A federal judge is currently evaluating Arizona's recently passed immigration enforcement measures. Some proponents of these measures have boasted that, if AZ's laws are upheld, similar ones could spread to other states.

Krikorian points out some attempts by Democrats in the House and Senate to strengthen immigration enforcement.

In the face of collapsing approval ratings and high levels of public opposition, Gov. Spitzer (D) of New York backs away from his plan to offer licenses to the "undocumented."

Following the lead of New Haven, CT, the Supervisors of San Francisco have voted to offer city ID cards to residents regardless of immigration status.

Walter Witherspoon, a South Carolina member of the RNC, is considering running against Sen. Lindsey Graham in the Republican primary for US Senate.

Tensions in the Democratic caucus over bilingualism.

In Iowa, it sounds like Romney might be going after both Huckabee and Giuliani on "illegal immigration."

It sounds as though some are considering introducing laws based on Oklahoma's immigration-related HB 1804 in other states:

"With the success in Oklahoma, there's been just a fallout of people calling and e-mailing and wanting to know how we did it in Oklahoma," said Carol Helm, founder of Immigration Reform for Oklahoma Now.

In recent months, Helm has advised citizen groups from Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, California, Alabama and New Jersey about immigration enforcement campaigns.

Last week she was in Florida meeting

with a congressional delegation.

She also said anti-illegal-immigration efforts are also under way in South Carolina, North Carolina, Utah, Missouri and Tennessee.

NY Gov. Spitzer (D) doesn't sound too optimistic about his plan to offer licenses to the "undocumented":

"We'll work and see where things go," said Spitzer, noting several times "it's a tough issue."

At one point, as he continued to defend the plan, he said, "as of now I think it's the right idea from a security perspective."

"The way policy gets created, you put out ideas. Most of them we've succeeded in implementing," he said.

"Sometimes you put out an idea and there isn't so much support and you try to persuade people and you see where you go. This is the way the world works."

Spitzer's Homeland Security director, Michael Balboni, originally conceded to The Post yesterday that while the administration is "not there" in terms of pulling the plug on the plan, "after all the things that have gone on, you'd have to be completely tone deaf not to pay attention. There are lots of discussions going on."

(Via JammieWearingFool.)

Thompson, Romney, and Giuliani have agreed to participate in the Univision Spanish-language debate in December. McCain, Paul, and Hunter had already agreed, so they'll be there, too. Huckabee and Tancredo are not currently confirmed to attend.

House Democrats--to the surprise of some--are putting forward another mandatory-withdrawal-from-Iraq bill.

In the wake of HB1804, further immigration-related measures are proposed in Oklahoma:

The author of the state's immigration bill said Wednesday he will file legislation seeking to make English the official language in Oklahoma and to give law officers the right to seize assets, such as a vehicle or a home, when used to transport or house illegal immigrants.

The Politico reports on some Democratic strategies for the 2008 Congressional elections.

$3 Billion No More: Earlier this year, the Senate vote 95-1 to include $3 billion for increased border security in a defense bill. In the closed-door negotiations, the $3 billion has now been removed from the final version of this bill. Some senators had a press conference about this removal of defense funding:

“It is outrageous that the leadership yanked this critical funding from the final bill,” said Dole. “The Senate spoke loud and clear on this issue, and now a select few have decided to ignore the number one lesson learned from the Senate’s failed immigration bill – that Americans simply don’t have confidence that their government is serious about securing our borders and enforcing our laws.”

The $3 billion would fund border security and enforcement measures, including 700 miles of border fencing, 45,000 detention beds, and training and tools for local law enforcement to handle criminal illegal aliens. As a result of Dole’s leadership, North Carolina is the first state in the nation to have a statewide partnership and plan for sheriffs to coordinate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This plan, which is in its early implementation stages, will ensure that North Carolina sheriffs can readily access the tools that they need to identify, apprehend and remove undocumented aliens who have self-identified themselves by committing crimes.

Dole took part in a press conference today with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Jim Demint (R-S.C.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).

There's some more information here. Sen. Graham says he's thinking of ways to try to add the $3 billion back to the bill. One wonders who was behind this removal....

Sen. Schumer (D-NY) doesn't seem to give a very clear answer on whether he supports Gov. Spitzer's plan to offer licenses to the "undocumented."

Rasmussen has a new poll up: 77% of Americans oppose drivers licenses for the "undocumented."

Some say the border fence is "working." (H/T Hot Air)

Lobby, Lobby: The Hill reports that Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) has announced that she will not introduce AgJOBS as an amendment to the farm bill. Meanwhile, it seems as though some corporations have (to the disappointment of the unions) so far successfully fought off a measure that would require companies to label the country of origin for processed foods. Sen. Brown (D-OH) may be trying to revive this measure:

The AFL-CIO argued that safety measures must keep pace with the rising imports of processed foods. The union’s letter cited reports from January and March of this year by the Food and Drug Administration that found shipments of Hershey’s Kisses, believed to be contaminated by salmonella, were refused entry at the border with Mexico.

Harkin also received a letter from the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM), an AFL-CIO affiliate. The union’s letter brings up a June 2007 Consumers Union poll in which 92 percent of Americans said they wanted to know where their food was produced.

U.S. food manufacturers have continued to shift operations to low-wage countries, the union said.

“Thousands of BCTGM members are losing their jobs as a result of this shift in production,” reads the letter.

Both letters asked Harkin to fold a bill by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) into farm policy that requires origin labeling for processed foods. But Brown’s language did not make into the bill, according to Gibson.

The Ohio Democrat is not expected to offer it as an amendment to the farm bill either, according to one of his aides.

Gibson hopes to build a coalition of consumer advocacy groups and family farm organizations to push for Brown’s bill once the Senate finishes with farm legislation.

Geraghty wonders how much immigration might play a role in tomorrow's state elections in Virginia.

As the fate of an extension of a "guest worker" plan for certain seasonal workers seems in doubt, others wonder if an agricultural "guest worker"/legalization package could become part of the upcoming debate on the farm bill in the US Senate.

The Center for Immigration Studies has a new report on farm labor in the US. The report's skeptical about the claims of a "labor shortage" in farming. Some key details:

The average farm worker makes $9.06 an hour, compared to $16.75 for non-farm production workers.


Real wages for farm workers increased one-half of one percent (.5 percent) a year on average between 2000 and 2006. If there were a shortage, wages would be rising much more rapidly.


Farm worker earnings have risen more slowly in California and Florida (the states with the most fruit and vegetable production) than in the United States as a whole.


The average household spends only about $1 a day on fresh fruits and vegetables.


Labor costs comprise only 6 percent of the price consumers pay for fresh produce. Thus, if farm wages were allowed to rise 40 percent, and if all the costs were passed on to consumers, the cost to the average household would be only about $8 a year.


Mechanization could offset higher labor costs. After the “Bracero” Mexican guestworker program ended in the mid-1960s, farm worker wages rose 40 percent, but consumer prices rose relatively little because the mechanization of some crops dramatically increased productivity.

I've been hearing that some folks in D.C. are paying attention to what's happening now in Oklahoma: an immigration measure (HB1804) went into effect November 1 and has already survived some legal challenges. Among other things, this bill makes it illegal to knowingly transport one of the "undocumented" (under certain circumstances with some exceptions), requires certain forms of documentation to prove a worker's legal status, and requires proof of legality for access to certain public benefits. The Tulsa World has a page dedicated to this bill and the public debate over it. Some reports indicate that "thousands" may have fled even before this law took effect, and certain business claim that they are already beginning to notice "shortages" of "illegal" workers. Some of the employer-verification requirements will go into effect July 1, 2008.

The Washington Post reports on how Democratic candidates for president may find themselves forced to speak in more depth about immigration policy, and the Post thinks that such speech could present some challenges for them.

Has there been a (minuscule) shift in public opinion? According to Rasmussen, Giuliani and Thompson are now tied with Obama in polling support--this is the highest Thompson has so far scored against Obama. Meanwhile, some on the right are sharpening their knives after Clinton's recent debate answer about supplying licenses to the "undocumented."

James Carville's Democracy Corps has a new polling report up that touches upon what the public feels discontent about--and it has some interesting statistics the role of "illegal immigration" and trade policy in the public's anxiety (see pages 7-13). (Via Yglesias, who thinks public unrest over "illegal immigration" is founded upon an "erroneous conviction" and, he implies, xenophobia as well.)

Hot Air has an interesting clip up from the recent Democratic presidential debate; it seems people are still trying to figure out where Hillary Clinton ultimately stands on NY Gov. Spitzer (D)'s plan to grant driver's licenses to the "undocumented." She sounds like she's basically in favor of it--though she seems to be avoiding endorsing it explicitly. Chris Dodd sounds like he opposes plans to offer such licenses to the "undocumented." Barack Obama seems to think that granting licenses is the "right idea":

Obama: I think that it is the right idea, and I disagree with Chris because there is a public safety concern. We can make sure that drivers who are illegal come out of the shadows, that they can be tracked, that they are properly trained, and that will make our roads safer.

That doesn't negate the need for us to reform illegal immigration.

Rudy Giuliani doesn't sound like he likes local and state governments making provisions to enforce immigration laws--and doesn't sound too keen on workplace enforcement, either (e.a.):

WASHINGTON - Responsibility for stopping illegal immigration belongs to the federal government and not to cities, states or businesses, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said Tuesday.

Giuliani told small-business owners he would not punish them for unwittingly hiring illegal immigrants.

Federal officials are "trying to put the responsibility for this on employers, on city government, on state government," the former New York mayor said during a conference call arranged by the National Federation of Independent Businesses.

"The simple fact is, nobody but the federal government can stop people from coming into this country illegally, and the federal government does a very bad job of that," Giuliani said.

He said no other presidential candidate will solve the problem.

"If you elect a Democrat, they're just going to open the borders, and more illegals are going to come in," he said.

"And if you elect one of my (Republican) opponents, they want to crack down on cities and states, and they want to crack down on businesses, but they don't want to solve the problem," he said. "If I become president, in a very short while, you will not be able to walk into the United States without identifying yourselves."

Giuliani says he would build a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border that includes high-tech monitoring to detect those trying to enter the U.S. illegally. He also calls for hiring more border patrol agents.

Legal immigrants should be issued a tamper-proof, federal identification card, he said, "and if something is wrong with that card, it's the federal government's responsibility, not yours."

He seems to be emphasizing border enforcement above all.

Sen. Chambliss (R-GA) still sounds like he could be vulnerable to a Democratic challenger. One recent poll puts his approval rating at 52%, and another poll might have an especially troubling result for the incumbent:

An InsiderAdvantage / Majority Opinion survey conducted Oct. 24-25 of 400 registered voters in Georgia indicates that a rematch of U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss versus former Sen. Max Cleland, who lost to Chambliss in 2002, might be the Democratic Party’s strongest hope for reclaiming the Senate seat.

The poll asked voters which candidate they favored if given a choice between Chambliss and Cleland.

The results:

Chambliss - 36 percent
Cleland - 24 percent
Undecided - 40 percent

The survey showed some interesting numbers, said InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery, noting that while white voters were decided at a rate of nearly 71 percent, African-American voters were undecided at a rate of 73 percent. Similarly, he said, 73 percent of all Republicans were decided, with Chambliss receiving almost all of that vote, while 47 percent of Democrats remained undecided.

Chambliss still leads Cleland by 12 points--but, with 40% undecided, a lot could change.

More doubts are being raised about Spitzer's plan for licenses in NY--even some who might be newly eligible for licensing as a result of this proposal are saying that they might refuse to apply for licenses, saying that they fear that they might be singled out for discrimination.

It seems as though some administration-backed trade agreements are encountering some resistance in Congress.

Rasmussen suggests that the DREAM Act isn't very popular:

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that only 22% of voters support the proposal introduced by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). The Dream Act would have given legal status to children of illegal aliens who complete two years of college or military service. That low level of support is very similar to support for the “comprehensive” reform measure that failed in June.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of all voters oppose the Dream Act concept. Republicans oppose it by a 5-to-1 margin and unaffiliateds are opposed by a 3-to-1 margin. Democrats are a bit more evenly divided—49% opposed and 31% in favor—but Nancy Pelosi’s party certainly doesn’t provide a base of support for the Dream Act.

The fight over driver's licenses for the "undocumented" in New York seems to be heating up. The state Senate has passed a bill requiring Social Security numbers on applications for licenses. Many doubt that the (Democrat-controlled) state Assembly will support this bill. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is saying some positive things about Spitzer's plan to grant licenses to the "undocumented." And some NY county clerks say they'll report "undocumented" applicants for licenses to the authorities.
UPDATE: Homeland Security and Spitzer seem to have negotiated a "deal" on licensing standards, leading to three types of licenses: "enhanced," REAL-ID compliant, and a type for the "undocumented."

In a his recent (Drudge-pushed) column, Pat Buchanan laments the "conservative Tower of Babel":

Now, 15 years later, what does it mean to be a conservative?

There is no pope who speaks ex cathedra. There is no bible to consult, like Goldwater's "The Conscience of a Conservative" or Reagan's "no-pale-pastels" platform of 1980. At San Diego in 1996, Bob Dole told his convention he had not bothered to read the platform. Many who heard him did not bother to vote for Bob Dole.

And so, today, the once-great house of conservatism is a Tower of Babel. We are big government and small government, traditionalist and libertarian, tax-cutter and budget hawk, free trader and economic nationalist.

Though Buchanan has a flair for pessimism, is such a conflict of ideas necessarily bad for conservatism (or any other political philosophy)? Political coalitions and political schools of thought seem to me usually to be having some internal debates, and, sometimes, at moments of heightened electoral change, these debates can widen into more heated divisions. (I also wonder if political "conservatism" was as unified or as certain in the past as Buchanan makes it out to be.)

Conflict between groups in a party can (though, perhaps, not necessarily) ultimately lead to a stronger party as a whole. It seems as though some significant choices are facing conservatism and the Republican party; because these choices are significant, it's likely that there will be some debate over them. But it also seems as though there are some significant choices for the Democratic party as well: Obama, Edwards, and Clinton all seem to have different approaches to executive power and the role of federal government intervention. This time of conflict can offer political opportunities to both parties--depending on what choices they make (to be totally bland).

UPDATE: And, of course, Buchanan has certain choices he would like the Republicans to make.

This doesn't sound like a very good PR move.

The WSJ reports that, with tightened border security and an estimated overall decrease in border crossings, more of the "undocumented" who wish to cross are paying more to do so--sometimes to drug-running gangs.

While some growers are clamoring for more foreign-born workers, Krikorian draws attention to a point where it seems as though Acting Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner has said that the Bush administration will oppose AgJOBS, a legalization/guest worker plan.

Fighting for Citizenship: Max Boot, a McCain adviser, thinks the Secretary of Defense should offer US citizenship to anyone willing to serve in the US military--and he says this policy would not even need further Congressional authorization (e.a.):

I think this [the DREAM Act] a good piece of legislation that takes a major step toward one of my dreams: to offer American citizenship to anyone anywhere in the world willing to serve in the American armed forces. This would vastly broaden our recruiting base, allowing the armed forces to sign up all sorts of talented people who are currently prohibited from joining. They would, of course, have to pass background investigations and meet all existing criteria for military service, including English-language proficiency.

I’ve been advocating this idea for several years, and even though it’s not currently possible, I’ve gotten emails from Canadians, Chinese, Dutch, and other foreigners wanting to sign up for our armed forces. All it would take to make their dreams a reality would be for the Secretary of Defense to certify that enlisting them is in the national interest. Legislation isn’t required, although that’s another way this objective could be achieved.

Boot proposes the idea of a "freedom legion" completely comprised of foreigner-soldiers:

I have also suggested that we might want to have a Freedom Legion modeled on the French Foreign Legion, whose enlisted ranks would be composed entirely of foreigners but which would be led by American officers and NCOs. Such a Freedom Legion could be very useful for integrating the sort of language and linguistic skills lacking in our military, and it could be used for longterm garrison duty in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

This Boston Globe story has more on the debate about actively recruiting non-citizens to serve in the US military.
As I mentioned above, Boot's advising McCain on foreign policy--and McCain conveniently missed the vote on the DREAM Act even though he was there to vote on the Southwick nomination barely an hour before. Do Boot's views reflect McCain's on foreign military service?

This Politico story draws attention to the bi-partisan nature of the opposition to the DREAM Act and other steps toward immigration "reform." It wonders about AgJOBS--which some may try to attach to the upcoming agriculture bill.

Will Rep. Rangel (D-NY)'s proposed corporate tax bill weaken tax incentives for domestic manufacturing? Even as this bill seems likely to reduce corporate tax rates across the board (from 35% to 30.5%), it would in part make up for this reduction be eliminating a deduction for domestic manufacturing:

Manufacturing companies, for example, would lose a deduction for domestic production that now reduces their tax rate on manufacturing income to 32%. But the lower corporate tax rate would be attractive and would apply to all income.

So it looks like Rangel's plan would reduce the overall tax rate on domestic manufacturers, but it would not reduce it (and would in fact increase it) relative to other corporate taxes. So it seems like this new plan would offer one fewer incentive for corporations to manufacture in the US (under Rangel's plan, the corp. would be taxed the same whether it manufactured in the US or in another country).

The Bush administration has come out against the DREAM Act. A few key paragraphs from its announcement:

The Administration continues to believe that the Nation’s broken immigration system requires comprehensive reform. This reform should include strong border and interior enforcement, a temporary worker program, a program to bring the millions of undocumented aliens out of the shadows without amnesty and without animosity, and assistance that helps newcomers assimilate into American society. Unless it provides additional authorities in all of these areas, Congress
will do little more than perpetuate the unfortunate status quo.
The Administration is sympathetic to the position of young people who were brought here illegally as children and have come to know the United States as home. Any resolution of their status, however, must be careful not to provide incentives for recurrence of the illegal conduct that has brought the Nation to this point. By creating a special path to citizenship that is unavailable to other prospective immigrants—including young people whose parents respected the Nation’s immigration laws—S. 2205 falls short. The Administration therefore opposes the
bill.

[...]
The open-ended nature of S. 2205 is objectionable and will inevitably lead to large-scale document fraud. The path to citizenship remains open for decades, thus creating a strong temptation for future illegal aliens to purchase fraudulent documents on a burgeoning black market. Moreover, the bill’s confidentiality provisions are drawn straight from the 1986 amnesty law and will provide the same haven for fraud and criminality as that law did.
Immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people—and of this Administration—but it needs to be addressed in a comprehensive and balanced way that avoids creating incentives for problems in the future.

Tally so far (will be updated--so refresh):

Interesting supporters of cloture: Hutchison, Webb, Collins, Martinez, Brownback, Bennett, Coleman, Craig, Domenici (?)

Interesting opponents: Byrd, Voinovich, Stevens, Dorgan, Gregg, Tester, Murkowski, Conrad, Specter, Graham, Warner; Domenici switches?

These votes are flying everywhere! But (as of 12:50 EST), cloture seems to be fighting uphill...

Cloture fails 52-44

UPDATE: Those who are interested can check out some excerpts from the Bush administration's statement against the DREAM Act here.

Hutchison (R-TX) sounds like she's going to support cloture on introducing this measure; Specter (R-PA) sounds like he'll be against cloture. Specter is still pressing for "comprehensive reform" and says he is skeptical about piecemeal reform (such as the DREAM Act passed alone).

The debate on introducing the DREAM Act has now started.

The Politico reports on some possible tensions between "Blue Dogs" and Congressional Democratic leadership; a number of Blue Dogs haven't given much money to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Now, is this a sign of real tensions or the attempt to make the Blue Dogs seem more independent in case they run into a tougher re-election races in 2008? Both?

A report claims that Bush's growth in discretionary spending in the first 6 years of his administration eclipses even that of LBJ: 5.3%/year vs. 4.6%/year. Of course, there can also be growth in non-discretionary programs (or even the creation of them) such as Social Security or Medicare, so those numbers might not tell the whole story about growth in government spending over an administration--but, then, Bush may have increased some of that spending, too.

It sounds as though, at the moment, the Southwick debate will probably go on until 11AM EST or so; then, it's expected that DREAM will be considered.

Text of the DREAM Act here.

The Center for Immigration Studies has just released some new numbers about the present DREAM Act; the Center estimates that up to or over 2.1 million individuals could be legalized under DREAM (e.a.):

# An estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants under age 17 have been here long enough to qualify for legalization under the DREAM Act. There are a total of 1.7 million illegal aliens estimated to be under age 17.

# There are an estimated 900,000 parents of illegal aliens under age 17 who qualify. It is unclear whether the government would deport these parents.

# The DREAM Act is also unclear as to what will happen to the siblings of legalized illegals who are themselves illegal, but do not meet the Act’s requirements. There are an estimated 500,000 of these siblings.

# The DREAM Act also allows illegal aliens ages 18 to 29 to legalize if they claim to have arrived prior to age 16. We estimate 1.3 million meet this requirement. There are a total of 4.4 million illegal aliens in this age group.

# Thus the total number of potential amnesty beneficiaries is 2.1 million (assuming no fraud). This does not include 1.4 million siblings and parents of qualifying illegals who may end up receiving a de facto amnesty.

# Prior legalization programs have been plagued by fraud. One-fourth (700,000) of those legalized in the 1986 amnesty are estimated to have done so fraudulently.

A note on this study's methodology:

Methodology: These estimates are based on a Center for Immigration Studies analysis of the March 2007 Current Population Survey (CPS) collected by the Census Bureau. No estimate is definitive, of course, but the Urban Institute, the Pew Hispanic Center, and the INS have all used the March CPS to estimate the size of the illegal population. We estimated that the survey included more than 11 million illegals in 2007. This is entirely consistent with prior research. The above numbers do NOT include those illegal aliens missed by the Census Bureau’s survey. The Department of Homeland Security and other researchers have estimated that 10 percent of illegals are likely missed in Census Bureau surveys of this kind. Thus, the actual number of potential beneficiaries is almost certainly higher than the numbers discussed above.

The Hill wonders if moving on to consider the DREAM Act in the Senate could open the door to a more wide-ranging debate on immigration:

If the supporters reach the 60 votes needed to proceed to the Dream Act, it could become a vehicle for other competing amendments and reignite debate on a comprehensive overhaul of immigration policies, which the Senate rejected by a 46-53 vote in June. A similar situation could occur with the so-called agriculture jobs measure.

This story says, though, that sections of the Democratic leadership (Durbin) say they want to keep debate on this bill "focused"--will other members of the Senate oblige them?

So who could be on the fence about the DREAM Act? A pro-DREAM group is urging its members to call the following senators:

Cornyn, John- (R - TX) (202) 224-2934
Hutchison, Kay Bailey- (R - TX) (202) 224-5922
Thad Cochran (202) 224- 5054
Norm Coleman(202) 224-5641
John Sununu (202) 224-2841
Olympia Snowe (202) 224-5344
Jon Tester (202) 224-2644
Richard Burr (202) 224-3154
John Warner (202) 224-2023
Lindsey Graham (202) 224-5972
Judd Gregg (202) 224-3324
Chuck Grassley (202) 224-3744
Tim Johnson (202) 224-5842
Robert Byrd (202) 224-3954
Byron Dorgan (202) 224-2551
Pete Domenici (202) 224-6621
Max Baucus (202) 224-2651
Larry Craig (202) 224-2752
Ted Stevens (202) 224-3004
George Voinovich (202) 224-3353
Lisa Murkowski (202) 224-6665
Claire McCaskill (202) 224-6154
Benjamin Nelson (202) 224-6551
John Barrasso (202) - 224-6441
Susan Collins (202) 224-2523
Crapo (202) 224-6142
Bennet (202) 224-5444
Martinez (202) 224-3041
Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] - (202) 224-6521
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] - (202) 224-5824
Sen Ensign (202) 224-6244

It excludes both (very) likely opponents (e.g. Sessions) and supporters (e.g. Durbin) of the DREAM Act, so this may give some hint of where the undecided senators are. Is this list reliable?

UPDATE 10/23: Could this vote on the filibuster be pretty close? According to one news source, Durbin's trying to sound confident:

Durbin said that the vote tally was “somewhere in the mid 50’s” and that Republican support was growing “by the minute.”

There are a lot of minutes until Wednesday. 60 votes are needed to override a filibuster. Durbin is probably playing the expectations game, but that game doesn't always work out: a lot of folks were confident the "grand bargain" would pass the Senate in June, and it didn't. So this probably isn't decided one way or another yet--but I could be wrong.

(Via Malkin) Cornyn's office has released a statement saying that he'll vote against the motion to proceed to the DREAM Act tomorrow.

NumbersUSA lists the following 21 senators as being confirmed against the DREAM:

Alabama: Sessions; Shelby
Arizona: Kyl [[UPDATE 10/24]]
Colorado: Allard
Georgia: Chambliss; Isakson
Kansas: Roberts
Kentucky: Bunning; McConnell
Louisiana: Vitter
Mississippi: Lott
Missouri: Bond
North Carolina: Burr; Dole
Oklahoma: Coburn; Inhofe
South Carolina: DeMint
South Dakota: Thune
Tennessee: Alexander; Corker
Texas: Cornyn [[UPDATE 10/24]]
Wyoming: Barrasso; Enzi

It has this breakdown of other senators ("red" means declared supporters of DREAM and "green" means that these senators' offices "are consistently telling their constituents that they will vote NO on the amnesty [i.e. DREAM] . But they have declined to pledge a NO vote to NumbersUSA staff"):

California: Boxer 224-3553; Feinstein 224-3841
Colorado: Salazar 224-5852
Connecticut: Dodd 224-2823; Lieberman 224-4041
Florida: Martinez 224-3041; Nelson (Bill) 224-5274
Illinois: Durbin 224-2152; Obama 224-2854
Louisiana: Landrieu 224-5824
Maryland: Cardin 224-4524; Mikulski 224-4654
Montana: Baucus 224-2651; Tester 224-2644
Nebraska: Hagel 224-4224; Nelson (Ben) 224-6551
New Hampshire: Gregg 224-3324; Sununu 224-2841
New Jersey: Lautenberg 224-3224; Menendez 224-4744
South Carolina: Graham 224-5972
Utah: Bennett 224-5444; Hatch 224-5251

If all those in "green" vote as their offices are telling their constituents, and everything else stays the same, it looks like opponents of DREAM may have at least 26 [[UPDATE: 27]] votes (21 confirmed + Cornyn + 4 greens). A lot of senators who ultimately did not support the "grand bargain" sound officially undecided, so there could be a lot of play. Who could be some crucial swings? I might guess: McCaskill (D-MO), Coleman (R-MN), Byrd (D-WV), Murkowski (R-AL), Hutchison (R-TX), Collins (R-ME), Grassley (R-IA), Bingaman (D-NM), Dorgan (D-ND), Baucus (D-MT) (if Tester's really going to oppose cloture), Pryor (D-AR). Maybe?

UPDATE: A source tells John Hawkins that McConnell and R leadership in the Senate really want to keep the vote margin under 60. His sources also don't quite know how the vote count stands at the moment....

UPDATE 10/24: NumbersUSA now has Kyl (R-AZ) as declared against the DREAM, so opponents now may have at least 27 votes.
Malkin draws attention to this detail in a USA Today story:

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the legislation's chief sponsor, said Tuesday that his biggest challenge was ensuring that supporters, including five senators — four Democrats and one Republican — running for president, make it to the Capitol for the roll call.

Another question mark: Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, who are trying to return to California to review wildfire damage.

UPDATE: I'm keeping a running tally here.

Fred Thompson is planning on announcing some details of an immigration policy.
UPDATE: Thompson announces.

NumbersUSA reports that the DREAM Act may be coming back (emphasis added):

Last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) filed to invoke cloture on a motion to use Senate Rule XIV to bring S. 2205, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin’s (D-Ill.) new stand-alone DREAM Act amnesty bill, to the Senate floor without ever having been debated in committee. The cloture vote, for which 60 YES votes are necessary to prevent a filibuster on the measure, is set for Wednesday, October 24.

It sounds like some NY Democrats are unhappy with some of Gov. Spitzer (D)'s plans (especially for providing the "undocumented" with driver's licenses):

Top Democrats fear that Gov. Spitzer's controversial plan to grant driver's licenses to illegal aliens has endangered their party's candidates across the state -- and even threatens the presidential prospects of Hillary Rodham Clinton, The Post has learned.

A half-dozen senior Democrats told The Post that Spitzer's licensing plan is producing what one called "a mass exodus" away from the party's candidates that may lead to unexpected losses in November's local elections.

They are also warning that growing voter unhappiness with Spitzer on the licensing and other issues - illustrated in several recent polls - could carry into next year and end the Democrats' hope of winning control of the GOP-dominated state Senate.

So is this just some behind-the-scenes fighting between various factions of the NY Democratic party, or/and is there some merit to what these "senior Democrats" are warning about? (Certainly, Spitzer's approval rating has dropped from 60% to 47% over the last few months, and many New Yorkers--over 70%--don't sound happy with his plan.) Some say Sen. Clinton will be forced to reject Spitzer's plan for electoral reasons. Will she?

Does "unplanted cucumbers"=crop rot epidemic? Kaus wonders...

Get manly. (Even if Derb thinks it's immature...)

CQ reports on how Congress is very likely to pass a measure that would place limits on presidential power to take control of the National Guard--rescinding a 2006 law and returning to 200 years of precedent for limitations on executive use of the military to enforce local laws:

The original law, in place for nearly 200 years, was called the Insurrection Act. It allowed the president to deploy regular or Guard troops for police duties whenever laws were not being enforced or the rights of a class of people are being denied because of “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy.”

The 2006 revision describes basically the same state of chaos that might trigger the presidential power. But the circumstances that lead to the unrest are more numerous. They include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident or other condition.”

Critics — including the co-chairmen of the Senate National Guard Caucus, Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., and Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo. — said the new law shifted the burden of legal proof onto anyone who would stand in the way of a president grabbing control of the military for domestic police activities.

However, there's some debate about another passage in the new bill about "new procedures for the control of National Guard and active-duty troops during domestic emergencies."

The Politico comments on the election of Bobby Jindal (R) as governor of Louisiana.

GM seems to have edged out Toyota's sales numbers for the third quarter (and for the year so far).

In NY state, there's some pushback against Gov. Spitzer (D)'s plan to offer driver's licenses to the "undocumented":

John F. Lehman, a former Navy secretary who served on the September 11 commission, called the governor's decree "absurd."

"It's a perfect formula for al Qaeda. They won't be able to resist it. They will be able to come to New York," he said. "It's going to become a magnet to lawbreakers because the surrounding states will adhere to the federal standards."

Critics say the credibility of a New York driver's license could be called into question in other states, because applicants would not be required to prove that they have a Social Security number.

The issue began in July 2006, when an appeals court ruled that the state could have wider latitude in issuing driver's licenses. Republican Gov. George E. Pataki decreed that immigrants would need to prove they were in the United States legally before getting licenses. During the gubernatorial campaign, Mr. Spitzer vowed to change that. With the Republican-led Senate adamantly opposed to any change, the governor bypassed the Legislature by issuing an executive order.

The plan is supposed to go into effect in December, but the Senate's Republican majority has pledged to override Mr. Spitzer's order in an emergency session Oct. 22.

The public is opposed to Mr. Spitzer's plan as well, a recent poll shows.

A Zogby survey of 718 likely voters in New York found that 65 percent of the state's voters are against the proposal. The poll, taken Oct. 11-15, showed that nearly half — 47 percent — of Democrats oppose the plan, compared with 92 percent of Republicans.

The Washington Times reports on some of the changes and challenges facing the IMF and World Back with the growth of the financial holdings of the PRC, Russia, and South Korea.

This morning and yesterday, the folks over at the Corner had a fierce debate about immigration. Highlights include Mark Krikorian saying that immigration is incompatible with modern society and John Podhoretz declaring that restrictions on immigration are really "tariffs." As Instapundit says, just keep scrolling.

Made in China: the steel of the US/Mexico border fence. (or at least some of the steel...)

Members of Congress are demanding an investigation of the contagious TB border-crosser and Homeland Security's/Center for Disease Control's response to the matter. Some reporters at the Washington Times are already hinting at that dreaded Washington specter: cover up.

CNN has a new poll up about racial attitudes toward immigration. Yglesias, Marshall, and others claim that this poll demonstrates that "blacks" are friendlier to ("illegal") immigration than "whites." However, there are a number of polls that would seem to put that claim in doubt. This Pew poll from 2006 shows some of the complexity--and limits--of attempting to assign "racial" approaches to immigration.

Rep. Pence (R-IN) has filed a "discharge petition" for his anti-"Fairness Doctrine" proposal. If this discharge petition is signed by a majority of House members, this measure may be brought to the House floor. Some reports indicate that Pence's office is hoping to get at least "20 or so" Democratic votes and all Republicans; if he can get those numbers, the petition will be successful.

WaPo has the details on a--sometimes contentious--meeting in Prince William County (VA) on local immigration measures. The governing board of PWC votes to move ahead to consider these measures.

The New York Times reports on some of the administration's attempt to increase the number of "guest workers."

David Crosby and the politicization of religion: An interesting moment in the (much-blogged) discussion between Crosby and Chris Matthews on the Iraq war. Crosby says about one of the aims of his "peace" concert:

Crosby: ...it's a call to America's churches to be a leader to their flock and to stick up for their flock. If the--if the--people in America are against the war, then the churches of America need to get in line and stand up for what we believe in.

So isn't Crosby saying that the opinion of various religious leaders should be driven only by public opinion? Even as Matthews and Nash seem to find it "odd" to pray for soldiers going into battle, Crosby seems to have no problem with religious officials engaging into political debates--and having their own approaches directed by popular political opinion.

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.