In New Jersey, a new directive has been issued by the state attorney general (e.a.):

Police officers in New Jersey must now notify immigration officials about any undocumented person who is arrested in connection with an indictable crime, under a directive issued Wednesday by Attorney General Anne Milgram.
[...]
Milgram emphasized that the directive isn’t tantamount to a crackdown on illegal immigration. It also prohibits law enforcement authorities from inquiring about the immigration status of crime victims and witnesses, she said, adding that her office will monitor how police implement it.

Some speculate that the recent Newark murders influenced this decision.
The text of the directive is here. This directive also requires police officers to check the immigration status of those arrested for driving while intoxicated (see page 3 of the text). Will other states/localities adopt this measure?

What could the DNC be planning in retaliation for Florida's presidential primary violating national Democratic rules? One option:

In the hopes of changing that dynamic, national Democratic leaders are preparing to send a harsh message to their White House candidates this weekend: campaign in Florida at your own risk.

In an effort to punish the Sunshine State for holding it's presidential primary earlier than the approved Feb. 5 date (Florida lawmakers moved the contest to Jan. 29), the DNC's rules committee is expected to proclaim the state off-limits to campaigning. Anyone who campaigns there would lose their delegates.

But the threat -- which is likely to be approved this Saturday -- hardly appears to be stopping the calendar insurrection among state leaders who are seeking relevance in the presidential nominating process.

Marc Ambinder reports that the Michigan State Senate has voted to move the state's presidential primary date:

The Michigan State Senate just passed a bill establishing a joint presidential primary on Jan. 15.

All the chambers' Republicans voted yes; all the chambers' Democrats voted no.

Many Democrats objected on technical grounds.

The bill will now have to be reconciled with a version passed by the state house of representatives.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm is eager to sign the bill.

More information here:

State Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said the bill contains language that doesn't comply with Democratic National Committee rules, so it's unacceptable as written. The bill is expected to be changed once it reaches the Democrat-controlled House.

If Michigan moves to a Jan. 15 primary, it's likely Iowa and New Hampshire would move up their first-in-the-nation contests.

A number of prominent Michigan Democratic political leaders, including Gov. Jennifer Granholm, favor holding a closed presidential primary with the Republicans. State GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis has agreed on a Jan. 15 presidential primary if Democrats will go along.

But not all Michigan Democrats favor a primary. Backers of former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards want to hold a caucus because they think that will increase the influence of union members who back him.

So a caucus or a primary?

UPDATE: Ambinder has more on some of the political maneuvering behind this Michigan debate:

Some Democrats are protesting. Rep. Bart Stupark (D-MI) sent a letter to Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Michigan Democratic Party chairman Mark Brewer urging them to keep the party's traditional caucus, which the state party pays for. A state-run primary would cost taxpayers $12M, Stupak writes, and besides, Michigan's 31 county political parties are already preparing for the caucuses.

Privately, Brewer may be sympathetic to Stupak's argument. Party-run caucuses -- or "Firehouse primaries," as they're called, are enormously beneficial to the state party because they serve as a dress rehearsal for election day get-out-the-vote activities and provide an easy way for the party to enhance its voter lists. They're also easy to control -- and party interest groups, like Michigan's extremely powerful United Auto Workers union, tend to exert an outsized influence on the outcome. It comes as no surprise that UAW, a union which is said to be on the verge of endorsing Sen. John Edwards, also opposes a state-run primary. (The State Dems, per published reports, are waiting to see what the bill says before they react. The State Republicans are on board with Granholm and the legislature.)

On the other side of this equation is Gov. Granholm, who Edwards factions in the state believe is acting at the beheast of Sen. Hillary Clinton. The theory is that it would be much easier for Clinton to win a primary beauty contest than a caucus, which would require organization -- read: labor, read: the UAW. (Actually, labor power in Michigan is concentrated in the UAW and in the National Education Association, which probably won't endorse.)

Some advocate streamlining the immigration process for high-skilled workers to make it easier to attract and keep them.

Trouble for John McCain in Arizona? While the 2010 AZ Senate race is a long way out (so you can't rely on these numbers too much, and they may be more indicative of his popularity/unpopularity at the moment than anything else), these numbers might be cause for some concern for the senator's camp:

Gov. Janet Napolitano remains the state's most popular elected official and would top Sen. John McCain in a matchup for his Senate seat, according to poll results released Tuesday.

The poll says that Napolitano, a Democrat, would defeat Arizona's senior U.S. senator by 11 percentage points, 47 percent to 36 percent, if the two were running for the Senate today. Seventeen percent of respondents were undecided, according to the poll of 629 Arizona voters conducted by the nonpartisan Phoenix-based Behavior Research Center.

Maybe this is an unreliable poll. Maybe McCain's popularity is at a low ebb right now. Of course, one remembers that Gov. Napolitano recently signed a workplace-enforcement immigration measure, while Sen. McCain has been most prominently identified with the "grand bargain." Could that be affecting Arizonans' opinions of the two?

Via Matt Yglesias (and Brendan Nyhan) some very interesting graphs on political party "polarization." Yglesias commenter Petey observes that there is significant overlap, according to these graphs, of "polarization" and high levels of foreign-born residents/high levels of income inequality; the greater the percentage of foreign-born residents/the greater the share of national assets that the top 1% owns, the greater the polarization. It's important to remember that correlation need not be causation, but they are some interesting graphs (depending, perhaps, on how you want to think of "party polarization"). And, certainly, those could not be the only causes of polarization (if they are causes at all).

How has the present debate over border security affected the border city of El Paso?

An interesting WaPo story on the changing Democratic approach to the "surge" in Iraq--especially after a number of prominent Democrats (including Obama and Clinton) have asserted military progress in Iraq (though they're still doubtful about political progress in Iraq). While there are some claims of uncertainty amongst Democrats, some Democratic leaders still assert a fair level of unity in the party's approach to the war. As an example of some of the political maneuvering on this issue (e.a.):

Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), who made waves when he returned from Iraq by saying he was willing to be more flexible on troop withdrawal timelines, issued a statement to constituents "setting the record straight."

"I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date," he wrote on his Web site.

But in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.

So it seems like he's showing some increased skepticism about the current leadership's approach to a hard-and-fast deadline with no middle ground, maybe? Where will the "narrative" lead us next?

The Politico discusses how this continually fluctuating primary calendar can reveal tensions between the aims of national party leadership and those of state parties. The Democratic National Committee is considering what to do with states that push their primaries earlier (contrary to national party policy). It could ask candidates to boycott primary contests (as Clinton and Dole did not, according to this story, not campaign in Delaware in 1996) that violate the rules, but it might also consider more forceful measures:

The DNC could also strip the rogue states of 50 to 100 percent of their delegates to the nominating convention. The most likely option right now is to strip them of all delegates, at least two rules committee members told me.

“You are going to see big signs on the floor of the Democratic Convention that say ‘Florida’ and ‘Michigan’ and you are going to see rows of empty seats beneath them,” one DNC member warned.

But is this an empty threat?

However heated tempers are now, they will have cooled considerably by the time the convention rolls around in August of 2008. And the credentials committee for the convention, whose membership will be packed by the presumptive nominee, can overrule anything the rules committee decides now.

In the interest of party unity and because withholding delegates from a candidate who has already won the nomination would be meaningless, the delegates from Florida or any other rogue state would probably be seated.

Or not so empty?

One member of the rules committee told me, however, that in an extremely tight race, the missing Florida delegates, about 10 percent of what a candidate needs for the nomination, could make the difference, and stripping Florida of its delegates, therefore, could be a meaningful act.

Certainly, if both Florida and Michigan were stripped of their delegates, and the race were somewhat tight, this stripping could lead to some serious tension by the time the national convention rolls around. And this front-loaded campaign cycle might make a close primary result more likely (since fewer candidates will have dropped out by the time of the big primaries). The DNC hopes it can work out some compromise with Florida; it meets tomorrow morning.
And these tensions may not be confined to Democratic candidates, either. A quote from the chair of the Michigan Republican party encapsulates some of the tenor of the current conflict between state and national parties (e.a.):

On Tuesday evening, Michigan Republican party chair Saulius "Saul" Anuzis, told me: "On Wednesday the Michigan senate will pass a bill choosing Jan. 15 as the date for the primary. We understand that this violates the rules of both the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee. We don't care."

Reporting on a conflict between Sen. Coburn (R-OK) and Sen. Nelson (D-NE) over earmarks, the Hill shows how being a single letter off in typing out an email address could reveal some behind-the-scenes conflict. The backdrop:

The senators had been at odds over the matter for much of the summer, but it would reach a new level when John Hart, communications director for Coburn, forwarded a news article detailing his boss’s request for an investigation of a defense contractor.

Sen. Nelson had requested an earmark for 21CSI, triggering a heated battle between the senators that has raged for weeks.

“This will shut that f---er up,” Hart stated in an Aug. 1 e-mail sent from his Senate account to several of his colleagues. “I can’t wait to send an In Case You Missed It to Nebraska press that will be forwarded to a--face.”

The mistake (e.a.):

When Hart typed out the three recipients for that first e-mail, he was one letter off on one colleague’s name. That meant that when he hit “Send,” the e-mail went to a staffer in the office of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska.)

It was a mistake that could have happened to anyone, but not every senator spent much of 2006 trying to strike an earmark for a bridge in Alaska, as Coburn did.

When Hart realized his error, he sent another e-mail to Murkowski aide Brian O’Leary apologizing for the exchange and asking him not to pass it on.

Aides in Murkowski’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

The Hill makes an interesting assertion about the dynamic of some of the partisan quarrels on the Hill:

But House and Senate staffers say the e-mails are also a natural extension of the kind of aggressive strategy that many believe is necessary to keep their bosses afloat in a partisan atmosphere as cutthroat as ever. That glimpse of intra-office banter puts on display the fact that the loss of comity in the Senate, frequently mourned by congressional observers and lawmakers themselves, more often than not begins among the unelected — staffers who are rewarded for protecting and defending their bosses with everything they’ve got until the moment they go too far.

The Washington Post has more on the debate to move the date of Michigan presidential primary. A deal for Jan. 15, 2008 may be in the works--but Sen. Levin (D) is pushing for an even earlier date.

Sen. Specter (R-PA) meets with his constituents and talks about Iraq, immigration, and AG Alberto Gonzalez. On Iraq, he's keeping his options open:

Mr. Specter, was circumspect on what course he might endorse after the much anticipated report on Iraqi progress next month from the administration. But he said repeatedly that barring a showing of "light at the end of the tunnel," a significant change in tactics would be warranted.
[...]

Mr. Specter's reservations about war tactics weren't reserved for the administration of his own party, however. He dismissed Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign trail promises to end the war as "rhetoric, that's all it is," noting that neither she nor any of the leading Democrats are calling for an immediate troop withdrawal.

Mr. Specter also flayed the parliamentary tactics of Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the Democratic leader. He maintained that, in refusing to allow a floor vote either on a proposal from Republicans Sens. John Warner and Richard Lugar to order the president to draft a new Iraq plan, or an endorsement of the Iraq Study Group, Mr. Reid had both abused his authority and short-circuited measures that might have spurred a shift in administration war planning.

He offers a few hints on his immigration policy. While this story says that the "vast majority of those who spoke up [at this meeting] were sharply opposed to eased immigration rules and irate that the ones in existence hadn't been enforced more vigorously," Specter still hopes for a renewed push towards some "comprehensive reform"--perhaps modeled on his own proposal. Specter also speculates that the new worker verification rules could encourage a new push for "reform" (e.a.):

While he conceded that his own aides disagree with his analysis, he predicted that an administration crackdown on undocumented workers, announced after the failure of the immigration bill, would prod a search for new legislative solutions.

"I think we're in for a real shock when these Social Security letters hit,'' he said of the Labor Department initiative to curb the use of false identifications by illegal workers. "They're going to eliminate a vast part of the labor force in this country.''

He noted a Senate colleague's prediction that the crackdown would mean, "These crops are going to rot in the fields,'' and said "When we go back in September, we may find a near panic situation . . . and people are going to start to say what's the best deal we can make.''

We'll have to see if such a panic arises (or if some claim the existence of a panic)...

According to this report, some employers worry about the new worker verification rules.

Will Sen. Hagel (R-NE) retire and not run for re-election in 2008? Some think so. Former NE senator Bob Kerrey (D) says that he's thinking of running of Hagel does retire, but, if he doesn't retire, Kerrey would--it seems--be glad to financially contribute to his campaign (or so he says).

An interesting AP story about the way the meatpacking industry is changing the social/economic dynamic of a number of small towns in the Midwest; as meatpacking plants moved out of the cities and into smaller towns, they created a demand for workers in those areas--and found immigrants ("legal" and "undocumented") to fill those jobs. These changes can bring their own tensions as well as opportunities. This story offers a striking description of Cactus, Texas (pop. 2500 in 2000):

It's a hard life. In Cactus, the population is more than 90 percent Latino. There are no doctors or banks. Most plant workers deal only in cash, making them easy targets for theft. As much as 70 percent of offenses in town relate to alcohol use, especially on weekend nights when cars cruise up and down the main drag for hours.

There seems to be some confusion over when the Michigan presidential primary will be. It seems as though state leaders are engaged in negotiations over the date.

(Via Hotair), a Border Patrol official claims that the aim of the agency is not to stop "illegal immigrants" or illegal narcotics:

Border Patrol agents don't have the responsibility of apprehending illegal immigrants, Carlos X. Carrillo, chief patrol agent for the Laredo sector, said at a town hall meeting Wednesday."The Border Patrol is not equipped to stop illegal immigrants," Carrillo said, noting that illegal narcotics are also not on the agents priority list. "The Border Patrol mission is not to do any of those things," he emphasized.

The Border Patrols mission is to keep the country safe from terrorist and terrorist weapons, he said. Carrillo added that when and if terrorists come into the country, the agents will be ready.

This history of the Border Patrol certainly draws attention to the BP's interest in stopping "illegal" crossings, and this paragraph on the BP today references "illegal" crossers and illicit drugs:

New dangers confront our nation's borders. As part of Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol is taking on the additional challenge of protecting our borders against terrorism. History has shown that it matters little whether the drug is alcohol or marijuana; the illegal migrants, Chinese or Mexican;
or the terrorists, hijackers, or suicide bombers - in any scenario, we can count on the Border Patrol to protect us from threats to the safety and security of our borders.

The Border Patrol's mission statement also says that the organization will "steadfastly enforce the laws of the United States."

The Politico has a story on a new report released discussing the different levels of coverage immigration has received in the media in the second quarter of 2007. It draws attention to the differences between "conservatives" and "liberals" covering this issue on the radio:

Among conservative talk radio hosts, the immigration debate was the # 1 topic in the second quarter, filling 16% of the airtime. (The second-biggest topic was the campaign at 13%). That is eight times the amount of attention that conservative talkers paid to the immigration debate in the first quarter of the year, when it accounted for only 2% of the newshole.

(Those listening to liberal radio hosts such as Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes, in contrast, were not hearing nearly that much. They spent about a quarter as much of their time on the subject, 5%, which ranked immigration as the sixth-biggest liberal talk subject.)

According to this report, radio devoted more time (proportionately) to this topic than TV and print media.

McCain says that his stance on immigration has been "harmful to" him in the Republican primary for president, but he still believes in a "comprehensive approach."

Anne Arundel County in Maryland announces a new policy for county contractors:

Contractors doing business with a Maryland county will be required to certify they have no illegal immigrants on the payroll, according to an executive order issued by the county executive.

The Anne Arundel County order, issued this week by Republican County Executive John R. Leopold, requires contractors to sign an affidavit swearing they do not employ people living in the country illegally.

Evidence that a company has hired illegal immigrants would constitute a "material breach of contract," allowing the county to drop the contractor from the job.

The county's press release on this policy is here.