Immigration reform, slowly (Dream Act update)

So apparently the Democratic-controlled Congress is going to try to pass parts of the immigration bill that fell apart earlier this year. Fortunately, it seems as though they are going to push through less punitive measures like parts of AgJobs (to ensure farmworkers access to the United States) and the Dream Act (to gain a path to citizenship for undocumented high schoolers.)

Another bill, also with bipartisan support, would give a path to citizenship to high school graduates who are illegal immigrants if they complete two years of college or military service. Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and a sponsor of the bill, attached it as an amendment to the military authorization legislation that the Senate last month put off until September. Mr. Durbin said he would seek to move it again then.

While this is not broad and sweeping, it is better than the wretched employment-based bill that was proposed by Bush and the GOP. Rightfully, that bill died. Notice also, how the parts of the bill that are being re-proposed are some of the less objectionable parts -- i.e., does not seem to take jobs away from the middle class, and provides opportunities for kids. It's because the left is stepping carefully, carefully around the explosive minefield of anti-immigrant sentiment that was stirred up with the bill this spring. Well, rather, Congress is trying to gingerly step around it. I am sure that pro immigrant rights groups would prefer broader beneficial changes, minus the faulty points system.

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.

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.

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.

ROLL CALL: Akaka and the war

So I think I'm going to start doing semi-regular roll calls on votes of import, and why and how strategic Congresscritters voted. This isn't the first, but I'm starting an official series with this one. -P&P

Seems like there's trouble brewing in paradise - the Honolulu Advertiser has an article about how he was one of the 80 Senators (including most Dems) who recently voted on the Iraq War, sans pullout deadline:

Such passions against the war in Iraq were key to Akaka's victory. Many reform Democrats and independents who normally would have gravitated to Case backed Akaka because he voted against authorizing the war in the first place and unequivocally supported a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops, while Case insisted on talking about the complexities involved in winding down the war.

It's funny that we've barely heard a peep from these folks now that Akaka had his chance to vote to end the war — and flinched.

Akaka, along with Hawai'i's senior Sen. Daniel Inouye, voted with an 80-14 Senate majority to provide $95 billion to continue funding the war. The bill was stripped of any language to set a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces after an earlier veto by President Bush.

Well, Akaka did just get Filipino veterans grandfathered/included in the prospective immigration reform bill, but one wonders what votes he had to trade, and if the Iraq vote was one of them. Then again, it's not like he was a swing vote when it's 80-14. Definitely not a good thing to have headlines in one of your most populous cities blaring that you turned your back on a campaign promise this soon in a 6 year term.

Akaka and Inouye could take solace that the bill, laden with pork that Democrats forced on Bush if he wanted his war funding, contained nearly $40 million earmarked for Hawai'i projects, primarily disaster relief related to the October earthquakes.

But it seems unbecoming for them to even mention such crumbs to justify votes on a matter of war and peace, with thousands of American lives and countless billions of dollars in spending at stake.

This is not to suggest it was an easy vote; it's always politically untenable for lawmakers to vote to deny funding to support the forces we've deployed.

The point is that it was Case's argument — not Akaka's — that the war is complicated. For Akaka, it was a simple matter of setting timetables to begin withdrawing U.S. troops.

It shouldn't go without note that when push came to shove, Akaka cast the same vote to continue funding the war that Case probably would have.

And speaking of who voted against, here's the long, luscious list...including three very staunchly conservative repubs who voted no on principle - opposed to the social programs (minimum wage increase, etc) that helped Dems slide this thing down their gullets.

NAYs ---14
Boxer (D-CA) - remembers that she represents one of the most progressive states once in a while
Burr (R-NC) - crazy wingnut

*Clinton (D-NY) - had to for the Dem base voters. Probably would have voted yes otherwise. vacillated plenty beforehand. Voted to go to war originally. While this may appease her base some, it doesn't really help her credibility on a little thing called principles. If anything, this vote reinforces the meme that she is willing to vote whichever way the wind blows. In this instance, it was a lose-lose proposition. If she had voted yes, she would have pissed off the base mightily, and perhaps lost precious donors. As Ben Smith suggested, she isn't going to get huge points for this from the antiwar left, but she also isn't going to lose huge points, except for leadership points to Edwards and Dodd on this issue.

Coburn (R-OK) - crazy wingnut

*Dodd (D-CT) - presidential candidate. pretty middle of the road from the Insurance and HMO State who is trying to run to the left of the frontrunners on this one. Smart play.

Enzi (R-WY) - wingnut
Feingold (D-WI) - true progressive leader, a champion on this issue. I wish he were still in the presidential race.
Kennedy (D-MA) - progressive champ on this issue. On immigration, we need to talk.
Kerry (D-MA) - thank god he found his spine again. I like him so much better when he's not running for President.
Leahy (D-VT) - true progressive

*Obama (D-IL) - same as Hillary, had to do it for the base, otherwise he would be viewed as inconsistent, having voted against the war to start with. Could have used less hemming and hawwing beforehand though. Again, in my opinion he lost some points to Dodd and Edwards by waiting to declare his position on this issue, which polls as the single most important issue for voters

Sanders (I-VT) - a real fighter for the little guy
Whitehouse (D-RI) - better than chafee would have done
Wyden (D-OR) - consistent with earlier vote against military authorization

Not Voting - 6
Brownback (R-KS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Hatch (R-UT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Thomas (R-WY)

So basically this means that Senate leadership like Durbin (number 2) and Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, voted for the thing. If I'm disappointed in anyone, it's Durbin, because he is pretty progressive. Schumer not voting is a classic avoidance technique - this way he doesn't really have to be held accountable by rabid, angry NYers. same weasl technique that Coleman (R-MN) is using because the MN senate race is coming up and he needs some political cover in that purplish-blue state. I'm also a little surprised that California Sen. Feinstein didn't vote with her compatriot. Usually on major bills like this Senators from the same state, same party vote together to provide political cover for each other. (Witness Akaka and Inouye.)

Well, that's it for this edition. Happy June folks.

TAKE ACTION: Senate debates immigration "compromise" this week

This week, the Senate is debating the so-called "compromise" immigration bill sponsored by Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and John Kyl (R-AZ). They're set to take action on it after Memorial Day weekend. I know how desperately our country needs immigration reform, but this bill contains several poison pills that are extremely detrimental to the Asian American and Pacific Islander community (see AILA's summary.)

This bill reduces the importance of the family reunification process that was created by the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act. The landmark 1965 bill ended the race-based quota system, and has changed the face of our country so that it is not as common for people to gawk at an Asian person. It allowed us to flourish in numbers, and to reunite our families. The Kennedy-Kyl bill (yeah, kill this bill!) would substantially increase the current family backlog. Most importantly, it will be even harder for family members to reunite, and makes it incredibly hard to get a family member who is over 21 over here.

Another odious provision would create an employment-based system that awards points based on the immigrant's type of work, education, and English proficiency. The English proficiency portion will effectively benefit people coming from countries that already speak English, immigrants who have the means to learn.

The last poison pill is the creation of a guestworker program that would admit 400,000-600,000 foreign workers every year. No matter how hard they work, they would have almost no chance of becoming citizens, and could only stay for 2 years at a time, up to a total of 6 years. Thus they would become part of a permanent underclass of workers.

Although the bill provides a path to citizenship for almost 12 million undocumented immigrants, it would force them to pay fines of $5000 and to go back to their home countries. If you make less than minimum wage, $5000 is possibly half your annual income, and a steep price to pay.

With all these negatives, is it any wonder that George W Bush supports passage of this bill?!?!

As retiring Congressman Luis Gutierrez says, "The value of getting something done that is not worthy of our immigrants is not anything," he said in an alternatively smiling and table-pounding interview last week. "It's more important to get it done right."

So make your voice heard
Put in a quick call to your Senators (find their contacts here) or call 1-800-417-7666 and be automatically connected to the Senators representing the area code you're calling from. Be polite, give the legislative aide your name, zip code, and your message (points modified from AAJC):

Tell your Senator how important family-based immigration is to you. Let your senator know if you and your family benefited from family reunification.

• “I urge you to support workable immigration reform legislation that values families, creates a path to citizenship and does not create an underclass of workers."
  

• “I want a bill that:
  o Will bring in the entire family backlog;
  o Preserves the family categories; and
  o Maintains or expands the number of visas available for family reunification."

• “I urge the Senator to oppose any legislation that would reduce the importance of family unification. Thank you.”

A quick call this week could mean the difference between devastating changes and real, progressive, and beneficial immigration reform.

Immigration compromise reached - Family reunification falls through the cracks

Crap. We have a new compromise but family reunification is going to get gutted:

The point system is one element of a comprehensive bill that calls for the biggest changes in immigration law and policy in more than 20 years. The full Senate plans to take up the legislation next week.

Although Democrats now control the Senate, the bill incorporates many ideas advanced in some form by President Bush. A draft of the legislation says that Congress intends to “increase American competitiveness through a merit-based evaluation system for immigrants.”

Moreover, it says, Congress will “reduce chain migration” by limiting the number of visas issued exclusively on account of kinship.

Democrats insisted, and Republicans agreed, that some points be awarded to people who had close relatives in the United States or could perform low-skill jobs for which there was a high demand.

...Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell University, said: “The legislation taking shape in the Senate represents a major philosophical shift. It tells the world that we are emphasizing characteristics that will enhance our global competitiveness, like education and job skills. We would not rely as much on family background as we have in the past.”

Under the proposal, Mr. Yale-Loehr said, “foreign-born spouses and minor children of United States citizens could still get green cards, but foreign-born siblings and adult children of citizens would be hurt.”

This drastically changes things for Asian Americans who want to be reunited with their parents and siblings. This doesn't even begin to address the current family backlog. Sigh...here's what IS in the new bill, which is a mixed bag, but one that Bush is willing to sign:

The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a ''Z visa'' and -- after paying fees and a $5,000 fine -- ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.

They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.

A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called ''triggers'' had been activated.

Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.

Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.

Very mixed, with touchdown provisions. Actually, I don't see any huge benefits or improvements for immigration advocates - there's a guest worker program, which is what Republicans wanted, a touchdown provision, which the GOP wanted, and they're gutting family reunification. Plus there's a significant fine of $5,000. AAAArgh!!!! I just hope this doesn't wind up being the immigration version of No Chil Left Behind.

The only thing we get is a path to citizenship. Plus this is a compromise which is only going to get worse as the House and Senate committees try to find a compromise (the House bill is worse.)

The new proposal would augment that system with a merit-based program that would award points based on education levels, work experience and English proficiency, as well as family ties. Automatic family unifications would remain but would be limited to spouses and children under 21. The adult children and siblings of U.S. residents would probably need other credentials, such as skills and education, to qualify for an immigrant visa. A number of unskilled parents would be allowed in, but that flow would be capped.

English proficiency is only going to benefit those from English speaking countries - think increased European immigration. I need more details, but based upon this, I don't think this is a bill I can get behind. And I'm going to be watching our presidential candidates very closely on this issue.

Update: I just threw up a little, and I cannot support this version of immigration reform. The Senate version would make English the official language.

I would rather wait until we have a Democrat in the White House in 2008 to pass legislation that is more welcoming to immigrants than to settle for what is a reversal of the gains made in 1965.

Senate votes 83-16 for a US-Mexico fence

Well, things are moving so quickly on the immigration front, it's a wonder I get any sleep.

You may see me uploading a few posts every day, time permitting between catching up with work and having a life and going to immigration rallies.

Yesterday I wrote about an immigration victory, today I'm here to talk about defeat. Apparently our millions of voices, immigrants and immigrant supporters alike - failed to make an impression on our US Senators. So what we need to do is to call their offices and tell them exactly what we think.

Today there are more than a few senators that I'm disappointed in for their votes to build a 370 mile fence on the southern border. When 28 Dems vote with 55 Republicans, that's cause for crying and then kicking some ass (Democratic and Republican alike.)

Read 'em and weep (my thoughts in italics):

Alabama

Sessions (R) Yes; Shelby (R) Yes. no surprises here

Alaska

Murkowski (R) Yes; Stevens (R) Yes. What do you expect of Lisa "hand me down your Senate seat, Daddy" Murkowski and "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens?

Arizona

Kyl (R) Yes; McCain (R) Yes. I thought McCain was supposed to be pro-immigrant. He cosponsored a great bill with Kennedy, right? Oh sorry, that was the OTHER John McCain. The one who's not running for President and who doesn't appear at Jerry Falwell's university?

Arkansas

Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes. Two turncoat Dems from a conservative state.

California

Boxer (D) Yes; Feinstein (D) Yes. Two turncoat Dems from a state with the highest number of naturalized citizens every single year. From a state with the most militant immigrant rights organizations in the country. We're talking sit-ins and hunger strikes here. Two Democratic women who don't know the meaning of compassion. Call them and tell them you expect, no demand better. They are in the safest of safe seats. Whip them into shape.

Colorado

Allard (R) Yes; Salazar (D) Yes. It's good to be a Latino and to vote against people who look like you. That way you can say that you aren't just playing the race card or pandering to the community. Then you can say you gave your Republican counterpart political cover. Great.

Connecticut

Dodd (D) No; Lieberman (D) No. Call these guys and thank them for their votes. Although I highly doubt that Lieberman would have done this if he wasn't in a competitive primary with a challenger from the left. Dodd is in a safe Dem seat. I guess it's okay if he sells us out on prescription drugs and big Pharma (???)

Delaware

Biden (D) Yes; Carper (D) Yes. Dems in safe seats again who decided to screw over the powerless.

Florida

Martinez (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes. I guess that lovey dovey story from the NYTimes about Martinez's personal refugee escape from Cuba isn't enough. Because you know, an ocean is like a wall, except that you can swim through it. Nelson is a disappointing vote but hey, let's see who else sold us down the river...Let's call both and scream bloody murder.

Georgia

Chambliss (R) Yes; Isakson (R) Yes. Unsurprising. Call them and yell at them for the heck of it anyway.

Hawaii

Akaka (D) No; Inouye (D) No. Good, a pair of Dems who are doing the right thing, unlike Salazar. Plus Akaka's got some serious primary competition and he still does the right thing. Show them some LOVE. Plus our community's only representatives in the Senate do the right thing.

Idaho

Craig (R) Yes; Crapo (R) Yes. Need we go there?

Illinois

Durbin (D) No; Obama (D) No. It's immensely important to have a solid immigration organization (ICIRR) in place to hold people accountable.

Indiana

Bayh (D) Yes; Lugar (R) Yes. Scratch Bayh off my presidential primary list.

Iowa

Grassley (R) Yes; Harkin (D) Yes. Harkin, Harkin, Harkin. Usually you're so good on labor and the minimum wage. Who or what convinced you to vote against future constituents? Plus Grassley's a bit disappointing too, he's normally rational enough.

Kansas

Brownback (R) Yes; Roberts (R) Yes. This is Brownback who is supposed to be an immigrant ally. Everyone's just showing their true colors here today. I'm blinded by the ugly!

Kentucky

Bunning (R) Yes; McConnell (R) Yes. Dos idiotas.

Louisiana

Landrieu (D) Yes; Vitter (R) Yes. Conservative state who got hit hard by Katrina. And who helped rebuild? Why undocumented immigrants did. And they worked damn hard too. Here's how you repay that effort?

Maine

Collins (R) Yes; Snowe (R) Yes. The Senate's too most reasonable and progressive Repubs sell us out too. Maine, just because it's too cold there for most immigrants doesn't mean that we don't matter.

Maryland

Mikulski (D) Yes; Sarbanes (D) No. Thank you Senator Sarbanes. Mikulski, you can go jump in the gutter.

Massachusetts

Kennedy (D) No; Kerry (D) Yes. Thank you Ted Kennedy. Kerry, don't think that the immigrant community won't remember this next time around. In fact, I'm going to turn your vote into a talking point and crucify you with it from the left.

Michigan

Levin (D) Yes; Stabenow (D) Yes. Shoot, Stabenow backstabs us twice in 2 days. It's more like Stab-me-now and Stab-me-later. I'm dying here. Plus Levin?!? Call these guys and yell at them!

Minnesota

Coleman (R) Yes; Dayton (D) Yes. Dayton, you're leaving your seat, you don't have to run again or justify your decision. Couldn't you have taken a courageous stance for once in your life?

Mississippi

Cochran (R) Yes; Lott (R) Yes. Ugh, when you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all.\

Missouri

Bond (R) Yes; Talent (R) Yes. I'm getting tired of ranting typing.

Montana

Baucus (D) Yes; Burns (R) Yes. No comment.

Nebraska

Hagel (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes. Hagel's another supposedly supportive Repub. I guess it doesn't urt as bad because it was expected.

Nevada

Ensign (R) Yes; Reid (D) Yes. I need to flip out here but don't have the strength. WTF!?!? Harry Reid, that's the end of my dollars to the DSCC.

New Hampshire

Gregg (R) Yes; Sununu (R) Yes. Blah. I'm falling asleep from the predictable ones.

New Jersey

Lautenberg (D) No; Menendez (D) No. Thank god a Latino who remembers his roots. Will post for now and fill in later/.

[Resumes blogging.]

New Mexico

Bingaman (D) No; Domenici (R) Yes. Good for Bingaman. This inspires me to find out more about the man.

New York

Clinton (D) Yes; Schumer (D) Yes. Grrrrrr. Just Grrrrrr. Call them and voice your displeasure.

North Carolina

Burr (R) Yes; Dole (R) Yes. Expected yeses.

North Dakota

Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Yes. More turncoat Democrats. One of the reasons I had stopped ranting was because it was getting repetitive. The other was that I nearly fell asleep (long day)!

Ohio

DeWine (R) Yes; Voinovich (R) Yes. I truly hope that Sherrod Brown wins, if only because I believe and hope that he would vote the opposite of DeWine.

Oklahoma

Coburn (R) Yes; Inhofe (R) Yes. This triple-layered fence is like red meat to a conservative dog, and Republicans are playing up the symbolism for all that it's worth.

Oregon

Smith (R) Yes; Wyden (D) Yes. Well, after the previous vote who could be surprised by Wyden's stance this time around? Doesn't change the disapppointment or anger, buddy.

Pennsylvania

Santorum (R) Yes; Specter (R) Yes. Specter is a ghost conservative. That is, he appears when you least want to see him.

Rhode Island

Chafee (R) Yes; Reed (D) No. Bravo Jack Reed, bravo. Call and thank him! And call Chafee and tell him you always knew he was a wolf in sheep's clothing.

South Carolina

DeMint (R) Yes; Graham (R) Yes. It's Jerry Falwell country.

South Dakota

Johnson (D) Yes; Thune (R) Yes. Not a whole lot of surprises here.

Tennessee

Alexander (R) Yes; Frist (R) Yes. Any time Frist can knife you in the heart, he will.

Texas

Cornyn (R) Yes; Hutchison (R) Yes. Both people who need new jobs.

Utah

Bennett (R) Yes; Hatch (R) Yes. Hatch has previously sponsored semi-pro immigrant legislation.

Vermont

Jeffords (I) No; Leahy (D) Yes. Jeffords is a true independent. What does it mean that a former Republican senator turned-independent votes better on this issue than the so-called leading lights in our party? And votes better than his Democratic counterpart?!?

Virginia

Allen (R) Yes; Warner (R) Yes. Virginia is increasingly a purple state and this will help tip the balance in our favor.

Washington

Cantwell (D) No; Murray (D) No. Thank goodness, call these women and give them your love. Same time, don't forget to shame the ladies from California.

West Virginia

Byrd (D) Yes; Rockefeller (D) Not Voting. Byrd's vote doesn's surprise me. Not sure what the not voting by Rockefeller means.

Wisconsin

Feingold (D) No; Kohl (D) Yes. Yes! Yes! Thank you Gov. Feingold. I mean, President Feingold.

Wyoming

Enzi (R) Yes; Thomas (R) Yes. No surprises here from one of the most remote states in the country.