MicEvHill.Com
Covering Immigration, Refugee, and Asylum Legislative Matters from Inside the Beltway
The Next Congress
The Next Congress
Transition to the 112th Congress


Last Updated on Saturday, November 20, 2010 at 3:50 am EST


Follow MicEvHill.Com on ...
   
 




Immigration Featured In Numerous 2010
Mid-Term Election Campaigns

By Micheal E. Hill
Thursday, November 18, 2010  -- 8:04 pm EST

Immigration was featured in a number of 2010 congressional mid-term elections.  In all, MicEvHill.Com has counted more than 100 immigration-related television or radio ads that were run by winning candidates for the House or Senate in the 2010 mid-term elections.

As the dust continues to settle on the elections, MicEvHill.Com will present lots of detailed analysis of the use that candidates made of immigration during their campaigns, as well as feature immigration profiles for each of the 97 House freshman and 16 Senate freshmen who will be sworn-in ias members of the 112th Congress in January.


Today, MicEvHill.Com features the immigration-related campaign ads run by Representative-Elect Lou Barletta (R-PA), who defeated Representative Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) on his third try for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives:
2010 Immigration-Related Campaign Ads of Representative-Elect Lou Barletta (R-PA)



The Dust Begins to Settle on the Republican Win of Control of the House and its Deep Cut Into the Democratic Majority in the Senate


By Micheal E. Hill
Wednesday, November 17, 2010  -- 9:00 am EST
--Last Updated on Saturday, November 20, 2010 at 1:30 am EDT--




It has been nearly three weeks now since the nation voted in the 2010 mid-term elections.

There was still one disputed Senate election at the time of this writing.  However, the seat is certain to be won by a Republican.  Accordingly, it is that Democrats will have a 53-47 organizational majority in the Senate during the 112th Congress.

T
he outcome of five House races were still in doubt at the time of this writing.  MicEvHill.Com estimates that once those races are finalized (some might not be finalized until after January 3, 2011, when the new Congress is sworn in), Republicans will have gone from a 178-255 minority in the 111th Congress to a 243-192 majority in the 112th Congress.  Should these numbers pan out, the Republicans would have picked up a net of 65 seats in the mid-term elections, which would make it the second largest pickup of seats since World War II.  However there is a possibility that Republicans might pick up two fewer seats, depending on the results of two razor-thin races in New York.

From an immigration perspective, some of the results of the 2010 mid-term elections were stunning:

  • Congressional Hispanic Caucus Losses in the House.  Three members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) lost their bids for reelection to Republican challengers: Representative Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX), Representative Solomon Ortiz (D-TX, and Representative John Salazar (D-CO).  This is an important development, not just because of the symbolism of electoral losses by these staunchly pro-immigrant Members.  But it also is important because it may well have provided immigration restrictionists with a model for winning seats in CHC districts in the furture: recruit conservative Hispanic Republicans to run against CHC Members and then flood the district with massive amounts of television ads and money that CHC Members will have difficulty competing with.
  • Election of Immigration Restrictionist-Oriented Hispanic Republicans.  Six Hispanic Republicans were elected to either the House or the Senate on immigration restrictionist platforms.  This includes Senator-Elect Marco Rubio (R-FL) who was elected to the U.S. Senate.  It also includes Representatives-Elect Quico Canseco (R-TX), Bill Flores (R-TX), Jaime Herrera (R-WA), Raul Labrador (R-ID), and David Rivera (R-FL).   This is an important devlopment, in that it could enable immigration restricionists in Congress to make some of these new anti-immigrant Republican Hispanics the face of some of their iestrictionist legislative efforts, thereby dulling any charges that pro-immigrant Hispanics might make that their immigration restrictionist legislation is anti-Latino or anti-Hispanic.  Additionally, two Hispanic Republicans who ran largely on immigration restrictionisit platforms were elected the governors of New Mexico and Nevada.  There already is talk in Washington of Senator-Elect Marco Rubio or Governor-Elect Susana Martinez (R-NM) being possible Vice Presidential running mates for whoever winds up winning the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination, an eventuality that could have a profound impact on that election.
  • Dramatic Increase in the Number of Immigration Restrictionists in the House.  As the 111th Congress drew to a close, there were 193 pro-immigrant Members of the House, 191 immigration restrictionists, and 49 Members whose voting patterns made them swing-votes.  The number of immigration restrictionists in the House during he 112th Congress will be dramatically higher.  At a minimum, there will be 243 immigration restrictionists, which is 25 more than a majority.  By way of comparison, there were only 233 immigration restricionists in the House during the 109th Congress, the Congress that produced House passage of the Sensenbrenner immigration enforcement bill, the REAL ID Act, the SAVE Act, and legislation requiring the construction of 700 miles of double-layered fencing along the U.S. border with mexico.
  • Loss of Key Pro-Immigrant Members in the House.  Of the 55 House incumbents who lost their races for reelection in the 2010 general election, 24 had amassed voting records of support for the pro-immigrant advocacy community's position on at least half of thekey, contested immigration- and refugee-related votes that they had cast during their House careers: Representatives  Michael Arcuri (D-NY), Timothy Bishop (D-NY), Rick Boucher (D-VA), Allen Boyd (D-FL), Chet Edwards (D-TX), Bob Etheridge (D-NC), Alan Grayson (D-FL), John Hall (D-NY), Phil Hare, Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-SD), Steve Kagen (D-WI), Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH), Ron Klein (D-FL), Jim Marshall (D-GA), Michael McMahon (D-NY), (D-IL), James Oberstar (D-MN), Solomon Ortiz (D-NY), Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Ciro Rodriquez (D-TX), John Salazar (D-CO), Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH), John Spratt (D-SC), and Charlie Wilson (D-OH).  14 of the 24 actually had amassed strong records in support of the pro-immigrant advocacy community's agenda.
  • More Difficult Path to a Bipartisan Filibuster-Proof Immigration Majority in the Senate.  As the 111th Congress drew to a close, there were 50 reliable pro-immigrant votes in the Senate, 36 reliable immigration restrictionist votes, and 14 swing votes.  This made it at least theoretically possible for a bipartisan coalition of 60 votes to be put together on an important immigration matter.  The results of the 2010 mid-term Senate elections make it exceedingly difficult for such a filibuster-proof supermajority to be put together on immigration during the 112th Congress.  The number of pro-immigrant votes in the Senate has shrunk to 44 in the 112th Congress.  Moreover, the number of senators who are expected to be reliable votes for immigration restrictionist positions has mushroomed from 30 during the 111th Congress to 43 during the 112th Congress, a number that is enough to mount a successful filibuster without resort to the swing votes.
  • Uncertainty Anout the Attitude of the House Democratic Leadership.  Usually, when a party loses a chamber by such a stunning and historic margin, the party shakes up its leadership as it goes into the next Congress.  House Democrats, however, are expected to return its entire Leadership to their respective positions in the 112th Congress.  Not that it will matter who will be in the House Democratic Leadership during the next Congress.  Democrats will be in the minority in the House during the 112th Congress and, as such, will have no power to set the schedule or shape the terms of floor debate.  About the only power they will have will be the power to offer motions to recommit bills.  Given how the  House Democratic Leadership totally ignored and ran away from immigration when it had a 70-seat majority.  It is difficult to imagine that it would permit pro-immigrant Members to offer pro-immigrant motions to recommit measures now that they will be in the minority.  That notwithstanding, the House Democratic Caucus will be significantly more unified in its support for immigration during the 112th Congress than it was during the 111th Congress, owing to the defeat of so many moderate-to-conservative Democrats who were not reliable supporters of the pro-immigrant advocacy community.  Indeed, during the 111th Congress, just over 74 percent of the House Democratic Caucus voted pro-immigrant.  It is projected that 87 percent of the caucus will vote pro-immigrant during the 112th Congress. 
  • Likely Aggressive Anti-Immigrant Agenda Coming Out of the House.  If history is a guide, it can reasonably be expected that House Republicans will put forward an aggressive immigration agenda during the 112th Congress.  Indeed, the policy proposals that House Republicans included in their September  2010 "Pledge to America" conjured up imagery of the "Contract With America" that House Republicans rode to a majority in 1994 and that spawned three of the most vilified (in the case of the pro-immigrant advocacy community) and celebrated (in the case of the immigration restrictionist advocacy community) immigration laws in recent memory: the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act  of 1996 (AEDPA), which ushered expedited removal into law; the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PROWRA), that enacted the current regime with regard to benefit ineligibility for both legal and illegal immigrants;  and the illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), that eliminated judicial and administrative discretion, made a host of relatively minor crimes deportable offenses, and imposed many of its provisions retroactively.

    Some may find the immigration, border security, and visa security items in the 2010 House GOP "Pledge to America" tame in comparison to the immigraiton legislation that flowed from the 1994 "Contract with America." They certainly did not live up to the recent red hot rhetoric that has emanated from some House and Senate Republicans on such matters as birthright citizenship and the recently enacted Arizona immigration enforcement law.  But in reality, despite the fact that three major immigration laws flowed from the 1994 "Contract With America," that "Contract" never once mentioned the words "immigration", "border", or "alien".  Moreover, at least two of the items in the 2010 House GOP "Pledge to America" document bear a resemblance to two immigration restrictionist bills from the 111th Congress that are anathema to the pro immigrant advocacy community:
    H.R. 2406, the CLEAR Act, and H.R. 3308, the SAVE Act.
It seems likely that the House GOP will strike act on immigration in at least three different ways. during the 112th Congress.  First, it likely will embed immigration restrictionist provisions into many of the bills that it brings to the House floor -- even on bills that seemingly are unrelated to immigration.  Second, the House GOP likely will include immigration enforcement riders in the major appropriations bills that it brings before the House.  And third, House Republicans likely will bring several sweeping, standalone immigration enforcement bills before the House during the 112th Congress.

Given that Republicans will have at least 240 votes in the House and a unified conference, there is little that pro-immigrant advocates will be able to do to stop the legislation from passing the House.  Indeed, it might even be foolhardy to assume that Senate Democrats or President Obama will have the political will or courage to be a firewall stopping much of the legislation. 


It's going to be a long, bumpy ride...


Check Back Later For Further Analysis
...




Projected Partisan Breakdown of
the 112th Congress



By Micheal E. Hill
Friday, November 19, 2010  -- 12:18 pm EST
 
As the 111th Congress drew to a close --
  • Democrats controlled the House by a 255-178 margin.
     
  • Democrats controlled the Senate by a 59-41 margin (including 57 Democrats and two Independents who caucused with the Democrats).  
     
The following scoreboards show the projected balance of power in the House and Senate during the 112th Congress, based on the results in so far in the 2010 mid-term elections:


Projected Partisan Makeup of the House in the 112th Congress

The Congress Democrats Republicans Independents Vacancies
109th Congress (2005-2006) 201 230 0 4
110th Congress (2007-2008) 235 199 0 1
111th Congress (2009-2010) 255 178 0 2
112th Congress (2011-2012) 192 243 0 0
Net Loss or Gain in 2010 Mid-term Election -63 +65    


House Incumbents Defeated: (55)

Democrat-to-Republican (53)

Defeated Member Voting History on Immigration Legislation Successor
Adler (D-NJ03) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation Jon Daniel Runyan (R-NJ)
Arcuri (D-NY24) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not Richard L. Hanna (R-NY)
Bean (D-IL08) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation Joe Walsh (R-IL)
Bishop (D-NY01) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not Randy Altshuler (R-NY)
Boccieri (D-OH16) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Boucher (D-VA09) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Boyd (D-FL02) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Bright (D-AL02) Voted AGAINST the Pro-Immigrant Position Always or Almost Always  
Carney (D-PA08) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Childers (D-MS01) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Dahlkemper (D-PA03) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Davis (D-TN04) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Driehaus (D-OH01) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Edwards (D-TX17) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Etheridge (D-NC)

Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not

 
Foster (D-IL11) Voted AGAINST the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not  
Grayson (D-FL08) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not  
Halvorson (D-IL11) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Hare (D-IL17) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position Always or Almost Always  
Hall (D-NY19) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Herseth-Sandlin (D-SDAL) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Hill (D-IN02) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Kagen (D-WI08) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not  
Kanjorski (D-PA11) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Kilroy (D-OH15) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not  
Kirkpatrick (AZ01) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Klein (D-FL22)

Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not

 
Kosmas (D-FL24) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Kratovil (D-MD01) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
McMahon (NY13) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Dan Maffei (D-NY) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Markey (D-CO04) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Marshall (D-GA08) Voted AGAINST the Pro-Immigrant Position Always or Almost Always  
Minnick (D-ID01) Voted AGAINST the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not  
Mitchell (D-AZ05) Voted AGAINST the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not  
Murphy (D-PA08) Voted AGAINST the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not  
Murphy (D-NY20) Voted AGAINST the Pro-Immigrant Position Always or Almost Always  
Nye (D-VA02) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Oberstar (D-MN08) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position Most of the Time  
Ortiz (D-TX) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position Most of the Time  
Perriello (D-VA02) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Pomeroy (D-ND) Voted in Favor of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not  
Rodriguez (D-TX23) Always or Almost Always Supported the Pro-Immigrant Position  
Salazar (D-CO03) Voted in Favor of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not  
Schauer (D-MI07) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Shea-Porter (D-NH01) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not  
Skelton (D-MO04) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Space (D-OH18) Voted AGAINST the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not  
Spratt (D-SC05) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Taylor (D-MS04) Voted AGAINST the Pro-Immigrant Position Most of the Time  
Teague (D-NM02) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Titus (D-NV03) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation  
Wilson (D-OH06) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not  


Republican-to-Democrat (2)

Defeated Member Voting History on Immigration Legislation
Cao (D-LA03) Generally Pro-Immigrant
Djou (D-HI01) Voted AGAINST the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not

 
 
Non-Incumbent Party Turnover: (14)

Republican-to-Democrat (1)

Defeated Member Voting History on Immigration Legislation
Castle (D-DEAL) Voted AGAINST the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not


Democrat-to-Republican (13)

Retiring Member Voting History on Immigration Legislation
Baird (D-WA03) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not
Berry (D-AR01) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not
Ellsworth (D-IN08) Voted AGAINST the Pro-Immigrant Position Most of the Time
Gordon (D-TN08) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation
Hodes (D-NH02) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not
Mollohan (D-WV01) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position Most of the Time
Melancon (D-LA03) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation
Moore (D-KS03) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation
Obey (D-WI07) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not
Sestak (D-PA07) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not
Snyder (D-AR02) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position Most of the Time
Stupak (D-MI01) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not
Tanner (D-TN08) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation
 

 
 
Projected Partisan Makeup of the Senate in the 112th Congress

The Congress Democrats Republicans Independents Vacancies
109th Congress (2005-2006) 44 55 1 0
110th Congress (2007-2008) 49 49 2 0
111th Congress (2009-2010) 57 41 2 0
112th Congress (2011-2012) 51 47 2 0
Net Loss or Gain in 2010 Mid-Term Election  -6 +6    



Senate Incumbents Defeated: (2)

Democrat-to-Republican (2)

Defeated Senator Voting History on Immigration Legislation
Feingold (D-WI) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position Always or Almost Always
Lincoln (D-AR) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not

Non-Incumbent Party Turnover: (4)

Democrat-to-Republican (4)

Retiring Senator Voting History on Immigration Legislation
Bayh (D-IN) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not
Burris (D-IL) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position Always or Almost Always
Dorgan (D-ND) Swing Vote on Immigration Legislation
Specter (D-PA) Voted IN FAVOR of the Pro-Immigrant Position More-Often-Than-Not


 

Projected Immigration Balance of Power in the 
U.S. House of Representatives During the 112th Congress



By Micheal E. Hill
Wednesday, November 17, 2010  -- 8:30 am EST
 
As the 111th Congress drew to a close, there were --
  • 193 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives who always, almost always, often, or more often-than-not had voted in favor of the pro-immigrant advocacy community's positions on key, contested immigration- or refugee-related votes during their House careers. 
     
  • 191 Members who always, almost always, often, or more often-than-not had voted against the pro-immigrant advocacy community's positions on such votes during their careers.  
     
  • 49 Members who had exhibited no clear voting pattern during their careers.

With 218 votes necessary to win on most votes in the House, the balance of power on any given immigration matter was vested during the 111th Congress in the 49 swing-vote Members, three of whom were Republicans and 46 of whom were Democrats.  In order for the pro-immigrant advocacy community to win on any given vote, it needed to win at least 25 votes from this 49-Member group.

The following is a scoreboard showing the projected balance of power the House on immigration during the 112th Congress, based on the results in so far in the 2010 mid-term elections:

Projected 112th Congress Immigration Balance of Power Scoreboard
U.S. House of Representatives

The Congress Pro-Immigrant Anti-Immigrant Swing-Vote Races Not Decided
109th Congress (2005-2006) 163 233 36 0
110th Congress (2007-2008) 181 205 37 0
111th Congress (2009-2010) 193 191 49 0
112th Congress (2011-2012) 172 243 20 0


 

Projected Immigration Balance of Power in the 
U.S. Senate During the 112th Congress


By Micheal E. Hill
Wednesday, November 17, 2010  -- 9:00 am EST
 
As the 111th Congress drew to a close, there were --
  • 50 senators who always, almost always, often, or more often-than-not had voted in favor of the pro-immigrant advocacy community's positions on key, contested immigration- or refugee-related votes during their Senate careers. 
     
  • 36 senators who always, almost always, often, or more often-than-not had voted against the pro-immigrant advocacy community's positions on such votes during their careers. 
     
  • 14 Members who had exhibited no clear voting pattern during their careers.

With 60 votes necessary to win on most votes of consequence in the Senate, the balance of power on any given immigration matter was vested during the 111th Congress in the 14 swing-vote senators, seven of whom were Republicans and seven of whom were Democrats.  In order for the pro-immigrant advocacy community to win on any given vote of consequence, it needed to win at least ten votes from this 14-senator group, including at least three Republicans.

The following is a scoreboard showing the projected balance of power the Senate on immigration during the 112th Congress, based on the results in so far in the 2010 mid-term elections:

Projected 112th Congress Immigration Balance of Power Scoreboard
United States Senate

The Congress Pro-Immigrant Anti-Immigrant Swing-Vote Races Not Decided
109th Congress (2005-2006) 59 30 11 0
110th Congress (2007-2008) 41 40 19 0
111th Congress (2009-2010) 50 36 14 0
112th Congress (2011-2012) 44 43 13 0

 



Home
Today on the Hill
This Week on the Hill
Over the Horizon
Live Video (beta)
About
The Next Congress