Malkin has some more details from Numbers USA about the Ag-Jobs amendment to the Iraq supplemental:

Rosemary Jenks (our Vice President, Government Relations) just called me after finishing reading the Iraq supplemental spending bill as it came out of committee. It would:

# Grant a three-year work visa followed by a permanent greencard to all illegal aliens who have been working as shepherds, goat herders and dairy herders.

# Grant a five-year work visa to the estimated 1.3 million illegal aliens working in other agricultural jobs — plus all of their families. There is no instruction on what happens after the five years.

# Grant a tripling of the maximum number of H-2B visas for lower skill, non-agricultural seasonal workers.

# Grant industries an extra 218,000 additional permanent green cards for skilled foreign workers.

Right now, it looks like the full Senate might be voting on this supplemental around Wednesday. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) may be offering an amendment in the full Senate to strike this Ag-Jobs language.

Numbers USA is warning that Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) may be planning on trying to tack an agricultural worker "amnesty" onto the current Iraq funding supplemental.

UPDATE: Feinstein's amendment has been adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee 17-12. The Hill has some details:

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday added to an Iraq spending bill a controversial provision to help pave the way for undocumented agriculture workers to win legal status, a move that may reopen the divisive immigration debate on the Senate floor.
The so-called Ag-Jobs amendment, sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho), would create a process that allows undocumented workers to continue to work on farms. Without the amendment, Feinstein warned that the U.S. would lose $5-9 billion to foreign competition, tens of thousands of farms would shut down and 80,000 workers would be transferred to Mexico. The bill would sunset in five years.

Critics are denouncing this measure as "amnesty."
Numbers USA's offering some more details about this and other immigration-related amendments:

The copy of the amendment obtained by NumbersUSA indicates a maximum of 1.35 million illegal aliens, plus their families, could obtain "emergency agricultural worker status" for a five-year period. However, the amendment also provides for an adjustment of status, which paves the way for permanent legalization. The committee also adopted other immigration-related amendments, including one that drastically expands the H-2B visa program for non-agricultural seasonal workers.

This spending bill still needs to pass the Senate as a whole and then Congress as a whole and be signed. K-Lo's heard from an aide to Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) who says that Vitter will be putting forward an amendment to strike this Ag-Jobs language. A vote could be happening on this appropriations bill soon.
Malkin has some other information here. She also reports on this interesting seperate immigration-reform measure under discussion that may, among other things, seek to preempt local enforcement efforts.

Harold Meyerson assures us that, when Republicans refer to "America," they're really making a bigoted statement. So when John McCain says that he's running to be President of the United States of America, you know that he's really attacking the cultural other. Meyerson outlines two "America"'s (e.a.):

Now, I mean to take nothing away from McCain's Americanness by noting that it's Obama's story that represents a triumph of specifically American identity over racial and religious identity. It was the lure of America, the shining city on a hill, that brought his black Kenyan father here, where he met Obama's white Kansan mother. It is because America is uniquely the land of immigrants and has moved beyond a racial caste system that Obama exists, has thrived and stands a good chance of being our next president.

That's not the America, though, that the Republicans refer to in proclaiming their own Americanness. For them, "American" is a term to be used as a wedge issue, a way to distinguish their more racially and religiously homogeneous party from the historically more polyglot Democrats.

(Never mind the fact that the new Republican governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, is himself the son of immigrants...)

Meyerson also claims that this bigoted appeal is the Republicans' only hope in the fall (since he believes that the voters don't agree and could never agree with Republicans/John McCain on any issue). Notice the neat little narrative sketched by this move: a potential loss by Obama in November would be the triumph of American bigotry! Thus, Obama's electoral victory and the success of American (if I can use the word "American") anti-racism are--conveniently for Meyerson and other Obama supporters--intertwined.

There's another alternative: Republicans could try to persuade Americans about the wisdom of their positions on certain issues. And the American people could even agree with them and vote for Republicans because of this agreement! But Meyerson, it seems, wants to discount the possibility of that debate.

A variety of charges lead to what is called the largest immigration raid in US history in Iowa--over 300 have been detained. A sample of some of the claims:

The Des Moines Register (a Gannett newspaper) reports that according to search warrants unsealed today, federal authorities had received information about alleged immigration violations for the past two years at Agriprocessors Inc. in Postsville. One source, a former plant supervisor, told agents the plant hired foreign nationals from Mexico, Guatemala and Eastern Europe. Around 80% were in the United States illegally, said a supervisor with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The source also reported that some employees were running a methamphetamine lab in the plant and were bringing weapons into the plant, which employs about 1,000. He said he was fired after he told his superiors.

Hendrick Hertzberg has an interesting breakdown of the various ways of calculating the popular vote numbers of Clinton and Obama in the Democratic primary. According to one method, Obama's ahead by about 500,000 votes; according to another, Clinton leads by 121,000. The numbers vary due whether or not Florida and Michigan are counted, whether some caucuses are counted, and how the "uncommitted" votes in Michigan are counted (Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan--only Clinton was--so, even though Clinton won a majority there, there are hundreds of thousands of "uncommitted" voters who may have been favoring Obama). Hertzberg lays out one scenario in which claims about the popular vote could be muddled enough to give Clinton an opening to argue for her popular legitimacy:

I calculate that roughly another four and a half million people will vote in the remaining Democratic primaries. If Clinton wins these by the overall margin she piled up in Pennsylvania—i.e., around ten points, 55-45—she will net another 450,000 votes.

Here’s what that would do to the margins in our eight categories, in the order I’ve discussed them, starting with just the D.N.C.-approved primaries down to the two “corrected” (by me) Michigan-included ones:

Regular primaries:

Obama’s margin: 51,298

Regular + four caucus states:

Obama’s margin: 161,520

Regular + Florida:

Clinton’s margin: 243,474

Regular + Florida + caucuses:

Clinton’s margin: 133,252

Regular + Florida + Michigan:

Clinton’s margin: 571,783

Regular + Florida + Michigan + caucuses:

Clinton’s margin: 461,561

Regular + Florida + Michigan + uncommitted:

Clinton’s margin: 371,783

Regular + Florida + Michigan + caucuses + uncommitted:

Clinton’s margin: 261,561

In other words, Clinton would have a case. Obama would have one, too—he’d still be a little bit ahead in the popular vote according to to the rules everybody agreed upon in advance, and he would definitely be ahead in elected delegates. She would have a popular vote lead in all the count-Florida-and-Michigan categories. But neither candidate could any longer plausibly claim that he or she was unambiguously the people’s choice.

Of course, that presumes she can win by ten points in every state, and a ten-point victory doesn't seem too likely in North Carolina for starters....Based on his speculations, Hertzberg says that, for every point less than ten in Clinton's overall post-PA lead, Obama nets 45,000 votes. Timothy Noah's claiming that any hope of a Clinton win is a "fairy tale," but Hertzberg thinks that there's a possibility of a "rough" popular vote tie (and thinks that the popular vote will matter a lot) and seems to suggest that the race may not be over yet.

Virginia's Prince William County changes some of its policies for last year's immigration-enforcement laws. Now, instead of having police checking the immigration status of all those suspected of a crime, it will check the immigration status of only those arrested for a crime. (H/T Matt Yglesias)

David Freddoso draws attention to a report by scientists that places part of the blame for spiraling food prices on the embrace of food-based biofuels (like ethanol). This report suggests that a moratorium of food-based biofuels could cut corn prices by as much as 20%. A World Bank study has claimed that the 60% rise in corn prices can be traced to the US ethanol program. Some at the White House put a lower rate of influence for the biofuel program.
Lester Brown and Jonathan Lewis, associated with two prominent environmental groups, think that ethanol has provided limited energy benefit and significant environmental damage. They provide this statistic: the US last year "burned about a quarter of its corn supply as fuel," and, for this quarter, saw oil consumption drop by 1%. That's a lot of corn! Transferring corn to ethanol takes a lot of (coal-based) energy, and the extension of corn crops would itself entail certain environmental pressures, so it's unclear how much energy/environmental benefit is derived from ethanol mandates. They urge Congress and other government institutions to withdraw biofuel mandates. President Bush remains a strong supporter of ethanol.

Rather than engaging the main thrust of Michael Hirsh's essay claiming that the US has become a bastion of Southern intolerance, I'll instead make a cheap shot about a detail:

What does seem foreign to us today is the dedication to free thought and, even more, free moral choice that so dominated the correspondence between those two great minds [of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson]. When Jefferson, in his letter of May 5, 1817, condemned the "den of the priesthood" and "protestant popedom" represented by Massachusetts' state-supported church, he was speaking for both of them--the North and South poles of the revolution. Yet John McCain, even with the GOP nomination in hand, would never dare repeat his brave but politically foolhardy condemnation of the religious right in 2000 as "agents of intolerance." Why? Because we have become an intolerant nation, and that's what gets you elected.

Without wanting to take anything away either Jefferson or Adams or their intellectual seriousness, I think Hirsh's comparison is inapt. There's a big difference between a statement written in private correspondence between two ex-presidents (Adams was out of office for over sixteen years and Jefferson for over eight years by the time this letter was written) and a statement given by a presidential candidate on the campaign trail. It certainly wasn't very politically risky for Jefferson to attack Massachusetts religious laws after he'd left the highest executive office in the land (and some might see the "den of the priesthood" comment as not particularly tolerant, either).
And what did McCain say about the "religious right" in 2000? It doesn't sound like he condemned the "religious right" as a whole back then:

Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.

He does call Robertson and Falwell "agents of intolerance," but are they the whole of the "religious right"? Maybe Hirsh thinks they are. Though, to be fair to Hirsh, McCain did reconcile with Falwell and did go to speak at Falwell's Liberty University, so McCain obviously has backtracked from that earlier statement.

TalkLeft has a roundup of polls on the eve of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. Most show a Clinton advantage. According to Drudge, Clinton's own internals seem to put her about 11 points ahead.
UPDATE: Clinton's team is denying the existence of any such internal polls:

"I encourage you to try and get a copy of the poll," Wolfson said, "because no such poll exists." Wolfson called it an "obvious attempt" by someone to boost expectations for Clinton on the eve of the primary vote in the Keystone State.

Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign will try to downplay expectations. And so it goes...

Chris Bowers over at Open Left thinks that Michigan and Florida may be seated at the Democratic convention after all. He lays out the following explanation:

1. Florida and Michigan will have a delegation seated at the convention. Everyone knows this. Howard Dean has said this. As such, pretending that 2,024 is the magic number doesn't make any sense. With Florida and Michigan included, the magic number is 2,208.
2. The Florida Democratic Party will send a delegation with a pledged delegate breakdown of Clinton 105, Obama 67, and Edwards 13 to the credentials committee. This is already a done deal. The Obama campaign has not offered an alternative delegate slate.
3. The Michigan Democratic Party will send a delegation with a pledged delegate breakdown of Clinton 73, Obama 55 to the credentials committee. Not only has the Obama campaign not offered up an alternative slate, it is working to cement the 73-55 delegation

Bowers says that, based on his calculations, Obama will still have a 73-pledged delegate advantage with this seating plan.
Big Tent Democrat at Talk Left wonders, though, if this theory is true, why the Obama campaign isn't more openly talking about admitting Florida and Michigan to the convention.
Some are wondering if the Obama folks are trying to push Clinton out of the race before making any deals about seating the FL and MI convention delegates: that way, it won't really matter whom the delegates support. Bowers says that that 73-delegate margin will be enough of a buffer for Obama unless his campaign is in "freefall" anyway, but, looking at Slate's Delegate Calculator, you can come up with a few (at least remotely plausible scenarios) in which Clinton could significantly eat into that lead in the upcoming primaries.

A series of immigration raids on poultry plants in five states.

Barack Obama offers his view of small-town politics:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The emphasis on economic concerns as a/the key source of divisions in other aspects of governmental policy is a persistent theme in Obama's campaign. His "race speech" in Philadelphia mentions the "middle class squeeze," for example, and presents economic resentments as somehow fueling opposition to affirmative action. Is Obama saying that the only reason small-town Pennsylvanians are "cling[ing] to guns" is because of the loss of manufacturing jobs? Couldn't people actually be worried about protecting the second amendment because they want to protect the second amendment? Though religion can certainly be a source of strength for people in times of trouble, a lot of people are not going to like their religious devotions seemingly explained as deriving from economic bitterness. Some are already reporting that Clinton's and McCain's campaigns are pouncing on this comment, which lumps religion, guns, and xenophobia together in a neat little package of economic resentment.

One wonders what the greater context of these remarks is and how Obama will respond to criticisms of them.

(H/T Ben Smith)

UPDATE: Obama responds. He seems to be implying that his opponents are attacking him as "out of touch" because he said that some people are bitter:

So I made this statement-- so, here’s what rich. Senator Clinton says ‘No, I don’t think that people are bitter in Pennsylvania. You know, I think Barack’s being condescending.’ John McCain says, ‘Oh, how could he say that? How could he say people are bitter? You know, he’s obviously out of touch with people.’

But it seems that both McCain's and Clinton's attacks as well as a lot of web writers are focusing not on his claim of the existence of bitterness but his claim about people "cling[ing] to guns or religion" due to this bitterness and his association of guns and religion with xenophobia.
Obama's people are now trying to shift attention away from these comments by attacking McCain. For its part, McCain's camp is pushing back:

Only an elitist would say that people vote their values only out of frustration. Barack Obama thinks he knows your hopes and fears better than you do. You can’t be more out of touch than that.

The Wall Street Journal reports that federal agents believe that the number of unauthorized border crossings is down:

The Border Patrol and some experts say tougher measures and a greater number of agents on the ground are discouraging border crossings from Mexico. Experts also cite tougher state laws, particularly in Arizona. Economists and others point to another key influence: the state of the U.S. economy, in particular the ailing housing industry.

Border apprehensions in the Yuma sector of Arizona--which passed an employer-enforcement measure last year--have fallen 76%.

"Comprehensive reform" returns? Over at the Washington Post, some hints of a potential return of a debate on "comprehensive immigration reform." The details are pretty spotty, but here are a few:

Earlier this week Rep. Xavier Becerra (Calif.), a Democratic point man on the immigration issue, convened a meeting with several of his party's key members to gauge whether a deal is attainable. Becerra was wary of divulging any details of the meeting to Capitol Briefing, saying: "Conversations continue in the effort to try to find a bipartisan compromise that can not just pass the House but also get through the Senate."

Much of the current action focuses on two House bills that are the subjects of discharge petitions, which can force measures onto the chamber floor if they get signatures from 218 members.

The first bill, authored by Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), is called the SAVE Act and is strictly concerned with tougher border enforcement and employee verification. The bill has a bipartisan list of 149 cosponsors, and the discharge petition to bring it to the floor had 185 signatures as of Tuesday, nearly all of them from Republicans.

The second key measure is one sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) that would allow visas for more seasonal workers, a key priority for the agriculture industry. That discharge petition only has 14 signatures, but the idea has a fair amount of bipartisan support.

The presidential campaign may be clouding the picture. Both Shuler and Stupak have alleged that Republicans are preventing action on their bills because Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a strong supporter of last year's effort to get a comprehensive measure, doesn't want to risk further alienating the GOP base during his White House bid. Republicans have strongly denied those charges.

The Post offers this handy equation:

Border enforcement + high-tech worker visas + seasonal worker visas + legalization of undocumented workers = compromise bill

(H/T: Kaus)

A new employer-enforcement measure is being considered by the South Carolina state legislature. This measure requires employers to variously certify the legal status of their employees and allows for South Carolina municipalities to pass their own enforcement rules:

The House and Senate offered competing proposals and members of both chambers had to work out the differences using a conference committee.

Under the compromise, public agencies and businesses with public contracts would have to check employees' legal status with a driver's license or a federal Internet-based program. Private businesses could use a third option, the federal Employment Eligibility Verification form - commonly called the I-9 - to verify that employees are authorized to work in the country.

Critics argue the form spurs illegal immigration because federal law doesn't require verification of the documents used to complete it.

Sanford and others have claimed this third method will allow illegal workers to get away with using fake documents. Sen. Jim Ritchie, head of the conference committee, believes their worries are addressed by part of the compromise that says any business owner who knowingly hires an illegal immigrant could be charged with filing a false statement, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

Also under the compromise, local governments could pass immigration laws as long as they don't violate federal law or conflict with state law.

Some rough poll numbers for Clinton are coming in. A North Carolina poll has her 18 points behind Obama (54-36), which is a slight improvement from the last poll from the same organization (in which Obama led 55-34). Rasmussen now has her Pennsylvania lead down to 5 points, 47-42.
But this poll may give her and her supporters a glimmer of hope: in Kentucky (which votes on 5/20), she has a nearly 30-point lead over Obama, 58-29. But Kentucky's a while away....

Supporters of the SAVE Act, an immigration-enforcement measure sponsored by Representatives Ben Bilbray (R-CA) and Heath Shuler (D-NC), are currently trying to bring the measure to the House floor via a discharge petition, which goes into effect when it acquires 218 signatures. There are currently 181 members in support of it. This bill has bi-partisan backing (49 House Democrats are co-sponsors), but, so far, only 9 Democrats have signed on. If those 40 other Democratic co-sponsors signed the petition, the measure would clear the 218-member threshold. But Democratic leadership is hostile to having a vote on this measure, fearing its political consequences. This Roll Call story (hidden by subscription wall) has more on the political pressures being exerted both ways. (NumbersUSA has a breakdown of Congressional support for the SAVE Act.)

Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi may not be the only one skeptical about this measure. Shuler has recently said that John McCain's been phoning Republicans and telling them not to sign on to the discharge petition; McCain's staff denies it. Krikorian's doubtful about this denial. Hot Air lays out some of the reasons why McCain may be keen on stopping the bill from getting to the floor but also wonders if Shuler's just trying to cause trouble for Republicans.

Shuler may be overemphasizing McCain's (purported) influence a little here. There are currently 198 GOP House members; 172 have signed it, so about 87% of the GOP caucus has already signed on, and some of that outstanding 13% is probably opposed to the SAVE Act even without McCain's (supposed) intervention. Even if 100% of the GOP House signed on, the discharge petition would still need support from 20 Democrats--11 more than currently support it. Granted, maybe if some more Republicans signed on, Shuler might be able to convince a few fence-sitting Democrats to switch. In any case, the petition needs 37 more signatures and will certainly need more support from Democrats to go into effect.

Rhode Island governor Don Carcieri (R) plans to roll out some new immigration enforcement policies. Carcieri's plans would seem to include pressure on employers of the "undocumented":

Gov. Don Carcieri plans to sign an executive order Thursday forcing prison officials and state police to identify illegal immigrants in state custody and requiring that state agencies take other steps to penalize immigration violators, a lawmaker said Wednesday.

[...]

Carcieri has also been considering proposals that would affect employers.

A Carcieri staffer recently told Rep. Jon Brien that the governor planned to sign an executive order forcing state agencies and contractors to verify the legal status of their workers, Brien said. The Democratic lawmaker had asked Carcieri to support a bill requiring private employers to do the same.

"By cracking down on the employer, you're basically saying if you want to work in Rhode Island, that's fine," Brien said. "But you have to do it legally."

Brien's proposal is one among many introduced by Rhode Island lawmakers this year that deal with illegal immigration. One would make it a crime for state workers to issue state ID cards to illegal immigrants; kick illegal immigrants off public assistance programs; make it illegal to transport or harbor illegal immigrants; and require law enforcement to notify federal authorities any time they arrest a suspected illegal immigrant.

The Democratic race gets nastier as Clinton and Obama ratchet up their rhetoric against one another. Clinton keeps emphasizing Obama's resistance to having re-votes in Florida and Michigan; Obama's camp lashes out at Clinton as a "deeply flawed nominee."

The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF) has launched a new website, Truth in Immigration, which aims to counter "anti-immigrant" sentiment. One post discussing Lou Dobbs on this new site focuses on types of speech that it says the First Amendment does not protect:

The First Amendment also does not protect speakers from liability for the foreseeable consequences of their speech. In cases where speakers encourage their audience to commit certain illegal or inherently dangerous acts, liability may rest with speakers and the forums that they use.

For example, in 1975, in Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. 539 P.2d 36, the Supreme Court of California held that a radio station was legally liable for holding a broadcast contest that inspired listeners to drive recklessly. Two listeners, in their pursuit of a radio station vehicle that held a reward, negligently forced a car off the road, killing the driver. The Supreme Court of California affirmed a jury’s verdict that the radio station was liable for negligence for the “foreseeable results of a broadcast which created an undue risk of harm . . . .” Weirum, 539 P.2d at 43-45.

When a statement that creates a foreseeable risk of harm is broadcasted, therefore, the First Amendment does not protect the speakers and broadcasters from the consequences of their speech. Speakers and broadcasters who incite violence against immigrants and/or Latinos, for example, may be legally required to make injured parties whole through financial or other means.

So could MALDEF be implying that it would attempt to sue Dobbs and others if an "anti-immigrant" crime is committed and charge him as in some ways encouraging this violence? This could also be a threat to the networks (MALDEF mentions later that no one has a First Amendment right to have a show on a network) that they could be in the lawsuit crosshairs as well.

The Indiana employer-enforcement immigration bill failed last week. It could not clear conference committee in time for the deadline for legislation to be signed by the governor. Both branches of the Indiana legislature backed it with substantial support. Blame abounds:

Indiana's proposal died late Thursday when a House and Senate conference committee could not agree on provisions of the proposal -- which originally called for the Indiana State Police to enforce federal immigration law and would have made it a crime to conceal or harbor an illegal immigrant for profit.

A last-ditch attempt Friday to resurrect the legislation failed when Sen. Thomas K. Weatherwax, R-Logansport, and Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, refused to sign off on a proposed compromise.

But its advocates think the bill's fate was sealed by the House leadership, which did not appoint its conferees for more than a week, delaying action on the bill.

Others say Senate leadership can take some of the blame for appointing a chairman, Weatherwax, who was not a supporter.

Along with a news report in which McCain warns GOP candidates about their rhetoric about ("illegal") immigration, Mickey Kaus notes an interview McCain's given to Hannity in which he again does not explicitly say he would veto a McCain-Kennedy-style immigration bill if it came to his desk as president and places his faith in the border state governors to testify that the border is "secure" (presumably before some "comprehensive" reform can be initiated). Kaus thinks that McCain's using a "gimmick designed to let him shift to pushing for an illegal immigrant legalization bill shortly after he's actually elected."
McCain seems to be sharpening his tongue against GOP dissent from his position on immigration. In his warning to the candidates, he claims that Jim Oberweis in his (failed) effort to replace former Speaker Hastert embraced "very strong anti-immigrant rhetoric." In his campaign website's discussion of border security, Oberweis says that "America is a land of, by, and for immigrants."

Conferees have been named for the Indiana employer-enforcement bill, so the measure survives for now.

Obama wins Mississippi about 60-38.

Readers may remember an immigration employer-enforcement bill passing the Indiana House a few weeks ago. A version has also passed the state Senate. But this measure may never make it beyond the legislature: the House has not yet appointed conferees for the conference report session that must take place before it can go forward. The legislative session ends on Friday and, without a report by then, this measure could be headed toward what one report calls a "legislative graveyard." Many speculate that this refusal to appoint conferees may be a behind-the-scenes attempt to kill the bill. It seems as though action on appointing a conference committee will, at the moment, be delayed until Thursday.
Right now, there are some differences between the Senate and House bills that need to be ironed out before the legislation can move forward. Indiana House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer (D) seems to be hedging a little about if he will appoint conference committee members (e.a.):

"Eventually, I probably will, but we want to know some of the intent," Bauer said. "My suggestion to (the Senate) would be to concur (on the House version). It's a bill that does not have huge loopholes in it like the one sent over here."

Asked whether he would concur on the House bill, Senate President Pro Tempore David C. Long, R-Fort Wayne, said, "I think there's some questions about the funding," referring to $1.5 million added for the attorney general and State Police.

"There's a great deal of money poured into the bill which wasn't discussed here in the Senate. There are legitimate concerns on both sides of the issue about what the proper language will be and who should ultimately be responsible for hiring an illegal immigrant."

Backers of the bill, Sen. Mike Delph (R) and Rep. Vern Tincher (D), say they're optimistic about getting a conference committee. The legislation has faced a number of procedural obstacles before and has survived, so they may be right. But there also does seem to be some concerted effort to find some way of blocking this bill, and opponents of this measure may succeed in running out the clock.

Over 600 "illegal immigrants" have been recently apprehended in Arizona.

It seems as though House Republicans and some Democrats may push for a vote on the SAVE Act:

House Republicans are eyeing a bill by Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., that would do just that, as well as mandate that employers verify that their workers are in the U.S. legally.

Leaders are expected later this week to use a parliamentary tactic that would eventually force a vote on the measure if 218 lawmakers — a majority of the House — demand it. Republicans are pressuring Democratic backers of the measure — including several first-termers and dozens from swing districts, all facing tough re-election fights — to defy their leaders and sign the petition.

"Lots of Republicans and lots of Democrats would like to see something done," Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the No. 2 whip, said Friday.

The move would be a rebuke to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who opposes the Shuler bill unless it's paired with measures to allow undocumented workers a chance at legal status and allow legal immigrants to bring more family members to the United States. Democratic leaders have been working behind the scenes to craft an alternative that could dissuade their more conservative members who back Shuler's bill from joining the GOP effort to press forward on it.

They are considering pairing a widely popular measure by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., to allow more seasonal workers to come to the United States under so-called H-2B visas with proposals aimed at speeding the process of granting immigrants' spouses and minor children visas to join their parents in the U.S., among others. Also under discussion is a bill that would allow nonresident immigrants serving in the military to become citizens.

Pelosi seems like she wants to avoid a vote on this act, and it does seem as though she may fear being caught over a barrel: she doesn't want this bill to pass, but she doesn't want to endanger House Democrats who vote against this measure (and she does seem to think that voting against this measure may endanger some members). Especially as this bill focuses on employers, it may make Pelosi especially uncomfortable.

In the wake of the NAFTA-Canada flap, is Barack Obama's campaign subtly trying to distance itself from Austan Goolsbee, who used to be touted as one of Obama's top economic advisers? Karl at Protein Wisdom thinks so.

Clinton rejects the notion of a re-vote for Florida and says that she would "not accept a caucus" in Michigan (or Florida):

I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

Clinton won Florida handily, so she already has an advantage there. Plus, both she and Obama were on the ballot there, so she's got some cover. Only her name was on the ballot in Michigan, though, last time, so she'll have a harder time opposing some kind of re-vote for the state. A Michigan caucus would probably play to Obama's strengths, however, so she she'd like to avoid that.

A California appeals court issues a ruling that may threaten many home-schoolers:

Parents who lack teaching credentials cannot educate their children at home, according to a state appellate court ruling that is sending waves of fear through California's home schooling families.

Advocates for the families vowed to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court. Enforcement until then appears unlikely, but if the ruling stands, home-schooling supporters say California will have the most regressive law in the nation.

"This decision is a direct hit against every home schooler in California," said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which represents the Sunland Christian School, which specializes in religious home schooling. "If the state Supreme Court does not reverse this . . . there will be nothing to prevent home-school witch hunts from being implemented in every corner of the state of California."

Actually there is something that can be done to "prevent home-school witch hunts from being implemented in every corner of the state of California": a law allowing home-schooling by non-credentialed parents.

Unlike at least 30 other states, home schooling is not specifically addressed in California law. Under the state education code, students must be enrolled in a public or private school, or can be taught at home by a credentialed tutor.

The state legislature could pass a law to defend home-schooling. Where would the state teacher's union stand?
Though even passing a law might not change the precedent that this ruling sets in adjudicating the relationship between parents and schools.

H/T: Protein Wisdom, which includes some comments on the way in which California courts have worked to limit the power of parents vis-a-vis public schools.

UPDATE: Some argue that the LA Times story quoted above misunderstands the import of the ruling and that it is not such a blow to home-schooling after all.

Clinton seems to have gotten a bounce in PA from her wins on Tuesday. According to Rasmussen, she now leads Obama 52-37 (as opposed to 46-42 on Feb. 26). Rasmussen also shows Clinton regaining a national lead over Obama, 48-43.

Howard Dean seems to be supportive of Florida and Michigan having a re-vote:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged Florida and Michigan party officials to come up with plans to repeat their presidential nominating contests so that their delegates can be counted.

"All they have to do is come before us with rules that fit into what they agreed to a year and a half ago, and then they'll be seated," Dean said during a round of interviews Thursday on network and cable TV news programs.

The two state parties will have to find the funds to pay for new contests without help from the national party, Dean said.

A number of senators have joined together to form the "Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus." Right now, it has nine members (all Republicans). Are any Democrats interested in joining?

U.S. Sens. David Vitter (R- Louisiana), Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina), Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia), Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) and Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) announced the formation of the Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus.

The U.S. illegal immigrant population is the highest it has ever been. One in 25 residents currently living in the United States is here illegally. Over the last seven years, immigration has been the highest in history – 10.9 million immigrants arrived, over half of them (five million plus) without legal status.

The Caucus members recognize that Congress has presented the American people with a false choice in solving the illegal immigration problem – give illegal aliens amnesty or round them up and deport them en masse. The principle mission of the Caucus is to promote a true, achievable alternative: attrition through enforcement and border security. Living illegally in the United States will become more difficult and less satisfying over time when the government – at ALL LEVELS – enforces all of the laws already on the books.

The Caucus will be a platform to let Americans know that some in the U.S. Senate are continuing to make sure that the laws already on the books will be enforced, act as the voice of those concerned citizens who have expressed their opinions time and time again for interior enforcement and border security, push for stronger border security and interior enforcement legislation, and work together in the U.S. Senate to defeat future legislation that offers amnesty.

Some GOP senators are about to propose a new package of immigration legislation:

The package, an enforcement smorgasbord assembled by at least eight lawmakers, consists of 11 bills, but could expand to include as many as 14. Some elements echo House bills, but others go beyond House proposals.

One would discourage states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants by docking 10 percent of highway funding from states that continue to do so. Another would extend the presence of National Guard on the border and a third would end language assistance at federal agencies and the voting booth for people with limited English ability.

A bill by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who is leading the effort, would impose a maximum two-year jail sentence on someone caught crossing the border for a second time.

"The point is to reinforce the idea that most of us here feel that we need to make enforcement and border security a first step to solving the overall problem," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of the sponsors.

Although Congress usually avoids tough legislation during an election year, Vitter insisted that he and his colleagues could still get something done. "There are concrete steps we can take. None of us see any reason to waste this time," he said.

Other bills in the package would:

• Block federal funding from cities that bar their police from asking about immigration status.

• Give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to use information from the Social Security Administration to target illegal immigrants.

• Require construction of 700 miles of fencing along the Southern border, not including vehicle barriers.

• Impose sanctions on countries that refuse to repatriate their citizens.

• Deport any immigrant, legal or illegal, for one drunken-driving conviction.

• Enable local and state police to enforce federal immigration laws

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the Republican proposal "falls far short of what is needed." Democrats want to combine enforcement with a guest-worker program and a way to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Reid "continues to support legislation that is tough on people who break the law, fair to taxpayers and practical to implement," Manley said.

But Democrats also have begun embracing a tougher stance on immigration as well. A confidential study assembled for the Democratic leadership earlier this year urged them to start using tougher language. Democrats have focused on offering opportunity to immigrants, but the study by two think tanks urged them to begin speaking in terms of "requiring" illegal immigrants to become legal and about what's best for the United States.

Where does Sen. McCain stand on this package? Could his official support of it quiet some of the concerns of those who are doubtful about him over his support of the "grand bargain"?

Whom can Clinton in part thank for her victory in Texas? The border counties. Aside from Brewster county (which only cast 754 votes according to CNN), she won all counties on the US-Mexico border, some by very commanding margins (e.g. 77%-21% or 83%-16%), and a significant portion of her 100,000-vote victory margin can be found in these counties. Her margins of victory in Hidalgo, Webb, Cameron, Maverick, and Starr counties (just some of the border counties) combined add up to over 90,000 votes. Throw in Nueces county, which is on the Gulf of Mexico and close to the southern border, at you're at over 100,000. Part of Clinton's success in Texas came from her ability to avoid any massive pro-Obama blowouts in the urban areas of Austin, Houston, and Dallas (the counties of which often when very strongly for Obama but without too many 70-30 splits). But part of her success also relied upon her ability to rack up massive leads in the border counties along with suburban and rural counties.

Marc Ambinder discusses potential plans for a Democratic re-vote in Florida and Michigan, which currently are not having their delegates counted because they voted too early for the Democratic primary rules:

The thinking, here, is that the ONLY way that Clinton makes up her delegate gap is to get Michigan and Florida's earned delegates to count. The ONLY way they count is to re-run the vote under the umbrella of the DNC's rules.

The chutzpah here is that she already won Florida -- and is challenging Obama, essentially, to a fair fight... daring him... saying, "I can win this fair and square... same with Michigan... let's give the voters in those states a real voice."

Obama's response would no doubt me: "Well, wait a minute. You and I agreed to the rules. And now you want to change them at the last minute?"

He may not have a choice: if Florida and Michigan resubmit delegate plans to the DNC, if the DNC approves the plans, and if the states can find a way to pay for primaries, the contests would be on.

And it seems as though Obama may have a hard time complaining about a re-vote. Certainly, he wouldn't want to alienate the population of FL and MI, and too much complaining could do that.

But an opposition to having the voters of Florida and Michigan have a say also cuts against what is the main argument of proponents of Obama "inevitability": his lead in pledged delegates as these delegates represent the will of the Democratic voters (even if these delegates are often elected on the backs of independents and Republican voters). Alter says that it would be "suicide" for the superdelegates to overturn the "will of the people," but this democratic appeal has a harder time working when a significant portion of "the people" do not have their votes count. Obama and his backers can appeal to the "rules" and how they shouldn't change them partway through the election, but the "rules" also allow for superdelegates to vote as they will and not be bound by the numbers of pledged delegates.

A re-vote might not even significantly hurt Obama. Even if Clinton wins both states--and she might not do so well in Michigan--she may still not catch Obama's pledged delegate lead. Though she would be closer--and some superdelegates might not feel the "will of the people" is that clear if there's only a 20- or 40- delegate difference (both under 1% of the total delegate numbers). I'm sure the Clinton campaign would be glad to seat the current delegate results (Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan), but I doubt the DNC would be very willing to let that happen.

And the networks have called Texas for Clinton, too.

The networks call Ohio for Clinton.

Tensions between Obama and Clinton over the Texas caucuses: accusations of unfair play abound!

Obama's projected to win Vermont--no surprise there.

Exit poll watch: This site seems to be posting some tidbits on exit polls from Ohio and Texas. Don't know how reliable the information is, though.

Post will be updated when more information comes in.

UPDATE: From the first wave of Dem. exit polls in OH:

The first wave of Democratic exit polls are in: more women are voting then men, and the highest turnout is among white women, according to exit polls conducted by Edison/Mitofsky. The earliest results were gleaned from 1,020 Ohio voters.

Of those polled so far, 75 percent are white and 20 percent are African-American. Three percent are Hispanic.

Thirteen percent are between the ages of 17 and 29; 27 percent between the ages of 30 and 44; 33 between the ages of 45 and 59 and 26 percent older than 60.

Eighty percent of voters in the Democratic primary made their decision a week ago or more.

Fifty-nine percent considered the economy the most important issue facing the country, followed by 18 percent considering Iraq most important and 19 percent considering health care their most important.

Geraghty's seeing some exit polls that show a close race.

More exit poll data from ABC News. "Change" still trumps "experience" (though not by as much as in previous races):

The theme of change continues to resonate in Ohio and Texas, but not by as wide a margin as in most previous primaries. The ability to "bring needed change" beats "experience" as the most important quality in a candidate by about a 20-point margin in Ohio and by about 15 points in Texas, according to preliminary exit poll results.

That compares, for example, with the Wisconsin primary, where change beat experience by 32 points.

Preliminary exit poll results also suggest a healthy turnout by Latinos in the Texas Democratic primary, where early results indicate they're accounting for just over three in 10 voters. If that holds, it'll be a record.

Blacks account for about two in 10 Texas Democratic voters, closer to their customary share of the electorate. In this early data blacks also account for two in 10 in Ohio, which if it holds would be up from 2004.

Turnout among women looks to be up in both states in these preliminary results -- they account for about six in 10 voters in Ohio, and not quite as many in Texas, compared with 52 percent in Ohio and 53 percent in Texas in 2004.

The economy is the top issue in Texas and Ohio alike, and most strikingly so in Ohio, where nearly six in 10 Democrats rank it as the single most important issue. If that holds in later data, Ohio would be second only to Michigan in the importance of the economy to Democratic primary voters.

People in Ohio and Texas are still voting--so these numbers can certainly change.


7:40 ET: CNN exits for Ohio. Clinton wins Democrats 53-46. Loses Republicans and independents about 46-54.

8:08 ET: Clinton seems to be doing stronger among later deciders. In the CNN Ohio exits, she beat Obama 55-45 among those who decided in the past 3 days (compared to 50-49 among those who decided after. Some exit polls from Texas have her winning 66-34 among late deciders in Texas.

It seems most people are thinking the votes in the four primary states voting today--Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont--could go any way for the Democrats. Obama's favored in Vermont, and Clinton had been favored in Rhode Island (though her lead has shrunk a little recently). The big-ticket states of Ohio and Texas seem really up in the air. It seems as though Clinton has reversed Obama's momentum over the past few days and has expanded her polling lead in Ohio, and, in Texas, where Obama had been leading, she is now eking out narrow leads. Real Clear Politics averages for both Ohio and Texas show Clinton's poll numbers strengthening. Rasmussen's daily tracking poll shows Clinton achieving her first nation-wide polling lead over Obama in three weeks. Of course, this primary season has delighted in frustrating pundits. Obama's been able to outperform significantly his polling numbers in past races, but so has Clinton (as Kaus reminds us). Clinton probably has the edge in Ohio, but Texas is more complicated due to the fact that its primary includes both a conventional voting-booth primary and a series of caucuses.

So what could happen after today? That's hard to say. Certainly, if Clinton wins both Ohio and Texas (or at least wins the popular vote in Texas) and wins in Rhode Island, she seems very likely to stay in. A recent poll shows Democratic voters want her to stay in the race even if she wins only Ohio or Texas. If she loses both big? There seems like there would be significant pressure on her to bow out. If she loses both by a little? She may decide to keep on fighting. Her people are keeping an eye on the Rezko trial--which seems already to have damaged Obama's relationship with the press--and maybe even the Canada-NAFTA flap. If it seems like some scandal could derail Obama's campaign, Clinton's more likely to stay in no matter what the results are today.

Has Clinton halted Obama's momentum a little? A new set of Public Policy Polling reports has Clinton leading Obama 50%-44% in Texas and leading him 51%-42% in Ohio. Last week's PPP polls had Clinton and Obama tied in Texas and Clinton having a four-point lead in Ohio. Rasmussen's latest TX and OH polls also show Clinton gaining.

David Ignatius quotes a Democratic senator wondering how "bi-partisan" Obama really is:

"The authentic Barack Obama? We just don't know. The level of uncertainty is too high," one Democratic senator told me last week. He noted that Obama hasn't been involved in any "transformative battles" where he might anger any of the party's interest groups. "If his voting record in the past is the real Barack Obama, then there isn't going to be any bipartisanship," this senator cautioned.

One wonders who this Democratic senator is. Is it a solid Clinton backer or an unaffiliated senator?

A Canadian memo has been obtained by the AP, and this memo reports that Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee did meet with the Canadian Consulate General and discuss NAFTA. Goolsbee is now admitting the meeting took place.

The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.

"Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign," the memo said. "He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

Goolsbee asserts that this memo is only a summary of what he said and that this summary is sometimes mistaken. Clinton's people are already drawing attention to this memo.

An interesting report on some of the hazards faced by "undocumented immigrants" in Mexico.

The Obama-NAFTA-CTV plot thickens. CTV stands by its report:

On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Barack Obama's campaign called the Canadian embassy within the last month saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn't worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.

The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.

However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters.

As Geraghty notes, if Goolsbee didn't talk to the Canadian Consulate General, wouldn't he just say that he didn't speak to the Canadian Consulate General rather than refusing to answer that question? Over at the Politico, Ben Smith says that of course Obama and Clinton are insincere about their criticisms of NAFTA.

ABC News also finds Goolsbee and the CCG in Chicago Georges Rioux refusing to say whether or not they had a conversation.

The McCain campaign, according to ABC, is already hitting Obama for this story, and, via Geraghty, Clinton is now going after Obama on this report. Obama's rivals may, it seems, try to use this story as a means of tarnishing the sheen of Obama's "new" politics and argue that this story offers further evidence that this "new" politics includes that double-talking and deception that Obama says he stands against.

UPDATE: Goolsbee now criticizes the story as inaccurate:

“It is a totally inaccurate story,” he said. “I did not call these people and I direct you to the press office.”

The Obama campaign, and Obama himself, have also said the story isn't accurate, but have mostly avoided specifics about the call itself.

Obama's campaign is now offering more strident denials:

This story is not true. There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.

Matt Yglesias thinks back to the time when John Kerry's economic team told some assembled ambassadors that "all of his anti-trade rhetoric was just empty rhetoric"--and believes that Obama would do well to avoid these types of stories.

The Indiana House votes today on a bill punishing those who hire workers illegally:

Delph's bill would target Indiana employers that hire illegal immigrants, punishing them in a series of three steps that could end with the revocation of a business license. A similar law in Arizona was recently upheld in a federal court as constitutional.

The bill also requires the the Indiana State Police to take the necessary steps to start enforcing federal immigration laws and provides funding to make that happen. It also includes funding for the Indiana attorney general's office, which would investigate written complaints made against employers.

UPDATE: The House passes the measure 66-33. A coalition of Republicans and Democrats supported the measure. It next goes to a conference report with the state Senate. More details:

Although some lawmakers disagree about the details of the proposals, both chambers have supported the idea of going after companies that profit from illegal immigration. The House version of the bill would set up a three-tier penalty system for companies that hire illegal immigrants after July 1, 2009. After three incidents within five years, companies could have their business licenses suspended or revoked. The House also included $1.5 million in state money to help enforce the bill, and removed an exemption in the Senate-passed legislation for those who hire part-time or seasonal workers.

Rasmussen Texas poll: Obama 48-Clinton 44. The trend favors Obama.

The "campaign rhetoric" of hope:

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards."

Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.

"Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn't intend to keep," the spokesperson said.

Since the staffer's statements are paraphrased, it's hard to tell what this staffer really said. Still, if this report is true--and the Obama campaign is not explicitly denying it [UPDATE Obama's campaign is now denying this reported conversation.]--it may raise questions about what else is "campaign rhetoric" for Obama.

UPDATE 2/29: CTV stands by its story.

Howard Dean continues to encourage Americans to come together:

The Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and former Governor of Vermont contrasted the two parties’ presidential candidates, saying that with a woman and an African-American as the two front-runners, the Democratic field “looks like America,” while the all-white male Republican field “looks like the 1950s and talks like the 1850s.”

After all, you do hear John McCain regularly include a defense of the Fugitive Slave Act in his stump speech. (Ron Paul might be closer to the 1850s--note his comments on Lincoln and notions of the role of the federal government....)

The state of Maine offers a 14-point plan for dealing with a broken CFL bulb. Due to the release of mercury from one of these bulbs when it breaks, a broken bulb can be quite hazardous--particularly to children. More concerns are raised here.

Andrew Sullivan tries to differentiate Obama's "liberalism" from that of the past:

What makes Obama's liberalism different from both the technocratic meliorism of the Clintons and the 1970s big government liberalism that preceded it is that it is an inclusive, self-help kind of liberalism. It is participatory, not passive. It is not about government saving us; it is about us saving the government.

Bill Clinton famously said that the "era of big government is over"; I haven't heard Obama say that. Indeed, many of his signature policies (such as nationalized healthcare) are about expanding the role and powers of the federal government. So there's an expansionist aspect of government for Obama (as there has been for Bush, too). There also seems to be a compulsory aspect to "Obama's liberalism," as in Michelle Obama saying that her husband "will require you to work" and "will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual." It may be "participatory," but it also demands participation (or says it does).

Virtual troubles:

Homeland Security Dept. officials have decided that an experimental 28-mile "virtual fence" meant to extend the U.S. Border Patrol's eyes and ears along the U.S.-Mexico border—a web of radar, infrared cameras, ground sensors, and airborne drones—won't be copied anywhere else in its entirety. The project was plagued with design, software, and other glitches; had fallen months behind schedule; and sometimes proved inoperable.

The government agreed to pay Boeing almost the full $20 million for successful completion of the prototype endeavor just south of Tucson, known as Project 28. But in choosing not to expand the project, Homeland Security officials are dashing expectations and causing embarrassment from Capitol Hill to the campaign trail.

Even Real Clear Politics is proclaiming the death of the "virtual fence." Obama, Clinton, and McCain have all been touting the value of a virtual fence in place (at times) of a physical one; will this disappointment cause them to change their policies?

SurveyUSA's released a bunch of new state presidential polls for Ohio, New Mexico, Missouri, Minnesota, California, Alabama, Kansas, and Massachusetts. There's some rough news for the GOP in Ohio and Missouri: McCain trails both Obama and Clinton in states that Bush won in 2000 and 2004. No Republican has won the presidency without Ohio. Hillary Clinton is polling stronger in Ohio: she leads McCain by 10, but Obama only leads him by 3. McCain leads Clinton strongly in Kansas, but his lead over Obama is smaller. Massachusetts has a very interesting result. Clinton leads McCain by nine there, but Obama only leads McCain by two points: 48-46. So Obama seems at the moment to be more competitive in some states, but, in states like Ohio and Massachusetts (despite the backing of MA governor Deval Patrick and both MA senators Kerry and Kennedy), he seems to lag behind Clinton. For the moment at least....

UPDATE: A reader wonders if the SurveyUSA poll for Missouri might be weighting Democrats too much, claiming that a 14-point gap in Democrat-Republican identification (41-27) to be unusual for polling in Missouri. And, if you check SurveyUSA's last presidential head-to-head polling for Missouri, on January 14, you see only a 7-point identification gap (38D-31R). Under those conditions, McCain wins against both Clinton and Obama (winning by 10 points over the latter). Of course, a seven-point swing in five weeks could happen, but those numbers could swing back, too. Just a detail to keep in mind....

Huckabee, at least, is still talking about a brokered Republican convention. Guess whom he thinks that convention would nominate....

Clinton and Obama laid out their positions on immigration (video here) in yesterday's debate. Both reiterated their support for "comprehensive immigration reform," and Obama again says that he finds some of the tone in the immigration debate "racist." Debate transcript here. Mickey Kaus parses some of Obama's and Clinton's statements on a border fence: "Is voting for a fence and then denying you were actually voting for a fence the old politics of Washington or the new politics of hope? I get confused."

The Audacity of the Usual: Jim Geraghty transcribes part of a recent speech in which Michelle Obama assures us that her husband will force us to work:

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

Geraghty (ever the opponent of change) wonders where the president has the Constitutional authority to prohibit "your lives as usual." Though Michelle Obama seems in that speech (more transcription and analysis here) to be attacking the politics of "fear," she herself seems to be trying to make the usual lives of citizens (whatever those "usual lives" are) objects of fear and loathing. She also emphasizes the rhetoric of compulsion in this address. Obama will "require," "demand," and "never allow you" to do certain things or even to feel certain ways.

The UK offers plans to make the citizenship process more rigorous.

Utah considers a new bill to punish the employers of "illegal immigrants," and, in Indiana, another employer-enforcement bill moves forward.

Barack Obama tries to clarify what his wife said about her feelings for the United States:

"What she meant was, this is the first time that she's been proud of the politics of America," he said. "Because she's pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she's not alone. But she has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she's encouraged."

In Milwaukee on Monday, Michelle Obama said: "Let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change."

Some aren't persuaded.

Exit poll confusion: Geraghty's hearing reports that Wisconsin, based on two rounds of exit polling, could be a big Obama win of 60-40. But some exit poll data also show the woman vote to be very close: either Clinton winning by 1 or Obama by 2. For Obama to gain an overall victory of 60-40, he'd have to achieve something maybe like 70%-75% of the men's vote (assuming that women do really make up 57% of Democratic voters today)--a gender gap recent polls have not found. Will this data stand up? There's almost two hours left for voting in Wisconsin, too, so things are certainly in flux....other exit poll data here.

UPDATE: Full exits here. Obama seems to have dominated among many demographic groups. He tied women with Clinton and won men 67-31.

David Bernstein finds some Obama quotes from the 1990s. One is about economics, and the other is about gun control. Obama's had an unclear past on gun rights (at one point, in 1996, his campaign said he favored the banning of handguns, but Obama's campaign now says that he never believed that--he now says that the ban on handguns would not be "politically practicable" at the moment). He now says that he believes in the individual right to bear arms but also says that he believes in the "commonsense regulation" of this right. What does Obama think to be a "commonsense regulation"? He supports the Washington, DC gun ban, and the quote Bernstein's found from 1999 offers some other policies that Obama apparently thinks are "common sense" (e.a.):

Obama outlined his anti-gun plan that includes increased penalties for the interstate transportation of firearms. The maximum penalty now for bringing a gun across the border is 10 years in prison. Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.

He's proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for "antique" weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms license.

He's also seeking a ban on police agencies from reselling their used weapons even if those funds are used to buy more state-of-the-art weapons for their agencies. Obama wants only those over 21 who've passed a basic course to be able to buy or own a firearm.

He's proposing that all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park.

So if a burglar steals a gun from your home (unless, perhaps, the gun is secured in a gun safe) and injures someone with it, Barack Obama thinks that you should be charged with a felony? And the five-mile anti-gun-store school-and-park radius would effectively ban the sale of guns in all urban areas, many, if not all or most, suburban areas (a single school zone would, after all, mean at least seventy-five square miles of anti-gun territory), and, I would guess, a great number of rural areas. Obama's "commonsense regulations" (at least circa 1999) would significantly restrict the ability of the vast majority US citizen to buy guns legally. Indeed, for some, it would effectively be a gun ban.

Enforcement wave continues: New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney (D) is proposing a law that would punish employers who employ the "undocumented":

A top state Democrat plans to introduce legislation that would penalize New Jersey businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

Senate Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney said his proposal is aimed at companies that provide opportunities for illegal immigrants to "undermine family, educational and health care support systems."

"Companies that knowingly hire illegals are destroying job opportunities for the working men and women of New Jersey," said Sweeney, D-Gloucester. "The practice has to be stopped."

The law would require New Jersey businesses to verify the legal status of their employees. Businesses in violation of the law would face a 10-day suspension of their business license for the first offense and permanent revocation for the second.

Rasmussen shows a tight race in Wisconsin and a strong Clinton lead in Ohio:

Wisconsin (Feb 13, 855 LV)
Obama 47
Clinton 43
Undecided 10

Ohio (Feb 13, 754 LV)
Clinton 51
Obama 37
Undecided 12

Quinnipiac also shows leads for Clinton in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Clinton seems to be contesting Wisconsin, which is probably a good strategy for her. I don't know what her internal polls are saying, but public polls seem to suggest that she could prevent another Obama blowout in Wisconsin. She could even be close enough to possibly win there. She'd probably be in better condition heading into the March 4 primaries as a Wisconsin victor. Obama's widely expected to win Hawaii next Tuesday, so a Clinton loss in Wisconsin would give Obama a 10-primary winning streak.

While this Wisconsin poll doesn't have such good news for Hillary Clinton in her nomination fight against Barack Obama, this Ohio poll has much more promising numbers for Clinton, giving her a 17-point overall lead. Though she is tied with Obama among men, she has nearly a 30-point lead among women. She leads Obama in all age categories and only lags six points behind him with independents (42%-48%); she has a 21-point lead among Ohio Democrats.

State laws punishing the employers of "illegal immigrants" seem to be very effective at encouraging "illegal immigrants" to leave the state--whether for their native countries or other, more "undocumented"-friendly states. In Oklahoma and Arizona, two states which have passed employer-enforcement laws, the "undocumented" seem to be leaving in large numbers. For example, in two Oklahoma cities:

In Tulsa, Okla., the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has estimated that 15,000 to 25,000 illegal immigrants have left the area. One builder estimated that 30 percent of the Hispanic work force left Tulsa.

"There's been a tremendous impact in Oklahoma City," said David Castillo, the executive director of the Greater Oklahoma City Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. "We've had several companies close shop and leave the state. Banks have called us and say they're closing 30 accounts per week."

Arizona also seems to be experiencing an outflow of the "undocumented."

Where are they going? Maybe Texas:

Texas' reputation as a welcoming destination has experts predicting more immigrants will come to Houston and other cities in the state. Texas has not passed any statewide law targeting the employment of undocumented workers.

"Texas is still very much an entrepreneurial place, where you can find your place in this economy," said James Hollifield, a Southern Methodist University professor and migration expert. "It's not an immigrant's paradise, but if you work hard and keep your head down you can get ahead."

Ortiz, a native of southern Mexican state of Tabasco, said he left Phoenix eight months ago working 60 to 70 hours a week as a nursery worker. While now he can only pick up two to three days a week of yardwork and barely earns enough to send back to his family, he prefers to be in Texas.

"Here, they let you work. Over there, they won't. There is a lot of racism, but here there isn't -- it's better," Ortiz said of Houston.

Another comprehensive try: I don't have too many details on this, but Roll Call's reporting (behind subscription wall) that top House Democrats are planning on putting forward a "scaled-down" attempt at immigration "reform." It seems to be moving along (e.a.):

It says that Hispanic members — including Rep. Joe Baca — are seeking five-year visas for illegal immigrants who pay fines and pass criminal background checks. Baca, a California Democrat chairs the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Baca said the prospects for a compromise package were discussed in high-level meetings that included Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who chairs a key immigration subcommittee, Roll Call said.

The paper added: “It’s unclear if the behind-the-scenes discussions will actually result in a bill coming to the floor, but Democrats say drafts of legislation already have been written and are being vetted behind the scenes.”

(H/T Hot Air)
These rumors also emphasize the importance of Congress in discussions over immigration law and legislative battles in general. The presidential race gets the most centralized media coverage, but Congressional races matter quite a lot, too.

UPDATE: Brian Faughnan suggests that this 5-year legalization may be paired with Heath Shuler (D-NC)'s enforcement-minded SAVE bill. House Republicans, he says, are resistant to any measure that could be read as "amnesty."

The Pew Research Center has released a new report on the effects of immigration upon national demographics. It reports that in 2050, under current immigration rates, 19% of the total US population will be immigrants, well above the "historic peaks for immigrants as a share of U.S. population" (nearly 15% in 1890 and 1910). It also includes some demographic models for the US in 2050 if the immigration rate increases or decreases.

A bill punishing businesses for hiring the "undocumented" (Senate Bill 335) has passed the Indiana state Senate:

Perhaps the night’s most passionate argument came from Sen. Brent Steele, who blasted lobbyists for suggesting that Indiana’s economy would suffer if the state’s estimated 85,000 illegal workers were not available to work in fields, on construction sites and at restaurants.

Steele, R-Bedford, said that sounds as if it’s OK to overlook lawbreakers for the sake of profit.

“What are we saying ... to our kids?” Steele asked. “It would be the same as saying to our kids that it’s OK to sell drugs as long as you make a profit.”

As for complaints that some businesses would not be able to survive without illegal workers, Steele said: “I don’t want those kinds of businesses in my state.”

Senate Bill 335 in its present form would allow the attorney general’s office and local prosecutors to investigate written complaints against businesses accused of hiring illegal immigrants. Employers found to have violated the law face a three-tier punishment system: warning, suspension and revocation of its license to operate.

It passed 37-11 in the Senate. It will next be voted on by the Indiana House. The bill's author says that the bill is about human rights.

A federal judge upholds Arizona's new immigration-enforcement laws. Opponents of the law are appealing. Next stop: the 9th Circuit.