Fred Thompson and the Limits of Power

Fred Thompson’s At that Point in Time, the memoir of his time serving as the minority counsel on the Senate Watergate Committee, reveals an interesting portrait of a man taking a first step into high politics and of the high-temperature politics of the early 1970s. Thompson’s involvement in Watergate is a very broad subject (one too broad to cover in a single blog post), and his memoir itself raises all sorts of questions of fact and motivation that are not fully answered (probably true of most–if not all–books on Watergate). Despite and perhaps because of this breadth of this work, I think it might be helpful to look at a single theme of At That Point in Time: Thompson’s approach toward limitation and power in the final chapter of this work.

Salon’s Walter Shapiro (a veteran of the Carter administration and hardly a hard-right hack) has praised Thompson’s memoir for having an honest uncertainty in dealing with the Watergate investigation and its implications for presidential power. In this memoir, Thompson chronicles–sometimes with surprising immediacy–the increasingly carnival-like atmosphere of Watergate: the public spectacle of the committee hearings (complete with a scornful laugh track and applause lines), the frenzy of reporters, the peddling and publishing of various half-truths and sly innuendos, the fervor behind the scenes. Finding himself in this civic hothouse, Thompson often returns to consider his own partisan tendencies, sometimes turning to this partisanship in a mood of aporia, sometimes turning to procedure as a way of anchoring himself in this flurry of partisan controversies, sometimes wondering how much his own political loyalties may have interfered with his pursuit of truth.

Even though Shapiro finds in Thompson’s narrative an “unflappable self-confidence,” I think that we can also see in this narrative a concern with the limitations of power and the implicit assumption of the potential for corruption in even the noblest political enterprise–that is, we can also see in this work limits on the confidence in power. This theme of limitation can be particularly seen in the final chapter, “The End of the Affair.”

In the wake of Watergate and the resignation of Nixon, Thompson does not assert a radical end to evil but instead reflects on the seeming persistence of evil:

It occurred to me that after such a national ordeal tribute would be paid to the boundless spirit of man and to the triumph of good over evil. But these were not my thoughts. More than anything else, I concluded, the experience taught me not that we had eradicated evil from the face of the earth, but that some things never seem to change. Lord Acton’s admonition about the corrupting nature of power is as valid today as it was when he said it, and as it has been for centuries before. The admonition does not apply to presidents alone; when the most powerful elements of the news media, the Congress, the intellectual community, and the judiciary unite in a holy crusade, some individual rights are inevitably sacrificed. Concern for fairness too often depends on whose ox is being gored.

It is often said that Vice-President Cheney gained a mission after Watergate: to restore further power and authority to the executive branch. Whatever the truth of this claim about Cheney, it seems that Watergate brought a very different principle to light for Thompson: the value of a diffusion of power.* For Thompson (and, no doubt, for many others), Watergate was a crisis of checks-and-balances for the country, but where Thompson may differ from some is in his insistence on how deeply and widely Watergate evidenced a breakdown in checks-and-balances–that not only the presidency could overthrow a diffusing balance but also Congress and the media. Moreover, he asserts the potential dangers to individual rights that might accrue in this unitary “crusade.” The dangers of unitary power may not be concentrated, then, in only the executive branch for Thompson; power, whether in the hands of a president or a legislative majority, can present its own corrupting temptation.

There is partly a tragic theme to Thompson’s memoir, studded as it is with the falls of various men–from White House staffers to Nixon to a member of the Watergate Committee itself (Senator Edward J. Gurney of Florida, who, within months of Nixon’s resignation, resigned from office due to a criminal indictment; Gurney was later found not guilty but was unable to revive his political career). This sense of the tragic informs Thompson’s skepticism about the value of unitary power: the seeming pervasiveness of the capacity for corruption can mean that any human power, even the strongest, could turn awry. As Thompson writes later:

There was little to rejoice about, I thought as I flew home, at least not without a quiet realization that human frailties seem to manifest themselves as much when men attempt to eradicate evil as when that evil itself is being inflicted.

Our right aims may not absolve us of our mortal frailties; even our strenuous efforts to undo wrongs, to right injustices, and to fight for the good might reveal some of our own limitations.

Thompson proposes a system of checks and balances as a way of coping with the temptation of vice. Though politicians often decry partisanship (even as they themselves make use of it for their own ends), Thompson now figures partisanship itself as playing a role for balance in government:

...it seemed to me that the partisanship was itself part of the system of checks and balances–a system that will work, no matter how hard the fight, as long as certain rules are followed.

Rather than encouraging a unitary system that allows for an unlimited use of power (hopefully in the “right” way), Thompson seems more sympathetic here to a system that allows for diversity of the rancors of partisanship, that can incorporate various tensions and conflicts without itself collapsing. He does want “certain rules”–some scale or set of measures to balance these various competing parties–but he allows for play within these rules. Thompson does not propose ending partisanship or creating a politics based on the dissolution of parties; he is in favor of productively channeling this partisanship, of setting grounds for these debates between parties that will allow these debates to be most helpful to the nation as a whole. Put another way, we might see Thompson proposing a system not to eliminate conflicts–but to organize these conflicts. He asserts that “[c]oncern for fairness too often depends on whose ox is being gored,” but this political partiality need not nullify the concern for fairness, and this partiality need not render this concern for fairness without utility for the public good: each side can try its best, and some of the interests of the nation as a whole may be served by this jousting conglomeration of individual interests.

This belief in the persistence and utility of some political divisions can facilitate principles of politeness. In the condition of divided politics, you hope you can get along with your political opponents–because they’ll always be there! Perhaps shockingly for some activists out there, compromise and negotiation can also be effective tools to get what you want. Thompson’s mentor, Senator Howard Baker, seems to have understood the value of negotiation, and Thompson, at certain points in his memoir (see, for example, page 49), praises Baker for his attempts to conciliate in the committee, and the effectiveness of his “diplomatic negotiation that avoided confrontation.” Those who see the value in divided power might also be more inclined to be respectful of some of their civic opponents because these opponents play a crucial role of opposition; you can’t, after all, have a conflict without at least two sides. Instead of seeing their opponents monochromatically as opponents of “progress,” believers in a heterogeneous body politic can see their opponents as playing a necessary procedural role.

As is commonly acknowledged, this process of checks and balances in the US government does not play out only between the various branches of the federal government but also between the federal government and state governments (and between state and local governments and federal and local governments). Thompson has recently defended his “federalism” as offering these fifty states as laboratories for policy and statecraft. This diversity of states can help us find better ways of doing things and avoid being locked into “bad” ways through forced federal order. (Though, of course, the states could do some pretty bad things themselves, so there’s a role for federal action and justice as well.) Thompson’s interest in channeling rather than dissolving conflicting interests itself has a long intellectual American heritage. Of the Founders, Madison is perhaps the best-known proponent of the liberal utility of the role of conflicting interests; his Federalist No. 51 asserts the value of conflicting interests both within the federal government and between the federal and state governments.

The closing reflections of At That Point in Time suggest that Thompson’s interest in divided power–and federalism–may not be mere opportunism or cheap sloganeering but an abiding theme of his approach toward politics. A lot can change in 30 years, and political ambition can cause men and women to embrace policies in one moment that they abjure in another, but, at that point in time, Thompson seemed sympathetic to limited and fractured power. Whatever value this analysis of this older book has (and I at least think that this work may be at least as revealing as Richard Nixon’s opinion of Thompson in 1973), this memoir perhaps suggests something of Thompson’s temper and reveals something of the intellectual pedigree of his “federalism.”


---
*A pedantic aside: Yes, strengthening the executive branch could be part of an attempt to strengthen the effectiveness of our Constitutional checks and balances; an absurdly weak executive branch (vis-a-vis the legislative and judicial branches) would not be able to check properly the other two branches. But still, Thompson’s memoir does not end on the note of the need to strengthen the presidency to restore a system of checks and balances but in considering the value of this system and the potential threats to it demonstrated in Watergate.

Martin Kady has a helpful roundup of names for various positions in the Senate Republican leadership race:

Minority Leader: Mitch McConnell (Ky.) – unchallenged

Minority Whip:

Current: Trent Lott (Miss.)
Potential candidates: Jon Kyl (Ariz) and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)*

Senate Republican Conference Chairman:

Current: Kyl
Potential candidates: Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), Richard Burr (North Carolina), John Thune (South Dakota) , Jim DeMint (South Carolina)**, Alexander

Senate Policy Chairman:

Current: Hutchison.
Potential candidates: DeMint, John Cornyn (Texas)

Senate Conference Vice Chairman:
Current: Cornyn
Potential candidate: Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)

* Alexander's spokesman said he is considering both the whip and conference job.

** Burr and DeMint, both first term conservatives, could pair off as a ticket for the conference and policy jobs.

UPDATE: Alexander has declared that he will support Kyl for whip; Alexander will run for Conference Chair.

The Washington Post recently did an interesting set of polls on the attitudes of voters in Maryland and Virginia toward immigration. While almost seventy percent of those polled believe that the federal government is not doing enough to deal with "illegal" immigration, there are also interesting and complicating divisions in some of these poll results:

In Virginia, where immigration emerged as a top issue in last week's General Assembly elections, almost two-thirds of respondents want local police to get involved in immigration enforcement by checking the immigration status of people they suspect of a crime and think may be undocumented, even if that meant fewer illegal immigrants would cooperate with authorities.

More generally, 48 percent of Virginians think immigrants, not just illegal immigrants, strengthen the country and 46 percent call them a burden. In Maryland, a bare majority, 51 percent, said immigrants are good for the country, while 42 percent said they are a burden.

The polls find the biggest differences in attitudes are within, not between, the two states.

In Northern Virginia, 63 percent of respondents said immigrants strengthen the United States, while far fewer, 41 percent, of those in the rest of the state said so. And even within Northern Virginia, where the influx of new immigrants has been steepest, there are widely divergent views. Almost seven in 10 in Fairfax County said immigrants help the country, but the number saying so in Prince William County was 49 percent.

There is a similar divide in Maryland. Half of Montgomery County residents said new immigrants have made their community better, far more than said so in Prince George's (32 percent) or Anne Arundel (29 percent) counties.

Other interesting statistics:

Among white Democrats, almost six in 10 said immigrants strengthen the country, while African Americans are evenly divided. White Democrats are also more likely than black Democrats in both states to say new immigrants have made their communities better places to live. Conversely, black Democrats are more likely to want their state and local governments to pass measures to address illegal immigration.

In Virginia, where more than half of all respondents reported having "a great deal" or a "moderate" amount of contact with new immigrants, 13 percent called immigration either the state's top or second-most important issue. Only 5 percent of Marylanders said the same.

Virginians in regular personal contact with recent immigrants were more likely to cite immigration as a major concern. And in certain areas that have experienced large influxes of immigrants in recent years, such as Prince William County, attitudes are particularly negative.

Some struggles over agricultural "guest worker" regulations:

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) sent a strongly worded letter earlier this week to Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, objecting to an administrative attempt to loosen rules on companies that hire guest workers. The Department of Labor rejected Miller’s assertion that its interpretation is illegal.

At issue is whether agricultural employers can hire foreign guest workers without first doing multistate recruiting of U.S. citizens or other legal residents. Miller, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, argues that the law is clear and that the agency must require recruiting. The Labor Department says not necessarily.

Immigration reform proved too difficult an issue for Congress to deal with this session; the squabble over the relatively small guest-worker program — known as H-2A — shows how tough comprehensive reform will be.

In today's column on Rudy Giuliani's approach to immigration, David Brooks brings up a 1996 Giuliani speech:

“I’m pleased to be with you this evening to talk about the anti-immigrant movement in America,” he said, “and why I believe this movement endangers the single most important reason for American greatness, namely, the renewal, reformation and reawakening that’s provided by the continuous flow of immigrants.”

So the "continuous flow of immigration"--and not, say, a tradition of liberty, a robust Constitution, or a vast continental expanse--serves as the greatest reason for "American greatness" for Giuliani?
(A side note: it seems that part of the debate about immigration in the US right now is not if there should be a "continuous flow of immigrants" but how big this flow should be.)

Also, it probably should be noted that, while Brooks is complaining about how Giuliani has run on immigration (since Brooks believes in the "moderate" path of "comprehensive immigration reform"), he is not complaining about how he thinks Giuliani would govern. And Giuliani still has run and still is running in support of legalization of the "undocumented"....Could Brooks be trying to appeal to the "yahoos" in slamming Giuliani for the way he has run on immigration while also trying to assure "moderates" that Giuliani will really support "comprehensive immigration reform"?

Happy Thanksgiving one and all! From Lincoln's first Thanksgiving proclamation:

No human counsel hath devised, nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the most high God, who while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American people. I do, therefore, invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens. And I recommend to them that, while offering up the ascriptions justly due to him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation, and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity, and union.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case and, potentially, declare whether it believes the Constitution guarantees an individual right to bear arms. Instapundit has a roundup. Some think that Justice Kennedy could be a deciding vote (and a vote against the notion of an individual right to bear arms). Certainly, Kennedy was a crucial swing vote in the 5-4 (Scalia, Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Thomas in the minority) Kelo v. New London opinion, which declared that increased tax revenue and the prospect of economic development were really "public uses," so a municipality has the power to take your home or business via eminent domain and assign it to a developer who, they think, might be able to raise the tax/economic base of that property and the area around it.

Malkin has an interesting (and slightly older) post up on some of the debates about immigration and citizenship during the founding of the USA.

Jonah Goldberg has an interesting post up on the relationship between necessity and morality in light of technological developments. However, I don't think (and I don't think Goldberg is implying) that technological progress can always obviate moral problems and that inventive "breakthroughs" will always lead to the categorization of more things as "immoral." Though Goldberg emphasizes the way in which the development of technology helped make child labor less necessary and, therefore in the eyes of many, more immoral, we can also look at the example of the cotton gin. I don't know exactly how true this theory is, but many historians believe that the invention of the cotton gin in the 1790s helped perpetuate the institution of slavery because it made the plantation system more efficient and increased the commodity value of a slave. Even as this system may have seemingly become more efficient, opposition to the slavery system also grew. (And eventually the slave system may have impeded technological progress in slave-holding states, so, ironically perhaps, a piece of technology may have ultimately retarded technological progress in a wider sense due to the radical cheapness of labor in and the agrarian emphases of the plantation system.) So the relationship between technology and moral progress is not always so clear cut. As Goldberg says at the end of his post, it is a very interesting topic...

A member of the City Council of Des Moines, Iowa is considering putting forward a proposal to make that city a "sanctuary city." If this policy and debates about it get more coverage, I wonder how it could affect the presidential campaigns there...

Centralization of power, baby! Yglesias reports on a breakfast in which Speaker Pelosi implies that she may be against the filibuster. Yglesias himself does not approve of the filibuster (calling it a "horrible prop of status quo bias"). With hopes that Democrats will control the House, Senate, and presidency in 2009, are some "progressives" gearing up for a fight to eliminate the filibuster? Especially if Democrats number fewer than 60 in the Senate...kind of like the way Republicans, when they controlled House, Senate, and presidency in 2005, talked about eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees...Do members of a temporary majority really want to weaken their position when they become a minority again (and, so far at least, every majority has become a minority--just ask George Allen!)? I thought the US Senate was intended to have something of a "status quo bias" or at least a moderating one (and it seems as though many opponents of the filibuster aren't in favor of moderating public passions)....

A "focus group" didn't find Obama's "answer" on giving licenses to drive to "illegals" very satisfying.

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

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

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

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

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

Tensions in the Democratic caucus over bilingualism.

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

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

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

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

Last week she was in Florida meeting

with a congressional delegation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Via JammieWearingFool.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said no other presidential candidate will solve the problem.

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

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

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

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

He seems to be emphasizing border enforcement above all.

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

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

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

The results:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cloture fails 52-44

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

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

The debate on introducing the DREAM Act has now started.

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

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

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

Text of the DREAM Act here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A note on this study's methodology:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: I'm keeping a running tally here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Washington Post reports on the diversity of new immigration laws being passed by various states. The story outlines three approaches to this diversity: alarm, support, or a (federalism-flavored) sense that this variety in state responses to immigration can allow the nation to test which laws might actually be the most effective:

Some observers are alarmed by the trend, calling the widely divergent laws further evidence of America's cultural divide and saying they could pose new hurdles in reaching a national consensus on immigration. Piecemeal policymaking is opening the door to a flurry of legal battles -- the Department of Homeland Security, for instance, is suing Illinois for banning businesses there from confirming an employee's legal status through the federal E-Verify database, which state officials have called flawed and unreliable.

Others argue that the inability to reach a national solution has left states no choice. Governors are grappling with cities and towns that, in the absence of a national or state policy, have taken it upon themselves to pass local immigration laws either protecting or cracking down on illegal immigrants. This has occasionally lead to radically different regulations within individual states.

Still others assert that the rush of state activism has created an unforeseen opportunity. By viewing states as laboratories and studying the successes and failures of their various policies, Americans may find useful information, even a road map, for developing a national strategy.

It also claims that Oklahoma's new immigration laws have begun to drive away the "undocumented":

Hispanic business groups, citing school enrollment losses and church parish figures, say the laws, which start going into effect later this year, have caused as many as 25,000 undocumented workers to flee the state in recent months. The loss is being decried by the Oklahoma State Home Builders Association.

"In major metro areas we are seeing people leave based on the perception that things are going to get bad for them and that this state doesn't want them here," said Mike Means, executive vice president of the association. "Now we're looking at a labor shortage. I've got builders who are being forced to slow down jobs because they don't have the crews. And it's not like these people are going back to Mexico. They're going to Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, Arkansas, anywhere where the laws aren't against them."

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

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

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

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

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

Dean Baker doesn't like copyrights:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opponents of the measure are pleased with this result:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. __. BORDER SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How will the UK Conservative party approach immigration?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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