Taking it to the People: While Mickey Kaus wonders about YouTube videos targeting Senators who are in favor of cloture and the present immigration bill, the White House (h/t a reader) plans on hosting an online discussion on immigration with Commerce Sec. Carlos Guteirrez on Monday at 2:30 EST.

The Washington Post has a roundup of some immigration measures being considered by the various states.

This Bloomberg story has some interesting information about some of the groups lobbying for the present Senate immigration bill.

Technology companies such as Google Inc., the Mountain View, California-based owner of the most popular Internet search engine, and Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft Corp., the world's largest software maker, are concentrating on Republican senators such as Christopher Bond of Missouri, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Bob Bennett of Utah.

And:

Religious and Latino groups have also kicked into high gear. Kevin Applebee, director of migration and refugee policy for the Washington-based U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said his group is focusing on about eight senators, including Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, and John Warner of Virginia.

(Emphasis added in both quotes)
Have they been making progress?

Setting up expectations: A variety of debates about immigration on the Sunday talk shows today. Sen. Sessions (R-AL) asserted that support for the "grand bargain" immigration bill “continues to erode," but Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) predicts that the bill still has enough votes to pass. On FOX News Sunday, Sen. Lott (R-MS) and Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), both backing the "grand bargain," talk about immigration and talk radio. In this discussion of talk radio, Chris Wallace, the moderator, asks about the "fairness doctrine," and Sen. Feinstein says she may be interested in bringing it back:

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

WALLACE: But the argument would be it's the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don't seem to be able to find much of a market.

FEINSTEIN: Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.

A variety of forces are lobbying against Arizona bill HB 2779, which would punish those who hire workers illegally. The bill was passed with significant support by both branches of the Arizona legislature. Gov. Napolitano (D) has not said yet whether she will veto the bill or not. From this Arizona Republic story:

The two-strike bill amounts to a death penalty for any business caught dealing in illegal labor two times in three years. First-time offenders would have their license suspended.

Plenty of people are hoping she does veto this bill:

The phone calls came in English and Spanish, offering not-so-subtle advice on a bill the governor has until July 3 to act upon. On Friday alone, the Governor's Office received 28 phone calls asking her to sign House Bill 2779 and 128 requesting a veto.

But the real full-court press begins Monday when members of the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce plan to coordinate their efforts in pressuring Napolitano by phone and e-mail and in person.

The message: Wait for federal reform and send the state proposal packing.

Steve Levy and the "Global Thought": Steve Levy (D), the Suffolk County (NY) Executive profiled by the NYT a few weeks ago, is in the news again. Members of the New York state legislature's "minority caucus" are threatening to deny new tax revenue to Suffolk County due to Levy's opposition to "illegal immigration" and refusal to fund a center for "day laborers." According to this Newsday story:

Millions of dollars in sales tax revenue for Suffolk were imperiled Thursday by a dispute between Levy and the Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian Legislative Caucus, a group of minority members of the Assembly upset over his unbending stand against illegal immigration and his opposition to a hiring hall for laborers.

In a rare move, the minority lawmakers forced a sales-tax bill for Suffolk to be tabled in protest of Levy. He has responded angrily, vowing not to bow to pressure by worker advocates to open a hiring hall for day laborers. He said he would rather forgo the estimated $300 million the county would generate if the bill became law.

On Friday, caucus Chairman Darryl Towns (D-Brooklyn,) said the caucus had to get involved. Members represent a political alliance that strives to give minorities, middle-class, the poor and the working poor a voice in state government.

"Some of the positions that he's taken concern us, especially being sons and daughters of immigrants," Towns said. "We wanted to take an opportunity, to put him back in the global thought. We're state legislators and the caucus has expanded to the point that we are not just legislators from New York City."

What will Brownback back? Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, has this to say about the present immigration bill:

Regarding immigration, Brownback does not support the current immigration bill before Congress, saying there were too many problems. But he said he would support tougher border security and a guest worker program.

The Republican candidate said there is a deep-seeded conflict in America over illegal immigration – particularly what to do with those already here.

“That’s the difficulty with the issue. It goes to two core issues – rule of law and being a compassionate society. You want to do both of these,” he said.

Last year, Sen. Brownback voted in favor of the Senate immigration bill S. 2611, which ultimately passed. Will he have enough "problems" with the present bill to vote against cloture? I haven't heard much either way from him. Has anyone else? He missed the cloture vote on the immigration bill earlier this month; will he miss the next one, too?

6/25 UPDATE: A source tells Geraghty that Brownback will be around for the cloture vote, but it's unknown how he'll vote.

More on labor and immigration: Reportedly "very, very nervous about the availability and cost of labor in the near future," different agricultural associations are investing in the research and development of new machines to pick crops. (H/T: Ace)

In The National Review, John Fonte draws attention to S. 1639's inclusion of a provision for a Commission on the Wartime Treatment of European Americans (see sec. 901-20) during World War II. The immigration bill would also establish a Commission on the Wartime Treatment of Jewish Refugees (sec. 921-6). The European American commission would conduct hearings on and recommend "appropriate remedies" (sec. 912.4) for the government treatment of "European Americans" (which includes both US citizens and resident aliens of "European ancestry" [sec. 903.2(A)]). S. 1639 says that the "wartime policies of the United States Government were devastating to the Italian American and German American communities, individuals, and their families" and claims that the "detrimental effects are still being experienced" (sec. 902.5). See pages 409-418 for the provisions regarding these commissions; section 902 lists some of the US government policies toward "European Americans"--including internment, identification certificates, and deportation--during WWII.

President Bush keeps up the pressure in support of the "grand bargain" immigration bill.

Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks strongly against present immigration bill in this press conference. Says that it hurts workers; while he does favor a legalization program, he thinks the proposed "guest worker" program will hurt American wages. Could this persuade Sherrod Brown (D-OH)? While Sanders seems pretty against this bill, do we have any confirmation on how he'll vote on cloture?

Update on Barrasso (via Krikorian):

During the selection process to replace Senator Thomas, Dr. Barrasso said he takes the same position as Enzi on the immigration bill and opposes amnesty. He will likely follow Enzi's lead on this issue.

At the Corner, Mark Krikorian has a list of people he thinks are fairly strong against cloture:

The solid No votes on cloture are Alexander (R-Tenn.), Allard (R-Colo.), Baucus (D-Mont.), Byrd (D-W.Va.), Bunning (R-Ky.), Chambliss (R-Ga.), Coburn (R-Okla.), Corker (R-Tenn.), Cornyn (R-Texas), Crapo (R-Idaho), DeMint (R-S.C.), Dole (R-N.C.), Dorgan (D-N.D.), Enzi (R-Wyo.), Grassley (R-Iowa), Hutchison (R-Texas), Inhofe (R-Okla.), Isakson (R-Ga.), Landrieu (D-La.), McCaskill (D-Mo.), Pryor (D-Ark.), Roberts (R-Kan.), Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Sanders (I-Vt.), Sessions (R-Ala.), Shelby (R-Ala.), Smith (R-Ore.), Stabenow (D-Mich.), Sununu (R-N.H.), Tester (D-Mont.), Thune (R-S.D.), Vitter (R-La.).

Senators seeming against the bill but leaning toward cloture (emphasis added):

The following 12 senators are leaning against the bill itself but so far are leaning toward the cloture motion — which means, in reality, that they would be helping pass the amnesty, because if the bill comes to a final vote, it will pass. These are the Senators whose decisions will likely determine whether the amnesty passes or not: Bond (R-Mo.), Bingaman (D-N.M.), Burr (R-N.C.), Boxer (D-Calif.), Cochran (R-Miss.), Conrad (D-N.D.), Ensign (R-Nev.), Levin (D-Mich.), Gregg (R-N.H.), Nelson (D-Neb.), Hatch (R-Utah), Webb (D-Va.).

Okay, a few points arising from this list:
On Switching from for cloture to against:
Is Stabenow really going to switch to vote against cloture? Has anyone else heard about this?
Is Levin on the fence? He was for cloture last time....
Conrad could certainly be in play; he fellow ND senator Dorgan is a prominent bill skeptic...
Could Sherrod Brown (D-OH) be a plausible addition? Is he still undecided?

And these Republicans:

Collins (R-ME)
Snowe (R-ME)
Domenici (R-NM)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Stevens (R-AK)
Warner (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)

Are they all now firmly pro-cloture? Are they OK with the "clay pigeon"?

And where's Coleman (R-MN)? He's sounded pretty critical of the bill, but has he switched?

I've just learned from a reader that Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) has declared that he will very likely vote against cloture on the Lars Larson show today; said that he's dissatisfied with present amendment scheme. He's proposing his own variant of an immigration bill. Link the Larson recording here.
Smith said he's trying to "stay constructive," so he won't say for sure, but this is pretty strong against cloture. Says that "at this point" he'll "vote the way he has before," so it seems that, for now, he's pretty anti-cloture. Calls the Z-visa proposal "amnesty." I'd place him somewhere between "Somewhat Unlikely to Switch" and "Very Unlikely to Switch."

As Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) says that he is in the "most difficult" re-election bid of his Senate career, The Hill also reports that Lindsey Graham (SC), one of the most prominent Republican proponents of the Senate's "grand bargain" immigration bill, has suffered a noteworthy drop in his approval rating:

Graham’s approval rating has sunk to 31 percent and he has a 40 percent disapproval rating, according to a poll released Friday by Atlanta-based InsiderAdvantage. The new poll points to Graham’s support for the Senate immigration bill, which includes a path to citizenship, as a likely reason for his apparent unpopularity.

His disapproval among Republicans is higher — 46 percent — than among Democrats —30 percent. Both give him an approval rating in the low 30s.

Only 21 percent of respondents approved of the immigration bill, while 63 percent disapproved. When asked whether they approved of Graham’s “efforts to reach a consensus among his colleagues” to pass the bill, 24 percent approved and 51 percent disapproved, including 57 percent of Republicans.

In November of 2006, Graham was at 56% approval. The Hill notes that this high disapproval amongst Republicans could make Graham vulnerable to a primary challenge.
(H/T Kaus)

John Hawkins has an update from his Senate source. Some key paragraphs:

The conventional wisdom has been that this first cloture vote is a done deal because the Senate leadership has been wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. The way it works is that they go to a senator and offer to allow a vote on their Amendment IF -- and only if -- that senator agrees to vote for cloture on the "clay pigeon" strategy. [[NA--cloture-votes-for-amendments! At least offered--it doesn't seem like it was universally accepted...]]

My source tells me that this has left a sour taste in the mouth of a number of Republican senators who are upset that Mitch McConnell is cooperating with Harry Reid to curtail the rights of Republican senators. Moreover, there's a growing fear that a dangerous precedent is being set here that could be used against Republican senators again and again as long as they're in the minority. After all, if the "clay pigeon" strategy is used against conservatives on the immigration issue, who's to say it won't also be used against them on any number of issues in the future? According to my source, this is causing a lot of nervousness amongst Republican senators and it has Mitch McConnell acting very defensively behind closed doors about working with Harry Reid to roll members of his own caucus. Because of this issue, my source tells me that the vote for the "clay pigeon" strategy is no longer a slam dunk and it is possible that the "grand bargainers" may not be able to get 60 votes to put the bill on the floor as a new bill. If that turns out to be the case, the bill is dead.

And:

In other words, there will be a cloture on Tuesday, then there will be 30 hours of debate, and then there will be a second cloture vote. If the 2nd cloture vote passes, the amendments will then be voted on, and then we'll have the final vote on the bill.

So technically, a Senator could vote for the cloture the first time and then change his/her mind and vote against cloture the second time, but that would seem to be unlikely, because the amendments won't have been put to a vote.

And:

My source tells me that he thought the amnesty proponents definitely had the upper hand last week, but now, he thinks the momentum may be swinging back the other way. He also said that he thinks the best chance to stop the bill will be on the initial cloture vote. He said that he's hoping that a coalition of conservatives who think this is a bad bill, liberals who think this bill is too tough, and Republican senators worried about losing minority rights because of the "clay pigeon" strategy will get together and block the bill.

A new wrinkle: Not to be too single-minded, but, now that John Barrasso has been appointed to fill the Senate seat of Craig Thomas (RIP), he will also (I presume) be voting on the immigration bill. Does anyone have any idea how he'll vote on cloture?

In North Carolina, some farmers say that recent immigration enforcement measures are keeping workers away; some of them aren't very happy about it and hope that new immigration legislation will allow for an influx of more workers.
UPDATE: Although I've heard another explanation from a reader for the supposed lack of farm workers. Rather than being caused by renewed enforcement, this supposed shortage could in fact arise from a breakdown in enforcement: undocumented laborers have more flexibility in finding jobs, so they are less attracted to low-paying farm work. See this paragraph from the story linked above:

For now many farmers, fearful of the prospect that fruit will wither on the vine, are signing up for the federal guest worker program that they had long dismissed as too costly and cumbersome. The current program, used by less than 10 percent of the state's farmers, requires that farmers provide housing, pay nearly $1,000 for each worker's transportation and pay an hourly rate of at least $9.02 an hour. It also requires reams of paperwork so complex that many hire an outside company to do it for them, and each worker must clear a host of checks from the Department of Homeland Security.

Though this story does emphasize that these shortages began to occur around last fall, about the same time the Bush administration began increasing its enforcement enforcement efforts...Maybe it could be a little of both: unauthorized workers have more flexibility in finding jobs, so they're less attracted to agriculture, but recent efforts at enforcement have dried up the present labor pool just a little?

Running into a Buzz Saw: In the face of a poll saying that only 3% of Americans approve of the way Congress is handling immigration, one "White House ally" says (according to the Politico), "There’s a lot of ill will and bad feelings and it’s just run into a buzz saw. You’re asking senators to walk the plank on a bill that may not even get out of the House." But the administration wants to fight on:

The president’s aides think the bill is still eminently doable in the Senate. To get to the 60 votes required for the bill to advance, the tally will probably have Democrats in the high 30s and Republicans in the low 20s. Administration officials say that if the bill gets to the House, they’re ready to do the handholding and retail spadework necessary to line up Republican votes. They believe pressure will build on Speaker Nancy Pelosi from constituencies within her own party that want immigration reform. They also hope she will be under pressure to deliver at a time when the approval rating for Congress is in the cellar.

Along with Corker, Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has just said "no" to cloture (H/T K-Lo):

“I will vote against cloture to end debate on the current immigration bill when it comes before us next week. Other than the war on terror, there is nothing more important than fixing our broken immigration system, and we must keep working on it for as long as it takes to get it right, but right must include a process that earns the confidence of the American people, and this bill does not do that.

This problem has been years in the making and will take time to fix. We must secure the border first once and for all, verified by credible sources, without amnesty – you are here legally or you are not here. We also must make it easier for highly skilled workers to come to America to create jobs and expect and assist those here legally to become Americans by speaking our language and appreciating our history and culture.

I will oppose any bill that does not include these essential elements.”