U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton denied motions by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu last week to dismiss a lawsuit filed by plaintiffs against Arizona law SB 1070. Counsel for the plaintiffs, which includes the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, and the National Immigration Law Center, alleges that SB 1070 unlawfully attempts to regulate immigration and would result in widespread racial profiling. The lawsuit is one of seven originally filed against SB 1070.

While Judge Bolton ruled that the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction against SB1070 was moot (because of the one previously granted to the Department of Justice), she also found that the plaintiffs had standing to sue because the “alleged harm to the organizational plaintiffs will occur if SB 1070 goes into effect, regardless of how it is enforced or applied.” In addition, Judge Bolton stated that “race, alienage, or national origin discrimination was a motivating factor in the enactment of S.B. 1070.” Judge Bolton also found that “While Governor Brewer correctly points out that, for the most part, the organizational plaintiffs’ allegations involve threats of future harm, the threat of future harm is sufficiently imminent.”

Specifically, the complaint filed by the ACLU and other civil rights organizations alleges that SB 1070 will result in racial profiling; will subject people of color to unlawful interrogations, searches, seizures, and arrests; and will deprive people of freedom of speech and expressive activity. Bolton ruled that the law:

[C]ontains no meaningful procedural safeguards against erroneous deprivations of liberty, and immigration status is not something that is easily ascertainable. A person who is lawfully present in the U.S. may look and act the same way as a person who does not have permission to be in the country, and plaintiffs’ allegations of ’subjective and arbitrary’ detention decisions by law enforcement agents are plausible.

Judge Bolton did, however, rule in favor of some of Gov. Brewer’s arguments, dismissing a First Amendment claim based on the argument that barring illegal immigrants from soliciting work violated the right to free speech. She also dismissed a claim brought by two New Mexico residents who argued their right to travel was impeded because their driver’s licenses might not be sufficient proof of status under SB 1070.

So what’s next? Seven suits have been filed against Arizona law SB 1070, two have been dismissed, and two have yet to reach argument in front of Judge Bolton. The appeal of a preliminary injunction against SB 1070 given in the Department of Justice lawsuit will be heard November 1st before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center provides a more detailed analysis of the cases against SB1070.

Photo by flying white.

There can be advantages to going it alone. Despite two years of repeated attempts to get a bipartisan immigration reform bill in the Senate, Senators Menendez (D-NJ) and Leahy (D-VT) finally said “enough” and introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010 (CIR 2010) last week. Plenty of people have pointed out that the bill was introduced just as Congress left Washington to go into full-time campaign mode, leaving Sens. Menendez and Leahy virtually alone in Washington to promote their new bill. On a conference call Friday, however, Sen. Menendez said he aims at moving the bill during lame duck session or next Congress, but urged advocates and the media to focus on the merits of the bill, rather than the timing. (Other immigration bills passed during lame duck include the LIFE Act and NACARA.)

CIR 2010 doesn’t stray too much from the general framework we have seen since 2006 and builds on much of Sen. Menendez’s own work in the past two years. Analysts are digging away at the details of this massive bill (the official summary alone ran 73 pages) but the outline should be familiar to everyone by now.

The bill is broken into six parts—titles—addressing the major elements of reform: 1) Border security 2) Interior Enforcement 3) Employment Verification 4) Reforming Legal Immigration 5) Legalization of the Undocumented and 6) Integration and Citizenship. It adheres to many of the major principles outlined in the bipartisan REPAIR proposal released by Senators Schumer, Graham, Menendez and others earlier this spring. It incorporates many provisions of past and current legislative proposals that have had bipartisan support in the past—AgJobs, DREAM Act, Strong STANDARDS Act. It also includes provisions long advocated by Senator Grassley (R-IA) on routing out fraud in the immigration system.

CIR 2010 pushes the envelope, too, most notably by including the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA)—a bill which provides equal immigration protection and benefits for permanent partners of LGBTQ U.S. citizens. It includes the creation of a Standing Commission on Immigration which would have the authority to dig deep into the impact of immigration on our economy, national security, and labor markets. The bill also creates a new temporary worker program, but leaves the politically delicate question of how many new workers to the Commission to solve.

The Menendez-Leahy bill also offers an extremely generous legalization program, making anyone in the country as of September 30 eligible to apply. Like the Gutierrez-Ortiz bill in the House, it offers a more streamlined approach to legalization than the complicated and bureaucratic approaches that emerged from bipartisan bills in 2006 and 2007. In a nod to the continuing sluggishness of the economy, however, CIR 2010 abandons all pretense of requiring gainful employment during the Lawful Prospective Immigrant phase (the six to 11 year period before someone could qualify to get a green card). That’s not to say that people won’t work—but by eliminating that provision and focusing on the basics—paying taxes, learning English and civics, passing all criminal and background checks—CIR 2010 offers a clear-headed process for getting people registered and moving the country beyond the rhetoric of amnesty.

The generosity at the front end is tempered, however, by some extremely tough requirements regarding challenging denials of LPI status or the validity of the law itself. The bill, for instance, keeps the registration program open for only one year—a source of concern to service providers who know how difficult it is to ramp up a program and move ten million people through it. It continues the trend of denying access to the program if the applicant ever committed a crime subject to a sentence of one year or more (there are more generous waivers and exceptions than in the past, however). The ability to challenge denials in administrative and judicial settings is available, but strictly limited.

Similarly, the inclusion of triggers relating to operational control of the border—no matter how achievable—is disturbing. While the program to give people LPI status will be able to go forward unimpeded, the decision to link border security to legalization is a significant reminder that Sens. Menendez and Leahy aren’t exactly going it alone. The political baggage of our enforcement driven culture has become a seemingly unavoidable part of immigration reform.

People will find far more to critique and argue about before too long—that’s the nature of a massive bill like CIR 2010. But that’s also the beauty of it. Theories, proposals, and principles advance the debate only so far. An actual piece of legislation, real text that people can debate and analyze, gives advocates something to rally around and policy folks something to build on. In going it alone, Sens. Menendez and Leahy aren’t truly alone, of course. CIR 2010 is a snapshot of where the Senate is today—a calculation about what makes sense to the sponsors but also about what is most likely to bring more people to the bill. Sometimes you just have to take the plunge, knowing and believing that others will follow.

Photo by menendez.senate.gov.

As Congress’ attention to lawmaking wanes in place of politicking and mid-term elections, a string of new polls are emerging that further depict the strained relationship between Latinos and Republicans. The GOP strategy of alienating the fastest growing demographic through harsh rhetoric and the blockage of immigration reform is starting to reap results. Much like polls that emerged after the failure of comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, Latinos are steadily edging away from the GOP.

One example comes from the Los Angeles Times, whose recent poll shows that California Latinos strongly approve of Obama’s performance and have a high voting enthusiasm. According to the L.A. Times/USC Poll conducted this month, Latinos clearly support the Democratic candidates over their opponents in the state’s Senate race, particularly when it comes to the issue of immigration (24 points higher). Latinos also favor the Democratic candidate for Governor and believe he will be better on the issue of immigration than his opponent (23 points higher).

According to Latino Decisions:

Latinos are becoming increasingly frustrated with the Republican Party, following three weeks of data from the Latino Decisions weekly national tracking poll of Latino registered voters, though Democrats have not yet surged ahead in the 2010 congressional vote. 65% of Latinos now say they are less excited about the Republican Party as compared to one year ago, up from 60% who were less excited as of August 30th. Further, when it comes to immigration, 74% of Latinos say the Republican Party is either ignoring or blocking immigration reform, up from 70% as of August 30th.

According to America’s Voice, “Latino voters will punish Republicans who oppose immigration reform.” They cite LatinoMetrics polls which show that since the end of 2009, immigration has catapulted to the top issue of personal concern among 1 in 4 Latinos—tied with jobs and the economy. Also when asked, “With which political party do you most closely identify?” only 13% said “Republican.” The same poll also asked, “How do you think the immigration issue would impact how you feel about politicians and the parties they represent?” 68% said they would support candidates who favor immigration reform, while only 19% said they would be willing to support a candidate who opposed immigration reform.

Immigrants’ rights groups are already working to capitalize on this growing schism, particularly in hotly contested races. For example today, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Mi Familia Vota Civic Participation Campaign, and America’s Voice are launching Spanish-language radio ads in nine media markets across the country. The ads point to the Republican Party’s obstructionism on immigration reform, cite the GOP’s successful effort to block a vote on the DREAM Act last week, and encourage voters to support the candidates who “support our families, and make our dreams come true.”

Despite repeated warnings from GOP leaders, many in their party continue to ignore the Latino vote, and it looks like they are doing so at their own peril.

Photo by automata.

In a procedural vote yesterday, Senate Republicans (and two Democrats) voted not to proceed (56-43) to the Defense Authorization bill in a party line vote, preventing the consideration of, among others, the DREAM Act amendment. Hemming and hawing their way through floor speeches, Senate Republicans expressed sympathy for the plight of potential DREAM Act students and offered to “debate the merits of the DREAM Act” in a standalone bill, just not on the Defense authorization bill. This latest vote, coupled with some in the GOP’s recent anti-immigrant rhetoric on birthright citizenship and Arizona’s immigration enforcement laws, has the potential to not only alienate America’s fastest growing voting bloc, but drive them to the polls in November.

On a conference call today, several local immigration advocacy groups stated that they’re already gearing up for a fight. Gihan Perara, Director of Florida New Majority, said many Latinos feel betrayed by Republican Senator George LeMieux’s vote yesterday, enough so to head to the ballots:

People are very angry at Sen. LeMieux for what people consider a double-cross of fairness and caving into right wing groups who are trying to shape politics in this state. Starting today, we’ll have field groups in the state talking to voters to talk about November vote. We’re not only talking to Latino voters, who make up 14% of voters in the state, but also African Americans. Yesterday’s Senate vote is a strong tip off point for this population to find a reason to come out to the ballot box. We’re getting tons of calls from people about what they can do to help after the vote yesterday. The show of unity shows the degree to which people feel betrayed and angered.

Joshua Hoyt, Director of Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR), said that as 9% of the state’s voters, Latinos are a group than simply cannot be ignored.

The unified Republican filibuster represents, to us, the position of Republicans on this issue. The Republicans’ filibuster is being interpreted as an attack on the children of Latino immigrants.

We’re raising money in Illinois to do immigrant voter turn out. We will have a full multi-contact program to get out the immigrant vote. The time has passed for taking empty promises from anyone. The time has come to take names and to deliver a political message in November.

Similarly, Theresa Trujillo of Colorado Progressive Action, said:

I think that we will continue to see [yesterday’s vote] as an opportunity, as a step on a longer journey, to organize Latinos around this issue and to galvanize Latinos in the electoral process. … We’re in the middle the largest effort to mobilize Latino voters. Our organization, and a collaboration of other organizations, are talking to hundreds of thousands of voters every single day, who call us about immigration reform and want to know what we’re doing to move this forward. What we’re hearing is that jobs and fair immigration reform are top issues for Latino voters. In 2008, the whole message was that hope and change won out over fear. Yesterday, we saw who was in favor of change and who was in favor of fear.

This week, former Secretary of State and retired General, Colin Powell, called for Republicans to both support the DREAM Act and to stop with all the anti-immigrant rhetoric. Last week, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano told the Latino community that if they want immigration reform next year, they must turn out in force in November.

Latinos made up 7.4% of the electorate in 2008, which has roughly double in the last 20 years, and is expected to grow. If they’re not careful, the “Party of No” could easily become the “Party of No One” if leaders continue to alienate America’s fastest growing voting bloc.

Photo by neon.mamacita.

With dizzying speed this week, immigration advocates went from gloomy to galvanized with the announcement that Senator Reid intended to bring the DREAM Act to the floor as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. To further add to the euphoria, Senator Menendez announced that he would introduce actual comprehensive immigration reform legislation sometime soon. President Obama made another speech in support of DREAM and broad reform, and met privately with Congressional Hispanic Caucus leaders to seal the deal on DREAM support. Congressman Luis Gutierrez, who has been bluntly critical at times of the President’s actions on immigration, appeared delighted with the outcome:

“I think the White House, the Democrats, and the allies that support serious immigration reform are going on offense and the President is our quarterback,” Rep. Gutierrez said after the White House meeting Thursday. “I have been pushing hard to get us all pointing in the same direction on this issue and now with the White House standing with us and the Senate poised to act, I think we are seeing that effort begin to bear fruit.”

For a political movement starved for actual action, all this activity was like a shot of adrenaline. The well-organized coalition of DREAM activists quickly got themselves ready to march, pray, call, fax, and influence Congress in every way possible. And immigration restrictionists sent out numerous action alerts predicting both doom and collapse should the DREAM Act pass, but also trotting out the familiar epithet of amnesty in order to rally their forces as well.

Let’s hope they both get to have their fight. The intricacies of contemporary Senate procedure are such that there is still a long way to go before DREAM (as well as an amendment repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) get a vote on the floor. First, the Senate has to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill, which translates into agreeing to end debate over whether or not to take up the bill. It used to be that this wasn’t much of an issue—by unanimous consent the Senators could agree to go directly to debate on a bill. In fact, in a rare bipartisan move, the Small Business bill which passed the Senate this week got to the floor by unanimous consent. Don’t count on that kind of consensus for the defense bill, however.

Republicans have vowed to block the bill, and thus a cloture vote will be necessary simply to get the bill to the floor. Only if Senator Reid can get 60 votes on his cloture motion—which is in doubt, many think—will the Senate even start debating the bill and accepting amendments on it. Senator Reid said yesterday that they would not finish debate on the bill until after the November election which, no matter what happens on DREAM Act, means that we won’t know for sure until late November or early December whether a successful vote on DREAM Act will translate into an actual law (and of course it has to get through the House as well).

But right now the battle is simply to get the defense bill to the floor. If the motion to proceed to debate fails next Tuesday, it’s back to the drawing board.

The vote next week shouldn’t fail, however, because all of the objections are essentially about style not substance. In this case, procedural wrangling keeps people from actually debating the merits of an issue, which means you don’t have to explain why you are opposed to helping students who could help this country become better. If you object to bringing the bill to the floor on the principle that you think the Senate leader is using it to score political points, you get to sound principled yourself without actually explaining to anyone why you oppose the DREAM Act or anything else.

One of the chief objections voiced by Republicans for keeping the defense bill off the floor is that Senator Reid is playing politics with our national security by adding controversial and irrelevant amendments to what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says should be a simple vote. And Senator McCain said the amendment is a “pure political act for Harry Reid, who is worried about his own re-election.” The folks working on the repeal of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell provision take issue with that characterization, throwing the idea of playing politics right back at the GOP, accusing Senator McCain of “playing politics with the lives of men and women in uniform.”

At some point, it just gets tiresome to hear everyone talking about playing politics. After all, this is politics, isn’t it?

The truth is, there are no simple votes, particularly in the 111th Congress, which will long be remembered for its bitter partisan squabbles that led, especially in the Senate, to political gridlock.

The truth is, good policy is rarely enough to motivate a vote on a controversial issue. If that were the case, Senator Reid wouldn’t have to maneuver like crazy just get important issues like immigration reform and fair treatment for the LGBTQ in the military onto the floor of the Senate.

And the truth is that, of course, this is political. The upcoming elections are a real incentive for showing voters where you stand. And generally, we only know where a politician stands when they actually have to vote on something.

So for once, it would be nice if the Senate could actually get to the heart of an immigration matter, debating it on its merits, rather than its procedural purity. Senators should be brave enough to take the issues up for their own sake rather than hide behind the increasingly oppressive use of the cloture vote, which seems to be the ultimate act of playing politics in the Senate.

Photo by jessejameswood.