measure (H.AMDT.624, sponsored by Rep. Peter DeFazio [D-OR]) passed the House on a voice vote in July. * Bush has threatened to veto the overall transportation bill. Some more details (e.a.):

The 75-23 vote to bar the Department of Transportation from spending tax dollars on the project as part of a transportation funding bill increases the chances – but does not guarantee – that Congress will shut down the initiative.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration last Thursday began the program, which allows up to 100 Mexican carriers to send trucks throughout the United States.

While it appears likely the prohibition will survive in the final spending bill sent to President Bush, he has said he will veto the bill. That raises doubts about whether the effort to bar funding for the pilot program will succeed.

The initiative paves the way for pre-approved Mexican trucks to make deliveries anywhere in the United States, something that has not been widely permitted since 1982. U.S. trucks also are allowed to travel in Mexico under the arrangement.

The overall Transportation bill (H. R. 3074) passed the House 268-153. It is still being considered by the Senate.
WaPo has more--and considers some of the NAFTA implications of this measure.

*CORRECTION: I originally had details about a different amendment sponsored by Duncan Hunter. Apologies.

UPDATE: Before voting to stop funding for this program, the House had also voted 411-3 to extend this pilot program and set more standards for it:

In May, the House voted overwhelmingly, 411-3, to pass H.R. 1773, the Safe American Roads Act of 2007, legislation which would extend the pilot program to three years and ensure that DOT establishes a process to analyze the impact of allowing Mexican trucks on our nation's roadways, before the border is completely opened. Provisions were also included in the FY 2007 Iraq War Supplemental spending bill to impose strict measures to ensure that the pilot program adheres to safety and security guidelines and that its progress is assessed by an independent panel.

Malkin has an update about the attempt to include the "DREAM Act" as an amendment to a defense bill.

Human Events posts Boehner's letter to Pelosi on the investigation of August's "vote meltdown."

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) seems, according to this poll, to not have the strongest support from fellow SC Republicans:

• One question about controversial U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham asked Republicans if they would re-elect him: 36 percent said yes, 24 percent said they'd vote for someone else, while 37 percent said their votes would depend on who runs against him.

Fellow "grand bargain" backer McCain also doesn't sound too popular in SC according to this poll.

Fred Thompson's "bounced" in the polls recently: Rasmussen now has him leading Giuliani by 7 points (28-21) amongst likely Republican primary voters nationwide, and Survey USA now has him trailing Giuliani by 2 points (26-28) amongst California Republicans.

Many opponents of a physical fence along the borders have criticized its cost and the difficulty of building it, but it seems as though the proposed "virtual fence" has problems of its own:

The Bush administration's program for building a virtual fence along the nation's borders will be delayed at least another month because of problems with integrating technology, and Homeland Security Department officials are now threatening to go back to the drawing board.

Homeland Security hired defense contracting giant Boeing Integrated Defense Systems to develop the so-called SBInet program, which is supposed to use technology, personnel and infrastructure to control the borders. Under the first phase of the contract, Boeing was supposed to develop an integrated system for 28 miles of border in Arizona by June.

But the department has refused to accept Boeing's solution because of ongoing technical glitches.

"I am not going to buy something with U.S. government money unless I'm satisfied it works in the real world," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told lawmakers during a hearing Wednesday. "And if it can't be made to work, I'm prepared to go and find something that will be made to work, although I'll obviously be disappointed."

The Influence Peddler thinks about the time it might take to get this system to "work." (H/T Kaus, who's also wondering about what a teacher's anecdote might mean for enforcement patterns.)

Flow on, river! flow with the flood-tide, and ebb with the ebb-tide!
Frolic on, crested and scallop-edg’d waves!
Gorgeous clouds of the sun-set! drench with your splendor me, or the men and women generations after me;
Cross from shore to shore, countless crowds of passengers!
Stand up, tall masts of Mannahatta!—stand up, beautiful hills of Brooklyn!
Throb, baffled and curious brain! throw out questions and answers!
Suspend here and everywhere, eternal float of solution!
Gaze, loving and thirsting eyes, in the house, or street, or public assembly!
Sound out, voices of young men! loudly and musically call me by my nighest name!
Live, old life! play the part that looks back on the actor or actress!
Play the old role, the role that is great or small, according as one makes it!

--Walt Whitman, "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry"

The Washington Post has a survey of some of the political moves in Congress over Iraq policy.

A broadcaster files a lawsuit against the Voice of America, alleging that it attempts to avoid hiring qualified citizens and instead favors non-citizens.

Boehner seems to be trying to turn up the pressure on Pelosi for the "vote meltdown" investigative panel--so the Hill reports (e.a.):

In a letter to Pelosi Friday, Boehner asked for $1 million for professional investigative staff, consultants and other expenses. He also asked for an expansion of the probe to include “exceedingly controversial events in the House that occurred in close succession in early August,” such as the malfunction of the automatic voting system and alterations of the Congressional Record.

Pelosi made clear to Boehner two days earlier that she was in no mood for swelling the investigation into mini Watergate hearings.

“There is no reason for this review to become protracted as the committee’s charge is limited to a very small number of matters,” Pelosi wrote in a terse letter to Boehner Wednesday.

Boehner, however, sees the matter differently.

“Madame Speaker, our votes in the House are cast on behalf of the American people — and public confidence in the integrity of the legislative actions in the House can only be restored by fully and aggressively investigating the circumstances surrounding each of these deeply disturbing events,” wrote Boehner. “Simply put, the Select Committee must follow the evidence wherever it leads — and it must have all the tools necessary to complete that critically important task.”

If he is planning on pushing this matter--and trying for "mini Watergate" proportions--could his placing of LaTourette and Hulshof on the committee be an attempt to strengthen a sense of legitimacy for its investigations?

UPDATE (9/10): Hulshof is definitely playing up his past support of ethics sanctions against Tom DeLay:

Hulshof said the situation reminded him of his tenure on the ethics committee, during which he and his Republican colleagues chose to admonish former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

“I will tell you personally, being in the majority, that was a very difficult and painful process, to have to look at one of your own and to call to task, but to call it as you saw it,” Hulshof said.

Some news roundup for the Democratic presidential candidate Univision debate. Bill Richardson was upset that he couldn't answer questions in Spanish. An interesting WaPo paragraph:

Nearly all the candidates committed to overhauling immigration laws in their first year in office, days after Republican candidates accused each other in a debate of supporting "amnesty."

"We all know that this has become a contentious political issue," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) said. "It is being demagogued, and I believe that it is being used to bash immigrants, and that must stop. The Republican candidates need to understand that they are doing a great disservice to our country."

According to the NYT, there were some other criticisms raised about the Republican response to the "grand bargain":

The three leading candidates, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, had especially sharp criticism for leaders of the Republican Party. They expressed concerns that Republicans were enabling anti-immigrant feelings and even racist attitudes, or at least not taking a tougher stand against them.

[...]

Later, Mrs. Clinton added: “There are many in the political and frankly in the broadcast world today who take a particular aim at our Latino population. I think it’s very destructive.” A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton said after the debate that she was referring to the CNN anchor Lou Dobbs and the radio host Rush Limbaugh, among others.

[...]

“That’s what’s been missing from presidential leadership — explaining to the American people from all walks of life that our separate struggles are one,” Mr. Obama said. “A president has to not only speak up forcefully against anti-immigrant sentiment and racist sentiment, but also make sure that all workers are being tended to.”

Mr. Edwards put the blame on President Bush for divisive attitudes that can lead to anti-Hispanic sentiment, saying he “uses absolutely every tool available to him politically to divide the country.” Mr. Edwards added, “This needs to be brought to an end.”

The NYT also reports that Dennis Kucinich was alone in openly advocating for Spanish as an official language for the United States.

Meanwhile, Christina Bellantoni at the Washington Times reveals some of the technical difficulties faced by the press during this debate:

But 90 seconds before the forum began tonight, the Media Room had no sound - not in Spanish, English or French. Nada.

Spanish- and English-speaking reporters in the room erupted in a panic, sending University of Miami staff scrambling to try and fix the feed. What most reporters heard for the first 16 minutes of the debate was static - both from the closed television feed and from the translation device.

Collin Peterson (D-MN), chair of the House Agriculture Committee, plans on holding some hearings (along with the House Judiciary Committee) and says he wants to implement a "guest worker" program.

Some wonder if tonight's Univision debate for Democratic presidential primary contenders will lead to the candidates expanding their discussion of immigration-related matters.

Stephen Dinan comments on some recent polls showing the importance of immigration for GOP primary voters in Iowa and South Carolina.

New UK PM Gordon Brown plans to announce some immigration reforms. One will require skilled immigrants to learn English before they can enter the UK:

Under the government's new "points" system, there are three main categories of immigrants coming to Britain from outside the European Union to work — highly skilled, skilled and low-skilled workers. The first two groups eventually can settle permanently in Britain; the third group cannot.

Highly skilled migrants have been forced to learn English as a condition of entry since last December. However, Mr. Brown and Mrs. Smith will announce this week that the condition will be extended to all skilled migrants, who numbered 96,000 last year.