immigration

Updates from our last report on the Elections and Immigration: Georgia's Senate Race just two weeks away - The runoff election will take place on December 2 and early the voting period began on Monday in many of the state's counties. Saxby Chambliss and Rep. Jim Martin - the Democratic challenger - are battling voter fatigue, they have to persuade supporters to come out again to vote. A Democratic win in Georgia would be yet another severe blow to the GOP in a state considered a stronghold for them. For immigration advocates, a win by pro-CIR Jim Martin would mean another win for those of us working for immigration reform.

Begich Defeats Convicted Sen. Ted Stevens in Alaska - Senator-elect Begich (D) defeated Stevens by 3,724 votes, a margin of more than 1 percentage point, putting Democrats closer to the 60 seat mark in the Senate. While Stevens has conceded this election, in Minnesota the candidates are still fighting in out. Election officials began a recount yesterday in the race between Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken. So far Coleman leads Franken by 216 votes out of 2.9 million cast.

Obama picks scholars to develop immigration plan - Alexander Aleinikoff, Dean of the Georgetown University Law Center, and Mariano Florentino Cuellar, professor at Stanford Law School will lead the policy working group designated for immigration. Click here to read some articles by Dean Aleinikoff, and here to read more about Florentino Cuellar. In addition, it's looking more and more like Gov. Janet Napolitano will take on the important position of DHS Secretary. In the meantime, Julie Myers is officially no longer at ICE, and John Torres will take the helm through the end of this administration. And according to Adfero Group, these are the 10 most important jobs to be filled at ICE.

New Bedford Factory Targeted in Raid to pay $850,000 in overtime - The owners of the factory settled a class action lawsuit this week, agreeing to pay 764 current and former workers $850,000 owed in overtime.

The Texas GOP just doesn't get it - the Texas State Legislature will see several bills related to illegal immigration this session - "Advocates for a crackdown on illegal immigrants, apparently undaunted by their failures in the last Legislature, have filed a slew of bills for the upcoming session that are even stronger in tone and approach." The GOP is allegedly panicked about their lack of support among Hispanics, but Texas Republican legislators don't seem to get it. The bills go beyond the usual, one is for English-only, another would require public schools to check the citizenship of their students. Another would require illegal immigrants to be banished to self-described "sanctuary cities." Author Leo Berman, R-Tyler said, "The federal government is requiring us to give free education and health care to illegals," Mr. Berman said. "It's the largest unfunded mandate in the history of our nation." Another bill filed for the 2009 session allows police to check people's immigration status under "reasonable suspicion" that they might be illegal immigrants - really. Another refuses birth certificates to children born in the U.S. to parents who are here illegally.

On the flip side, a bill by Rep. Roberto Alonzo, D-Dallas, prohibits cities from restricting landlords on who can rent homes from them - a direct criticism of Farmers Branch's efforts to keep illegal immigrants from renting homes there. Another bill would create a task force to fight human trafficking. "The reality is that these problems can only be solved in Washington, D.C.," said Rep. Rafael Anchía, D-Dallas. "Even if every immigration-related bill passed in the Texas House, it would be wholly ineffective at dealing with the larger issue of how we align our immigration policy with the needs of our labor force. And that's what's driving illegal immigration." I wholeheartedly agree - and so far I've heard many doubts as to whether immigration reform will even be addressed by the 111th Congress.

Will Reform Happen in 2009? - Well, Congress should do so - after the 2006 midterm elections two years ago, congressional job approval was 26%. In this week's Gallup poll, Congressional approval is now at at 19%, with a 74% disapproval rating. Polling data consistently shows that immigration is not the third rail of politics - it's not that people are against reform, if you take the time to ask, people are against the broken immigration system and they want it fixed. Two-thirds of all voters support a comprehensive approach to immigration reform. Patience is not a virtue when it comes to immigration reform - how much longer can we wait? Obama is facing pressure from immigration advocates and from voters, particularly mixed-status families, to pass reform. Many articles posit that Latinos "may" question Obama on immigration - I disagree, Latinos will question Obama on immigration.

As reported by La Jornada, "the Latino vote is not a blank check...it represents the aspiration for change, social and economic justice for Latinos." Hopefully President Obama will work with Congress to fix our very broken immigration system, and fight against the few who confuse reform for "open borders." The Americas Policy Program attempted to explain how the two camps are "retrenching" on the issue of immigration reform, but their explanation merits comment - their article argues that opponents of reform argue that CIR can't happen during a time of economic downturn for fear "we'll lose jobs." The unemployment rate has increased for many reasons that have nothing to do with immigration policy.  All data demonstrates that undocumented immigrants perform jobs that Americans don't want, and by legalizing those without papers, we would be bringing them out of the shadows and improving wages for all, thus increasing wages across the board and fostering a more productive consumer base. The economic crisis is no argument against reform, if anything, CIR can be used as a tool to help improve the economy. The article says proponents of reform are arguing that the new administration "owes" the Hispanic/Latino electorate, i.e., they should pass it because we want it. Not really - while the Democratic party can certainly expect a backlash at the polls for not fixing the broken immigration system, it will come not only from Latinos, but from all the voters who currently feel Congress has not delivered solutions. Yes, Hispanic voters will be watching to see whether Obama "keeps all his promises," and you can bet he won't feel the love next time at the polls if he does not, but CIR shouldn't pass just because Latinos want it, it should be passed because from a policy and a political standpoint, the right and the best thing to do is to pass it in 2009.

Instances of Mistreatment of Children under CPB and ICE custody - A study released by the Center for Public Policy Priorities (CPPP) found that more than 43,000 undocumented, unaccompanied children have been mistreated while in custody and denied access to representation by Customs and Border Protection (Border Patrol) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and then transported home unsafely. The story was also reported by Latin American press, with reports of children being caged, neglected, and denied medical care.

Decorated immigration agent arrested on crystal meth charges.

Read the signs - A CQ article from this week makes some good points, but slightly misread the polling data from Lake Research, saying the issue of immigration has "cooled" - hardly. As Hispanics are being attacked and ostracized throughout the country, a more accurate point in the story that should be highlighted: "Hispanics could blame Democrats for immigration inertia, or feel that implicit campaign pledges weren't honored." A post-election poll by Lake Research Partners for America's Voice found that Hispanics turned their backs on the GOP - even though President Bush and Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz., both favored comprehensive legislation - because of perceptions that Republicans blocked the immigration overhaul in 2007 and used inflammatory rhetoric in the process. And Hispanics will only continue to determine candidates' political fate based on this important issue, as Robert Paral and Associates have reported - the 2008 election results demonstrate that, "even in states where the Hispanic community is relatively small, they can tip those states, they can be kingmakers if the other groups are evenly balanced." Paral expects the Hispanic vote to be the pivotal swing in future elections too, as more Hispanics register to vote, not only in traditional immigrant-receiving states, but also in states with fewer immigrants, such as New Hampshire, Connecticut, Oregon and Pennsylvania.

E-Verify not Ready for Prime Time - According to the ITAA, the final rule published this week requiring federal contractors and subcontractors to screen workers and new hires through the E-Verify system each year will put significant new burdens on those employers at least in the short term.

Immigration authorities need to release the guidelines they use in deciding 'stipulated removal' cases - In the last few years, the number of illegal immigrants in detention who waived their right to plead their case to remain in the United States has shot up from 5,500 in 2004 to 35,000 this year. In all, nearly 100,000 people have agreed to leave the country under "stipulated removal." Not surprisingly, troubling reports have surfaced of immigrants who say they were encouraged to self-deport without knowing that they had valid legal claims to remain in the U.S. and to have a hearing before a judge. Immigrants' rights groups are suing the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies, demanding they divulge their procedures for informing detainees of their rights. The department, which has made only half-hearted attempts to comply, should be made to do so.

Querétaro, Mexico gets appropriation for immigrants - The lower chamber of the Mexican Congress approved 704 million pesos to support immigrants returning to 10 states of the country, 50 million of this sum will go to the state of Querétaro.

Oberlin, OH considering becoming sanctuary city.

UN Trade Chief sees up to 6 percent drop in migrant remittances in 2009 - Migrant remittances, a vital source of income for poor countries, could decline by up to 6 percent next year due to worsening economic conditions around the world, the U.N.'s trade chief said last Friday.

Words Have Consequences - Click to read our coverage of hate crimes. Most recently, the death of Ecuadorian immigrant, Marcelo Lucero.

Tomorrow, America's Voice will release more detailed information on races in which the immigration debate took a prominent role, and how that affected candidates. In the meantime, how might the Democratic gains in the House and Senate affect the likelihood for comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) in 2009? Democrats have a 259-176 majority in the House and 57-40 in the Senate, pending the outcome of a few close races. Of all the Senators who voted for the cloture motion in the Senate, we lost Sen. Biden (D), Sen. Craig (R), and Sen. Hagel (R) - we can expect that the Governor of Delaware will appoint another CIR-friendly Senator - Craig has been succeeded by Jim Risch (R) and Hagel by Mike Johanns (R), both anti CIR. Luckily, there are gains for CIR in the Senate with the loss of anti CIR Senators: Elizabeth Dole (R) and Gordon Smith (R), and the retirement of John Warner (R). With the loss of Sen. Smith to Jeff Merkley (D), both Oregon Senators are now pro-CIR democrats. At least 5 pro-CIR candidates defeated anti-CIR advocates, turning Senate seats around. However, immigration reform will most likely begin in the House this time. There are several House races where pro-CIR Democrats defeated anti-CIR Republicans (click on the candidates to see their stance), that we would like to highlight:

Virginia 2 - Of note, Glenn Nye (D), defeated the fervently anti-CIR Thelma Drake (R) after her 2 terms in Congress. Nye has said that he won't support "amnesty for those who have jumped the line," but since comprehensive immigration reform doesn't call for amnesty, but rather for legalization of the undocumented and placing them at the end of the line of those already waiting for citizenship, his position should not differ from CIR advocates.

Virginia 5 - Tom Pereillo (D) has defeated very anti-immigrant Virgil Goode (R) in a close election, 50%-49%.

Virginia 11 - For Tom Davis's open seat, Gerry Connolly (D) defeated Keith Fimian (R) 53%-45%.

The Republican losses in Virginia serve as proof that anti-immigrant rhetoric does not pay. The Republican-held Virginia State Assembly has spent the last few years concentrating much of its energy on demonizing immigrants and Hispanics, and the Republicans who lost these seats had been major proponents of this strategy and fighters against a solution to the broken immigration system - clearly, there is a price to pay for hate-mongering and for inaction on immigration reform.

Oregon 5 - Rep. Darlene Hooley, a member of the New Dem Caucus, left an open seat and pro-CIR Kurt Shrader (D) defeated Mike Erickson (R) 56%-37% to succeed her.

Connecticut 4 - Jim Himes (D), who was actually born in Peru and lived in Peru and Colombia for the first 10 years of his life and still speaks fluent Spanish, defeated Republican incumbent Chris Shays (R), 51%-48%.

Arizona 1 - Ann Kirkpatrick (D) defeated Sydney Hay (R) for Rep. Rick Renzi's open seat 56% - 40%.

New Mexico 3 - Ben Lujan (D), another Latino joins the House Democrats after defeating Dan East (R), 54%-32%.

New Mexico 2 - Harry Teague (D) defeated Ed Tinsley (R) 55%-45% for Rep. Pearce's open seat.

Colorado 2 - Jared Polis (D), CIR advocate, defeated Scott Starin 62%-34%.

Colorado 4 - Another interesting win for Democrats, Betsey Markey (D) defeated incumbent Marilyn Musgrave (R) 56%-44% .

Nevada 3 - Dina Titus(D) ousted incumbent Jon Porter (R), 55%-43%, in this district with a large and growing immigrant population, not to mention the district represents part of a county that contains the large share of the state's total population (Clark County). Titus is for CIR and the DREAM Act.

New York 29 - After 2 terms in Congress, Randy Kuhl (R) was defeated by pro-CIR Eric Massa (D).

Idaho 1 - Incumbent Bill Sali (R) was defeated after 1 term by Walter "Walt" Minnick (D).

Other House Races of Note: In these races, the Dem candidate has defeated the Republican, however, we remain uncertain as to the winner's stance on immigration.

Pennsylvania 11 - Again, hate mongering doesn't pay: Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D) won his bid for re-election against former Mayor of Hazelton, PA, Lou Barletta (R). While Kanjorski is not exactly a CIR advocate, we can count our blessings that Barletta, who did not miss an opportunity to verbally attack Hispanics and immigrants and who worked to vilify immigrants in their own community, lost this race 52%-48%.

Pennsylvania 3 - Kathy Dahlkemper (D), small business-owner and the first woman elected to Congress from her district, defeated incumbent Rep. Phil English (R), who was very much anti-CIR.

North Carolina 8 - Rep. Robin Hayes (R ) was defeated by challenger Larry Kissell (D).

Ohio 1 - Incumbent Steve Chabot R) was defeated by Steve Driehouse (D), who seems to be for increased enforcement.

Florida 8 - Alan Grayson (D) defeated incumbent Ric Keller (R).

Michigan 7 - Mark Schauer (D) defeated incumbent Rep. Tim Walberg (R).

Senate Races Where CIR Democrat defeated Enforcement-only Republican:
NC - Kay Hagan (D) v. Incumbent Elizabeth Dole (R), 53%-44%.

CO - Sen. Allard's open seat, Mark Udall (D) v. Bob Schaffer (R) 52%-43%.

NH - Jeanne Shaheen (D) defeated incumbent John Sununu (R), 52%-45%.

VA - Mark Warner (D) defeated Jim Gilmore (R) for John Warner's open seat, 64%-35%.

NM - For Sen. Domenici's open seat (R), Tom Udall (D) defeated Steve Pearce (R), 61%-39%.

Races where CIR Democrat has challenged enforcement-only Republican and results are not final:

AK - Incumbent Ted Stevens (R) v. Mark Begich (D); race too close to call. UPDATE 11/13/08: This morning Begich was declared ahead by about 800 hundred votes, but the count continues.

MN - Incumbent Sen. Coleman v. Al Franken; race too close to call and we hear both campaigns are lawyering up for a battle.

GA - Incumbent Sen. Chambliss (R), who was a loud voice anti-reform in 2007 threatens to return to the Senate. Luckily, the race against Jim Martin (D) is still too close to call. However, we hear that after a challenge against the citizenship of voters in Georgia, around 5,000 ballots were thrown out and not counted. At the same time, Chambliss has allegedly raised an additional $1 million for this race and has called in all the big guns: Sen. McCain, Palin, Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich and Giuliani to campaign with him in Georgia before the Dec. 2 run-off election. Martin is good on immigration, so supporters of CIR should remain focused on this race.

Other House Races to Watch:

California 4: In the race to succeed Republican Rep. John T. Doolittle , Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock continues to open a lead, as of the latest totals totals, McClintock led by 451 votes in California's 4th District race. However, pro-CIR Democrats have a majority of the CA delegation, with 34 House seats, to 18 held by enforcement-only Republicans.

Louisiana 2: Nine-term Democratic Rep. William J. Jefferson is awaiting trial on federal corruption charges, but he is still heavily favored to defeat Republican lawyer Joseph Cao in a black-majority, heavily Democratic swath of southeastern Louisiana that includes the bulk of New Orleans.

Maryland 1: State Sen. Andy Harris, who defeated longtime Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest in the Republican primary, trails Democratic county prosecutor Frank M. Kratovil Jr.

Ohio 15. Republican state Sen. Steve Stivers leads Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy, a county commissioner in Columbus, by 321 votes, with thousands of provisional votes to be counted.

Washington 8: In suburban Seattle, slow tabulating means a rematch race between two-term Republican Dave Reichert and Democrat Darcy Burner. Reichert's lead has grown to 4% with 90% of precincts counted.

On this Sunday's meet the press, Senator Mel Martinez acknowledged that the way the national Republican Party has demonized Hispanics these past few years may make it in impossible for their Party to win Presidential elections for years to come. MTP quoted NDN and Simon, "If the Republicans don't make their peace with Hispanic voters, they're not going to win presidential elections anymore. The math just isn't there." This back and forth has now put tremendous public pressure on the GOP to turn around the full-on condemnation of their party among Hispanics. The GOP could help itself avoid political annihilation by abandoning the stance seen by many as a level of racial intolerance unacceptable in a new age of Obama, and by working with President-elect Obama to pass comprehensive immigration reform ASAP. This moment may really be a game-changer for both parties.

Let's not forget, Obama's victory among Hispanics may still be short-lived if he does not follow through on his promises to this community - as stated by Dan Schnur, Republican strategist: "Candidates don't cause realignments, presidents do. Candidate Obama has certainly created the conditions for potential realignment, but it's going to be up to President Obama to govern in a way that can make that happen." And that means passing immigration reform during his first year. Hispanics are not forgetting about his promise - on this Sunday's Al Punto, Jorge Ramos asked all his guests about the prospects of immigration reform. He asked Sen. Bob Menendez (NJ): Will [Obama] fulfill the promise he's made to Hispanics to pass immigration reform? Polls show that people care about the economy, education, etc. but the issue of immigration is still at the forefront for the Hispanic community....This is a big promise, how will he do it? Sen. Menendez responded that Barack Obama has remained steadfast on immigration since his votes for reform last summer. 

Rep. Luis Gutierrez was also asked and noted, "Barack Obama owes his victory to the large Hispanic turnout," as Obama invested more resources in reaching out to this community than Kerry and Bush together in 2004. When asked, "Can he fulfill this promise, or is it just rhetoric?" Luis Gutierrez reported that he has already spoken to Obama staff and that he is already working to strategize how to move on immigration reform, "It's really important to fulfill those promises," that's why on November 15 Rep. Gutierrez is holding a rally and inviting all U.S. citizens who know of undocumented persons to demand action - "We have to continue putting pressure on the administration." And Republican Mario Diaz-Balart agreed, although he opposes Sen. Obama's stance on Cuba policy, etc., he agreed to work to pass immigration reform alongside Rep. Gutierrez.

An article in the Politico today discusses how all "Dem groups" are claiming the win for Barack Obama - the truth is that while Hispanics are still not a "Dem" group, it is undeniable that it was Hispanics - the ultimate swing electorate - who delivered key battleground states like IN, NM, and FL for Barack Obama, and allowed for a sizeable lead in CO and NV due to their numbers in those states and because they held record shares of the electorate. "Without the Latino vote, we would not have won those states," said Federico Pena, national co-chairman of the Obama campaign. And Hispanics were also influential in Obama's victory in Virginia and North Carolina.

For their part, Republicans must decide how to become part of the 21^st century if their party is to survive. The immigrant-issues coalition is expanding to include other ethnicities. Mercury News reports, this election was not only an appreciation for Obama's multicultural upbringing, but also a rejection of the Republican-led "demonization" of immigrants, particularly of Hispanic and Muslim backgrounds, in recent years. John McCain could help his party in this regard, at least alleviating some of the strongest negative feelings towards the Republican Party by supporting comprehensive immigration reform in 2009.  Beto Cardenas, former counsel to Kay Bailey Hutchinson: "When we have laws that make it easier to get that labor legally, it will be easier to enforce the laws. Such reform could also protect the rights of the workers, who too frequently are subject to exploitation because they are afraid to report abuses...I think there's a will to address the issue if it can be shown it enhances the economic health of the country," he said.

This election had important results for immigration issues, not just because of the individuals elected, but because of the ballot measures passed or rejected:

1) Proposition 202 in Arizona, which would have risked extreme penalties for businesses by linking employee immigration status to their business license, failed: 59.2% No, to 40.8% Yes. It was called, "a racist proposition that should not be enacted because the U.S. can't get a responsible solution to the broken immigration system." UPDATE: In response to my reader's comment, first - please be assured that NDN will never comment on policy without having full understanding of an issue. Second, Prop 202 would have made individuals involved in the hiring process accountable for hiring undocumented immigrants, which many businesses supported because it would liberate them from the responsibility of checking work authorization and pass it on to their HR employees (or employee). It has been called a racist proposition because as with the current flawed electronic employer verification system, there is a potential for misuse, "screening" prospective employees even before they're hired, which would only be more likely to happen if an individual bears the full responsibility of checking status and faces fines or criminal charges for potential violations. The bottom line is that at NDN we agree that propositions like these are not a solution, the U.S. needs a responsible solution to the broken immigraton system at the federal level, since states have no authority to change federal immigration law.

2) In Missouri, a proposition making English the official language in all government activities passed, 85.8% Yes, to 14.2% No. Clearly, people don't understand the consequences of making English an "official language," does this mean that state hospitals won't provide for translation if necessary when they get a patient that is less than proficient in English? Or that Court's in their daily business won't need to provide a translator to the accused so that he/she understands the charges against them? Yes, and yes. Clearly we still have more to do when it comes to "social progress..."

3) In Nebraska, a ballot measure prohibiting affirmative action in state institutions passed.

4) In Florida, an initiative intended to end a legacy of bias against Asian-Americans was defeated Tuesday, apparently because voters incorrectly assumed it would prevent illegal immigrants from owning property. Had it passed, the initiative, known as Amendment No. 1, would have removed from the state's Constitution language adopted in 1926 allowing the Legislature to prohibit foreigners who were barred from citizenship - Asian-Americans at the time - from owning land. No such legislation was ever enacted here, and every other state that had such laws has scrapped them on grounds of equal protection. But Florida's effort to delete the provision failed with 52% No and 48% voting Yes.

5) "Demography is Destiny" - Pat Buchanan finally recognizes the importance of the Hispanic community, but just when you think we've made progress, just when I thought Buchanan was finally the wiser and about to give his party sage advice, he followed up with a statement that shows his complete ignorance of the Hispanic community. He thinks Hispanics voted for Obama because, "They look to government," and "the idea of small government doesn't appeal to them." Are you kidding,me? Native-born Hispanics most certainly don't fall into this category as they largely sided with the Republican party, until the GOP decided to go on the attack against them for fear they might not be "legal." And foreign born Hispanics have come to this country largely because of their distrust of government! Latin American governments have been known for corruption and scandal, which has caused a very deeply rooted mistrust of government and politicians among foreign-born Hispanics, in general. So I say no Pat, Hispanics do not want handouts, they want a government who is a partner, not a parent. If you ask them, large government scares most Latinos, while the idea of small government does appeal to them (the opposite of what Pat says in this video). And I'm shocked by Joe Scarborough, saying that Latinos will come around once they "understand working hard"....really? I take it Joe hasn't been out on the tomato and orange fields in Florida,and he must not go to restaurants or hotels, and he must not have walked around South Florida and noticed that the engine of that economy is made up of Latino-owned businesses. No, Hispanics didn't vote for Barack Obama because they're "socialist" or "liberals," they voted for him precisely because of the ignorance shown by these two Republicans, and reflected by the GOP brand. They voted for the Democratic Party because that party has not insulted all Hispanics, ubiquitously questioning their very right to be in this country. Latinos resent that racial profile, that is why they didn't vote for Sen. McCain. But you are right Pat, demography is destiny, so the GOP has a lot of soul-searching to do.

6) Immigration to Go Paperless - The Washington Post Reports:

The Bush administration has launched a major overhaul of the nation's immigration services agency, selecting an industry consortium led by IBM to reinvent how the government handles about 7 million applications each year for visas, citizenship and approval to work in the United States, officials announced yesterday. If successful, the five-year, $500 million effort would convert U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services'case-management system from paper-based to electronic, which could reduce backlogs and processing delays by at least 20%, and possibly more than 50%. The new system would allow government agencies, from the Border Patrol to the FBI to the Labor Department, to access immigration records faster and more accurately. In combination with initiatives to link digital fingerprint scans to unique identification numbers, it would create a lifelong digital record for applicants. It also would eliminate the need for time- and labor-intensive filing and refiling of paper forms, which are currently stored at 200 locations in 70 million manila file folders.

7) Bye-bye Ms. American Pie - Julie Myers, Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE) has resigned and will be leaving her post on November 15. She has been a controversial figure since the day that President Bush nominated her, possessing almost no immigration or customs experience. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and career immigration lawyer spoke of Ms. Myers's lack of qualifications as a major issue during our forum on immigration: "This is the worst administration I've ever seen, starting at the top of ICE...I served with Jim Sensenbrenner, one thing Jim was insistent on was that there be competent people in the job....you had to know something about immigration law, that you had to have managed a large organization...instead, we had Julie Myers, appointed at age 36, she held a variety of jobs, never managed more than one or two people," so Rep. Lofgren believes that, no doubt, an important qualification of hers might have been that she worked for Ken Starr, and that her uncle is Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, former Chair of the Joint Chiefs - oh, and her husband, John F. Wood, also served as Chief of Staff to Secretary Chertoff. This lack of expertise has caused ICE to "be run in a way that has elicited condemnation, the lack of qualification has become apparent." During her tenure, ICE was heavily criticized for carrying out politically-motivated immigration raids, for having unacceptable conditions in detainee centers that caused the death of who knows how many detainees who were denied care, and most recently the Department as been resistant to Rep. Lofgren and Sen. Menendez's legislation to quantify basic medical health standards, and there has been a clear degradation of due process under her watch. What bothers Rep. Lofgren the most is that "they also just don't same to care."

I. Immigrants continue to head south, Prop. 202 in Arizona remains under scrutiny, and here's an interesting op-ed by Jorge Castañeda linking trade, the economy, and immigration.

II. Fear and loathing continues at McCain rallies.

III. What Constitution? Charlie Savage and the New York Times report (surprise, surprise) the Bush administration has informed Congress that it is bypassing a law intended to forbid political interference with reports to lawmakers by the Department of Homeland Security. The August 2007 law requires that the reports on activities that affect privacy be submitted directly to Congress "without any prior comment or amendment" by superiors at the department or the White House.

IV. DHS Can't Sit Still: Not happy with the results of their brilliant "Deport Yourself" initiative or the outrage caused by USCIS detainee conditions and the mistaken detention of U.S. citizens during ICE raids, on October 23, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a final administrative rule that sets new procedures for employers who receive "no-match" letters from the Social Security Administration (SSA). Each year, SSA sends businesses ''no-match'' letters with the names of workers whose Social Security number on W-2 forms don't match SSA records. The DHS rule would require employers to correct the discrepancy or fire the worker within 90 days. Failure to comply could bring prosecution and heavy fines.

Setting aside the flawed policy behind this rule for a moment, could Secretary Chertoff have picked a worse time to issue this rule? Definitely not. This rule, made public 11 days before a Presidential election during which minorities and naturalized citizens have the power to swing numerous battleground states, and during which the incumbent Administration's candidate is far behind in the polls, could be interpreted by Hispanics (native and foreign-born) and immigrants of all races and ethnicities as another expression of the Republican party's anti-immigrant stance. Additionally, this "enforcement-only" approach places greater financial and legal burdens on employers, while simultaneously putting workers at risk of losing their jobs during a time of severe economic crisis - the federal government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to rescue the nation's banking, credit and housing markets, yet Secretary Chertoff is pushing ahead with a potentially job-crippling program that, at the end of the day, is ineffective in curtailing undocumented immigration.

Luckily, a court injunction will remain in place against the rule until the Court issues its final decision. The next hearing in this litigation is set for November 21, 2008 to set a schedule to present arguments, so this case won't be resolved anytime soon. Accordingly, SSA will not send any no-match letters to employers until the matter is resolved. Therefore, notify the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the AFL-CIO, or the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) if you know of any employer trying to implement this rule.

This final rule is basically unchanged from its original version, issued in August 2007, despite a court ruling in June of this year that: a) Questioned whether DHS had a reasoned analysis to change its position in regards to employer liability, b) Found DHS had exceeded its authority by interpreting anti-discrimination provisions in immigration law (IRCA), and c) Violated the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) by not conducting the analysis of the rule's impact, as required by law (doh!, that pesky analysis thing).

This rule is misguided, too costly, and ineffective:
1. Originally SSA no-match letters were an attempt by SSA to correct discrepancies in their records that can prevent workers from getting credit for their earnings. These letters were never intended to be used as an immigration enforcement tool--no-match letters are not evidence of an immigration violation. As stated in a judicial opinion, no-match "does not automatically mean that an employee is undocumented or lacks proper work authorization. In fact, the SSA tells employers that the information it provides them ‘does not make any statement about . . . immigration status.'"

2. The implementation of this rule is far from a solution - it will only increase unemployment at a time of severe economic crisis.
a. According to DHS, it would cost $36,624 a year for the largest small businesses to comply, not including the costs of termination and replacement of workers. It could have a staggering impact on businesses caught between the financial and legal liability they would face if they fail to comply, and the financial and legal liability they would face for wrongly firing a worker whose name was listed in error. If implemented, the rule also could have a chilling effect on millions of immigrant workers in construction, agriculture and service industries at a time when the U.S. economy can ill afford it. Many businesses, too, fearing government prosecution will decide to dismiss or not hire workers that they suspect may have an immigration problem.

b. An economic analysis by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated that under the new rule, 165,000 lawful U.S. workers could lose their jobs, at a cost to employers of approximately $1 billion per year. In her testimony before the Immigration Subcommittee, U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords discussed the effects of mandatory use of E-verify at the state level in Arizona, and reported that between October 2006 and March 2007, 3,000 foreign-born U.S. citizens were initially flagged as not authorized to work.

c. Under a mandatory E-Verify program, USCIS has estimated that annual employer queries of newly hired employees would be an average of 63 million. A GAO study from June 2008 found that about 7% of the queries initially appear as a "no-match" to SSA, and about 1 percent cannot be immediately confirmed as work authorized by USCIS, and:

The majority of SSA erroneous tentative nonconfirmations occur because employees' citizenship or other information, such as name changes, is not up to date in the SSA database, generally because individuals do not request that SSA make these updates.

Taking the modest estimate of 63 million queries per year, at the 7% initial error rate found by GAO, that translates to 4.41 million potential no-matches, i.e. persons who could be pushed to unemployment, again, at a time when the national unemployment rate is above 6%. If we extrapolate 7% unconfirmed queries to the existing civilian workforce - over 154 million people - the number jumps to 10.7 million people in danger of losing their jobs.

3. Mandatory e-verify would require an increase in capacity at USCIS and SSA to accommodate the estimated 7.4 million employers in the U.S. The GAO study found that e-verify would cost a total of about $765 million for fiscal years 2009 through 2012 if only newly hired employees are queried through the program and about $838 million over the same 4-year period if both newly hired and current employees are queried.

A study performed by Dr. Richard Belzer, former official of Office of Management and Budget, concluded that this program would cause an estimated increase of 610,000-2.7 million visits per year to SSA. He also pointed out that DHS made no estimate of the authorized worker unemployment that would result from erroneous no-match letters.

4. The rule is ineffective because it ignores unintended consequences:
a. Instead of discouraging undocumented immigration, the rule will only increase identity theft by making it more valuable for unauthorized workers to have genuine social security numbers.
b. The rule will have to be followed by more rounds of rulemaking, for example, how to deal with duplicate instances of SSA numbers, in addition to "no-match."
c. The rule will shift unauthorized workers into independent contracting and the "underground" economy, which will only risk pushing wages down during a time of economic crisis.

5. E-Verify is vulnerable to acts of employer fraud and misuse. GAO found:

- The current E-Verify program cannot help employers detect forms of identity fraud, such as cases in which an individual presents genuine documents that are borrowed or stolen.
- As USCIS works to address fraud through data sharing with other agencies, privacy issues may pose a challenge. In its 2007 evaluation of E-Verify, Westat reported that some employers joining the Web Basic Pilot were not appropriately handling their employees' personal information...and anyone wanting access to the system could pose as an employer and obtain access by signing a MOU with the E-Verify program.
- Westat reported that some employers used E-Verify to screen job applicants before they were hired, an activity that is prohibited. Additionally, some employers took prohibited adverse actions against employees-such as restricting work assignments, reducing pay, or requiring employees to work longer hours or in poor conditions-while they were contesting tentative nonconfirmations.

We've tried the enforcement-only approach for decades, and it has not curtailed undocumented immigration. Rep. Zoe Lofgren said it best during our latest forum on Immigration, as DHS has focused its resources on raids, there's been a 38% decline in prosecution of organized crime at the border, so "we've ended up with an expensive, stupid system that has not solved" the issue of a broken immigration system.

A verification program without comprehensive reform is ineffective. NDN has long advocated for the importance of matching legal immigration visas with the economic need for immigrants as a way to curtail undocumented immigration. Only by moving immigrant workers through legal channels, providing immigrants already here with an earned path to citizenship, reducing the backlog in family visas, and developing a sensible system for future flow will immigration will become manageable, and enforcement at the border and at the workplace will become more effective.

Even the Chief of the Border Patrol, David Aguilar agrees, "We cannot protect against the entry of terrorists and the instruments of terror without also reducing the clutter....To most effectively secure our border, we must reform our immigration system to relieve this pressure. We need comprehensive immigration reform."

As promised, Palin did give an interview to Jorge Ramos, of Univision, which will be aired on the network's Sunday morning political show, Al Punto, this weekend.  Here's a sneak peek of the interview: she talks about Hugo Chavez, Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama, and Immigration.  On immigration, Gov. Palin accepts that it's impossible to deport all the undocumented, and she emphasized Sen. McCain's view of "enforcement first" as the appropriate path to follow.  When asked if she'd stop the immigration raids, Gov. Palin said she couldn't say that she would, but rather would need to take a case by case approach. 

Given the current state of the U.S. economy, it surprises me that not more is said about immigration on all the major news networks. I see a silver lining during this economic crisis for immigration reform, thinking back to a story in the CQ by Karoun Demirjian, "Immigration: The Jobs Factor." While some might feel that opposition to comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) might become more intense during an economic crisis, there is reason to believe that opposition could actually lose momentum. Politically, the economic crisis might actually provide some cover for CIR negotiations, and Members of Congress might have more leeway to discuss the issue thanks to the focus on the economy.

Additionally, immigration has been an issue of top concern among Hispanics. What I hear from many Hispanic voters who call in to Spanish language radio or tv shows and in my community is that they are skeptical as to whether either candidate will deliver on CIR. Unlike McCain, who has abandoned the Hispanic community on immigration, Obama has been able to make it clear to Hispanics that he is committed to passing CIR, which has largely led to his over 30 point lead among this demographic. However, were he to win this election, I think he would just as easily lose this demographic if he did not deliver on this promise. It's also important to remember that members of Congress up for reelection in 2010 have much more to lose by putting off immigration reform. Polling indicates that voters place the blame of the broken immigration system on Congress by an overwhelming majority. Therefore, taking on the issue would change the perception of a do-nothing Congress.

Tthe mantra that emerged out of the failure of last summer's congressional immigration plan - "secure the borders first" - is losing its momentum. With the current economic crisis leading to the number of undocumented immigrants declining, it's becoming clear that the "magnet" of undocumented immigration is being eliminated. Which gives those of us for CIR an opening to discuss, what comes next?

The next President will have to recognize the challenges ahead:

1) Building a large enough coalition in Congress. Even with the expected Democratic gains in both chambers, he will have to work with Members from the anti-immigrant House Immigration Reform Caucus, which backs enforcement-only, as well as with Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the "Blue Dog" Caucus.

2) Growing administrative challenges. As stated by Marshall Fitz, Director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, "It's not clear how much change Sen. McCain could make within DHS, because certainly he would be in a very politically compromised position, given where his party is on these issues." But that's not to say Sen. Obama will have complete flexibility in regards to halting or limiting enforcement measures.

3) The next White House will inherit a badly overburdened immigration court system.

4) Reform costs money. At a time when federal revenue will be contracting on a significant scale. That makes it, in turn, all the more incumbent on either McCain or Obama to forge a renewed political consensus behind such a plan.

Given the candidates' current proposals on immigration, only Sen. Barack Obama would be able to utilize the economic and policy landscape to build new coalitions in Congress and improve the White House Executive management of immigration policies. Sen.McCain has proven that he is unwilling to act in ways contrary to his party, which remains vocally anti-immigrant. So what could a new president do? - He should be proactive, not reactive on this issue:

1) The slowing economy helps prove that the it's not "enforcement only" that has led to a decrease in illegal immigration, "it's the economy stupid!", thus relieving some pressure from this explosive issue, which allows CIR proponents to argue that now is the time to act to take control of the system - before the situation becomes more critical.

2) Develop an economic narrative, and revive the strong coalition of business, community, religious, and academic groups to advocate in Congress. As noted in the piece, businesses have suffered under the "enforcement only" strategy:

As small-business credit seizes up and unemployment increases, going after businesses providing jobs....is not playing well among most constituencies, apart from hard-line immigration opponents. Indeed, lobbyists and managers in other potentially vulnerable companies - such as high-tech concerns and seasonal industries - are already contending that they need access to specialized non-U.S. workers now more than ever.

I would add that under the current administration it's the unscrupulous employers who have been provided "amnesty". Passage of CIR under a new administration would call for interior enforcement as well as border enforcement, while at the same time providing adequate protection to workers and families. Not just immigrant workers would benefit from wage and labor safeguards under CIR - all businesses and workers would benefit.

Others argue that the undocumented drive wages down - the next president should make those individuals understand that by bringing the undocumented out of the shadows we will push wages up, and by making sure they become full-fledged members of our society and economy at a time of economic downturn, we will add revenue to our tax base and to our communities. As illegal aliens become documented, they will earn more and spend more.

We found an interesting piece of information during NDN's latest poll on immigration: There is a positive view of immigrants among the general population, which is conducive to passing immigration reform - 68-69 percent of voters in four battleground states believe that illegal immigrants come to this country to "get a job and a better life", as opposed to the 10-12 percent who believe they come to "take advantage" of our public programs, and 60 percent believe that immigrants take "jobs no one else wants" as opposed to "taking American jobs." And yet, when they are asked whether undocumented immigrants help or hurt the economy, 40-47 percent believe they "hurt the economy by driving wages down." In Nevada, where immigrants comprise a significant percentage of major sectors like construction and services, 47 percent of those polled believe they hurt the economy, while 39 believe they help.

However, Hispanics "get" the economic argument. Among Hispanic voters polled in Nevada for example, 64 percent believe illegal immigrants help the economy, while only 22 percent think that they push wages down.

During such a dramatic economic downturn, CIR will help improve the rights and wages of all workers. Legalization of the undocumented will push wages up and to add to our tax base and it will help businesses by providing a more secure labor force and larger consumer base, which provides common ground with which to join different Congressional and other factions on the side of CIR.

3) Look to the future. Immigration reform would require funding; the next President will have to make Congress and the American people understand that this is an investment in the country's future. While the decrease in illegal immigration might make reform seem less urgent, there is an urgency to reform our broken immigration system, including the visa and temporary worker systems, and deal with future flow. The next president needs to make this clear at a time of economic crisis:

"People see those visas, incorrectly, as enabling immigrant workers to compete with American workers. We'd like to see an administration move forward. Congress is always reactive, instead of looking down the pike, and looking at the demographics of our country. When the economy comes back, we're going to need these workers even more."

4) Modify and deal with backlogs and enforcement measures through executive branch appointments and administrative rulings. The next president will have this ability, which is another reason why there is so much at stake for immigration reform in this election.

5) Work with other countries. As stated in the Democratic Party Platform on immigration, it will be necessary for the next president to work with immigrant-sending nations in order to address the conditions that cause immigration in the first place.

In conclusion, immigration Reform can be repackaged as an item in a broader economic agenda that helps relieve some of the downward pressure on U.S. wages and benefits. Today, undocumenteds account for 5% of the total workforce in the United States. Bringing them all the minimum wage, the ability to join a labor union and other protections guaranteed to all American workers will help remove some of the downward pressure on the low end of the income scale, making CIR a strong companion to the Democratic Caucus's successful effort to raise the minimum wage early in the 110th Congress.

FEWER PEOPLE ENTERING U.S. ILLEGALLY - In a piece in the New York Times, Ginger Thompson wrote about the latest report released by the Pew Hispanic Center, the report indicates fewer people are trying to enter the United States illegally and that there has been no growth over the last year in the number of illegal immigrants living here. The study, based on census data, showed that for the first time in nearly a decade, the number of people entering the country illegally was lower than the number arriving through legal channels. The decline helps prove what has already been said in other major studies: the rate of undocumented migration does not respond to enforcement measures, but rather economic incentives. Currently, Hispanics are reporting the highest decrease in economic well-being, according to another Pew Survey. The AP, several other publications and press in Latin America have commented on the data from latest Pew Report as well. The L.A. Times La Plaza estimates that Zacatecas and other states in Mexico are preparing for the return of about 350,000 countrymen from the U.S.

THOUSANDS OF IMMIGRANTS RETURN TO OAXACA, MEXICO FROM THE U.S. - Octavio Vélez of La Jornada reports, an estimated 24,700 Oaxacans who were in the U.S. have already returned to Mexico between July and September of this year due to having lost their jobs as a result of the hit taken by the construction industry during this economic crisis. Most of these workers had been working in California, Texas, Illinois, and New York.

The economic crisis and the decline of immigrants in the U.S. has also caused a dramatic drop in remittances to Latin America. Central banks from Mexico to Brazil have projected the biggest declines in remittances from the United States in more than 10 years. Governor Leonel Godoy, of the state of Michoacan, Mexico, made a request to the Budget Committee of the lower chamber of the Mexican Congress for higher levels of appropriations in order to maintain the economic stability of the state, as it is likely that the amount of remittances from the U.S. to Michoacan will continue to decrease.

DISPARITY IN ASYLUM APPLICATION PROCESS - Ketty Rodriguez of El Nuevo Herald writes about a recent GAO report that found marked disparity in the way applications for asylum are handled by different USCIS offices, and the bearing this lack of uniformity has on the speed of the application process and likelihood to get approved.

TPS EXTENDED - Temporary Protected Status has been extended for another 18 months for Hondurans and Nicaraguans living in the U.S., saving them from likely deportation. USCIS announced that this extension of status is effective from June 6, 2009 through July 5, 2010. Along with people from El Salvador, those under TPS have to apply to obtain legal permanent residence before the expiration of their TPS status, otherwise they can suffer deportation.

SENATORS PUSH FOR IMMIGRATION RAID GUIDELINES - With federal authorities stepping up immigration enforcement raids across the country, Sens. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Robert Menendez of New Jersey are sponsoring a bill to protect the rights of U.S.citizens and legal residents who get caught up in them.

CAMPAIGN TO CHANGE PUBLIC OPINION ON CIR - Local and national business groups are funding a media campaign in Arizona and three other states to convince voters that this country has done enough to secure the border and now needs to legalize the 12 million or more undocumented immigrants and consider allowing more foreigners into this country.

IMMIGRANTS ABOUT TO BECOME CITIZENS LEFT OUT IN THE COLD - 1,241 Houston-area citizenship applicants who saw their naturalization ceremony canceled last month because of Hurricane Ike. Officials with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services initially rescheduled the ceremony for Oct. 29, well after the Oct. 6 voter registration deadline. U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes, the administrative judge for the Houston federal courts, and U.S. Rep. Gene Green, got on the phone with agency officials and USCIS found a way to hold the emergency ceremony. But not all those on the list to be at the ceremony were informed of the change in schedule - Syed Zubair was not called and so he will miss out on one of the most important rights of every American:"The big thing with citizenship," he says. "is you have a say." Thanks to the federal bureaucracy, he'll have to wait four more years to be heard, at least in a presidential election.

POLITICO: A dog that hasn't barked - Great post by Ben Smith:

I noticed, putting up this post, that I haven't used the "immigration" category on this blog for months, but had meant to pull out a bit from my story last night to show just how much this element of the race has confounded expectations:

When Obama said last fall that he would support states'decisions to issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, Hillary Clinton's pollster Mark Penn told her staff that Obama might have just lost himself the election.

"We thought he was going to get killed over it," recalled a Clinton staffer, who said Penn's polling portrayed it as so "lethal" that it could cost Obama the reliably Democratic state of California.

In fact? Crickets.

On that note, the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) has put together A Candidate's Guide to Immigration along with a two-page document of Answers to the Toughest Questions - to help candidates effectively counter and clarify the myths and ambiguities associated with immigration. NDN has similarly highlighted that the immigration system is broken and it can not be fixed until the terms of the immigration debate shift towards a rational conversation aimed at achieving workable and effective comprehensive immigration reform - we hope candidates use this important guide.

Yesterday, U.S. Sen. John McCain appeared on the Sunday political show Al Punto, hosted by Jorge Ramos on the Spanish-language network, Univision. Mr. Ramos noticed the absence of any discussion on Latin America and on tough issues, such as immigration, during the debates and asked Sen. McCain about his positions.

ON IMMIGRATION - Sen. McCain avoided responding to the tough questions asked by Mr. Ramos, but when he did not, he gave this Spanish-speaking/Hispanic audience very different answers from what he tells crowds of English-speaking conservatives.

Below is an outline of Jorge Ramos's questions on immigration, Sen. McCain's answers during this interview, and prior statements.

JR: Do you agree with the immigration raids that are separating thousands of Hispanic families?
JM: "We must have enforcement....on two occasions I stood before the Senate, knowing that my Party was against me, that the members of my party were against me, and spoke for comprehensive immigration reform." "I am committed to comprehensive reform, but we have to have enforcement, too". McCain called for "humane" and "compassionate" enforcement, and a temporary worker program as well.

The truth is that ever since the McCain-Kennedy bill in 2006, Sen. McCain has never again fought his party on this issue, as he claims. McCain has been constant in his lack of support for immigration reform.

When not speaking to Hispanics: McCain on immigration at CPAC - advocating for enforcement-only; "Secure our borders first...and only after we've achieve widespread consensus that our borders are secure would we address other aspects of the problem..."

John McCain would not sign his own legislation, if it came up now:

JR: If you were president, would you suspend the immigration raids until immigration reform passed?
JM: Well, if we know that some of those immigrants come and commit crimes...
JR: But they are not - they're Hispanic families and people who are not criminals or terrorists...
JM: ....First, my priority would be comprehensive reform, where we left off...then we'll solve this, I can't say we should stop arresting those who come in illegally but we can treat them with compassion.

Why McCain wants to appear on Spanish-language television, attempting to seem for immigration reform:

JR: In key battleground states, like New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Hispanics aren't supporting you - why not?
JM: We're having good results and we're improving. Obama hasn't travelled to a single Latin American country. I come from a border state, I know [Hispanics]. I got 70% of the Hispanic vote in my last reelection bid....I'm very confident.

Yes, but only 21% of Hispanics voted for McCain in the AZ Presidential primary (AZ has a closed primary). McCain recognizes:

JM: The debate on immigration hurt me and I fought against my party, I fought the members of my party because I think we have to have comprehensive immigration reform. And as a President I'll achieve it, it will be one of my top priorities as president.

The truth: Sen. McCain did not fight his party at all on immigration - that's why his popularity has fallen so dramatically among Hispanics. How can Sen. McCain allege that reform would be his priority as President if he didn't even get his party to include reform in the Republican platform? Instead, the Republican platform is one that has anti-immigrant zealot, Tom Tancredo, saying he's "very pleased" with it, and that he got "basically all that" he wanted. The Republican platform on immigration does not allow for reform, its aim is "to deport criminal aliens without delay", and says: "we oppose amnesty...rejection of enmasse legalization is especially appropriate...".

Cero y van dos - se esperaba que los candidatos a la presidencia hablaran sobre el tema de inmigración durante el primer debate, enfocado a relaciones exteriores, pero no sucedió. Entonces se esperaba que seguramente hablarían sobre sus propuestas con respecto a inmigración en el segundo debate, sobre políticas nacionales...tampoco sucedió. Con el empeoramiento de la crisis económica, el tema de inmigración ha sido relegado al olvido durante los debates. Sin embargo, sigue al centro del esfuerzo publicitario de ambos candidatos para ganarse el voto de Hispanohablantes.

La batalla sobre el tema de inmigración continúa. Después del último anuncio del Senador John McCain sobre inmigración, el Senador Barack Obama responde. El reportero Chris Cillizza puntualiza que el Senador Obama esta invirtiéndo lo triple que John McCain en anuncios de televisión.

Por mucho tiempo, NDN ha destacado la importancia del tema de inmigración como un factor que motiva a Hispanos a votar, sin importar si son nacidos en EEUU o en el extranjero, y esto se demuestra en el hecho que los candidatos estan teniendo esta batalla sobre inmigración en español. Con el porcentaje tan importante de votantes Latinos en estados clave en la contienda de esta elección, los candidatos estan luchando para ganarse a este grupo demográfico por medio del tema de inmigración. En este anuncio, Obama reconoce el daño que ha sufrido el partido Republicano en la comunidad Hispana a raíz del tono negativo que tomó ese partido durante el debate sobre inmigración, y relaciona a McCain con su partido y con los ataques anti-inmigrante del partido Republicano.