We've been hearing for days that Republicans and the immigrant community are not happy with the compromise immigration reform bill that the Senate will begin debating today.

Add another group to the mix: Employers aren't happy either.

A bad bill is worse than no bill at all. The Senate has a long way to go to make this bill palatable. Can they do it?

Here are the employers' objections:

Among the provisions of the compromise immigration bill is one calling for the building of more detention camps.

SEC. 137. INCREASE OF FEDERAL DETENTION SPACE AND THE UTILIZATION OF FACILITIES IDENTIFIED FOR CLOSURES AS A RESULT OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE REALIGNMENT ACT OF 1990.

a) Construction or Acquisition of Detention Facilities-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall construct or acquire, in addition to existing facilities 1 for the detention of aliens, at least 20 detention facilities in the United States that have the capacity to detain a combined total of not less than 20,000 individuals at any time for aliens detained pending removal or a decision on removal of such aliens from the United States subject to available appropriations.

I'll be commenting on other provisions as I read through them.

I just got my hands on the 326 page compromise immigration bill. Here's a link (pdf.) Dated May 18, it's called The Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

It's not acceptable.

The New York Times gets it right in an editorial today:

It is the nation’s duty to welcome immigrants, to treat them decently and give them the opportunity to assimilate. But if it does so according to the outlines of the deal being debated this week, the change will come at too high a price: The radical repudiation of generations of immigration policy, the weakening of families and the creation of a system of modern peonage within our borders.

Debate is scheduled to begin Monday afternoon on the bill. How can debate begin on a 326 page bill when the first many Senators will have a chance to look at it is Monday morning.

This needs to be tabled until everyone has had a full chance to digest it and kick out the worst provisions. Otherwise it will be like the Patriot Act, passed in haste and repented for years to come.

Update: Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are skeptical. They say the bill needs to be improved in the Senate. I agree, particularly with respect to the family separation issues, the need to go back to the home country and wait, possibly for years, to return and the onerous path to permanent residency and citizenship.

********

The 300 page immigration reform bill won't be publicly available until tomorrow. Here is a summary of key provisions:

— Undocumented immigrants who came to the United States before Jan. 1, 2007 — an estimated 12 million — would get immediate, but probationary, legal status and ability to work and travel if they pass background checks.

— Undocumented immigrants and their families could get new “Z'’ visas good for four years, but renewable indefinitely, by paying a $5,000 fee per head of household. After eight years, holders of Z visas could apply for permanent legal residence — a green card — by returning to their home countries and paying another $4,000 penalty.

— Between 400,000 and 600,000 foreigners would be able to come every year to work. They could stay for two years on new “Y-1′’ visas then return home for one year and could renew the visas for a total of six years in the country. They could bring their families with them for one two-year period.

More...

Good news to report on the Student Loan Forgiveness Bill. It passed the House today. The Senate companion bill has passed the Judiciary Committee. There's yet another hurdle: If enacted, the repayment program must be funded through separate legislation in order to take effect. From CQ (subscription only):

CQ TODAY
May 15, 2007 – 3:44 p.m.
House Lawmakers Pass Bill on Student Loan Forgiveness
By Seth Stern and Ben Halpern-Meekin, CQ Staff

Law school graduates who take jobs as criminal prosecutors and public defenders would be eligible for student loan forgiveness under a bill House lawmakers passed Tuesday.

Considered under suspension of the rules, the bipartisan measure (HR 916) passed by 341-73. It would provide a maximum of $10,000 per year — up to a total of $60,000 — for law school graduates who committed to working at least three years as state or local prosecutors or federal, state or local public defenders. Federal prosecutors are already eligible for loan forgiveness.

....Graduates can carry up to $100,000 in law school debt, in addition to debt from their undergraduate educations. Many find it financially difficult to take jobs as prosecutors and public defenders, which typically pay less than entry-level positions in the private sector.

More...

Paul Krugman tell some hard truths about trade policy and income inequality in the United States and the world. Some bloggers like David Sirota and the folks at MYDD are closely aligned with labor unions and have a fairly narrow way of looking at the issues - international labor standards, the right to organize, etc. From the US perspective, I think Krugman states an essential truth:

Realistically, however, labor standards won’t do all that much for American workers. No matter how free third-world workers are to organize, they’re still going to be paid very little, and trade will continue to place pressure on U.S. wages.

So what’s the answer? I don’t think there is one, as long as the discussion is restricted to trade policy: all-out protectionism isn’t acceptable, and labor standards in trade agreements will help only a little.

By all means, let’s have strong labor standards in our pending trade agreements, and let’s approach proposals for new agreements with an appropriate degree of skepticism. But if Democrats really want to help American workers, they’ll have to do it with a pro-labor policy that relies on better tools than trade policy. Universal health care, paid for by taxing the economy’s winners, would be a good place to start.

Tax policy and health care policy can do more for our country's workers than trade policy. That is not the labor union mindset, but it should be the Democratic mindset.

Within the next few weeks, Congress is expected to vote on a bill that would require your consent before spyware and adware programs are installed on your computer.

Meant to protect Internet users from unknowing transmission of their personal information via spyware programs, the Spy Act bans the most commonly known techniques used by malware and adware brokers, such as the use of keystroke-logging programs or installation of software without gaining approval via a clearly stated EULA (end user licensing agreement). The bill further establishes requirements for legitimate distributors of spyware-like programs to gain end user consent and build their applications such that they can be easily identified and removed from computers. ...

The bill specifically requires that consumers receive a "clear and conspicuous notice" prior to the installation of any tracking program and includes provisions to bar unfair or deceptive behavior such as computer hijacking, phishing, and the display of any browser ads that can't be closed.

If you value your privacy or your right to control the contents of your own computer, let your representative know you support this bill.

The ACLU reports:

The American Civil Liberties Union today cheered an amendment to the House Intelligence Reauthorization Bill that would prevent illegal domestic wiretapping by the government. The amendment, by Representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ), will reaffirm the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) as the only legal means of collecting electronic intelligence surveillance. The amendment was passed late last night by a vote of 245-178.

"Congress has signaled that it will not allow the president to continue the National Security Agency's illegal eavesdropping," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office. "Passage of the Schiff/Flake amendment is Congress drawing a line in the sand. This amendment reaffirms that FISA is the law and it needs to be followed."

More....

Bump and Update: It looks like it will be a stand-alone bill. A reader just wrote in:

FYI-- Congresswoman, Rep. Kathy Castor, (D-FL-11th) who serves on both the Armed Services Comm. AND is the only freshman on the powerful Rules Committee which makes decisions about moving bills forward, met with Armed Services Chair Ike Skelton early this morning and they have decided to file a stand alone bill to restore habeas corpus rather than put it in the Defense Authorization Bill.

I spoke to her Chief of Staff personally, and he said she promises to work to move the bill along, so everyone will have to vote up or down on restoring habeas, and we'll all know by their vote where exactly everyone in Congress stands on restoring habeas.

*****
Original Post: 5/8/07

Via McJoan at Daily Kos and Matt Stoller:

I'm told there's an outside shot that House Democrats on the Armed Services Committee will put a restoration of habeas corpus into the Defense Department Authorization Bill being marked up tomorrow and Thursday. Apparently Chairman Skelton has the votes but there are concerns about whether to have this fight now.

More...

I'm no supporter of federal hate crime legislation. We need to get away from mass federalization of crimes that are better left to the states. I also object to laws that punish thoughts behind the crime in addition to the crime itself.

The penalty for murder is life or death. Sex offense penalties are already sky high. Why make them higher?

Nonetheless, the House of Representatives today passed hate crime legislation. President Bush has signaled he will veto it. Fine by me.

As Barry Boss says in the Washington Post, regarding Victims' rights week which began yesterday,

Victims deserve the recognition that this week provides, and they deserve sympathy and compensation for their losses. But I am increasingly concerned about what I believe they do not deserve, which is the right to serve as de facto prosecutors, a practice that is quietly insinuating itself into the legal system.

I have long opposed the Victims' Rights Amendment and in the 90's, spent a great deal of my time lobbying Congress against it. Here's what I wrote about it back in 1997. As Boss notes, the danger now is this:

The latest manifestation of our "tough on crime" policy comes in the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which will implement the 2004 Crime Victims' Rights Act. One U.S. district judge ruled that the statute renders victims "independent participant[s] in the proceedings" and "commands that victims should be treated equally with the defendant, defense counsel, and the prosecutor."

The judge's position is absurd. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect persons accused of crime.

Any rights provided to the victim must come at the expense of the rights provided to a defendant. Indeed, providing the victim with a role in the prosecution assumes a crime has been committed, despite the bedrock constitutional proposition that the accused is presumed innocent.

More...

Bumped and Updated with new information, scroll down.

AmericaBlog picks up on this ABC News report on the Virginia Tech shooter that says there may have been a gap in the federal database regarding his medications:

Some news accounts have suggested that Cho had a history of antidepressant use, but senior federal officials tell ABC News that they can find no record of such medication in the government's files. This does not completely rule out prescription drug use, including samples from a physician, drugs obtained through illegal Internet sources, or a gap in the federal database, but the sources say theirs is a reasonably complete search.

John asks, what database? Does the Government keep a list of all of our prescriptions?

The answer is yes. I reported on it in 2005 when Bush signed the bill creating the electronic database:

More...