Skip to main content

Yesterday, we noted that Reid says he has 56 votes for immigration reform. I'm going to speculate about who those votes are based on past votes, statements, and Hill sources.

Probable YES, 40 (Republicans in bold)

Boxer (CA)
Feinstein (CA)
Bennet (CO)
Udall (CO)
Dodd (CT)
Liberman (CT)
Carper (DE)
Kaufman (DE)
Nelson (FL)
Akaka (HI)
Inouye (HI)
Harkin (IA)
Durbin (IL)
Burris (IL)
Kerry (MA)
Cardin (MD)
Mikulski (MD)
Levin (MI)
Franken (MN)
Shaheen (NH)
Lautenberg (NJ)
Menendez (NJ)
Udall (NM)
Bingaman (NM)
Reid (NV)
Schumer (NY)
Gillibrand (NY)
Wyden (OR)
Merkley (OR)
Specter (PA)
Casey (PA)
Reed (RI)
Whitehouse (RI)
Graham (SC)
Warner (VA)
Leahy (VT)
Cantwell (WA)
Murray (WA)
Feingold (WI)
Kohl (WI)

Probable NO, 32 (Democrats in bold)

Sessions (AL)
Kyl (AZ)
Shelby (AL)
Chambliss (GA)
Isakson (GA)
Grassley (IA)
Crapo (ID)
Risch (ID)
Roberts (KS)
Bunning (KY)
McConnell (KY)
Vitter (LA)
Bond (MO)
Cochran (MS)
Wicker (MS)
Burr (NC)
Johanns (NE)
Nelson (NE)
Dorgan (ND)
Ensign (NV)
Coburn (OK)
Inhofe (OK)
DeMint (SC)
Thune (SD)
Alexander (TN)
Corker (TN)
Hutchison (TX)
Cornyn (TX)
Bennett (UT)
Byrd (WV)
Barrasso (WY)
Enzi (WY)

With Dorgan retiring, he might be a gettable vote. But for now, I'll keep him in the nos given his past votes against immigration reform. Others, like Alexander and Johanns may be gettable if the stars aligned properly, but I wouldn't count on it.

So who are the "maybe" votes?

On the Democratic side, these 17:

Begich (AK), Pryor (AR), Lincoln (AR), Bayh (IN), Landrieu (LA), Stabenow (MI), Klobuchar (MN), McCaskill (MO), Baucus (MT), Tester (MT), Hagan (NC), Conrad (ND), Brown (OH), Johnson (SD), Webb (VA), Sanders (VT), and Rockefeller (WV).

Now Reid says he has 56 votes, so he's likely got most of these. With 59 votes in the caucus, and just three probable "no" votes, that's 56. Republican Lindsey Graham is co-sponsoring the Senate reform bill, so I assume Reid is counting him in his 56. That means that of the names above, just one is likely a current "no" vote. How much do you want to bet that it's Blanche Lincoln?

On the Republican side, these 11:

Murkowski (AK), McCain (AZ), LeMieux (FL), Lugar (IN), Brownback (KS), Snowe (ME), Collins (ME), Brown (MA), Gregg (NH), Voinovich (OH), and Hatch (UT).

McCain used to be a solid yes, but he's got a bug up his ass about Latinos abandoning him in 2008. Perhaps it had something to do with his promise to vote against his very own immigration reform bill when pressed about it at a GOP primary debate. The Republicans were desperately trying to one-up each other in immigrant bashing, and McCain abandoned his previous support for such legislation to appease the nativists. Then he wondered why Latinos refused to vote for him.

Taking Reid's words at face value, that means he'd have to find four votes among this list. In a sane GOP, we'd get all of those Republicans (yes, even Hatch, who used to be good on the issue until former Rep. Chris Cannon was ousted by conservatives for being pro-reform).

Reid should push for a vote whether he has the 60 or not. While the ultimate goal is reform, even a losing vote would show Latinos where the opposition is coming from, and help motivate them for the November elections.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:16 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Begich is concerned about illegal Canadians? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Xapulin, econlibVA, blueoregon

    WTF does Alaska care about the Southern US border with Mexico?

  •  first mistake.. taken Reid's words at face value. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcurry, Pozzo, jct

    He was pandering, kos.  I know this is a hot topic with you, but face it.. Congress is not going anywhere near immigration reform this year.

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

    by Skeptical Bastard on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:19:07 AM PDT

  •  Totally agree with you Kos, (11+ / 0-)

    Hispanic voters have to know where congress stands on this issue. Not to mention the numbers for these folks are huge and they are young. So if the Democrats can snag these young Hispanic voters they might be able to keep them for a long time.

    Shelterbox http://www.shelterboxusa.org/

    by TexMex on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:20:02 AM PDT

    •  Agree. And efforts to turn states like Texas (6+ / 0-)

      blue will be well served if we not only talk the talk, but invest more money in on the ground organizing - starting now in Hispanic/Latino communities.

      "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition" Bernice Johnson Reagon

      by Denise Oliver Velez on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:45:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  absolutely! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        immigradvocate

        Shelterbox http://www.shelterboxusa.org/

        by TexMex on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:41:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Keep in mind (0+ / 0-)

        that once immigration reform passes, Hispanics will have less reasons to vote Democrat, not more. This is the one point on which Hispanics are aligned with Dems, on most social issues they are more conservative, like myself. Personally, I think it will be great as it will lead to more family-friendly and community-friendly legislation in the long run.

        Latinos tend to be more in favor of pro-family and pro-community policies. For example, they are consistently pro-life and anti-gay marriage.

        As the US becomes an increasingly Latino nation, it’s clear that abortion is not going to stay legal for long.

        A May Gallup poll found that 51 percent of Americans called themselves "pro-life," or against abortion. But the Pew survey indicates that a higher percentage of Hispanics oppose abortion — 57 percent — or more than any other group.

        An overwhelming 40% of all Hispanics say abortion should never be legal. Others taking a pro-life view say abortion should be illegal except when the life of the mother is in danger (11%) or illegal except in rare instances when the woman is a victim of rape or incest (27%).

        "But the vast majority of us know what’s right, we know that every child has place en nuestras casas y nuestras familias — our homes and families," Rojas said. "We know and cherish and honor the sanctity of motherhood and of life."

    •  The MSN (and the Rethugs) are already trying to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mariachi mama

      spin the lack of Comprehensive Immigration Reform as Obama's fault for not making it a priority, as he promised.
      With only 1 Republican and 39 Democrats already supporting reform they won't get away with it this time.
      The Hispanic/Latino voters won't have the wool pulled over their eyes in 2010. If they vote 75% Democratic and Afro Americans vote 90% Democratic, the Republicans need a super majority of whites to get a majority.

  •  Ah yes, looks like 56 is the new 50 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bloomer 101, djbender, sulthernao
    last season it was 60.  These modern styles are very exciting, no longer does Democracy require the staid old 50 to represent majority rule. .

    CALIFORNIANS! Vote NO on Proposition 16!

    by Gangster Octopus on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:20:13 AM PDT

  •  Much better to first focus on the climate bill (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, Sherri in TX

    then immigration reform, just in time to mobilize the Latino base and expose teabaggers as racists for the midterm elections.

    Finally broke down, joined the twittering classes: RL_Miller

    by RLMiller on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:20:33 AM PDT

  •  Force them to show their true colors... (8+ / 0-)

    just in time for the November elections.  Hopefully, this will stir up some badly needed enthusiasm among the Democratic voters and GOTV.

  •  Sad to see Byrd kept his white robe. (4+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    kestrel9000, Mas Gaviota, Kickemout, Calouste
    Hidden by:
    Pozzo, oceanstar17
  •  I'd think Brown (OH) is a probable yes. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, Xapulin, jct, RhodaA

    While he's majorly for fair trade, not free trade, and upset over offshoring, I don't think he has any beef with immigrants, per se, just the employers who abuse them to lower wages.  If anything, a path to citizenship for existing 'illegals' should help wages by removing a large pool of labor such employers are no doubt underpaying and otherwise ripping off.

    Once those folks are 'legal', they can start demanding all the same protections and benefits as any other citizen.

    I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. - Oliver Cromwell

    by Ezekial 23 20 on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:24:12 AM PDT

  •  Sanders? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RhodaA

    what's his problem?

    •  H1Bs (10+ / 0-)

      This is about more than border crossers, there are a lot of folks that think the H1B program as implemented is being used to rotate through a constant stream of underpaid foreign skilled workers as a means to keep down overall wages in the US. Sanders would be one of them.

      "Buying Horizon Milk to support organic farming is like purchasing an English muffin in an effort to prop up the British economy." -Windowdog

      by Windowdog on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:27:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  More specifically (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, Pozzo

        It's in large part about the wage standards for guest workers.  Under the original iteration of McCain-Kennedy, employers were required to pay guest workers no less than the prevailing wage -- as Determined by either the Service Contract Act or Davis-Bacon Act -- for their occupational classification in the jobsite locality. The bill which ended up on the floor last time around replaced the Davis-Bacon/SCA prevailing wage requirement with a toothless "wage survey" floor in order to placate the Chamber of Commerce.  Sanders, Brown et al vigorously opposed this cheap labor policy, hence their votes against the bill.

        •  Abolish this wage standards nonsense (0+ / 0-)

          And allow skilled immigrants in. I'm fine with that. Wages are inevitably going to go down as immigration increases, which is good for the manufacturing and engineering sectors of the economy. There's no point of fighting it, it is pretty basic economics.

    •  He voted against it in 2007 (6+ / 0-)

      Said he was worried about "guest workers" driving down wages and benefits for middle class Americans.

      O snail, climb Mount Fuji, but slowly, slowly! - Issa

      by bumblebums on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:30:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The bill is a tricky wicket. (7+ / 0-)

    There are several dems who will only support it if the H1B program is greatly modified with stringent "hire Americans first" protections put in. Yet thats what a lot of the "We need more H1Bs" are going to target first.

    I'm not sure you can do an accurate whip count before this complex of a bill goes through the full legislative meat grinder.

    "Buying Horizon Milk to support organic farming is like purchasing an English muffin in an effort to prop up the British economy." -Windowdog

    by Windowdog on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:25:39 AM PDT

    •  H1Bs are going to be a big issue (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pozzo

      especially with the California contingent -- with unemployment running in the double digits, I'm worried about a backlash especially here in the Silly Con Valley.

      The risk we take in opening our hearts to love, is learning to say goodbye.

      by Cali Scribe on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:29:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Backlash? (0+ / 0-)

        Backlash from what starting point, exactly?

        The Department of Labor Strategic Plan (formerly available on their web site, but not anymore) had very explicit language that an H1B could be hired "even if a qualified American was available and wanted the job".

        That's pretty damned shocking language for a supposedly representative government.  H1Bs should be used to provide skills for which American candidates are unavailable.

        The fact that the H1B program is heavily oversubscribed and goes to a lottery every year is also enough reason to seriously rethink it.  The terms for an H1B are hardcore indentured servitude, and there had better be a damned good reason why any are allowed.

        -7.75 -4.67

        "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

        There are no Christians in foxholes.

        by Odysseus on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 04:32:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I dunno from 'first' (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus

      But maybe they could modify who is eligible for how many.

      By which I mean just set a limit on the percentage of the department/workforce/whatever that can be composed of H1B's at any given company.  I seem to recall that as it is now, large companies get first crack at H1B's, so that they can hire a lot, not leaving any open H1B slots for smaller companies to try and get some workers in.

      I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. - Oliver Cromwell

      by Ezekial 23 20 on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:30:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wouldn't be surprised if Brown was a YES (0+ / 0-)

    considering how he's throwing the teabaggers under the pickup truck.

    Gregg and Voinovich are both out of there in November, so probably figure they've got nothing to lose. Brownback's running for KS governor so he's a likely NO.

    The risk we take in opening our hearts to love, is learning to say goodbye.

    by Cali Scribe on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:25:40 AM PDT

  •  Gawd help me (4+ / 0-)

    My Lou Dobbs loving relative who completely quit talking to me when Obama was elected (since I helped that effort) will probably have to kill me if an immigration reform debate comes up.

  •  We could probably get Dorgan to vote YES (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, sulthernao
    since he is retiring any ways.

    Obama 1/10: "We don't quit. I don't quit"...Health care reform passed 3/10.

    by Drdemocrat on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:27:31 AM PDT

  •  Why would (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sulthernao, RhodaA

    Senators like Byrd and Dorgan be against immigration reform? Nelson, it is assumed, will be an idiot on any issue at any particular moment, based on his erratic, irrational and corrupt behavior in the past.

    •  I don't think Dorgan is against it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wdrath

      He had issues with a guest worker program, not comprehensive immigration reform writ large.  

      He wrote about it in his book.  I think he would be on board.

      Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. - Galbraith

      by Adam Blomeke on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 02:42:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Also it will be interesting to see what happens (0+ / 0-)

    if the "Founders Visa" is allowed to be introduced as a separate bill. If so that is going to take a lot of business pressure off people voting for the rest of the package.

    "Buying Horizon Milk to support organic farming is like purchasing an English muffin in an effort to prop up the British economy." -Windowdog

    by Windowdog on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:31:00 AM PDT

  •  If Reid wants to get re-elected, he'll push (7+ / 0-)

    for immigration reform. Reid is facing a tough fight this year. Whoever supports immigration reform will get the latino vote. Without the latino vote, he's pretty much toast. That's why he spoke at an immigration rally. So assuming Reid knows this, he isn't bull-shitting on pushing immigration reform this year.

  •  What's the reasoning behind... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, Odysseus, RhodaA

    ...NOT bringing it to the floor for a vote, even if you're going to lose it?

    I really don't understand, and I'm a pretty smart fella.

  •  It needs to be resold as Social Security Rescue (6+ / 0-)

    A lot of americans, including a good number here on DKos, don't realize that we don't have too many immigrants in this country. We have too few. We need a lot more young workers in this country in orde to shore up social security. If you look at the demographics, the only people reproducing above replacement rates are hispanics (both legal and illegal- it doesn't matter when it comes to giving birth to american babies). Legalizing the illegal immigrants is a necessary step just from the standpoint of saving social security.
    Just lay it out for the american people. Do you want to see social security go down in flames? If no then you have two choices. 1. start breeding. 2. let in immigrants.
    Since #1 is not about to happen magically over night, #2 is our only option.

    •  Interesting thought (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cartoon Peril

      Don't know how it would play out (GOPs will scream about giving scarce SS money to them while the coffers are going dry), but it makes sense at first reading.

    •  It won't be a rescue unless (0+ / 0-)

      there are enough jobs to produce the necessary increase in Social Security tax revenue.  And the unemployment rate is near 20%.

    •  Yeah, that's always been my thought. (0+ / 0-)

      Call it "Immigration Reform and Social Security Rescue Act" or something.

      Really cool because it puts the older Americans, who are probably least likely to support immigration reform, in the pro-reform camp.

      But, it always seemed obvious to me: Immigrants skew younger than our current workforce.

      Jesus was a Socialist.

      by Bush Bites on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:43:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  many (most?) use fake numbers (3+ / 0-)

      Last year, Mr. Martínez paid about $2,000 toward Social Security and $450 for Medicare through payroll taxes withheld from his wages. Yet unlike most Americans, who will receive some form of a public pension in retirement and will be eligible for Medicare as soon as they turn 65, Mr. Martínez is not entitled to benefits.

      He belongs to a big club. As the debate over Social Security heats up, the estimated seven million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the system with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year.

      While it has been evident for years that illegal immigrants pay a variety of taxes, the extent of their contributions to Social Security is striking: the money added up to about 10 percent of last year's surplus - the difference between what the system currently receives in payroll taxes and what it doles out in pension benefits. Moreover, the money paid by illegal workers and their employers is factored into all the Social Security Administration's projections.
      ...

      Currently available for about $150 on street corners in just about any immigrant neighborhood in California, a typical fake ID package includes a green card and a Social Security card. It provides cover for employers, who, if asked, can plausibly assert that they believe all their workers are legal. It also means that workers must be paid by the book - with payroll tax deductions.

      ...

      Starting in the late 1980's, the Social Security Administration received a flood of W-2 earnings reports with incorrect - sometimes simply fictitious - Social Security numbers. It stashed them in what it calls the "earnings suspense file" in the hope that someday it would figure out whom they belonged to.

      The file has been mushrooming ever since: $189 billion worth of wages ended up recorded in the suspense file over the 1990's, two and a half times the amount of the 1980's.

      In the current decade, the file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.

      link NYT

      •  very interesting information (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, OLinda

        So as it turns out the illegal immigrants are keeping our SS MC afloat!

        Of course, this could also be used to argue against granting them citizenship. Some people just want something for nothing. They want the illegals to put into the pot but never get anything out.

    •  Let's not forget skilled immigration (0+ / 0-)

      We need to abolish the cap on H-1 visas and make it easier for current H-1 holders to become citizens. They are by far the best "deal" for social security, as they pay a good amount in tax, and do not rely on welfare.

      •  Good luck with that one (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus

        Undoing caps on visa's that are used to facilitate outsourcing when enemployment is close to ten percent?

        •  That exact same argument (0+ / 0-)

          could be used against the immigration of Latinos. I don't get it, if you believe immigration is a good thing, then undoubtedly skilled immigration is a great thing.

          •  The H1B program (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Odysseus, denise b

            has been perverted and abused. It's a meritorious program in it's concept. It is a good and sometimes even necessary thing to have skilled immigrants when Americans workers can't fill the jobs. These days, the program is exploited by people who simply don't want to pay an American to do the work. Again, good luck removing the limits on the caps in an environment where unemployement is close to ten percent.

            •  Again, the same exact argument (0+ / 0-)

              could apply to allowing more Hispanic immigration. Immigration of any kind expands the labor pool and creates more competition per available position, reducing wages. Why the hypocrisy in supporting one form of immigration and not the other.

              Even if you restructured the H-1 visa so that it would lead to citizenship in under 2 years, and would allow visa holders to switch jobs easier, you'd still have progressives campaigning against it.

              And if H-1's have been perverted and abused, then one can certainly make the same claim about illegal border-crossing.

              •  There are legitimate claims (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Odysseus, denise b

                to be made against unskilled immmgration too. Both have for sure cost Americans their jobs and both have their positive sides as well. Regardless of the merits, good luck on removing H1B caps in a time of high unemployment. You may as well argue for a noon curfew with St. Patrick's day approaching in Boston.

      •  You know (0+ / 0-)

        If Democrats hate American workers that much that they allow unlimited H-1Bs while unemployment is this high, I'll be rooting for them to lose both chambers in November.

        "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

        by jfern on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 01:43:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  H1b= indentured servitude (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus

        The problem with the H1b VISA is that the employer has all the power. The H1b holder is completely at his employer's mercy. If he loses his job, he basically loses his status to stay in tihs country. He better find another H1 position right quick. And woe to you if they ran out the H1 quotas that year!

        What we should do instead is to have the immigrant be indentured to the US government instead. They should be allowed to do whatever they want. They just have to 'buy in' to the system with a surtax or some other mechanism.

    •  Social Security is not going down in flames (0+ / 0-)

      so scratch that argument.

      It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man. --H.L. Mencken

      by denise b on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 04:24:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I totally agree with this statement: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jct, RhodaA

    "Reid should push for a vote whether he has the 60 or not. While the ultimate goal is reform, even a losing vote would show Latinos where the opposition is coming from, and help motivate them for the November elections."

    Using political capital for this is tricky right now because if the right-wing fringe has any sanity left, it'll be gone should immigration reform pass after a real public battle. But as Kos said, if a vote is held and almost all Dems vote yes, the growing Latin population will see even more clearly who's on their side, and they'll know that a strong performance by Dems in November will be the only real chance they have of reform.

  •  I agree. (3+ / 0-)
    Even a losing vote will help in the long run by exposing Republcians.  Soon, they will be a southern party only, and the upper south may reject them.  In the end, they will a regional party rooted in the Confederacy.  

    Pooties and Woozles unite; you have nothing to lose but your leashes!

    by TomP on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:37:27 AM PDT

    •  you left out part of the last sentence... (0+ / 0-)

      ...that needed to be said:
      "In the end, they will a regional party rooted in the Confederacy"...a confederacy that, like it or not, and no matter how many times anyone tries to resurrect it or revise history, was killed-in-action on this ONE nation's battlefields, and one which whose survivors surrendered at Appomattox.  

      "Peace is the protector of genius. War is the mortal enemy of both peace and genius."

      by ImpeachKingBushII on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:47:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the difference between a politician... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RhodaA

    ...and a legislator who is a statesman. A politician writes the law that will get the most votes so he can get re-elected. A statesman does what is right and true and just for his country. If and when we do what is right for the immigrants and this nation on the immigration issue, the hispanics will remember sincerely(latin for: "without wax")who stood for them and who stood against them. It's a simple matter of social justice. If we give them a "fair shake" or fair and equal justice under law, they will reward us for it. If we pass a stop-gap measure for short-term gains, they will "reward" us for that, too!

    "Peace is the protector of genius. War is the mortal enemy of both peace and genius."

    by ImpeachKingBushII on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:38:46 AM PDT

  •  Funny how McCain personalizes everything. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Govinda, Mike Peterson

    Jesus was a Socialist.

    by Bush Bites on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:39:52 AM PDT

  •  Rs say immigrants are the ones who are (0+ / 0-)

    fucking up this country.  Finally we know who's really responsible fot the mess!

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:41:28 AM PDT

  •  Even if Reid's math is good (0+ / 0-)

    It's not enough for cloture.

  •  Should vs.Will (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, Mike Peterson

    Should Reid push for a vote before November even if he doesn't have 60, so that Latinos (and others) can clearly see where opposition to immigration reform is coming from? Yes.

    Will Reid do it?  Given the number of other times he's passed on holding a vote he knows he might lose in order to pin down the Republicans, the answer is most likely no.  That's one of the reasons he's such a terrible Majority Leader.

    •  I'm not so sure in this case... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nervousnellie

      Reid's slim path to keeping his own seat pretty much requires he get every last Latino vote he can out of the southern NV population center (read: Las Vegas and surrounding).

      I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

      by zonk on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:53:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  At Issue Is The Fact (0+ / 0-)

      That the Schumer Graham won't reform anything anymore than the McCain Kennedy legislation would have reformed anything, anymore than the 1986 IRCA reformed anything.

      All that the Schumer Graham bill will do is legalize those currently in the country legally, and allow more legal immigrants into the country while keeping those allowed in skewed towards citizens of Mexico as has been the case for the past twenty years.

      <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

      by superscalar on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 04:41:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a WINNING issue for Dems (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jct

    for generations!  Well done, Markos!  You really have your finger on the pulse of the legislature on this issue.  As you say, force the vote and see where everyone stands.  This is a defining issue for generations to come!

    My name is not Joe, and my head isn't pineapple-shaped!

    by pineapple head joe on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:47:48 AM PDT

    •  What planet are you on? (0+ / 0-)

      It can't be Earth. Only among the far left is immigration reform popular. Doing this in a time of a recession is an electoral disaster.

    •  lose the battle and win the war (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mas Gaviota

      Kind of like proposition 187 in CA back around 1992(?). That was an anti immigrant proposition floated by the right wing. They won that one, and in doing so lost CA for the next ~20 years.

      Immigration reform will probably cost dems the election in 2010. Which they'd probably lose anyways. But in the long run it might very well turn the Republicans into Whigs.

    •  No It's Not (0+ / 0-)

      This is nothing more than identity politics, and it will cost the Democratic Party big in the long run. As I wrote above

      All that the Schumer Graham bill will do is legalize those currently in the country legally, and allow more legal immigrants into the country while keeping those allowed in skewed towards citizens of Mexico as has been the case for the past twenty years.

      Nothing will be 'reformed' (primarily because the so-called 'immigrant advocates' don't really care about 'reforming' anything, and they will care even less after any so-called 'immigration reform' is passed).

      What we will get in the long run is somewhere upwards of 20 to 30 million new low wage workers as newly minted Americans, and 20 million more illegal immigrants will follow them.

      The Democratic Party has lost its reputation as standing for working Americans. When so-called 'immigration reform' is passed the Democratic Party will look as much as the party of big business as the Republican Party does now.

      This is a defining issue for generations to come!

      On this point we agree, we I think disagree on what the definition will end up looking like, but I can't wait for the Democratic Party to grab this with both hands -- then working class democratic voters will finally see what the Democratic Party stands for -- pandering and identity politics.

      <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

      by superscalar on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 04:51:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Agree 100% Kos (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, Odysseus, ImpeachKingBushII

    It's an effort without a downside for Reid or the Dems (in fact, Reid hanging on to his own seat pretty much requires that he get every last NV Latino to the polls to vote for him).

    The only people that would be upset about such legislation would be those that won't be voting Dem anyway.  The Tancredo wing of the GOP simply doesn't fit into the class of gettable indies in any way, shape, or form.

    This is where the damn phantom filibuster really comes back to bite the Senate.  There's only so theater you can wring -- much less, actually pay hard ball and force people to vote for cloture for purposes of an up or down vote -- from the current way the rules are written.

    Still, if the legislation is good -- there's not really any downside towards bringing it to the floor, letting the debate happen, and forcing whatever part of the bill's ultimate stall you can into the light of day.

    I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

    by zonk on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:51:47 AM PDT

    •  a revision of the filibuster is in order here... (0+ / 0-)

      ...either the Minority party must actually be "forced" to filibster in the traditional sense of the word, or they must stop abusing their right. The threat to filibuster was never meant as a tool to obstruct, to stop the government from functioning and doing any of the basic essential work of the people, or as a form of political coup d' etat. It was intended to prevent the tyranny of the Majority. By the repubs' continual abuse of the filibuster, it has instead become the tyranny of the Minority. IOW, make them put-up or shut-up! But that would take leaders on our side with the backbone(transplanted, stolen, or miraculously grown)to set aside "senate comity" long enough to actually find and use one.

      "Peace is the protector of genius. War is the mortal enemy of both peace and genius."

      by ImpeachKingBushII on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:03:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I've Voted Democratic All Of My Life (0+ / 0-)

      The only people that would be upset about such legislation would be those that won't be voting Dem anyway

      If the Schumer Graham legislation is passed I will never vote democratic again. People here on the Daily Kos seem to think this is overridingly popular with democrats -- watch and see.

      <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

      by superscalar on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 04:53:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Reid should try to push immigration reform now (0+ / 0-)

    There will probably not be a better chance than now.

    They [GOP] haven't clear logical ideas on one single subject except a sturdy, solid opposition to all change. This Side of Paradise by F. Scott Fitzgerald

    by mscharizmaa on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:54:24 AM PDT

  •  This is a guaranteed electoral loser if the (0+ / 0-)

    Democrats push for it. It would do to them what gun control did to them in 1994.

  •  I agree with what everyone has been saying (0+ / 0-)

    about putting it to a vote right before the midterms to energize Latino voters. I know the opposition is going to be ugly---very, very ugly. But it'll also remind independents that the GOP is incapable of protesting in a sane way. I just hope no one is hurt.

    TEABAGGER=Totally Enraged About Blacks And Gays Getting Equal Rights.

    by Mike Peterson on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:55:17 AM PDT

  •  56 votes for which bill? (0+ / 0-)


    "Do your taxpayers a favor, and leave him alone." (My State Assembly Rep, Marc Pocan, to Denver's City Atty before 2008 DNC)

    by ben masel on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:57:07 AM PDT

  •  Don't count on any Republicans. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ImpeachKingBushII

    Right now, they are under  incredible pressure -- and also incredible internal bias -- to just vote "no."

    Corporations are people; money is speech.
    George Orwell

    by Frank Palmer on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:57:55 AM PDT

    •  when the repubs are in power they misuse... (0+ / 0-)

      ...and abuse it to further their crony-capitalistic agenda which has always, always favored the upper 5% of the social elite class who really rule this nation with an iron fist. When they are out of power they use what little influence they have left to obstruct, obstruct, and failing to obstruct absolutely, to obstruct some more. Palin bragged about it last week very well, either by accident, by crib notes or by design, speaking the truth of which is a first for her, but nevertheless very close to the mark, that the repubs are not only the party of NO, but the party of Hell NO!

      "Peace is the protector of genius. War is the mortal enemy of both peace and genius."

      by ImpeachKingBushII on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:13:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Immigration from Latin America is unsustainable.. (0+ / 0-)

    without a corresponding increase in skilled immigration from places like India and China.

    I don't get why so many people are opposed to the H-1 visa program when its probably the only type of immigration that is a net benefit to the country. Most other immigrants are a drain on the welfare state, H-1 holders are some of the few that have to pay extra taxes to support education, etc.

    I have no problem with increasing unskilled immigration if we correspondingly increase skilled immigration to make up the inevitable welfare burden brought on by the former. It makes very little sense to me that progressives are campaigning for immigration on the one hand (when it has to do with Latinos), but then rabidly anti-immigration when it comes to Indians and Chinese. I hope that there's no racial hatred behind this, but I could be wrong.

    On another note, passing immigration reform will be good for industry as we import cheap labor, so perhaps that will boost the manufacturing sector.

    •  Social conservatism is also likely to rise (0+ / 0-)

      There are of course many side-effects to immigration reform, for example Latinos tend to be more in favor of pro-family and pro-community policies. For example, they are consistently pro-life and anti-gay marriage.

      As the US becomes an increasingly Latino nation, it’s clear that abortion is not going to stay legal for long.

      A May Gallup poll found that 51 percent of Americans called themselves "pro-life," or against abortion. But the Pew survey indicates that a higher percentage of Hispanics oppose abortion — 57 percent — or more than any other group.

      An overwhelming 40% of all Hispanics say abortion should never be legal. Others taking a pro-life view say abortion should be illegal except when the life of the mother is in danger (11%) or illegal except in rare instances when the woman is a victim of rape or incest (27%).

      "But the vast majority of us know what’s right, we know that every child has place en nuestras casas y nuestras familias — our homes and families," Rojas said. "We know and cherish and honor the sanctity of motherhood and of life."

      http://www.ustimes5.com/...

    •  Don't limit it to engineering & IT (0+ / 0-)

      Part of the problem is that the H1's are all concentrated in a few industries. They should b spred all around. Why aren't there any H1 lawyers or (very few) doctors? Or for that matter science/math teachers.

    •  The H1B program (0+ / 0-)

      is opposed by unemployed or fearful of being unemployed professionals who are competing for jobs with them.

      It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man. --H.L. Mencken

      by denise b on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 04:18:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He SHOULD NOT hold a vote! (0+ / 0-)

    because that would upset Republicans voting against this. And if that happens then they wont work with Democrats for a whole year!  Then NOTHING will get done.

    "A lie isn't a side of a story. It's just a lie." The Wire

    by glutz78 on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:01:56 PM PDT

  •  Hold your horses..from TPM (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ImpeachKingBushII

    Just a few moments ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dashed hopes that immigration reform would be dealt with soon.

    "We won't to get immigration reform in this work period," Reid told reporters on Capitol Hill

  •  Kos, you're last paragraph is DEAD WRONG...... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia

    It would be a big mistake for Reid to force a cloture vote without 60 lined up.  If it fails, it doesn't hurt Republicans with Latinos, it hurts Democrats with Latinos, and further it hurts Democrats with everyone else.

    When a party controls the Presidency and both chambers of Congress, people of all stripes expect that party to succeed in getting things done.  A failed vote on major legislation merely makes us look like failures.  The message of "Republican obstruction" doesn't gain anything.

    Latinos and other immigrant advocates already know Republicans and conservatives are by and large hostile to them, and that Democrats and liberals are by and large supportive.

    There are no additional votes to be gained this November from proving on the Senate floor what everyone already knows.

    There can be additional votes gained this November only from PASSING immigration reform.

    Reid must not, and I'm quite confident will not (because he never does), hold a vote that won't succeed.

    In a time of war, is that really the time to be asking whether we should be at war?...When it is over we should ask whether we should leave. -- Stephen Colbert

    by DCCyclone on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:36:22 PM PDT

  •  kos, could you describe in some detail (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jfern

    the progressive idea of immigration reform?

    Without that, we're all just smokin' rope.

    "No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous." Samuel Johnson, An Introduction To The Political State of Great Britain

    by Mark B on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:40:31 PM PDT

  •  So, if I was (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    denise b

    What if I wanted to see the wording of the proposed law - where is that ?
    Immigration reform is such a broad topic, from those who do it legally to those who do it illegally.
    I just want to know what changes are in store.

    you can't remain neutral on a moving train

    by rmfcjr on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:50:24 PM PDT

  •  DEFINE: Immigration reform? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    denise b

    How can we judge who is for/against what if we don't even know what the "thing" is?

    Personally, I want hiring an illegal immigrant to be a felony, punishable by 10 years in prison.

    I want the IRS and Social Security Admin to work out how to end the false ID/IDtheft mechanisms.

    The IRS damn well knows that Mary Sullivan, SocSec# XXX-XX-XXXX can't both be a retiree in Palm Beach FL and a housekeeper at the Bellagio in Vegas. Yet currently the IRS happily collects the taxes from the nice lady's paycheck, while also collecting the taxes from the IRA disburshments of the same nice lady.

    I want ALL cargo shipped IN-and-OUT of the US to go through a customs warehouse for inspection... drugs, money, illegal materials all to be interdicted. Whether by Truck, Train, Plane or Ship... all of it is to be opened, inspected, and repacked by US customs personel. Gee, imagine all the unemployed we will need to hire.

    No Mexican trucks on US roads. They pull up to the customs warehouse and unload. A US truck will take it from there after inspection... and vis-versa. Ditto rail cars.

    All Air Cargo gets inspected, all Sea cargo gets inspected.

    I want the border with Mexico sealed. 40,000 troops are required to form a human fence 2,500 miles long. One soldier every 1/4 mile. 3 shifts a day plus extras for holidays, etc.

    Noone and nothing crosses that border without permission.

    Congress needs to decide what limits on LEGAL immigration will be, and Homeladn Security will impliment those limits. No more 200K H1B visa's authorized by COngress, yet somehow 800K+ get issued every year, to in-source our middle class to death.

    The one overiding understanding by ALL parties to this debate needs to be...

    A NATION HAS THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE ITS OWN IMMIGRATION LIMITS.

  •  Anything that gets 60 votes is not reform. (0+ / 0-)

    Look at health care reform, Wall Street reform, climate change reform, deficit/debt, Social Security, Medicare.

    Trying to compromise to get 60 votes results in useless legislation.

  •  Reform it how? (0+ / 0-)

    Have the goals of the legislation even been determined yet?

    It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man. --H.L. Mencken

    by denise b on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 02:41:42 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site