The Democratic race gets nastier as Clinton and Obama ratchet up their rhetoric against one another. Clinton keeps emphasizing Obama's resistance to having re-votes in Florida and Michigan; Obama's camp lashes out at Clinton as a "deeply flawed nominee."

The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF) has launched a new website, Truth in Immigration, which aims to counter "anti-immigrant" sentiment. One post discussing Lou Dobbs on this new site focuses on types of speech that it says the First Amendment does not protect:

The First Amendment also does not protect speakers from liability for the foreseeable consequences of their speech. In cases where speakers encourage their audience to commit certain illegal or inherently dangerous acts, liability may rest with speakers and the forums that they use.

For example, in 1975, in Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. 539 P.2d 36, the Supreme Court of California held that a radio station was legally liable for holding a broadcast contest that inspired listeners to drive recklessly. Two listeners, in their pursuit of a radio station vehicle that held a reward, negligently forced a car off the road, killing the driver. The Supreme Court of California affirmed a jury’s verdict that the radio station was liable for negligence for the “foreseeable results of a broadcast which created an undue risk of harm . . . .” Weirum, 539 P.2d at 43-45.

When a statement that creates a foreseeable risk of harm is broadcasted, therefore, the First Amendment does not protect the speakers and broadcasters from the consequences of their speech. Speakers and broadcasters who incite violence against immigrants and/or Latinos, for example, may be legally required to make injured parties whole through financial or other means.

So could MALDEF be implying that it would attempt to sue Dobbs and others if an "anti-immigrant" crime is committed and charge him as in some ways encouraging this violence? This could also be a threat to the networks (MALDEF mentions later that no one has a First Amendment right to have a show on a network) that they could be in the lawsuit crosshairs as well.

The Indiana employer-enforcement immigration bill failed last week. It could not clear conference committee in time for the deadline for legislation to be signed by the governor. Both branches of the Indiana legislature backed it with substantial support. Blame abounds:

Indiana's proposal died late Thursday when a House and Senate conference committee could not agree on provisions of the proposal -- which originally called for the Indiana State Police to enforce federal immigration law and would have made it a crime to conceal or harbor an illegal immigrant for profit.

A last-ditch attempt Friday to resurrect the legislation failed when Sen. Thomas K. Weatherwax, R-Logansport, and Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, refused to sign off on a proposed compromise.

But its advocates think the bill's fate was sealed by the House leadership, which did not appoint its conferees for more than a week, delaying action on the bill.

Others say Senate leadership can take some of the blame for appointing a chairman, Weatherwax, who was not a supporter.

Along with a news report in which McCain warns GOP candidates about their rhetoric about ("illegal") immigration, Mickey Kaus notes an interview McCain's given to Hannity in which he again does not explicitly say he would veto a McCain-Kennedy-style immigration bill if it came to his desk as president and places his faith in the border state governors to testify that the border is "secure" (presumably before some "comprehensive" reform can be initiated). Kaus thinks that McCain's using a "gimmick designed to let him shift to pushing for an illegal immigrant legalization bill shortly after he's actually elected."
McCain seems to be sharpening his tongue against GOP dissent from his position on immigration. In his warning to the candidates, he claims that Jim Oberweis in his (failed) effort to replace former Speaker Hastert embraced "very strong anti-immigrant rhetoric." In his campaign website's discussion of border security, Oberweis says that "America is a land of, by, and for immigrants."

Conferees have been named for the Indiana employer-enforcement bill, so the measure survives for now.

Obama wins Mississippi about 60-38.

Readers may remember an immigration employer-enforcement bill passing the Indiana House a few weeks ago. A version has also passed the state Senate. But this measure may never make it beyond the legislature: the House has not yet appointed conferees for the conference report session that must take place before it can go forward. The legislative session ends on Friday and, without a report by then, this measure could be headed toward what one report calls a "legislative graveyard." Many speculate that this refusal to appoint conferees may be a behind-the-scenes attempt to kill the bill. It seems as though action on appointing a conference committee will, at the moment, be delayed until Thursday.
Right now, there are some differences between the Senate and House bills that need to be ironed out before the legislation can move forward. Indiana House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer (D) seems to be hedging a little about if he will appoint conference committee members (e.a.):

"Eventually, I probably will, but we want to know some of the intent," Bauer said. "My suggestion to (the Senate) would be to concur (on the House version). It's a bill that does not have huge loopholes in it like the one sent over here."

Asked whether he would concur on the House bill, Senate President Pro Tempore David C. Long, R-Fort Wayne, said, "I think there's some questions about the funding," referring to $1.5 million added for the attorney general and State Police.

"There's a great deal of money poured into the bill which wasn't discussed here in the Senate. There are legitimate concerns on both sides of the issue about what the proper language will be and who should ultimately be responsible for hiring an illegal immigrant."

Backers of the bill, Sen. Mike Delph (R) and Rep. Vern Tincher (D), say they're optimistic about getting a conference committee. The legislation has faced a number of procedural obstacles before and has survived, so they may be right. But there also does seem to be some concerted effort to find some way of blocking this bill, and opponents of this measure may succeed in running out the clock.

Over 600 "illegal immigrants" have been recently apprehended in Arizona.

It seems as though House Republicans and some Democrats may push for a vote on the SAVE Act:

House Republicans are eyeing a bill by Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., that would do just that, as well as mandate that employers verify that their workers are in the U.S. legally.

Leaders are expected later this week to use a parliamentary tactic that would eventually force a vote on the measure if 218 lawmakers — a majority of the House — demand it. Republicans are pressuring Democratic backers of the measure — including several first-termers and dozens from swing districts, all facing tough re-election fights — to defy their leaders and sign the petition.

"Lots of Republicans and lots of Democrats would like to see something done," Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the No. 2 whip, said Friday.

The move would be a rebuke to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who opposes the Shuler bill unless it's paired with measures to allow undocumented workers a chance at legal status and allow legal immigrants to bring more family members to the United States. Democratic leaders have been working behind the scenes to craft an alternative that could dissuade their more conservative members who back Shuler's bill from joining the GOP effort to press forward on it.

They are considering pairing a widely popular measure by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., to allow more seasonal workers to come to the United States under so-called H-2B visas with proposals aimed at speeding the process of granting immigrants' spouses and minor children visas to join their parents in the U.S., among others. Also under discussion is a bill that would allow nonresident immigrants serving in the military to become citizens.

Pelosi seems like she wants to avoid a vote on this act, and it does seem as though she may fear being caught over a barrel: she doesn't want this bill to pass, but she doesn't want to endanger House Democrats who vote against this measure (and she does seem to think that voting against this measure may endanger some members). Especially as this bill focuses on employers, it may make Pelosi especially uncomfortable.

In the wake of the NAFTA-Canada flap, is Barack Obama's campaign subtly trying to distance itself from Austan Goolsbee, who used to be touted as one of Obama's top economic advisers? Karl at Protein Wisdom thinks so.

Clinton rejects the notion of a re-vote for Florida and says that she would "not accept a caucus" in Michigan (or Florida):

I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

Clinton won Florida handily, so she already has an advantage there. Plus, both she and Obama were on the ballot there, so she's got some cover. Only her name was on the ballot in Michigan, though, last time, so she'll have a harder time opposing some kind of re-vote for the state. A Michigan caucus would probably play to Obama's strengths, however, so she she'd like to avoid that.

A California appeals court issues a ruling that may threaten many home-schoolers:

Parents who lack teaching credentials cannot educate their children at home, according to a state appellate court ruling that is sending waves of fear through California's home schooling families.

Advocates for the families vowed to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court. Enforcement until then appears unlikely, but if the ruling stands, home-schooling supporters say California will have the most regressive law in the nation.

"This decision is a direct hit against every home schooler in California," said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which represents the Sunland Christian School, which specializes in religious home schooling. "If the state Supreme Court does not reverse this . . . there will be nothing to prevent home-school witch hunts from being implemented in every corner of the state of California."

Actually there is something that can be done to "prevent home-school witch hunts from being implemented in every corner of the state of California": a law allowing home-schooling by non-credentialed parents.

Unlike at least 30 other states, home schooling is not specifically addressed in California law. Under the state education code, students must be enrolled in a public or private school, or can be taught at home by a credentialed tutor.

The state legislature could pass a law to defend home-schooling. Where would the state teacher's union stand?
Though even passing a law might not change the precedent that this ruling sets in adjudicating the relationship between parents and schools.

H/T: Protein Wisdom, which includes some comments on the way in which California courts have worked to limit the power of parents vis-a-vis public schools.

UPDATE: Some argue that the LA Times story quoted above misunderstands the import of the ruling and that it is not such a blow to home-schooling after all.

Clinton seems to have gotten a bounce in PA from her wins on Tuesday. According to Rasmussen, she now leads Obama 52-37 (as opposed to 46-42 on Feb. 26). Rasmussen also shows Clinton regaining a national lead over Obama, 48-43.

Howard Dean seems to be supportive of Florida and Michigan having a re-vote:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged Florida and Michigan party officials to come up with plans to repeat their presidential nominating contests so that their delegates can be counted.

"All they have to do is come before us with rules that fit into what they agreed to a year and a half ago, and then they'll be seated," Dean said during a round of interviews Thursday on network and cable TV news programs.

The two state parties will have to find the funds to pay for new contests without help from the national party, Dean said.

A number of senators have joined together to form the "Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus." Right now, it has nine members (all Republicans). Are any Democrats interested in joining?

U.S. Sens. David Vitter (R- Louisiana), Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina), Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia), Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) and Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) announced the formation of the Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus.

The U.S. illegal immigrant population is the highest it has ever been. One in 25 residents currently living in the United States is here illegally. Over the last seven years, immigration has been the highest in history – 10.9 million immigrants arrived, over half of them (five million plus) without legal status.

The Caucus members recognize that Congress has presented the American people with a false choice in solving the illegal immigration problem – give illegal aliens amnesty or round them up and deport them en masse. The principle mission of the Caucus is to promote a true, achievable alternative: attrition through enforcement and border security. Living illegally in the United States will become more difficult and less satisfying over time when the government – at ALL LEVELS – enforces all of the laws already on the books.

The Caucus will be a platform to let Americans know that some in the U.S. Senate are continuing to make sure that the laws already on the books will be enforced, act as the voice of those concerned citizens who have expressed their opinions time and time again for interior enforcement and border security, push for stronger border security and interior enforcement legislation, and work together in the U.S. Senate to defeat future legislation that offers amnesty.

Some GOP senators are about to propose a new package of immigration legislation:

The package, an enforcement smorgasbord assembled by at least eight lawmakers, consists of 11 bills, but could expand to include as many as 14. Some elements echo House bills, but others go beyond House proposals.

One would discourage states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants by docking 10 percent of highway funding from states that continue to do so. Another would extend the presence of National Guard on the border and a third would end language assistance at federal agencies and the voting booth for people with limited English ability.

A bill by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who is leading the effort, would impose a maximum two-year jail sentence on someone caught crossing the border for a second time.

"The point is to reinforce the idea that most of us here feel that we need to make enforcement and border security a first step to solving the overall problem," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of the sponsors.

Although Congress usually avoids tough legislation during an election year, Vitter insisted that he and his colleagues could still get something done. "There are concrete steps we can take. None of us see any reason to waste this time," he said.

Other bills in the package would:

• Block federal funding from cities that bar their police from asking about immigration status.

• Give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to use information from the Social Security Administration to target illegal immigrants.

• Require construction of 700 miles of fencing along the Southern border, not including vehicle barriers.

• Impose sanctions on countries that refuse to repatriate their citizens.

• Deport any immigrant, legal or illegal, for one drunken-driving conviction.

• Enable local and state police to enforce federal immigration laws

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the Republican proposal "falls far short of what is needed." Democrats want to combine enforcement with a guest-worker program and a way to deal with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Reid "continues to support legislation that is tough on people who break the law, fair to taxpayers and practical to implement," Manley said.

But Democrats also have begun embracing a tougher stance on immigration as well. A confidential study assembled for the Democratic leadership earlier this year urged them to start using tougher language. Democrats have focused on offering opportunity to immigrants, but the study by two think tanks urged them to begin speaking in terms of "requiring" illegal immigrants to become legal and about what's best for the United States.

Where does Sen. McCain stand on this package? Could his official support of it quiet some of the concerns of those who are doubtful about him over his support of the "grand bargain"?

Whom can Clinton in part thank for her victory in Texas? The border counties. Aside from Brewster county (which only cast 754 votes according to CNN), she won all counties on the US-Mexico border, some by very commanding margins (e.g. 77%-21% or 83%-16%), and a significant portion of her 100,000-vote victory margin can be found in these counties. Her margins of victory in Hidalgo, Webb, Cameron, Maverick, and Starr counties (just some of the border counties) combined add up to over 90,000 votes. Throw in Nueces county, which is on the Gulf of Mexico and close to the southern border, at you're at over 100,000. Part of Clinton's success in Texas came from her ability to avoid any massive pro-Obama blowouts in the urban areas of Austin, Houston, and Dallas (the counties of which often when very strongly for Obama but without too many 70-30 splits). But part of her success also relied upon her ability to rack up massive leads in the border counties along with suburban and rural counties.

Marc Ambinder discusses potential plans for a Democratic re-vote in Florida and Michigan, which currently are not having their delegates counted because they voted too early for the Democratic primary rules:

The thinking, here, is that the ONLY way that Clinton makes up her delegate gap is to get Michigan and Florida's earned delegates to count. The ONLY way they count is to re-run the vote under the umbrella of the DNC's rules.

The chutzpah here is that she already won Florida -- and is challenging Obama, essentially, to a fair fight... daring him... saying, "I can win this fair and square... same with Michigan... let's give the voters in those states a real voice."

Obama's response would no doubt me: "Well, wait a minute. You and I agreed to the rules. And now you want to change them at the last minute?"

He may not have a choice: if Florida and Michigan resubmit delegate plans to the DNC, if the DNC approves the plans, and if the states can find a way to pay for primaries, the contests would be on.

And it seems as though Obama may have a hard time complaining about a re-vote. Certainly, he wouldn't want to alienate the population of FL and MI, and too much complaining could do that.

But an opposition to having the voters of Florida and Michigan have a say also cuts against what is the main argument of proponents of Obama "inevitability": his lead in pledged delegates as these delegates represent the will of the Democratic voters (even if these delegates are often elected on the backs of independents and Republican voters). Alter says that it would be "suicide" for the superdelegates to overturn the "will of the people," but this democratic appeal has a harder time working when a significant portion of "the people" do not have their votes count. Obama and his backers can appeal to the "rules" and how they shouldn't change them partway through the election, but the "rules" also allow for superdelegates to vote as they will and not be bound by the numbers of pledged delegates.

A re-vote might not even significantly hurt Obama. Even if Clinton wins both states--and she might not do so well in Michigan--she may still not catch Obama's pledged delegate lead. Though she would be closer--and some superdelegates might not feel the "will of the people" is that clear if there's only a 20- or 40- delegate difference (both under 1% of the total delegate numbers). I'm sure the Clinton campaign would be glad to seat the current delegate results (Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan), but I doubt the DNC would be very willing to let that happen.

And the networks have called Texas for Clinton, too.

The networks call Ohio for Clinton.