This past weekend I was working on my historical newspaper and magazine collection. I've been a collector of historical papers since I was a child and now have a collection that dates back to the 1600s. I ran across the 50th anniversary issue of the magazine US News & World Report from 1983. I saved the magazine because its theme was a prediction of the next 50 years. I haven't looked at the issue since I filed it away and now that almost half of those 50 years have passed, I thought it would be worth a look. Some of the predictions were right on the money and many were completely off. The fun, of course, is in making predictions.

Frank Sharry of the National Immigration Forum is getting into the prognostication game as well and has penned his predictions for comprehensive immigration reform. His excellent article can be found online at http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=37134c2771841e54f57a2dd29d87569c. The article does a great job laying out the scenarios and is well worth the read.

DC attorney Shawn Fremstad offers a very perceptive commentary on TPM Cafe, the popular political blog, criticizing the mainstream media for misreporting the release of a new Congressional Budget Office report on the costs of the comprehensive immigration reform. The report mentioned that the bill would cost taxpayers $126 billion. But many reporters are ignoring the other report showing that the bill would raise the US gross domestic product by .3% to .4%, more than enough to offset any costs and potentially offer huge financial benefits to the country. Shawn's commentary can be found at http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/shawn_fremstad/2006/aug/23/more_abysmal_reporting_on_the_costs_of_immigration.

Most observers believe that if the entire House of Representatives could vote on the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill (S. 2611) it would pass overwhelmingly. But that bill will never be brought up for a vote because several key Republican House leaders are blocking the plan. They use the majority of majority standard to decide what legislation is and is not hear. In short, if the majority of Republicans are against a bill, the bill will not be brought forward for a vote.

But 12 years of Republican control of the House of Representatives could come to an end in just two months when national elections are held in the US. The election could have a profound effect on the prospects for immigration reform and immigration proponents and critics are appear to be prepare for a potential change in party leadership. Democrats have generally been much more inclined to support immigration legislation that would legalize the estimated 11 million immigrants in the US and it is quite likely that a bill similar or even more liberal than what the Senate passed earlier this year would pass a Democratic House.

What are the chances of a Democratic House after November? It will take a shift of just 15 seats out of 435. One of the leading political observers in Washington, Stuart Rothenberg, revised his forecast for the election and is now predicting a shift of 15 to 20 seats to the Democrats. You can see his analysis at http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-print-edition-house-outlook-for_25.html . Another major analyst, Charlie Cook, is reporting that there are 53 Republican seats that are vulnerable compared to just twenty Democratic seats and most of the political winds are blowing the Democrats way.

One of the more interesting predictors in forecasting mid-term House races is the sitting President's approval ratings. President Bush now has ratings lower than almost any sitting President in the last 75 years. And the lower the approval ratings of the sitting President, the worse his party has done. Based on these numbers, the Republicans could lose 30 to 50 seats. For an examination of the historical numbers, visit http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/27/152129/512 .

So aside from the obvious results of a change in policy if the House switches parties, can we expect any changes BEFORE the election? As the realization of the politics settles in Washington, immigration hardliners might feel more inclined to try and cut a deal on immigration before they're political clout evaporates. In the mean time, Democrats may see not reaching a deal on immigration as playing to them politically and may be in no mood to compromise. Suddenly the dynamics on the immigration debate are shifting. September will be interesting...

Just because Congress is out of session and immigration has not been on the front page of the newspapers much in the last several weeks, don't be fooled into believing that there is nothing happening in Congress. Negotiations have quietly been conducted between Senators and House members for much of the summer. Reports have emerged of very detailed uof proposals intended to bridge the gap between the Senate bill supported by pro-immigration advocates and the counterpart bill in the House that is largely supported by anti-immigrant forces in Congress. The main source of contention has revolved around how to treat undocumented immigrants in the US. Supporters of the House bill largely oppose provisions in the Senate bill that would legalize the status of the millions of undocumented immigrants in the US. They either are against any form of legalization or are against legalizing undocumented immigrants before the border security parts of each bill are completed.

Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) have been promoting a plan that would include legalization provisions, but delay their implementation until after border security initiatives are well underway. The plan has a lot of problems such as not allowing immigrants to get get green cards for seventeen years, but it does reflect a genuine attempt to find a compromise that can be supported by a majority in Congress. The President has indicated that he is interested in what Pence and Hutchison has to say and our own sources tell us that the "triggers" concept proposed by Hutchison and Pence may be the basis for a deal.

Time Magazine has an in-depth look at the question of a "third way" in its latest issue at http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1333846,00.html.

Ruben Navarette, a columnist and editorial board member from the normally conservative San Diego Tribune newspaper published his very candid, personal observations on an interview the editorial board conducted with Congressman James Sensenbrenner, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman and the architect of the House's anti-immigrant immigration reform bill. Navarette used terms like "disingenuous", "hypocritical" and "thin-skinned" when describing Sensenbrenner's discussion of immigration. One gets the sense that Sensenbrenner does not do well when being interviewed by reporters that actually no the finer points of immigration law and policy. You can read the article at
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/navarrette/20060809-9999-lz1e9navarret.html

Those who know my practice know there's a reason I'm a platinum flyer on Northwest - I'm on the road A LOT. This week was no different, though being at the ABA annual meeting in Honolulu was a more fun location than usual. All was great until we woke up Thursday and learned that our friends in al Qaeda were up to no good with US bound flights from the UK. We were told to arrive three hours early at the airport and, of course, check all those liquids, gels and balms rather than taking them in your hand luggage. On a short haul flight, no big deal, right? But try your average 6+ hour overnight flight. Tip - bring tic tacs or breath strips since toothpaste is now a banned substance. Forget about your contact lenses - no solution. No deodorant so turn your AC way up. I know these are all petty things. But the glamour of business travel is definitely a thing of the past.

My wife got a good laugh when we were on the way to the airport from our hotel in Waikiki, however. I was asking the concierge a question about the new travel restrictions and low and behold a television crew comes up to me with a boom mike and camera seeking a "man on the street" perspective on all the hoopla. My wife already jokes that I get too much press (can you ever get too much media exposure when you own your own business?) . You can see the story KHNL story at http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=5272068.

I have not had much to write lately about comprehensive immigration reform because there really has been little movement. And I've been on vacation...

Congress is in its August recess. The House of Represenatives continues to have its faux hearings and no one seems to be paying attention with the war in Lebanon, foiled terror attacks, leaking oil pipelines, etc.

But I have been getting word that something may be cooking in Washington on the immigration bill. Senators negotiating with the House are reporting that they are "guardedly optimistic" they can reach a deal when Congress gets back to work in September. Apparently, the key to a compromise lies in the incorporation of "triggers" on border security that will need to be met before legalization provisions in the Senate bill could take effect. Stay tuned...

09/2003
10/2003
11/2003
01/2004
02/2004
03/2004
04/2004
05/2004
06/2004
07/2004
08/2004
09/2004
10/2004
11/2004
12/2004
01/2005
02/2005
04/2005
05/2005
06/2005
08/2005
09/2005
10/2005
11/2005
12/2005
01/2006
02/2006
03/2006
04/2006
05/2006
06/2006
07/2006
08/2006
09/2006
10/2006
11/2006
12/2006
01/2007
02/2007
03/2007
04/2007
05/2007
06/2007
07/2007
09/2007
10/2007
11/2007
01/2008
02/2008
03/2008
06/2008
01/2009