Election 2006 results : A quick analysis of its relevance for immigration

[bkarnik]

Friends:

What I have done below is present a couple of races that are interesting to follow tomorrow from the immigration perspective. This list is not all inclusive and only includes the House races that have been listed on the Cook Political Report (www.cookpolitical.com) as competitive. I went through the list and compared that with the representatives on the "House Immigration Reform Caucus" as chaired by Rep. Tom Tancredo. Here are the results:

The 10 following races are considered as toss-ups.
J.D.Hayworth AZ-05 LOST
Marilyn Musgrave CO-04 WON
Geoff Davis KY-04 WON
Gil Gutknecht MN-01 [/b]LOST[/b]
Charlie Bass NH-02 LOST
John Sweeney NY-20 LOST
Charles Taylor NC-11 LOST
Jean Scmidt OH-02 POSS.WIN
Thelma Drake VA-02 WON
Barbara Cubin WY-AL TOO CLOSE TO CALL, leads by 822 votes

The following 6 races are considered lean republican
Rick Renzi AZ-01 WON
John Doolittle CA-04 WON
Brian Bilbray CA-50 WON
Hefley (OPEN SEAT) CO-05 (WON by another GOP (Lamborn))
Otter ID-01 (WON by another GOP (Sali))
Randy Kuhl NY-29 WON

The following 5 races are considered likely republican
Ric Keller FL-08 WON
Bilirakis (OPEN SEAT) FL-09 (WON by the son, another GOP Bilirakis)
Jeb Bradley NH-01 LOST
Robin Hayes NC-08 (TOO CLOSE TO CALL, Hayes leads bu 468 votes)
Pat Tiberi OH-12 WON

The following one race is considered lean democratic
Bob Beauprez (OPEN SEAT) CO-07 WON by DEMOCRAT

Bottom line: The current house immigration caucus boasts 104 members. Of which, 4 will be gone come January 2007. From the remaining, IF all the tossups were to go democratic, the list would come down to 90 members.

I will update the thread with the final results Nov. 7th.

Nov. 7th update: As seen above, from the original 104, the list is now down to 95 members. With the House majority in the Democratic hands, this loss in the caucus is likely to be magnified since they are now the minority in the minority.

[logiclife]

A quick analysis of election results and its relevance to us:

As of 11:45 PM PST, House has gone to Democrats in a landslide; the Senate is on its way depending on outcome in Montana and Virginia. If Democrats win MT and VA (Jon Tester in MT, Jim Webb in VA), the Democrats would control the Senate too.

What it means for us:

• Change of control in the House:

This is of biggest consequence. Since Democrats won the House, every chairman of every committee in the house will be a Democrat. They will decide what goes into each committee, what comes out of the committee, what gets floored on the house floor and when. They set the agenda, they set the timetable. They run everything...including what gets served in the House Cafeteria and who occupies which office and who gets how much budget to run their offices. Republicans in the last few years have followed the mantra of “Majority of the majority” when it came to setting the agenda and timetable of house floor votes. What this did was, bills that would win the majority of 435 votes by combining Democrats plus moderate Republicans never got floored onto the house, since the majority of majority (conservative republicans) were against such CIR and by that token non-receptive to the legal variety of immigration.

To get an idea of the minority in the house read this quote from more than a 100 years ago:

”The job of the minority is to make a quorum and to draw its pay.”
-- Speaker Thomas B. Reed, 1890.

Throughout 2006, the biggest obstacle to high-skills-only bill to be floor on the full house or on the judiciary committee was the Republican controlled judiciary committee headed by Jim Sensenbrenner. He has won his own race(Wisconsin’s 5th) – no surprise there – he would not be heading the house Judiciary committee. Even if Republicans would have controlled the house, it would not have been Sensenbrenner, it was his last term as chair of judiciary committee. With Democrats winning, the difference is that it would not be Lamar Smith heading the house judiciary committee; it would be the Democrat John Conyers of Michigan. Whenever there was a non-CIR bill related to high-skills employment based immigration, like the one sponsored by John Shadegg (SKIL bill of the house) it was referred to House Judiciary committee. And Sensenbrenner basically put it on the shelf. That would change. How much? Only time will tell.

• Individual Races:

Firstly, J.D. Hayworth of Arizona is on his way to losing his house seat. That’s house congressman called by Arizona Republic Newspaper as a “bully”, a strong anti-immigrant, who is gone from the House.

Secondly, Jim Kolbe (pro-immigrant) retired from Arizona and a Democrat(Giffords) now occupies that seat. A strong anti-immigration candidate (Graf) lost election for that seat. That’s another good news.

Thirdly, Jon Kyl almost lost his Senate seat in Arizona. If it’s any indication that anti-immigration noises are no career-savers, this may be it.

• CIR and Democratic majority:

Democrats may still be weary of CIR because of its Amnesty component, but if they win with a landslide they may go for it. If they have a slim majority in the house, CIR could still be in jeopardy. But once CIR is dead, a legal skilled immigration bill may have a better chance as the House Judiciary committee wont be killing it every time it sees it and the Senate has already passed high-skills relief in one form or other more than once since December 2005 – S 1932 provisions, Managers amendments to CIR and Cornyn’s SKIL amendment to CIR.

[sunofeast_gc]

What the Election Means for Business
Nancy Pelosi and other Dems may compromise on immigration, but energy, drug, and defense companies can expect hearings

by Richard S. Dunham

The Republican Revolution that took Capitol Hill by storm 12 years ago—giving business unprecedented access to the corridors of power—suffered a stunning reversal on Nov. 7, amid an unpopular war, congressional scandals, and widespread unease about the state of the economy, despite generally positive economic numbers.
After a tumultuous political year filled with bitter personal attacks, Democrats accomplished what pundits said was all but impossible in January: They took back the House of Representatives, and with surprising ease. As of midnight EST, Democrats had taken 33 seats from the GOP—far more than the 15 seats they needed to take control of the House—with another 16 seats still in play. As of midnight, Republicans still were clinging to control of the Senate. Needing six GOP seats to retake the upper chamber, Democrats were leading in five races, with the Virginia race between Republican George Allen and Democrat Jim Webb too close to call.
Despite President Bush's insistence that the American economy was strong, and getting stronger, 52% of voters said the economy was weak, while just 47% said that the U.S. is in the midst of good economic times, NBC exit polls found. And voters who said the economy was the most important issue to them favored Democrats by 20 percentage points, according to CNN exit polls.

Democrat Promises
Candidates and outside groups spent an estimated $2.8 billion to influence the election, the most costly campaign in American history, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. While the massive spending on attack ads and telephone banks helped stimulate local economies from Knoxville to Fresno, it fed into a public anger at the hyper-partisan business-as-usual in Washington, D.C.
In victory, Democrats promised to change the tone of public discourse. "The message of the public is that it's time for civility and it's time to work toward common goals," said Michael Coleman, the Democratic mayor of Columbus, Ohio. But many voters, recalling George W. Bush's similar pledge in 2000, are likely to wait for concrete action and not just Election Night promises.
Among the Democratic winners were a host of probusiness moderates, including Representatives-elect Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, a tough-talking sheriff; Heath Shuler of North Carolina, a businessman and former pro football player; Baron Hill of Indiana, a former moderate congressman who made a successful comeback; and Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, a business executive with strong corporate support.

Business Benefits
For business, the election offers hope for bipartisan compromise on some top corporate priorities, although there's also anxiety about aggressive Democratic oversight hearings that could target certain Republican-leaning industries.
On the plus side, Democratic control of the House means that it is much more likely that Congress will approve comprehensive immigration reform, including a guest-worker program long sought by business interests.
Democrats also have pledged to rein in the federal deficit and adopt a pay-as-you-go budgeting system, both goals of company reps. And companies are looking forward to Democrats keeping their promise to restore the R&D tax credit, which expired this year amid partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill.

Possible Changes
But some business sectors—particularly energy, defense, pharmaceuticals, and insurance—are bracing for tough hearings by new committee chairmen. And small business seems destined to face the first increase in the federal minimum wage in nine years. Democratic leaders have not yet decided whether to push for an immediate increase from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour or to phase it in over two years.
On the tax front, small business groups now are unlikely to get their top priority: a permanent end to the estate tax. Indeed, a Democratic House Ways & Means Committee seems unlikely to extend any of the Republican tax cuts passed between 2001 and 2003. Instead, Democratic staffers tell BusinessWeek that the party most likely will focus on expanding tax credits for college tuition costs and fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is becoming an ever-increasing burden to upper-middle-class families across the country.
One industry that Democrats plan to target is oil. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has pledged to roll back the tax incentives given to energy companies in the Bush-Cheney energy package. Democrats want to spend that money instead on alternative energy sources and green technology.
Still, Democrats can only do so much in an era of divided government. President Bush, with his veto power, can stop any legislation he views as too liberal. And Democrats can't afford to alienate the independent voters and suburban moderates who gave them control of the House.

Richard S. Dunham is a senior writer for BusinessWeek.

[rheoretro]

I disagree with logiclife. The Dems had already been in line (even before the elections) with Bush's view of comprehensive immigration reform...they were ready for amnesty for the illegals, whereas Bush's own party wasn't. And this was why CIR was derailed in the House. Please remember that CIR is the only avenue by which legal immigration reform will be acceptable to the Senate, esp. Senators like Specter who is currently Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Of course, at this point in time, it remains to be determined as to who will control the Senate, as VA and MT have not been decided yet.

My personal view, from Washington, DC, is that immigration will come up in the new 110th Congress. Our work will be done, but IV will need its members support and attention for a while.

[nk2006]

Democrat majority in House; and evenly split Senate (2 seats are still at stake which will decide who is in control; democrats seems to have majority in both of them). Wow this is good and hopefully great for us.

More than winning control, the list of people who lost (or almost lost) in senate/house shows that majority of Americans are not as against on immigration issues as some media people project very often. Of course the main issues of this election are different; but some of the lost candidates made a big issue out of immigration and hoped that would get them elected. Well…they are wrong.

I was just listening to NPR about a discussion on Bush and how he/his administration would deal with these election reversals. One of the analysts was pointing out that this is in some way good for him and that he can push some of his measures more comfortably, the first one he mentioned is guest worker / CIR. The logic is, since majority of democrats are in favor of that measure and even the new senate will be comfortably in favor; he can push for the guest worker program. In fact this measure might be used to make friends with both houses and to divert some extended attention to war. I liked his analysis and hope that it will come true .

As logiclife pointed above, CIR may be too controversial even with democrat leading house. They have a different set of agenda and might push the immigration issues to the back burner. Lets hope that some less controversial bill like SKIL will be taken up soon.

One question for the experts: CIR was passed in the old senate but was not reconciled with house. Can this bill be taken up again or is it already considered dead. My understanding is the bill has to be discussed / voted again in both senate and house (assuming majority leader set this on agenda). Is that true? Instead can the house majority leader now decide to reconcile with CIR already passed in senate.

[cagedcactus]

hey friends,
I saw that Logiclife mentioned that the head will be from michigan. I am from michigan and a lot of my buddies also visit this site regularly. Let us know if we can make a difference. Please let us know what can we do to help our cause here. I am ready to drive, meet, talk to any one I can to push things here. I dont know how much of an impact that would be, but even a little can help.
thanks
Please pm me with any suggestions or ideas.

[MerciesOfInjustices]

Originally Posted by logiclife

A quick analysis of election results and its relevance to us:

As of 11:45 PM PST, House has gone to Democrats in a landslide; the Senate is on its way depending on outcome in Montana and Virginia. If Democrats win MT and VA (Jon Tester in MT, Jim Webb in VA), the Democrats would control the Senate too...

Thirdly, Jon Kyl almost lost his Senate seat in Arizona. If it’s any indication that anti-immigration noises are no career-savers, this may be it.

I agree with everything as you said. Darn, but certain Congressmen from Wisconsin and Colorado made it back - of course, without the clout.

As Fareed Zakaria pointed in a recent article, (I cannot find the link, somehow) Immigration reform is the only issue that George Bush, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Rudy Giluiani and Nancy Pelosi agree on! How many such issues are there? I cannot really think of one!

But, would like to point out something about Senator Kyl, who may have voted against CIR finally. But, he has not been against legal immigration. In fact, he had co-authored the Cornyn-Kyl version, that was a variant of the final compromise version being floated in the House. As far as I know, he opposes only certain aspects - but does not have an anti-immigrant stance, as such. He is, of course, better known for his work in healthcare legislation, where he has been very close to what most doctors have supported in terms of Tort Reform, to reign in rising Helathcare costs. In other words, he is more balanced - that may have been the saving grace. But, your analysis is also correct - voting against CIR did not bring him a landslide!

[anilsal]

My personal opinion is that at the national level, the immigration issue was not key. At certain local levels, maybe it was. I think it is time for us at IV to look to the new ocean with new hope.

But the work remains the same. Awareness, drive and confidence until we succeed.

[bkarnik]

The new Democratic committee chairmen in the House will likley be the following:
Agriculture--Collin Peterson (MN)
Appropriations--David Obey (WI)
Energy & Water Subcommittee--Peter Visclosky (IN)
Armed Services--Ike Skelton (MO)
Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces--Silvestre Reyes (IN)
Budget--John Spratt (SC)
Energy and Commerce--John Dingell (MI)
Education and the Workforce --George Miller (CA)Financial Services--Barney Frank (MA)
Government Reform--Henry Waxman (CA)
Homeland Security--Bennie Thompson (MS)
Intelligence-- uncertain--either Jane Harman (CA), Alcee Hastings (FL) or Silvestre Reyes (TX)
International Relations--Tom Lantos (CA)
Judiciary--John Conyers (MI)
Transportation--Jim Oberstar (MN)
Ways and Means--Charlie Rangel (NY)

[sh2005]

Originally Posted by cagedcactus

hey friends,
I saw that Logiclife mentioned that the head will be from michigan. I am from michigan and a lot of my buddies also visit this site regularly. Let us know if we can make a difference. Please let us know what can we do to help our cause here. I am ready to drive, meet, talk to any one I can to push things here. I dont know how much of an impact that would be, but even a little can help.
thanks
Please pm me with any suggestions or ideas.

Same here.... In fact, Rep Conyers is a graduate of my alma mater... at this point, any nonconventional means to get the lawmakers attention

[anilsal]

Originally Posted by cagedcactus

hey friends,
I saw that Logiclife mentioned that the head will be from michigan. I am from michigan and a lot of my buddies also visit this site regularly. Let us know if we can make a difference. Please let us know what can we do to help our cause here. I am ready to drive, meet, talk to any one I can to push things here. I dont know how much of an impact that would be, but even a little can help.
thanks
Please pm me with any suggestions or ideas.

Hey start a local chapter of IV in MI such that other volunteers in future also can join and work from under the same umbrella.

[gsc999]

Now that Democrats have taken the house and will soon bid adieu to rabidly anti-immigration Republicans in key posts like Sesenbrenner and Hastert, it does bring in a new ray of hope for us.

What this means for us in two houses:

Senate:

- To get anything done in the Senate, a bill needs support of more than 60 votes.

- Even if Democrats control Senate, which we will find out after a Virginia recount, they will really have to work in a bi-partisan manner. If we look at past trend the Senate was open to immigration reform.

Lower House:

- Due to "majority of the majority" rule by soon to be former house speaker Hastert, NO non-conservative agenda saw the light of the day in last congress.

-This effectively turned into a do-nothing congress.

- New Democrat speaker Nancy Pelosi brings hope for millions.

- This is a good chance for Bush to show what he can rally around all Americans not just the conservatives.

This election has shown that the American democratic system does work and that there is still hope for immigration reforms.


Maybe, this is too early to celebrate but I will go out and have an ice-cream some good news after a long draught

[WaldenPond]

Originally Posted by cagedcactus

hey friends,
I saw that Logiclife mentioned that the head will be from michigan. I am from michigan and a lot of my buddies also visit this site regularly. Let us know if we can make a difference. Please let us know what can we do to help our cause here. I am ready to drive, meet, talk to any one I can to push things here. I dont know how much of an impact that would be, but even a little can help.
thanks
Please pm me with any suggestions or ideas.

Hello cagedcactus,

Thank you for offering to actively participate and connect with key lawmakers in MI. As janilsal suggested, it would be a very good idea to start MI ‘State Chapter’. This would help your friends and other IV members in the State of Michigan to organize meetings with the key lawmakers. Here is the link to State chapters:

http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=17

Also, please encourage your friends to register (in case they have not yet registered), and request them to invite their friends to IV. Here is a tool to send an invite to people who may not already know about IV.

http://immigrationvoice.org/index.ph...ends&Itemid=55

This will help increase IV members in different states and would increase the constituents to educate and convince the lawmakers.

Thanks,
WaldenPond

[oguinan]

The election results are ultimately good for us and our prospects for immigration reform in the new year. Despite the best efforts of our friends on the other side of this issue, immigration did not become a major issue in this election. No candidate won or lost because of their position on immigration alone. This is partially due to the fact that the president has recently signed the bill to build a wall on the southern border. With such a clear, physical, image of immigration enforcement in place, no reasonable candidate could ask for a more strict immigration law.

The president has argues for CIR since his campaign in 2000. We know that our specific issues have strong support amongst both parties as evidenced by the fact that many or our requests were placed in the Senate immigration bill and passed without debate.

At this point, The President and Congress will want to pass any laws that they can agree on - particularly if both sides can claim it as a victory for their core values.

Nancy Pelosi is my representative here in San Francisco and I have spoken with her immigration field reps. a number of times. From my discussion, my impression was that immigration reform is something that Rep. Pelosi wants to work for. She is less aware of our specific issues than she should be. This is something that we need to work to change in the short term.
I'm feeling hopeful and energized after the election - here's hoping for a positive start in the new year!!

[pappu]

Its good that we have a democratic majority in congress. we also now have work cutout for us to contact new lawmakers. getting more members and members willing to work for local chapters is important at this time. we need to work with renewed vigour now and finish our task. pls help with increasing membership and join your state level chapter threads. I see only very few members have posted their interest. we need interest from each member in order to succeed. I am sure we will succeed. The good times are ahead of us but we need to take advantage of it.