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.