Sen. Kennedy feeling progressive anger on immigration

As I predicted, Senator Kennedy is alienating progressives who are opposed to the immigration reform bill from the left. Btw, a test vote on the immigration bill will be held today, so FYI - call your Senators.

Months of tumultuous negotiations with the White House and GOP allies have brought the Senate's liberal lion, Edward M. Kennedy, to the brink of passing a bill to legalize up to 12 million unlawful immigrants.

But his concessions to get there have alienated liberals who in the past have counted him as their strongest champion. A showdown test vote is scheduled today, and the Senate could pass — or reject — the bill by week's end.

Although I can't say that this little taunt is helping matters much:

On ABC's This Week, Sen. Kennedy said of immigration reform opponents, "We know what they're against. What are they for?"

Nor does Bush's confidence in Kennedy support his argument. Kennedy led the coalition to pass the disastrous Medicare Part D which forbids the US government from negotiating lower prescription drug prices for seniors and the infamous No Child Left Behind.

Kennedy's pragmatic history and his expertise — he maneuvered a broad immigration overhaul through the Senate in 1965, during his second term — has earned him Bush's trust.

"Senator Kennedy is one of the best legislative senators there is. He can get the job done. I know firsthand, because we reformed our education system," Bush said at a March news conference in Mexico.

Senator Kennedy, Bush is a snake. Avoid his poison kiss!!! Also, stop using your "liberal lion" status to get us into shitty deals with Republicans. You would think that once you got sold a lemon the first two times that you might avoid getting massively snookered a third time, especially when you are playing with millions of lives.

Elizabeth Edwards' extraordinary leadership and the haircut controversy

If there is a woman in the presidential primary that I really respect, it's Elizabeth Edwards. She's a mother battling cancer who nonetheless feels free to travel the country and speak her mind. Today she showed up at SF's Pride Breakfast of the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club to support gay marriage.

To put in it context, her husband John Edwards doesn't go so far - he and the other top runners (Hillary and Obama) support civil unions.

Here's one woman who is a beautiful fighter. Democrats need more standard bearers like her - even if she feels emboldened by her cancer to speak out and to say what she feels is most important, I have to say that relatively few people are doing it with the grace and gusto that she is.

Also, I have to say that I find the timing of the Edwards haircut oppo bomb to be suspect - he had climbing poll ratings after the announcement that his wife has cancer, and then someone very smart put together this meme of Edwards as hypocrite that has been ringing throughout American media outlets.

And it's true - it does look bad to the average voter if your campaign is about Two Americas, and you style yourself as a poverty fighter if you worked for a hedge fund. But the Edwards campaign has been sinking in polls because they haven't really hit back hard enough, soon enough. You could say that Edwards got swiftboated on his key issue. The haircut thing, the house thing, then the hedge fund thing, and now the nonprofit thing. My question is which campaign fed the video to Ben Smith, and was it a Dem or Repub hatchet job?

It's all piling on to create what might be an impenetrable prison. And it sucks, but politics is the business of slinging dirt and making it stick. Organizing is the business of uniting people to build power and create change. So there are plenty of organizers who justifiably disdain presidential and electoral politics since it sucks so much money and time away from issues-based politics. But I still maintain that electoral change is a key component of social justice organizing - that if you want to see change happen, it's good to have friends in high places.

Taguba speaks out

I have been waiting for the clarion words of Major General Antonio Taguba, Filipino American veteran and author of the legendary Taguba Report faulting the military leadership for the excesses of Abu Ghraib. It was a thankless job that he was given -- either write a meaningless, apologist report downplaying the abuse of prisoners or write a honest and thorough assessment. Like all good heroes, he chose the harder route, and maintained his good name.

The Taguba Report was one of the milestones that helped the majority of Americans see the war for the lies that they are. After pictures from Abu Ghraib pictures surfaced, the last thing the military needed was internal confirmation that leadership knew and condoned behavior, which is exactly what Taguba delivered.

Taguba was assigned to the Office of Reserve Affairs at the Pentagon after completing the Abu Ghraib investigation. His March 2004 report on the scandal found that "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees" at Abu Ghraib by soldiers from the 372nd Military Police Company from October to December 2003.

Taguba criticized Rumsfeld for claiming not to know about the extent of the abuse and that he had not seen photographs documenting it until months after the army began an investigation into the allegations in January 2004. Taguba said senior Pentagon officials had been briefed on the case and given accounts of the pictures early in the investigation.

When the report came out, it was all over the press, and gave the confirmation that the military dreaded. Some parts of the American left were happy that the photos and report came out, as a strategic manuever to win the hearts and minds of the American people. But it was a sobering, sombre affirmation that we had lost the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, and how. It showed the breakdown of military ethos and discipline, and foretold a larger, greater failure.

And then the man who had helped ignite a furor was quieted, sent to a back room office, and forced to resign shortly afterwards, unsurprisingly. But he seemed like a man with quite a few good stories to tell, and I knew that they would come out eventually. Why? I knew that he had been involved with the fight for Filipino American veterans' equity, and that someone who was deeply committed to a cause like that would eventually tell his part of the story.

In an interview with The New Yorker, Major General Antonio Taguba said that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior civilian and military officials had treated him brusquely after the investigation into the formerly American-run prison near Baghdad was completed in 2004. He also said that in early 2006 he was ordered, without explanation, to retire within a year.

"They always shoot the messenger," Taguba said. "To be accused of being overzealous and disloyal - that cuts deep into me. I was ostracized for doing what I was asked to do."

If only being overzealous was considered a beneficial trait in the Bush era, and if daring to disagree were approved of, even welcomed, we might not be in this mess. Sadly, Bush and his minions brook no dissent, no contradiction, even when it might be the wiser course.

Immigration "compromise" staggers back from the dead

And is a worse bill for it. The new focus/spin will be on "border security" and the bill will ironically be revived before Independence Day (since its outcome will tear families apart.)

Everyone from President Bush on down who supports it (including Dems) will be parroting how much more money will go into making the borders safer:

Earlier in the day, trying to start the bill moving again in the Senate, Mr. Bush called for an immediate burst of $4.4 billion in spending to show that the government was committed to “securing this border once and for all.”

Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, welcomed the president’s support for more spending on border security, but said, “There’s no reason why we should be forced to tie amnesty to it.”

Mr. Bush said the $4.4 billion would “come from the fines and penalties that we collect from those who have come to our country illegally” and apply for legal status.

But it will remain a hard sell, because the GOP base has totally deserted Bush on this issue.

Let's look at the ugly stuffed into this mummy of a bill:

Plus there's a delicious new tamper-proof social security card in the works:
A new proposal floated on Thursday in an effort to deter the hiring of illegal immigrants would put biometric identifiers into Social Security cards. That change would make the cards more difficult to forge and counterfeit, Mr. Schumer said.

Everyone has to do the touchback dance, not just those on a path to citizenship, and shiny new jail time for those who overstay student, tourist, or any visas:

Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison said the amendment package includes her proposal to require all undocumented aliens to return to their home country to apply for a ``Z-visa'' that will allow them to remain in the U.S. as long as they have jobs.

The original legislation would require the so-called touchback only of immigrants seeking a path to U.S. citizenship.

A new amendment would impose criminal penalties, including jail terms, for people who overstay tourist, student or work visas.

It would also set up a visa tracking system to allow law enforcement to check whether a person had overstayed their visas, as did several participants in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Yum, yum. Lots of bright shiny toys to placate the GOP base. As I said before, one of the downsides of xenophobic haters winning defeat of the previous bill is that well, the Senate feels even more compelled to stick in measures to please said haters.

So this version of the "mummy dance" is really one step forward (path to citizenship), twenty steps back (all other heinous parts of the bill, employment points chief amongst them.) I am done with this bill for this Congress. I just don't see how we can get something good out of this even if we go into conference with the House.

Btw, Educational justice links to an informative article about the National Immigration Forum and DC lobbying versus the will of the grassroots on immigration, and Thao Worra has a local view on feeling betrayed by his Senators on the English only issue.

Immigration: Strange bedfellows

Secretly, I was counting on the xenophobes across America to bring down this crappy immigration bill. And it worked!

I know it's a bad thing to want that, despite the bill being worse than the current untenable situation. Because the danger of this is that when we do try to pass some more proactive, beneficial legislation after the 08 elections, we will encounter a stronger, more unified anti-immigrant voice. I blame Lou Dobbs for harnessing and riding this sentiment to higher ratings, and amplifying it, but I suspect that the next immigrant rights rally I go to will have more than a few straggling haters (despite the implosion of the press-whoring anti-immigrant group the Minutemen' over inflated egos and embezzlement. Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of fellows, really.)

If the Sensenbrenner bill served to unify the immigrant rights movement across America, this year served as a galvanizing force for our opponents. Some of these people may actually support legal immigration versus undocumented immigration, but too often it's a throwaway line, a talking point, to conceal their real desire to drive all us people out as discussed in the NYTimes' article Grassroots Roared and Immigration Plan Collapsed:

“These people came in the wrong way, so they don’t belong here, period,” Mrs. Thibodeaux, a Republican, said of some 12 million illegal immigrants who would have been granted a path to citizenship under the Senate bill.

One of these days, that headline is going to be "Grassroots Roared and Immigration is Finally Just." The NYTimes poll showed that a majority of Americans do support immigration reform and a path to citizenship, so I have faith that one day we will overcome. One day as well, we'll get an article about Asian American clout nationally and politicians hounding us not just for our money but our votes, but meanwhile I'm glad for my Latino companions in the movement.

And the NYTimes confirms my earlier suspicions that Reid was skillfully driving a wedge in the GOP's base.

The office of Mr. Reid, who had emphatically sought to hold Republicans accountable for sabotaging a presidential priority, distributed a document titled “Republicans Brought Down the Immigration Bill.”

It listed news reports and Republican statements that put the onus on the president’s party. “Last night, Republicans torpedoed comprehensive immigration reform,” the statement said.

Republicans fired back, saying Mr. Reid never embraced the bill and had, rather skillfully in some people’s opinion, set up Republicans to take the fall.

Howdya like Dem apples? Yums!

Immigration bill Dead on Arrival - Bush's albatross and Reid's genius

Well, I can't say it hasn't been a heart-stopping ride this week with all these amendments flying around. But to take a step back from the visceral personal aspects of this bill, I wonder if Harry Reid is cagily playing the Republicans on this bill. The first cloture vote failed and now he is scheduling another one later in the evening.

Like he has no or little intention of letting this bill pass (please, oh please) and is just using all this mileage to rile up the xenophobic Republican base to hate Bush more. What makes me even think this?

Senate negotiators sought to rescue immigration legislation that would grant legal status to 12 million undocumented aliens after the measure failed a critical test vote.

The 33 lawmakers voting to limit debate on the plan were 27 short of the 60 needed to move toward final passage. Democrats scheduled another vote for later this evening. Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, a chief negotiator, said it was ``touch and go'' whether enough members would agree to curtail debate.

If a second vote fails, ``the bill's gone,'' said Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. ``What else can I do?'' He appealed to President George W. Bush to twist the arms of 47 Republicans who voted not to limit debate, saying the legislation's demise would produce headlines that ``the president fails again.''

``It's his bill, it's not our bill,'' Reid told reporters. ``It can't pass unless we get significant Republican support.''

...Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, accused Republican opponents of offering amendments simply ``to embarrass those who support'' the legislation.

`Needs to Help Us'

``If Senator McConnell wants to pass President Bush's immigration bill -- crafted by his Cabinet officers'' then the Republican leader ``needs to help us,'' Durbin said.

Note Reid and Durbin's clever phrasing that it's "the president's bill," tying it neatly to the presumptive standard bearer of the GOP. I think that's why he allowed Dorgan (D-NE) to refile the guestworker amendment at the end of last night, so that the coalition would be in confusion, knowing that it was a poison pill for the Republicans.

Majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Republicans would be to blame if the bill failed, claiming President Bush did not rally his party.

"The headline (tomorrow) is going to be . . . president fails again," he told reporters. When one pointed out that Reid allowed a vote on Dorgan's amendment two weeks after a similar move failed, he snapped at the reporter.

"Listen, let's not focus on Democrats," Reid said.

I am sorta quite impressed at Reid's cojones. Look at how he congratulates Dorgan after the bill passes.

Why was Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) given a second crack at his immigration amendment that was rejected two weeks earlier and tagged as a potential deal breaker?

One answer: Until he got a vote, Dorgan threatened to slow down the process by objecting to any unanimous consent agreements offered by bill managers to push the measure toward a final vote, according to Senate aides.

“I had a right to get a vote on my amendment,” Dorgan said this morning.

Another reason: A majority of the Democratic caucus, including Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the rest of the Democratic leadership, wanted to see the Dorgan amendment approved.

Dorgan’s amendment, which received 37 Democratic votes early this morning, would phase-out the temporary guest worker program after five years.

Sen. Jon Kyl, the GOP’s chief negotiator, has said he could not support the bill with a phase-out of the guest worker program, setting up a showdown between Democrats and Republicans over the fate of the bill.

Democrats convened a caucus meeting this morning to discuss strategy. As Reid emerged from the meeting, the majority leader tapped Dorgan on the back, smiled and said, “excellent.”

When asked what Reid was referring to, Dorgan shrugged.

This wouldn't be the first time that Reid has been a wily strategist - remember in 2005 he forced a closed session of Congress to discuss intelligence failures and then he made the Republicans look like whining ninnies.

Live blogging...and now the bill is dead. And papers are totally buying Reid's spin. Sweet!

``I want to finish this bill, but I can't do it alone,'' Reid said. ``Let's have President Bush work with us.''

The measure's failure is a defeat for President George W. Bush and a bipartisan group of senators who negotiated a compromise to give legal status to immigrants in this country illegally and create a guest-worker program to help U.S. employers fill jobs that Americans won't take.

---------

(Reuters) - A White House-backed bill revamping U.S. immigration laws stalled in the U.S. Senate on Thursday, handing President George W. Bush a major legislative setback.

---------

NYTimes ---- This evening’s vote is a bitter disappointment for President Bush, who has made comprehensive immigration reform a priority.

...Before this evening’s crucial votes, Mr. Reid made it clear he would hold Republicans, who voted unanimously against limiting the debate, responsible if the bill died.

“The headline’s going to be, Democrats vote to continue the bill, Republicans vote against it, the president fails again,” predicted Mr. Reid.

Awesome - I get to have my cake, and eat it too! and wait for a Democratic president. Time to send Harry Reid some moola. Cos it's not like Dems don't control both houses of Congress, and couldn't get the bill passed for Bush to sign. Harry Reid, you just made my day with your feint-block-parry-thrust. If it were possible to think a 68 year old man with glasses was sexy, I would, but damn! Look at the brains on you! Masterful, indeed.

And remember what I said about how some of the most conservative Republicans had joined in voting to end the guestworker program and that ideologically, it didn't sound right, that they might be voting strategically to kill the bill? I was indeed correct, my suspicions confirmed in the WashPost.

But just past midnight this morning, Sens. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), and Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), along with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), switched votes to pass what Republican architects of the compromise immigration bill are now calling a deal killer.

DeMint and Bunning conceded they supported the guest worker program, but their votes were intended to bring down the bill.

"My preference is to stop it and start again," DeMint said, explaining his vote switch with, "if it hurts the bill, I'm for it."

...But Lott made it clear, with conservatives furious at the president for his support of the bill, Bush's support may not help.

"With regard to the president, on this issue, I hope he concentrates on the G-8," he said.

NICE - Reid has singlehanded managed to cleave the GOP base between the corporatists and the xenophobes, and he managed to chop through the notoriously disciplined Republican voting bloc in the Senate. He also timed it to coincide with a Republican debate where you got plenty of GOP presidential candidates blaming the president, and only McCain supporting Bush on immigration. Beautiful way to get them in a circular firing squad. As has been noted, immigration for the GOP is like Iraq for our base. And the cherry on top is that the Dorgan amendment wins a Democratic senator in a red state some major points from his constituents who are against increasing the number of immigrants. Wow, this man IS the Art of War, I wouldn't want to play chess against him.

If you think he's as awesome as I do, send him a donation ending in .67 and tell him it's for today's date June 7th and the trick he pulled off. I didn't see the full picture last night but I see it now, and it's a doozy. Majority Leader, I will try to have more faith in you next time around.

PS: Washpost has a handy one-stop shop for all the roll calls.

PPS: It's not just the victory for or by Harry Reid alone - our community made a difference by getting Democrats to rethink their votes and to prize family reunification.

ROLL CALL: English is now the national language of the US Govt?

WOW. This slipped under the radar of the NYTimes and the AP. An amendment by Inhofe (R-OK) to make English the national language of the United States. And another amendment to strengthen English by Salazar (D-Colorado.)

Just like before, pres. candidates in bold, those voting against party starred.

Inhofe Amdt. No. 1151; To amend title 4, United States Code, to declare English as the national language of the Government of the United States, and for other purposes.

YEAs ---64
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) *Baucus (D-MT) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) *Byrd (D-WV) *Cardin (D-MD) *Carper (D-DE) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) *Conrad (D-ND) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC)	Dole (R-NC) *Dorgan (D-ND) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) *Klobuchar (D-MN) Kyl (R-AZ) *Landrieu (D-LA) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) *McCaskill (D-MO) McConnell (R-KY)	*Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) *Nelson (D-FL) *Nelson (D-NE) *Pryor (D-AR) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) *Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) *Webb (D-VA) *Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---33
Akaka (D-HI) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) Domenici (R-NM) Durbin (D-IL)	Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT)	Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Whitehouse (D-RI)

Not Voting - 2
Dodd (D-CT)	Johnson (D-SD)

Wow. Not sure what some progressive stalwarts like Amy Klobuchar, James Webb, Jon Tester are doing voting for this crappy bill. Wow, I officially feel sick, nauseated by the lack of backbone that the US Senate has. That some so-called progressive Senators have. I feel pretty betrayed by the faith that so many people have in the system, and I want to wash my hands of all electoral politics for the evening. I guess you could say that this is the last straw. I don't want this bill. I don't want this bill passed at all, i don't want it with its poisonous sides (amendments), I don't want it with green eggs or ham. I hope this bill dies.

Salazar Amdt. No. 1384; To preserve and enhance the role of the English language.

YEAs ---58
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) *Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Brownback (R-KS) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) *Coleman (R-MN) *Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) *Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL)	Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) *Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) *Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) *Murkowski (R-AK)	Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) *Snowe (R-ME) 8Specter (R-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Warner (R-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---39
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Bond (R-MO) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) *Byrd (D-WV) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID)	DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Kyl (R-AZ) Lott (R-MS)	Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) *Pryor (D-AR) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH)

Not Voting - 2
Dodd (D-CT)	Johnson (D-SD)

Guessing from how partisan the voting was, this was probably the softball amendment that is intended to somewhat ameliorate Inhofe's amendment. But the roll call won't link to the full text of the amendment until a few days later, since they only voted tonight.

ROLL CALL: Other family reunification amdts defeated, guestworker sunsets

Ending guestworker after 5 years (Dorgan Amdt):

YEAs ---49
Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) *Bunning (R-KY) Byrd (D-WV) Cardin (D-MD) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) Conrad (D-ND) *Corker (R-TN) DeMint (R-SC) *Dole (R-NC) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL)	*Enzi (R-WY) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) *Inhofe (R-OK) Inouye (D-HI) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE)	Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) *Sessions (R-AL) *Shelby (R-AL) Stabenow (D-MI) *Sununu (R-NH) Tester (D-MT) *Thune (R-SD) *Vitter (R-LA) Webb (D-VA) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---48
*Akaka (D-HI) Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Burr (R-NC) *Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID)	Crapo (R-ID) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) *Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Isakson (R-GA) *Kennedy (D-MA) *Kerry (D-MA) Kyl (R-AZ) *Lieberman (ID-CT) *Lincoln (D-AR)	Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) *Pryor (D-AR) Roberts (R-KS) *Salazar (D-CO) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) *Whitehouse (D-RI)

Not Voting - 2
Dodd (D-CT)	Johnson (D-SD)

This is a muuuuch more interesting one - here you see where Democratic members of the bipartisan coalition fall - Kennedy and Kerry, both amongst the most progressive members of the Senate based upon voting records, and Kennedy a liberal lion who is the "go to" guy for labor unions, has voted AGAINST ending a guestworker program that labor vehemently objects to. Innnnteresting...additionally, Kerry's vote indicates he probably doesn't have a hope or thought of running for national office again. Other Dems who voted against this are members of the bipartisan coalition - Feinstein, Cantwell, Salazar. Akaka is definitely going to have to explain this to his constituents and to her supporters, some of whom are unions. Lieberman is a pro-free trade Dem, but will also have to explain this to the unions, including the CT AFLCIO who backed him against Ned Lamont. Sheldon Whitehouse - this is a pretty gutsy vote for a first-term Senator from a very blue state. Lincoln is a Dem in a red state. The immigrant vote should mobilize and clean house with some of these so-called progressive champions (California and Massachusetts, I'm looking at you.)

All the Dem presidential candidates voted yes, except for Dodd who might not have been present on the floor (perhaps at a fundraiser?) And if so, this is still a cowardly move. Not befitting the leadership expected of a president to duck out on such an important issue as immigration.

As for all the Republicans who voted for the bill, I'm not sure - there are some pretty hardcore Republicans up there, not all of whom are voting yes just because they hate the idea of more immigrants entering this country. Could it be that they are strategizing to vote for certain poison pills that might make the coalition fall apart?

The other pro-family reunification amendments (defeated):
YEAH, I'm calling out all you turncoat Democrats, especially the ones who could afford to vote FOR family reunification. As before, pres. candidates in boldface, those voting against party lines starred.

1) Obama's amdt to reinvestigate employment-based immigration after 5 years as opposed to 14.

YEAs ---42
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) Conrad (D-ND) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL)	Feingold (D-WI) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ)	Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---55
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) *Cardin (D-MD) *Carper (D-DE) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC)	Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) *Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) *Kennedy (D-MA) Kyl (R-AZ) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ)	McConnell (R-KY) *Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) *Pryor (D-AR) Roberts (R-KS) *Salazar (D-CO) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

Not Voting - 2
Dodd (D-CT)	Johnson (D-SD)

All presidential candidates voted for family reunification, except Dodd who either wasn't there (lame) or didn't want to take a stand (lame) or wasn't there because he didn't want to take a stand (most likely, and lame.)

All the yes votes were Dems, so let's skip to bashing the Dems who voted no. Cardin and Mikulski of Maryland - both could have voted yes with no problems - Maryland is one of the states with the highest number of immigrants, many of whom are Asian American and who benefited from family reunification. Hell, Mikulski's retiring after this term, she could have voted her conscience.

Carper of Delaware, I don't know what his deal is, since his colleague Biden voted yes. He is a moderate Dem. Pryor and Lincoln are conservative Dems from a red state.

Kennedy, Feinstein, Salazar are part of the bipartisan coalition. Immigrant rights activists in California and Massachusetts should feel incredibly betrayed by their representatives.

2) Clinton Amdt. No. 1183, As Further Modified; To reclassify the spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents as immediate relatives.

YEAs ---44
Akaka (D-HI) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) Conrad (D-ND) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA)	Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD)	Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---53
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) *Baucus (D-MT) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) *Byrd (D-WV) *Carper (D-DE) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID)	Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Kyl (R-AZ) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL)	McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) *Pryor (D-AR) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) *Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

Not Voting - 2
Dodd (D-CT)	Johnson (D-SD)

I'm tired, and brokenhearted. No good reason to be, since everyday Congress doesn't live up to someone's hopes or wishes. This was a pretty straight party vote on the yes side, so I'd just like to ask much ballyhooed grassroots icon Jon Tester - what do you have against reuniting family members? Against reuniting children with their parents and wives with husbands? Same goes for Baucus, Byrd, Carper and Pryor?

Fuck, I mean JOE LIEBERMAN managed to vote the right way, the compassionate way on each and every single one of the pro family amendments. And he's always crying about how he's going to join the Republicans and complete his party-change operation for once and all.

Someone save me, I'm writing from a place of anger and frustration, but I don't understand why our elected Democrats are willing to settle for a bill that is going to be so harmful. Why our community leaders aren't doing more to stand up to this nonsense. Why we as citizens don't raise more of an outcry. Lord, sometimes it feels so lonely. It feels like it did in the early days of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, cold and rainy and miserable, a lone voice.

Mike Honda is opposed to these amendments, and continues doing the right thing and fighting for families and immigrants.

Rep. Honda (CA-15): "As it stands, the Senate immigration bill veers away drastically from our nation’s longstanding tradition of family-based immigration," said Rep. Mike Honda (CA-15), Chair of CAPAC. "I commend Senators Clinton, Dodd, Hagel, Menendez, and Obama, who are taking critical steps to uphold our nation’s commitment to family values in immigration. I urge the Senate to support their amendments throughout the week. Other amendments would dangerously rollback the scant due process protections currently available to immigrants."

Why can't other members of Congress get a spine? There's 20,000 other things I got on my plate, and this is the only thing that engrosses me, that keeps me up at night, that has my stomach tied in knots. I need to find a new job.

ROLL CALL: The immigration "compromise" is heartbreaking

Quick recap of what amendments did and did not pass today:

PASSED:
1) Increased penalties for illegal immigrants who have been convicted of sex offenses, crimes of domestic violence or the use of firearms in alien-smuggling operations, but not for those who subverted documents to get here.
2) Gave law enforcement and intelligence agencies access to information in applications for legal status that are denied. The vote was 57 to 39.
3) Ending the guestworker program after 5 years (49-48.)

FAILED:
1) Permanently barring criminals from entering the US or getting citizenship, denying legal status to illegal immigrants who had flouted deportation orders or been convicted of identity theft or fraudulent use of identification documents.
2) Menendez amendment to reunite family members who filed papers and who have been patiently waiting to see their loved ones.
3) Obama amendment to
4) Clinton amendment to

Today, Menendez's amendment died, in what looks like a long slow march for the immigration "compromise" to being voted through:

The Senate also rejected a proposal by Sen. Robert Menendez (news, bio, voting record), D-N.J., that bill supporters called a "killer amendment." It would have delayed the bill's shift in favor of attracting foreign workers with needed skills as opposed to keeping families together. Menendez won 53 votes, seven short of the 60 needed under a Senate procedural rule invoked by his opponents.

Menendez's proposal would have allowed more than 800,000 people who had applied for permanent legal status by the beginning of 2007 to obtain green cards based purely on their family connections — a preference the bill ends for most relatives who got in line after May 2005.

Sen. Jon Kyl (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., a chief advocate of the bill, said most of the visa applicants Menendez wanted to help are so far back in line that it would be decades before the Homeland Security Department could process them. The Senate adopted Kyl's alternative, which would retain the family preference status for applicants who might win approval by 2026 under the department's projections.

Menendez, whose parents were Cuban immigrants, called the Kyl amendment "a fig leaf" that would make no meaningful change to the bill.

So family reunification, and honoring family values, is moot for almost a million people who got in line legally.

Obama and Hillary's amendments both failed as well.

One would have postponed the bill's shift to an emphasis on education and skills among visa applicants as opposed to family connections. The other, offered by Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., would have ended a new point system for those seeking permanent resident "green cards" after five years rather than 14 years.

...Presidential contenders featured prominently in the day's debates. Sen. Hillary R. Clinton, D-N.Y., fell short in her bid to remove limits on visas for the spouses and minor children of immigrants with permanent resident status. Obama called the green card point system a risky "experiment in social engineering.

On the bright side, an amendment by Texas Senator John Cornyn (R) died after Democrats led by Kennedy (D-MA) put up a similar bill:

By a vote of 51 to 46, the Senate on Wednesday rejected an amendment proposed by Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, that could have made hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants ineligible for legal status.

Under Mr. Cornyn’s proposal, gang members, terrorists and other convicted felons would have been permanently barred from the United States and denied immigration benefits. Most significant, the amendment would have denied legal status to illegal immigrants who had flouted deportation orders or been convicted of identity theft or fraudulent use of identification documents.

By a vote of 66 to 32, the Senate approved the Democratic alternative, which would increase penalties for illegal immigrants who have been convicted of sex offenses, crimes of domestic violence or the use of firearms in alien-smuggling operations.

In a surprise, the Senate approved another Cornyn amendment that would give law enforcement and intelligence agencies access to information in applications for legal status that are denied. The vote was 57 to 39.

Mr. Cornyn said his proposal would give law enforcement “a critical tool to prevent document fraud and to prosecute those who have broken our immigration laws.”

But Mr. Kennedy said that without the guarantee of confidentiality, illegal immigrants would be extremely reluctant to come forward and apply for legal status.

To be honest, I understand that Kennedy is the key to the Democratic coalition, but I am sorry because I don't see the leader of the immigration debate in 1965 here, I see someone who is taking a less than progressive stance on this issue. I really think that this bill is going to be another No Child Left Behind, and we're going to be the ones eating it.

We also avoided some nasty poison pill amendments by Repubs like McConnell Amdt. No. 1170, To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require individuals voting in person to present photo identification.

So now for the dirty nitty gritty ROLL CALL, cos you want to know where your Senator stands:

1) MENENDEZ FAMILY REUNIFICATION (pres. candidates bolded, those who voted against their party starred)

YEAs ---53
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) *Bunning (R-KY) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) *Coleman (R-MN) Conrad (D-ND) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI)	Feinstein (D-CA) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD)	Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Smith (R-OR) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---44
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Burr (R-NC) Byrd (D-WV) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID)	DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Kyl (R-AZ) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL)	McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

Not Voting - 2
Dodd (D-CT)	Johnson (D-SD)

So Clinton, Obama, and Biden voted for this amendment, and Dodd ducked out the coward's way by not voting. Senator Johnson couldn't vote because he's at home recuperating. What's Dodd's excuse?!? Lieberman voted with the Dems on this one, thankfully.

As for Republican Norm Coleman, I'm not sure what is prompting his yes vote apart from representing a purple state that trends blue (Minnesota.) Because he also sponsored an amendment that would require the police to ask people about their immigration status, which is a pretty nasty piece of work and would lead to people being increasingly afraid to trust law enforcement.

Next up -- ROLL CALL: the other amendments.

Tribute and gratitude to Steve Gilliard

In all the immigration hubbub, I have neglected to say a few words on Steve Gilliard's untimely passing. He ran and edited the influential and punchy The News Blog and fearlessly called it like he saw it.

I never met him, but I was tremendously touched by his words and his wisdom. A frequent lurker, I rarely contributed my own two cents to the community, but I checked his site many times a day. It is unfortunate that this is the occasion that I say it, but he helped me shape my own voice and informed my views. With scythe-like analysis and a sense of humor, The News Blog was a home away from online home. And I appreciated his perspective from the working class, and as a blogger of color - one of the few prominent bloggers of color at that.

But all good things have to pass, and so I say good night to you, and to the News Blog. Just because a site goes dark doesn't mean you won't be remembered.

Immigration "compromise" update - tomorrow is do or die

Tomorrow is do or die for the immigration "compromise" bill this legislative cycle - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is tired of additional Republican amendments and is going to put a vote to the floor tomorrow on whether to limit debate on the bill. If he gets the requisite 60 votes, then expect a vote on the actual bill by next week.

The majority leader said he wanted to complete work on the legislation this week, and he suggested that Republicans were trying to “stall this bill” with amendments. “When is enough enough?” he asked.

“People are looking for excuses on the Republican side to kill this bill,” he said.

His announcement provoked an outcry from Republican supporters and opponents of the bill, who said the Senate needed more time.

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the chief Republican architect of the bill, said “it would be a big mistake” to try to invoke cloture this week.

A motion to cut off debate would be “an extreme act of bad faith,” Mr. Kyl said, and he asserted on Tuesday afternoon that “we are not anywhere near finishing this bill.”

Otherwise, we can wave goodbye to this "family destruction" bill, and wait for a Democratic President in 08, as well as control of both chambers of Congress to pass a bill that truly rewards family values. Btw, the above scenario looks promising, because Kyl is the Republican lynchpin (pun intended) in the bipartisan coalition of senators. If he gets pissed off and goes, so goes the bill and any chance of it passing.

Tonight, Senators and their staffers are hurriedly trying to hash out compromises and figure out which amendments are key and which would weaken the tentative coalition.

Amendments that passed:

By a vote of 71 to 22, the Senate on Tuesday adopted an amendment that seeks to protect American workers by requiring employers, in all cases, to try to recruit Americans before hiring foreign workers.

The Senate Democratic whip, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, joined Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, in offering this proposal. Theirs is one of the many unlikely alliances forged in the immigration debate.

The main danger to this current bill is that President Bush is willing to sign it. I don't just mean this in the "I don't trust anything Dubya wants" sense, but also in the sense that unlike many bills that the Democrats want to see passed, this bill doesn't need a veto-proof majority of 67 Senators (which would be pretty hard to achieve given the 51-49 partisan split in the Senate.) So as long as Kennedy and Kyl can get 50 or more Senators' support, this thing goes into conference with House representatives, and I would hope that the conference committee would use the Gutierrez STRIVE bill as a model instead (though it still has flaws). If this sham bill gets used as a model, I'd rather see it die in committee. And if a bill comes out of that, and as long as a simple majority of US Senators votes for it, our dear leader has said he will support it (presuming it keeps all the trappings that leading anti-immigrant group FAIR approves of.)

Me, I'm waiting to see what Democratic presidential candidates do to send out any donations or make any endorsements. I'm also waiting on the fate of this bill to donate to any of the national party committees, but I will continue to work for and support local elected officials who are taking leadership roles on this.

TAKE ACTION: Family Reunification on the chopping black

So I've been remiss in posting due to other obligations. But I just wanted to post a short update and to urge you to call your Senators now at (202) 224-3121 to support some family reunification-friendly amendments because:

The bill looks like it actually has a greater than 50% chance of getting passed.

What does this mean? Currently, the bill as it stands would not grandfather immigrants in the family backlog who had been sponsored after May 1, 2005. Karen Narasaki of the AAJC says:

The family-based immigration system, said Narasaki, "has been an important, major system for Asian Americans. Of the 10 countries with the most significant backlogs in the family category, seven of them are Asian countries."

Narasaki also said that according to the bill's current language, anyone who applied to sponsor a sibling after May 1, 2005, would be kicked out of line and into the new point system.

"So, if you actually played by the rules and filed an application, you're being treated worse than if you came illegally two years later….To us, it's a big problem, very unfair," she said."

For all these reasons and the reasons I've written about before, I want this bill to die in the Senate or in the House. But if it goes through as planned, I'd rather have fought to make it less horrible.

AAJC has some of the amendments that would be partial fixes of the many problems of this so-called "grand bargain" immigration compromise, which would really serve to split families and disenfranchise lower income potential immigrants.

Another problem with the bill is that it is set to be revisited FOURTEEN years in the future. That's an entire generation, and immigration patterns change much more quickly than that. Senators Obama and Menendez have an amendment that would change the sunset date to only 5 years until we revisit the issue, which is much more reasonable. Senator Clinton has sponsored an amendment to recategorize immediate spouses and children of legal permanent residents as "immediate family" meaning that they don't have to be a part of the employment points system. ESnator Dodd has sponsored legislation to keep the family immigration cap at 90,000/year as opposed to the 40,000 that the new immigration bill would have.

These are all good amendments, and we should be calling on our Senators to support them, if you live in a blue state or red state, it doesn't matter. Because I don't see the potential impact on Asian American immigrants being written up much in non-California major papers, we need to do the convincing of our representatives. America is still a representative democracy, so get on the phones!

I will be posting a Roll Call of all these amendments when it becomes available because I think everyone should know how his/her senator and presidential candidates are voting on these issues. But don't wait until this crappy bill has already passed to complain -

call the Capitol Switchboard NOW to be directly connected to your Senators: (202) 224-3121.

Updated: Advice to campaigns on AAPI outreach; Hillary and AAPIs

It has to be said that the Hillary campaign is a self-correcting machine. They snubbed the Asian American media in California (of all places!) and then they recently hired Press Secretary Jin Chon, who worked AAPI press for Kerry in 2004. I personally wouldn't be surprised if APIA leaders and media figures didn't play a heavy role in that decision. It looks like he's handling ethnic and LGBT press. [Update: Hillary hired Fabiola Rodriguez-Ciampoli to be "Director of Hispanic Communications" (their phrasing not mine) - but this is a really smart hire. Fabiola is ex-DNC, ex-DSCC under Harry Reid, ex-Gephardt, etc. Basically she is one of the 2 or 3 Latino spinmeisters in DC and a great add. Like I said, Hillary hires the top operatives.]

In comparing Hillary's AAPI leadership versus that of Edwards, she definitely has more stars and heavy hitters (both nonprofit and elected leaders) and she does a good job of not only releasing a longer list, but also one broken down specifically by ethnicity, which is a nod to the diversity of the community. The electeds she has are in the big money, high density APIA states - Cali, Illinois, New York, Texas. But there's an easy explanation for Clinton's star APAs:

1) Return to power. The Bill Clinton administration was the last time national APA leaders found themselves in positions of significant power - whether as political appointees, or as policy drivers with a seat at the table. It's no surprise that most heads of APA nonprofits are Democratic-leaning, and Bill's was the last Democratic administration. APA leaders have been lost in the wilderness, and seeking redemption and a return to power. Additionally, it's true that the Clinton administration had the highest numbers of APA appointees at that point in history. Many of the names listed were appointees.

2) Return of the King. Bill Clinton as a fundraiser and electeds' need for cash. Bill is easily one of the biggest draws to a fundraiser, and there's little doubt that even the potential of him helping out is mouthwatering. Plus he is quite the charmer and flatterer, so even a small town elected's going fall for the King. And don't forget the whole inevitability argument - electeds like to bet on a sure thing, a known quantity, and Hillary still has the best and most seasoned staff. APAs are a pragmatic bunch, and we want to go with the winner and the associated rewards. If I were the betting type and I had a cool hundred, even I would have to lay $40 on Hillary, $30 on Obama, $20 on Edwards and $10 on Richardson, regardless of personal preferences which I am still trying to sort out.

3) Biggest players still playing hard to get. In terms of her elected official support, having Rep. Doris Mitsui fulfills dual roles as an woman (highlighting Hillary's historic candidacy) and as an Asian American. (But she hasn't been as vocal a representative of the community as Congressman Mike Honda. Who probably can't or won't endorse anyone until later in the game, since he's a DNC Vice Chair. Color me impressed when a candidate gets him.) Doris' late husband, Rep. Bob Mitsui, was a Clintonista who supported free trade policies and the "third way." Clinton has the top (and only) APA electeds in New York City, some of the highest ranking and most visible Dems in California (although there's more parity here with the Edwards' folks.) She's got 2 of 3 of the Texas electeds that I know of (missing is Hubert Vo). Pretty much, these are the three states that really matter for fundraising purposes (and these are the 3 with the largest APA populations. Of course, she also has the State Senate President of Hawaii, the only state with more APIA density.

The renewed attention to our community is a sign that the Clinton campaign is back in fighting form and not just playing "presumptive nominee" (though that happens as well.) I'm glad to see that they are leaving no stone unturned.

A lesson to the Edwards and Obama campaigns: you can still catch up, but move quickly cos the Clintonistas are sharp.

And message to Obama camp: Where the hell is your AAPI supporter list? I understand not wanting to divide into red and blue states, and that there is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America but Clinton has a sharp as tacks base vote director. Her campaign is savvy enough to hire the right institutional players in the right places (do you think Villagoraisa's endorsement came from nowhere? His fundraiser works for Clinton in California, and the guy deserves a HUGE raise. If you look at the bevy of Californian APA leaders who endorsed alone, he is working it - tho credit goes to others as well.) Edwards, even with a smaller campaign chest, is putting VISIBLE money and time into the community. At the end of the day, you can say you grew up in Indonesia, and that you were raised in APIA-dense Hawaii, but to some people, the right gestures & people count. And don't forget that timing is everything. Plus, it gets sort of embarrassing when knowledgeable politicos ask about your APA support and there's no hard evidence of prominent individuals. If you have a list of soft supporters (and I'm sure there more than one national nonprofit leader in there), you should make the ask and confirm them. Same goes for Edwards.

We will see if Clinton's superior operatives and operation of old school influencers turns into votes, but don't forget that for all the import of a nonprofit leader or the money of a johnny-come-lately i-banking mogul, it's the politicians who have the machines that drive the votes. And Clinton's currently got the upper hand there. You can build new networks and excite new voters like Dean (and thank god for fresh blood) but it's harder, more expensive, and less predictable to pave new roads. Meanwhile, like any transportation project (metaphor), Hillary knows that it's all about the pork. Clinton's ensuring the right palms get greased, the right words are spoken into the correct set of waiting ears. She's using existing roads to power, and she may get there first.

PS: Totally unrelated but funny - Newt's Spanish tutor claims he spends hours on learning the language. I'm sure Latinos everywhere are relieved to find this out.

PPS: Update #2 Back to topic at hand, and more praise to Hillaryland - they put some money where their mouths are and invested staff into California, which has the biggest APIA population in the country. They hired an Asian American deputy political director for the state, Connie Lee. Hillary's investment in California is wise politically and financially - she's hedging her bets on the pre-Feb. 5th states and on the mega Geb 5th election and California's massive windfall of electoral votes. Meanwhile, Californian donors will feel good that Hillary cares enough to hire not just fundraisers but also actual field staff. They will feel like their votes actually count, and this will help Clinton raise more money. Win-win her her campaign. Plus, Clinton also just installed a new Iowa director, the fierce and fabulous Theresa Vilmain who is one of the top political hands today. Hillary's campaign is firing on all cylinders right now and making all the right staff moves. I gotta say I am impressed and concerned for the other campaigns, and feeling like I'm urging them to play catch up.

"Then they came for me": Korean student detained for not finding her papers

From dailykos, a chilling story about a UC Santa Barbara college student from Korea who was dragged away by immigration agents at 5:30 am in the morning when she could not locate her documents. The crazy thing is she wasn't even the original target of their search:

The purpose of the pre-dawn raid (already one starts to wonder why they're using that tactic) was a graduate student from Iran. The ICE agents "suspected irregularities" in her paperwork, although one wonders where they got that suspicion. That student was able to produce the documentation. However, agents then asked "anyone else here an immigrant?" When a roommate, an undergraduate originally from South Korea, volunteered - hoping to be cooperative and useful - she was told to find her documentation. At 5:30 in the morning she wasn't immediately able to. So she was arrested and taken to a "detention facility" over in Ventura.

This sets a dangerous, dangerous precedent. For so long, Asian Americans' nationalities have been in question and our loyalties as well. We have been the conveniently "mysterious, shifty and inscrutable Oriental faces" who cannot be read by [white]America. Frank Wu does an excellent job of detailing this history of discrimination in Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White.

I don't have the book at hand, but one of the most poignant parts is when he writes that people with a face like his are immediately suspect and subject to questions of "Where are you from? where are you really from?" Suspect as aliens, as though they could never possibly be American.
We are facing a major crisis in this country where if you look yellow or brown you anyone who looks like an immigrant can be taken and detained, and possibly deported. Granted, she should not have volunteered that she too was an immigrant, but it was an innocent mistake - the type of mistake so many families made during special registration.

It was the mistake of wanting to comply and be helpful to law enforcement that separated thousands of families. Do we as Americans want to see a country where immigrants are afraid of helping law enforcement officials? It is counterproductive to finding real criminals and instead denies people basic civil rights and liberties, eroding the trust in community policing and faith in law enforcement that all US residents should be able to have. But I would argue that sadly, this fear is already present in too many immigrant communities.

One of the provisions written after 9/11 allows immigration agents to seize and detain anyone within 100 miles of the US-Mexico border if they have cause to believe that they are an undocumented immigrant. This seizure by the ICE is a physical extension of that, and cases like this go on every day. The New Bedford raids, poultry plant raids, sweatshop raids. Most of us who are graced with US citizenship don't have to think about these things, which is the definition of privilege. But how long before these rights are forgotten, dropped by the wayside?

What if some citizen decided to say that they, too, were immigrants, out of solidarity or friendship or carelessness? Would they also get dragged off to a detention center without due process? They wouldn't have documentation on them to prove citizenship status. This is something that we always think about when planning actions - who can get arrested. Who has the privilege of being able to be arrested without more than a slap on the wrist, a fine? It's not the people who have CORIs, and it's not those who aren't full-fledged citizens.

What if the ICE decided to start raiding high schools, colleges, institutions that are populated by the middle class as opposed to just places of employment where low wage workers frequently get exploited? Who would get caught up in that wide, wide net? More importantly, would more Asian Americans care?

Though I hesitate to quote Martin Neimoller because it gets said so much, I believe it is highly applicable here.

First they came for the Socialists, and I didn’t speak up,

because I wasn’t a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn’t speak up,

because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,

because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left

to speak up for me.

How much more of this can we take? How much more will we take?

Just because we are the "model minority" won't stop our families from being separated. Just because we win the spelling bee doesn't mean our hearts won't be broken. The only things that will create change are education and collective action.

If nothing else in recent history helped to make the point that it isn't only Latinos who should care and be viscerally concerned about immigration, special registration did, at least for desis and Filipinos, and people from the 21 countries that were put on notice, as Colbert would say. Just like with Seung Cho, we let out a collective sigh of relief when it turns out we weren't the targeted group. But sometimes we forget because it is so easy to get swept up in gossip over Brangelina, to worry about our 401ks or to plan our next vacation. Because it is easy to close our eyes and pretend like our country's most basic values aren't being torn apart, shredded on the altar of a conservative, fear-mongering agenda. And I won't stand for it.