Calm Before the Storm - Outing the Secret Immigration Bills!

Of late, all has been quiet on the Immigration Reform front. Discussion Boards, both PRO and ANTI, have been quiet. Blogs have been quiet. There has been a significant amount of Political discussion, including here on my blog, but very little Immigration Talk.

For a while, I thought the quiet was due to the fact that all three candidates, HRC, BHO and JSM (John Sidney McCain), support Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR).

Then, I started thinking it could be due to the RNC controlled media focus being taken off of Immigration since the McCain nomination. We know that Fox and the AMJocks are funded by the Right. I still think there is something to this possibility or maybe, just maybe, this is the calm before the storm.

I am hearing some rumblings that new Immigration Bills are being documented in very hush, hush privacy. Some of these bills are PRO - CIR. Some of them are ANTI.

Here are two articles re some of these Hush Hush activities:

Immigration Becomes a Political Football (Again)
The question of border security and the threat to U.S. security is back on the table even as the Presidential campaign progresses to the next phases. Senate Republicans plan to introduce a package of as many as 11 bills (could actually grow to 14) that establishes a hard line on illegal immigration. Even though experts consider it unlikely that these bills will reach the floor for debate, they reflect a move toward harsher immigration rhetoric and legislative proposals from both parties since Congress failed to pass a comprehensive overhaul in 2007. While some of the language in these possible pieces of legislation echo House bills, they go further. These bills include provisions to dock states 10% of their highway funds if they issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Another bill would extend the presence of National Guard on the border and still another would curtail language assistance at federal agencies and the voting booth for people with limited English ability. Senator Jeff Sessions, R-Ala, one of the leaders of the Republican efforts is offering a bill that would impose a maximum two-year sentence for the second offense of crossing the border illegally. Other bills:
● Block federal funding from cities that bar their police from asking about immigration status.
● Give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to use information from the Social Security Administration to target illegal immigrants.
● Require construction of 700 miles of fencing along the Southern border, not including vehicle barriers.
● Impose sanctions on countries that refuse to repatriate their citizens.
● Deport any immigrant, legal or illegal, for one drunken-driving conviction.
● Enable local and state police to enforce federal immigration laws
Its clear that immigration remains a political football in this Presidential election year. This includes the possibility of giving Senator McCain an opportunity to endorse one of the tougher bills to help distance him from some of his previous positions. Posturing or not, maybe some real immigration reform and border security measures will emerge from this, even though its an election year.

Immigration: New bills, old borders
By: David Rogers and Patrick O'Connor Mar 5, 2008 05:40 AM EST
For seasonal employers, whether crabbers in Maryland or grand hotels in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, the real calendar — not politics — makes the pressure very real and immediate. Immigration reform is raising its head again in Congress, stirring old hopes and fears among Democrats and forcing Republicans to re-evaluate their tactics given the re-emergence of John McCain. Nothing is anticipated on the scale of the comprehensive immigration bill that collapsed in the Senate last year. But seasonal employers, such as the restaurant and tourism industries, are pressing hard for more H-2B visas for lower-skilled workers this summer, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised Hispanic lawmakers an opportunity to add provisions addressing concerns in their community. A third potential piece is a bipartisan bill introduced by Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) — with the support of fellow “Blue Dog” Democratic moderates — that takes a more conservative approach: beefing up border security and requiring employers to use a government database to verify that their workers are in the U.S. legally. By Jay Fraser on March 5, 2008 at 10:53 PM

I have two questions for my readers:

1. Do you think either of these secret proposals will have any chance of passing before the election?

2. How will this impact the Political Debate, given the 3 candidates support CIR?

Hillary and Barack: Being Honest About NAFTA or just False Promises and Politics as Usual?

Were Hillary and Barack being honest when they said in the Ohio Debates the United States could "opt out" of the 14-year-old NAFTA pact if Canada and Mexico refuse to strengthen labor and environmental provisions and modify an investment chapter that critics say favors corporate interests too much?

Did Obama's senior economic adviser tell Canadian officials privately that Obama's criticism of the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico was "political positioning"?

Now, Reuter´s is reporting:
Mexico businessmen unfazed by U.S. NAFTA threats Thu Mar 6, 2008 5:13pm EST
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexican factory owners are shrugging off threats by U.S. presidential candidates to retool a major free trade deal but say they would worry if the talk continues after election day in November. As they vie for the Democratic Party nomination, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have vowed to tell Canada and Mexico that the United States will pull out of the North America Free Trade Agreement unless labor and environmental standards are renegotiated. Yet even if one of them wins the November election against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, a NAFTA supporter, few see Washington easily reopening the trade deal, the fruit of years of thorny negotiations. "I really doubt they would go through with it. They are just playing politics," said Cesar Castro, who heads Mexico's association of maquiladoras, the assembly-for-export factories that dot the border with the United States.

Castro said killing NAFTA or changing it to favor American workers would shut down Mexican factories and hurt employment in Mexico. "Illegal migration would spike and we all know they don't want that," he said.
By reducing or eliminating tariffs, NAFTA has helped make Mexico the No. 3 business partner with the United States, after Canada and China. "There are net benefits on both sides of the border, so I don't think they will touch it," said Jose Antonio Abogaber, who heads the chamber of shoe makers in the industrial state of Guanajuato. Conservative Mexican President Felipe Calderon's government has made clear it is happy with NAFTA the way it is, while warning against any move away from free trade. "NAFTA has been successful for each of the three countries," Economy Minister Eduardo Sojo told reporters in Toronto earlier this week. "What we need is more integration, not less integration."
----------------------
Readers, What are you thoughts? We know John McCain will continue with NAFTA, Big Business and his partnerships with his RNC Cronies. What about the Dems? Will they make changes as they promised? Or will they say one thing and continue with politics as usual? Should we be concerned?
Is NAFTA a problem? If not, then why doesn´t McCain, HRC and BHO explain the real issues?

My Night at the Caucus

The Texas Two Step: Primary & Caucus:

I voted yesterday and participated in the caucuses last evening. It was so exciting. This was my first caucus. It was very different than I expected. The caucuses started after the polls closed, at 7 pm. Actually, they started after the last person voted, so it was closer to 8 pm. Imagine 500 people standing outside on the lawn of an election center as people in line finished voting.

While on the lawn, they rounded us up into our precinct with one person holding up the precinct number sign. We had six or seven precincts. Each precinct had about 60 to 100 participants and we were all huddled up together in our groups.

After the last voter voted, they called out each precinct number and they hurded us into a section of the election center. Our precinct was second to the last called. As we were called, each group hooped and hollered. There was so much energy and excitement in the air, it was more like a pep rally.

I did notice something different, however. What I noticed was that for my suburb, there was a different ethnicity mix than I usually see when I go to the mall or bowling. I live in an affluent multi cultural suburb and this is reflected when I go shopping or out to dinner. The mix is generally: 55% Anglo (various ethnicities), 15% Hispanic, 15% Black, 15% Asian or Middle Eastern. At the election center, the mix was: 40% Anglo, 40% Black, 10% Asian-Middle Eastern, 10% Hispanic.

Once we went to our designated area, they asked for a volunteer Precinct Leader and a Secretary. I volunteered for secretary. Actually, since they told us outside they were looking for volunteers for each position, I volunteered outside. When we came inside, they all just voted for me. They had 2 volunteers for precinct leader and one person was elected. The leader and I worked out a plan to verify and sign up all the caucus members and their votes and ask for volunteer delegates. Since I was the secretary and signed everyone up, I saw that every Black voter and every mixed race couple (Black plus other) voted for Obama. Some of the yuppy career couples voted for Obama too. The majority of women (especially the self confident, outgoing, career women) and Hispanics voted for Hillary. I also noticed a number of young preppy youth voting for Hillary.

Throughout the caucus vote, we asked for volunteer delegates, indicating that the delegates needed to stay after everyone voted so we could vote on resolutions and who would go to the County Caucus. Now the caucus vote for my precinct was 60% Obama and 40% Hillary. However, the volunteers for delegates who stayed were 30% Obama and 70% Hillary. Consequently, by the end of the evening, all of the Obama supporters who volunteered as delegates became delegates for the Convention. Unfortunately, since we had so many Hillary volunteers for delegates, we had to draw names. I didn´t get it, but I was the first alternate. (boo hoo for me). I still have a shot, especially if someone drops out, since I am the 1st Alternate.

The events ran late into the evening and I did not arrive home until 11:30pm. The time flew and I was not tired at all, but my husband was already in bed. I watched CNN to check the stats from the evening. We had been checking periodically from the caucus so I already knew Hillary was the winner in TX, RI and Ohio.

Latinos' influence in primaries more important than ever

Like never before, Latino voters will make a significant difference in 2008, especially in Texas.

Latinos total one quarter of the Texas electorate and are about 3.6 million strong.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is thought to have a strong edge in the March 4 Primary, although younger Latinos seem to be giving Mr. Obama a serious look.

Mr. Obama has asked many long time voters for their support, many who seem unshakeable in their loyalty to Mrs. Clinton.

United Farm Workers co-founder Dolores Huerta has urged Latinos to vote for Senator Clinton. Dolores is held in high esteem by many Latinos and viewed as a heroine of Civil and Human Rights.

My predictions, based on local news, grocery store chatter and ear to the ground feedback:

Hillary Clinton will win the popular vote in Texas by +5%.

Economic Disasters Get Personal in Michigan, But Wait, Isn´t This What the ANTIs are Asking For?

Very Sad News. Due to the Economic Recession in Michigan, a number of schools are closing in Michigan, including the grade school I attended.
Bad Economic Times are happening all around us.

From the Lansing State Journal: Tumbling enrollment: Mid-Mich. cushions the impact by merging schools, closing buildings
Derek Wallbank & Al Miller Lansing State Journal
Cedar Street Elementary aide Kelly Donaldson and her colleagues saw the writing on the wall. Declining enrollment already had forced staff layoffs and program cuts. Then, the Mason school board voted in February to close the 324-student school. "We knew it was coming, but it's really sad," Donaldson said, choking back tears at the meeting where the school board voted unanimously to close the school. "It's like your family."

Experts predict few mid-Michigan parents and students will escape the changes with which local public school districts are grappling as the impact of lower birthrates and families leaving the state combine to create challenges not seen in Michigan public education in decades.
Across the tri-county area, school districts in Lansing, Mason, Eaton Rapids and St. Johns are considering or have implemented plans to close school buildings. Districts such as DeWitt have suspended future growth plans. Others, such as Charlotte, are taking hard looks at how future enrollment melds with existing facilities.

The problem, experts say, is that birthrates across mid-Michigan are down 15 percent in the last two decades. And Michigan's weak economy is exacerbating the problem, causing families to leave the state for economic reasons and curtailing an influx of new families. Michigan, with 1.6 million public school students, will have 20,000 to 25,000 fewer students each year through 2011. Ingham, Eaton and Clinton counties, with more than 71,000 students today, will have about 4,000 fewer by then, according to Fred Ignatovich, a former Michigan State University professor who projects school enrollment for many area districts. "And it might even be heavier if this economic downturn persists," Ignatovich said.

For many mid-Michigan communities, that means a streamlined public education system with fewer teachers and students and more tough decisions about shuttering buildings, neighborhood blight, new taxes and rising educational standards. The changes come at a time when school funding - paid per student - is declining with the loss of each student. If local districts have 4,000 fewer students by 2011, they lose $30 million in state funding.

-----------------

Question to my Viewers: Aren´t these "smaller economies" what many ANTIs are asking for when they talk about Reduced Immigration Levels and Deporting the 12M?

Predicting the March 4, 2008 Winners in TX and Ohio:

My March 4 Predictions:
Texas:
Clinton: 57%
Obama: 43%
Ohio:
1. Clinton: 63%
2. Obama: 37%

Clinton, the Winner in both states.
Why?
I visited my relatives in San Antonio so I had about 10 hours of drive time this weekend. Since I need to stay awake for the drive, I stayed on the AM dial, flipping talk radio stations from city to city.
Let me start with the AM Shock Jocks:
They hate Obama. They are deplorable and they focused primarily on attacks on Obama. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and ALL THE LOCALS, all of them, they ranted and ranted against Barack Huuuuuusssseeeiiinnnne Obama! All the rumors you hear about on the GOP and ANTI websites about Obama… the outfit, the church, the middle name (we should be able to use his middle name, is this America?? where there is smoke there is fire.....) it was ALL OVER THE PLACE! Then they went on and on… blah blah blah as the callers called in and wink wink elbow, elbow, …it is NOT me saying this, it is the CALLER!
I remember one elderly gentleman caller who said, “I don´t care! Anyone who hides his middle name has something to hide!” (wink, wink, terrorist) Then the AM Shock Jock saying, “Callers, let me know if you agree with me and my buddy Bob” as he requested callers to call in.
Nobody, none of these callers listen to Meet the Press or Chris Matthews on MSNBC Hardballin´ Around! These were good ole boys listenen´ to their their Local AMShockJocks as they do, Monday through Saturday, every day when they git up and work their tractors. This is heartland America. This is NOT the "Bradley" effect as occurred in LA. This is the "Good Ole Boy" effect!
I heard a few of them saying, “I am doing as Ann Coulter told us to do. I hate McCain for supporting the illeeeeeeeeeeegals! I am voting for Hillary just to show Dubya that he and the Republicans gotta change their ways!!”
As far as my predictions for Ohio, Ohio has been and will continue to be behind Clinton. They want a return to the prosperity of the 90´s. Who better than Hillary to get us there.
These are my predictions. Let´s see how close to correct I am.

Welcome to La Escuelita De Dee: The History of South Texas, Volume 1, Chapter 1

Welcome to La Escualita de Dee. Today, we are discussing the History of Southern Texas. Everyone thinks they know this, however, most do not.
MSN Encyclopedia:
The Republic of Texas, which existed for almost ten years before becoming part of the United States, was beset by many problems, principally financial ones. Although Texas had much land, until it was farmed by settlers little money would be available. To farm the land, however, white settlers would have to remove the native inhabitants by force. The first Texas election took place in September 1836, and Sam Houston defeated Stephen Austin to become the first president of the new Republic of Texas. Although the new republic was recognized by the United States and by several European countries, Mexico refused to recognize it, arguing that the treaty signed by Santa Anna claimed territory that was not part of the original state of Tejas. The republic asserted that the Río Grande from its mouth to its source was the western boundary of the new country, which would have given Texas parts of present-day New Mexico and Colorado. Mexico maintained that the southern boundary of Texas should be the Nueces River and not the Río Grande. In 1841 a trading expedition of Texans was sent to Santa Fe as the first step in a plan to secure the western boundaries of Texas. The group was captured by Mexican troops, and the captives were forced to march to Mexico City, where the survivors of the march were imprisoned. Mexican soldiers also periodically crossed into Texas and for short periods occupied San Antonio, Goliad, and Refugio. Finally, in February 1844, the Republic of Texas and Mexico signed an armistice. Difficulties with Mexico did not prevent more land grants to those who settled in the Republic of Texas. The population increased from an estimated 35,000 to 50,000 in 1821 to between 125,000 and 150,000 in 1836. German immigrants settled in central Texas, and other Europeans also established colonies. Most of the settlers had come from the United States to get the free land Texas was offering. Most of these new settlers joined Houston and his political supporters, who wanted the United States to annex the republic. As the land was settled, Native Americans were forced out. During the Texas Revolution, Houston had negotiated a treaty with the Cherokee that reserved lands in east Texas for the Cherokee. Texans had not approved the agreement, and now the republic refused to honor it. As settlers moved in, some Cherokee took matters into their own hands. Perhaps as many as 300 Cherokee joined about 100 Mexicans led by Vicente Cordova to camp on an island in east Texas and announced that they did not support the republic. A Texas army attacked and arrested all the leaders, and distrust between the Cherokee and whites increased. In December 1838 the Georgia-born soldier and politician Mirabeau B. Lamar was elected president of the republic. Lamar had no sympathy for Native Americans. He ordered the Cherokee out of the country. The Cherokee resisted, but at the Battle of the Neches in 1839 they were defeated and forced to go north to what is now Oklahoma, clearing east Texas for white settlement.
The United States Senate rejected a treaty to annex Texas in 1844, but it reversed that decision the following year, and Texas joined the Union on December 29, 1845. Under the treaty of annexation, Texas was responsible for all debts incurred by the republic. Mexico immediately broke off diplomatic relations with the United States. U.S. General Zachary Taylor was ordered to the Río Grande to enforce it as the Texas boundary. Mexico, however, held that the boundary was the Nueces River and considered Taylor’s advance a provocation. Mexico sent troops across the Río Grande. Congress responded by declaring war on Mexico on May 13, 1846. Many Texans participated in the Mexican War. Members of the Texas Rangers, a group formed on the eve of the Texas Revolution by Austin to protect Anglo-Americans from attacks by Comanche and Apache, acted as scouts for U.S. troops. Mexico was not defeated until troops under General Winfield Scott invaded Mexico City, which fell on September 14, 1847. Under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, Mexico relinquished its claims to Texas, and the United States acquired land that would become the states of California, Nevada, and Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Among the notable aspects of the treaty, it set the Texas border at the Rio Grande. It provided for the protection of the property and civil rights of Mexican nationals who would now be living on U.S. soil.
Southern immigrants to Texas had brought their slaves with them after 1820, but the plantation system for growing cotton had not penetrated much farther than east Texas in 1861, when the American Civil War began. Pro-Union sentiment was strong in west Texas, because of the proximity to Mexico and because west Texans needed federal protection against the attacks of Native Americans, and in central Texas, where German settlers opposed slavery. Houston, who had been elected governor in 1859, was a staunch Unionist and strongly opposed secession. Nevertheless, at a convention held in February 1861, delegates voted to secede and join the Confederate States of America. Houston, despite his long service to Texas, was removed from office. The majority of Texans supported the Confederacy once secession took place. General John B. Hood’s Texas Brigade and Benjamin Franklin Terry’s Texas Rangers made notable contributions to Confederate forces. Early in 1862 an expedition of Texas troops, under General Henry H. Sibley, captured Santa Fe, New Mexico, but they were later forced to withdraw.
After the Civil War, Texas grew rapidly. Between 1870 and 1900 the population of Texas increased from 19th in the country (818,579) to sixth (3,048,710). In the 1880s railroads opened new lands on the Great Plains and across Texas, and farmers flocked to those areas and planted staple crops—wheat, corn, and cotton—encouraged by new mechanical reapers, barbed wire (which helped control wandering cattle), and better farming techniques. In 1868 a reservation in the Indian Territory was set aside for the Comanche and the Kiowa, but they continued raiding across the border into Texas, and the Apache left reservations in New Mexico to raid into Texas. In the early 1870s, U.S. troops, which included the all-black 10th and 11th units known as Buffalo Soldiers, began a vigorous campaign to keep Native Americans on the land set aside for them. Federal forces also fought Native Americans with the assistance of the Texas Rangers. The most effective weapons against Native Americans on the Plains were the decision to exterminate the buffalo by General William Tecumseh Sherman and the expansion of the railroad into the West. These actions destroyed Native American food supplies and forced them onto reservations. It is estimated that almost ten million bison were killed between 1871 and 1880 for sport, for food to feed people laying tracks for the railroad, and for the animals’ hides. The cattle industry also grew after the Civil War. Since the days of the Spanish missions, there had been cattle in Texas, but because of the long distance to markets, the cattle had little value. Ranching had been neglected during the Civil War, and vast herds of wild cattle roamed southwestern Texas, where the famed longhorn breed originated. Before the Civil War, cowboys riding horses had rounded up the cattle and driven them from East Texas to Louisiana markets, but after railroads were built from Chicago to Kansas it was possible to send beef to the large Chicago market. The first major cattle drive all the way from Texas to Kansas took place in 1866. As the railroads pushed farther west, the cowboys drove their herds to the railroad terminal points, called cow towns. The cow towns Wichita, Dodge City, and Abilene became identified with cowboys and the cattle trails from Texas.
By 1890 Texas produced more than 33 percent of the cotton grown in the United States. The crop financed the growth of Texas cities, especially Dallas and Houston.
Among the few Civil War battles fought in Texas were the Confederate victory at the Battle of Sabine Pass along the Texas-Louisiana border, and the capture of Galveston by Union forces, and its recapture by the Confederates. Because soldiers had not yet heard the news that the war had ended, the last battle of the Civil War occurred near Brownsville more than a month after Confederate General Robert E. Lee had surrendered in Virginia. Black people in Texas did not hear of the Emancipation Proclamation—which President Abraham Lincoln had issued in 1863, to free the slaves in Confederate states—until June 19, 1865, when the Union Army landed in Galveston. After the Civil War ended in 1865, the Southern states that had seceded from the Union were governed by a combination of appointed federal officials and the army until Congress readmitted them to the union. Ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, was among the requirements for readmission of the states. These amendments, respectively, prohibited slavery, gave citizenship to all born or naturalized in the United States while prohibiting political activity by those who had supported secession, and gave all citizens, regardless of color, the right to vote. The former slaves, or freedmen, were enfranchised (given the right to vote) by the 15th Amendment and, because the Democrats had led the South into the Civil War, blacks joined the Republican Party. Blacks, who could vote and hold office in Texas until they were disfranchised in the early 20th century, were the major source of Republican voting strength. They joined with Northern immigrants to the state and long-time opponents of Texas secession to elect Republican Edmund Davis as governor in 1870. The early success of the Republican Party in Texas was due primarily to a lack of unity on the part of white voters. Most whites objected to enfranchising blacks and joined the Democratic Party. When white Democrats did unite, they defeated Davis in 1874 but he refused to concede the election. He argued that organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, a secret terrorist organization that was dedicated to white supremacy, had intimidated black and other potential Republican voters. Angry whites armed themselves and went to the capital in Austin to force Davis to leave office. When he found no support from the federal government, Davis stepped down.
Next Time: Volume 1, Chapter 2: Mexican Sharecroppers in Texas and the Southern Border