1. Sen. Reid touts work
2. GA lawmakers convene
3. MD tuition questioned
4. Judge denies new trial
5. Man behind 'Don't Vote'

1.
Harry Reid touts work on immigration
By Meredith Shiner
Politico (Washington, D.C.), October 28, 2010

Embattled Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Wednesday his campaign is not hurt by the failure to enact immigration reform because Hispanic Nevadans "know" he has spent more time on immigration in the last two Congresses "than on any other issue — period."

In an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow in Las Vegas, Reid — who likely needs high turnout from Nevada's Latino community to edge out tea party-backed opponent Sharron Angle — defended his credentials on immigration when asked of the validity of charges that "doing right by Latino voters" would have meant already passing a bill.

"The one group of people that disbelieves that totally are Hispanics," Reid said. "They know that I've spent more time in the last two Congresses on immigration than on any other issue. Period."

But as majority leader, Reid spent more than a year working on health care reform, which rendered his bold statement on immigration similar to comments he caught flak for last week. At that time, he told MSNBC's Ed Schultz: "But for me, we'd be in a worldwide depression."

While the majority leader admittedly has been a leader on immigration, it is difficult to make the case that the Senate under Reid spent more time on immigration than health care reform, President Barack Obama's cornerstone legislative priority and one upon which Congress spent months in intensive negotiations. The battle to pass the comprehensive health care bill extended more than a year, from March 2009 to March 2010, and essentially was the legislative focus on the Hill from the time Obama held a joint session of Congress that first February.
. . .
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44305.html

********
********

2.
Lawmaker calls for probe of Montgomery College tuition
By Daniel de Vise
The Washtington Post, October 28, 2010

A Republican Maryland lawmaker urged a criminal investigation of Montgomery College on Wednesday, challenging the school's longtime practice of giving resident tuition discounts to illegal immigrants.

Montgomery College allows illegal immigrants to pay the lower tuition afforded to county residents as long as they have graduated from the county's public schools. It's an unusual stance: Some public colleges in the region don't admit illegal immigrants as students, and those that do typically charge them higher non-resident rates because they cannot prove legal residency.

Del. Patrick L. McDonough (R-Baltimore County) called Wednesday for state and federal prosecutors to investigate the community college's tuition policy, which he said he believes violates federal law.

"You have public officials in collusion, practicing an illegal act that costs taxpayers money," McDonough said in an interview Tuesday. He aired his concerns publicly at a news conference Wednesday.

With an election looming, candidates are accentuating their philosophical differences on illegal immigration. Gubernatorial candidate Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) invoked the issue Tuesday in a campaign appearance, saying it was becoming "more of a hot button" between him and Gov. Martin O'Malley (D).

Montgomery College officials said they believe their longtime fee policy follows the law. The rule provides in-county tuition to anyone who has graduated from a public Montgomery County high school within the past three years. Tuition totals $321 for a three-credit course for a county resident, compared with $657 for Marylanders from outside the county and $897 for everyone else.
. . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/27/AR201010...

********
********

3.
Georgia looks west, seeking to stop illegal immigration
By Jeremy Redmon
Atlanta Journal Constitution, October 28, 2010

With Arizona’s tough new law against illegal immigration still fresh on their minds, Georgia state legislators on Thursday kicked off a series of committee meetings aimed at stopping the problem here.

The Republican-controlled panel has been charged with drafting legislation that would stem the flow of illegal immigration in Georgia. The co-chairmen of the panel said this week they will consider Arizona’s crackdown during their meetings.

“I am not sure we will adopt Arizona’s law, but we will come up with our own,” said Sen. Jack Murphy, R-Cumming, co-chairman of the Joint House and Senate Study Committee on Immigration Reform. “It would probably be something similar, but I am not exactly sure how it would mirror there’s exactly. But I’m sure that some of the same language would be in there.”

Rep. Matt Ramsey, the other committee co-chairman, has a similar view.

“I certainly think there are some provisions in what they did and what some other states have done that we are going to take a look at,” said Ramsey, R-Peachtree City.

Ramsey and Murphy’s 14-member committee is expected to meet at least once more this year and propose a comprehensive immigration bill before the next General Assembly session starts in January.

Committee members say they will weigh a number of issues, including whether illegal immigrants should be banned from Georgia’s colleges. They also intend to look at the effects of birthright citizenship in Georgia. Children born in this country are automatically given U.S. citizenship by the 14th Amendment, even if their parents are here illegally.

“Given everything that has gone on since we were last in session I suspect there will be a lot of different (immigration-related) bills that are put forth by a lot of different members,” Ramsey said.

In April, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law the nation’s toughest legislation against illegal immigration. But in July, a federal judge blocked the part of that law that requires police to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws. That section of the law also requires immigrants to prove they are authorized to be in the state or risk state charges. The judge issued the injunction after the Obama administration challenged the law.

Critics say the Arizona statute is unconstitutional and can lead to racial profiling. Supporter say the measure is needed because the federal government is not adequately enforcing immigration laws.

Georgia legislators have started their deliberations amid a fierce gubernatorial race that has repeatedly touched on illegal immigration here. Both Democrat Roy Barnes and Republican Nathan Deal have said they would support an Arizona-style law in Georgia. And a recent poll commissioned by the AJC and the Georgia Newspaper Partnership said most state voters would also support enacting such a law here.

Georgia House Speaker David Ralston and Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, both Republicans, appointed the immigration committee in September, complaining the federal government has failed to tackle illegal immigration.
. . .
http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia_elections_news/2010/10/28/georgia-looks-wes...

********
********

4.
Judge denies new trial for slaughterhouse manager
By Michael J. Crumb
The Associated Press, October 28, 2010

A judge on Wednesday denied a request for a new trial for a former Iowa kosher slaughterhouse executive convicted of finacial fraud after an immigration raid at the plant.

Sholom Rubashkin's attorney claimed Rubashkin should get a new trial because Chief U.S. District Court Judge Linda Reade, who presided over the original one, participated in the planning of the 2008 raid at the Agriprocessors Inc. plant in Postville, Iowa.

Reade ruled that Rubashkin's attorneys failed to show that the new evidence they obtained would have affected the trial's outcome or that she should have recused herself.

Rubashkin was convicted on 86 federal financial fraud charges last year and was sentenced in June to 27 years in prison.

Rubashkin's attorney argued evidence obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit showed Reade met with investigators and prosecutors and discussed charging strategies, numbers of anticipated arrests, logistics and other issues related to the investigation. The defense claimed Reade could not have been impartial at trial.

In her ruling, Reade wrote that Rubashkin and his attorneys could have sought her recusal before trial but didn't. She also said the new evidence Rubashkin's attorneys claimed to have has "no bearing on any of the issues raised at trial."

Reade also said her recusal was not required because she was doing the duties she was required to do as chief judge to ensure court proceedings were efficient and that the constitutional rights of the defendants were protected.

"Futhermore, an average person on the street would not question ... impartiality in this case," she wrote.
. . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/27/AR201010...

********
********

5.
'Don't vote' advocate casts ballot
By Molly Ball
Politico (Washington, D.C.), October 28, 2010

The man behind the controversial ad telling Hispanics "Don't Vote" isn't taking his own advice.

Robert de Posada told TBD.com he voted absentee in Virginia on Wednesday.

De Posada is president of Latinos for Reform, the Republican-backed group that caused a firestorm when it sought to air a Spanish-language television ad in Nevada telling Hispanics not to vote.

Hypocritical? De Posada says no. The group was only telling people not to vote for Congress.

"When you look at the substance of the ad, the website, when you look at the press release, we are very clear," De Posada told TBD's Mike Conneen, who posted the interview on Twitter. "Go vote for governor or whoever, just don't vote for those who betray you."

Latinos for Reform's website does indeed take this line, if you read to the bottom of the second page of the PDF linked from its front page. "When you cast your vote for Governor, Mayor, school board, etc., be counted but do not vote for Congress this November," it says. "This is the only way to make sure they understand that we will no longer vote for them when we get nothing in return."

But that's a lot more nuanced than the controversial "Don't Vote" ad, which was yanked from Univision after Democratic cries of voter suppression. "This November, we need to send a message to all politicians," the ad said. "If they didn't keep their promise on immigration reform, then they can't count on our vote."

De Posada told TBD he didn't vote for or against Eric Cantor, the GOP congressman in his district, but he voted on the ballot issues. "One party is writing us off and the other is taking us for granted," he said.
. . .
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44287.html