The next senate may turn out to be more restrictive on immigration than the existing Senate. There are four Senators retiring this year. Their grades from Americans for Better Immigration are (Dayton, MN)D+,(Sarbanes, MD) D,(Frist, TN)D- and (Jeffords, VT) F-. There are also 4 incumbents that are likely to loose their seats. Their grades are (Menendez , NJ)F-, (DeWine)D-, (Chafee, RI)F and (Santorum, PA) B+. The only immigration moderate that is in danger of loosing his seat(or getting forced out) is Santorum of Pennsylvania-who is far more conservative than the state he represents.

Part of this is sheer attrition. It just wasn’t as obvious a few years ago to many folks what a serious problem immigration is for American citizens. It is very expensive to run a senate race-which means that those seeking that office have to constantly calculate the tradeoff between fundraising and the popularity of a specific issues. As I’ve shown previously: there is big money resting on immigration(I’d figure the equivalent of about $100-200 Billion/year in pork). Anyhow, once a senator has taken a lot of money–or invested political capital–on an issue, it is really hard for them to dramatically change their stand.

Now, it isn’t obvious what the stands of new senators elected will be. We only have a few cases in which both candidates have clear records on immigration. For example, Katherine Harris in Florida has a C+ and is running against a Democratic incumbent Nelson with a D grade-but Nelson stands a 94% chance of retaining his seat. DeWine in Ohio with a D- grade runs a 65% of chance of being replaced by Sherrod Brown with a D grade.

My projections obtained from Intrade suggest that the GOP will likely hang onto the senate with at most 2 seat majority–or become dependent upon the deciding vote of the Vice President. 15 Republican seats and 18 Democratic seats are up for election (40 Republican Seats and 27 Democratic seats not up for election). The real money odds suggest that Democrats wind up with 21 seats and republicans with 10 sets in this election-with 2 seats too close to call.

These odds are obtained by looking at real money betting on elections in Ireland(where this is legal). Unlikely traditional “bookie joints” Intrade sets their odds by a market process something like a stock market(these odds were obtained on 9/15/06 and may change). Historically betting pools have been shown to be better predictors of electoral outcome than polls.

Some races especially interesting from an immigration angle include those in Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Steelein Maryland appears much more moderate on the topic of immigration than his opponent Ben Cardin with a F rating. Steele has also already won a statewide post. Frankly it is puzzling why the RNC hasn’t pulled out the stops getting Steele all the money he needs. In Missouri we have an an immigration restriction stalwart Jim Talent running in a tight race against a Democrat, McCaskill who also appears rather willing to restrict immigration. In Nevada, we have Jimmy Carter’s son Jack running in against a republican incumbent with a moderate record on immigration-and taking stands rather moderate by comparision to many Democrats. Republican Tom Kean in New Jersey is taking great pains to disassociate himself from Bush’s immigration policy–and that strategy appears to be working for him.

Tom Kean strongly disagrees with President Bush’s immigration plan and would have voted against the bill recently passed by the United States Senate that granted amnesty for those who have broken our laws and entered our country illegally.
As someone who supports President Bush’s plan, Bob Menendez not only voted for a program that provided a direct path to citizenship for those who have broken our laws, but also supported giving illegal aliens Social Security benefits.

As previously reported in VDARE.COM, in Pennsylvania, Santorum is actively campaigning on the topic of immigration-and this appears to be his only hope of retaining his seat. In Ohio, we have two candidates than have poor track records on immigration-but the democrat has a slightly better
track record.

Overall, it appears that both parties are just far too drunk on donations from the
wealthy interests that most strongly support increased immigration to seriously address the issue of immigration. These folks may think they are avoiding shooting themselves in the foot like they did before the major restriction of immigration in the 20’s–but they may in fact be undermining the faith of the American public in the two party system-and the Federal government itself. If The Democrats get a both a senate and house majority, the internal pressures in that party on immigration are especially likely to heat up.

*Denotes incumbent

The degree of fraud that goes on in LEGAL immigration is truly over the top.

For example, in 2003 Paul Nachman asked Prof Jan Ting, the former Assistant Commissioner of the INS, “Is it true that 90 percent of asylum and refugee cases are fraudulent?” and Ting responded, “95 percent.”

The 9/14 Examiner editorial is fact heavy and deserves attention.

On April 6, former USCIS Director of Security Michael Maxwell told stunned members of Congress that only six personnel security experts at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — which awards coveted green cards, work permits and Social Security numbers — were detailed to handle a crushing backlog of 11,000 employee background investigations and 2,771 internal affairs complaints that touched every office except the director himself, including 528 serious criminal allegations of bribery, document fraud, extortion, money laundering and espionage.[ Editorial: Fraud goes unchecked as foreigners game federal immigration system Washington DC Examiner, September 14, 2006 ]

More on the same topic in today’s Bush Administration Lets Its Guard Down.

A recent AP-Ipsos poll found that more than half of the residents of New York and Washington are afraid they will be attacked again. Such fears are hardly unwarranted. The federal government’s lackadaisical approach to border control allows more unlawful immigrants to enter our country than law enforcement officers can hope to catch.

Meanwhile, federal officials have been handing out legal immigration benefits without performing the due diligence expected by the American public, which is essential to national security. In order to accommodate their “customers,” employees of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services routinely waive fingerprint requirements, approving applications without checking them against the terrorist watch list, even neglecting to compare current photographs of those seeking political asylum with originals stored in the Image Storage and Retrieval System.

You can read the transcript of the entire hearing.