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

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

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

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

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

Dean Baker doesn't like copyrights:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opponents of the measure are pleased with this result:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. __. BORDER SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How will the UK Conservative party approach immigration?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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