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.

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.

Where our candidates stand on immigration, aka "do no harm"

Here's where the major Dem candidates stand so far:

On gutting family reunification:
The Hill - This provision is among the most controversial for civil rights and religious groups, and it has also prompted criticism from Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Menendez said his office had “given some of our amendments” to other offices, including Clinton and a second presidential hopeful, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), whom Menendez said is working with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) on another amendment.

Hillary offered a bill to reduce the impact of the gutting of family reunification:

On the other side, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., plans to offer an amendment that would exempt the spouses and children of lawful permanent residents from the measure’s visa caps, guaranteeing that families receive a higher priority.

This is a SMART move by the Clinton camp to win support from ethnic communities. But you also have to take the long term view and remember that Hillary and Barack voted to build a wall between the US and Mexico last year.

On guest workers:

Democratic Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina objected to the guest- worker provisions, which are opposed by some unions as a pipeline for providing cheap immigrant labor to U.S. business.

Edwards, 53, called the guest-worker plan ``poorly conceived.'' Obama, 45, noted ``some good elements'' in the compromise and said he's reserving final judgment until the legislation emerges in its final form.

New Mexico Democratic Governor Bill Richardson, who is Hispanic, may be squeezed between Hispanic groups' objections and his need to attract Anglo votes. Richardson, 59, welcomed the agreement, while listing reservations.

The candidate called a requirement that a head of household leave the country and re-enter legally ``problematic.'' He also said a provision for a $5,000 fine for undocumented immigrants seeking permanent status was ``so unrealistic that immigrants simply stay in the shadows rather than earn legal status.''

(By the way, in the midst of the immigration debate Richardson decided to formally announce his presidential candidacy.)

The good news on this bill is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is not fond of reducing the importance of family reunification:

Mr. Reid criticized the measure on several grounds.

“The bill impacts families in a number of ways that I believe are unwise,” he said. “The bill also allows 400,000 low-skilled workers to come to America for three two-year terms, but requires them to go home for a year in between.

This is impractical both for the workers and for the American employers who need a stable, reliable work force.”

Best reason to oppose the bill as-is:

In writing the measure, senators bypassed the Judiciary Committee, where immigration bills normally originate.

The chairman of the committee, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, said, “The bill we have before us is a product of closed-door meetings between the administration and Republican senators, which was then put to Democratic senators as a framework for further negotiations.”

Overall, I don't think that there is enough support from the left or the hard right to get this bill passed the way immigrant rights advocates want, but I fear that somehow the bill will get through regardless and we'll have a huge mess on our hands.

The idea here is to at a minimum, do no harm.

If the bill is this punitive as is, I cannot support it in its present form. I would love to see some REAL progressive immigration reform but until then I would even be happy with our Congress passing something that does no harm. And this bill in its current state does not fulfill that minimum requirement. If improvements are made this week, I will have to re-assess.

If I have more time, I will do a comb-through of the details of the bill and add more analysis, but it's crunch time for my proyecto and I'm not quite sane, so it may only come next week. Until then, sweet dreams.