The current debate over immigration policy in the United States divides political parties and individuals alike. Both sides would agree that the immigration system is broken. Evidence of this systematic failure is glaring: there are twelve million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, the federal government lacks a comprehensive enforcement and naturalization strategy, and sanctuary cities have been created to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation.

Cities such as Chicago and San Francisco have limited ability to deal with immigration issues, yet have acted to protect their citizens from deportation. By providing services to undocumented residents, cities have been forced to live with the consequences of an inadequate federal response to an issue that the Constitution delegates to the federal government. With a more sensible immigration strategy in place, there would be no need for sanctuary cities.

This book explores the sanctuary city movement in detail. First, we will look at the life of an undocumented immigrant that came to America and now lives in a sanctuary city. Next, we will explore the history of immigration in the United States, how federal policy has changed over time, and how cities have responded to these changes. Finally, we will consider two examples of sanctuary cities: Chicago and San Francisco.

The Sanctuary Movement is available at Smashwords and Amazon.com for $4.99.

The other major races were for governor where incumbent Pat Quinn is fighting for his political survival. Current results have it too close to call. With 96% of precincts reporting, Quinn stood at 50.3% of the vote, with challenger Dan Hynes at 49.7%. Only 5,000 votes separate them. It is possible that we might not have a result until the morning – or perhaps longer if the race continues to tighten. If Quinn loses, it will be in large part due to the fact that he a.) replaced Rod Blagojevich after his indictment and impeachment b.) presides over a budget deficit of $8.95 billion that is largely outside of his control.

On the Republican side there is a similar story. Bill Brady has a tentative lead of 20.6% with Kirk Dillard behind by only 2,000 votes at 20.3%. If Brady ends up winning, it will be a huge upset as a Chicago Tribune poll taken just a couple weeks ago had him at only 9% in fourth place. The leader in that poll, party chairman Mark McKenna, is currently in third place with 19% of the vote. This just goes to show that low turnout primaries can swing in crazy directions. It’s all about motivating your supporters to go out and vote.

Finally, in the race to replace Mark Kirk in Illinois’s 10th Congressional District, 38 year old Dan Seals, an University of Chicago MBA grad, will win the Democratic nomination for a third straight time. Seals lost to Kirk in 2006 by 6 points, 53% to 47%. Their rematch in 2008 was also 53% to 47%. This is a district that voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and should be a good pick-up opportunity for the Democrats.

*Edit*

It looks like Pat Quinn will probably squeak by with a win. His lead has increased to approximately 7,000 votes with 98% of precincts reporting. He’s already declared victory, yet Hynes promises to fight on. Definitely may have a recount here. On the Republican side, only 500 votes separate Brady and Dillard. This could certainly see a recount as well.

Also worth noting are the numbers of votes for the two parties. 892,000 voters in Illinois cast a ballot for one of the two Democrats for governor. 757,000 cast ballots for Republican candidates for governor. In the Senate race today 880,000 voted for Democratic candidates, while 732,000 voted for Republican candidates. That’s a 150,000 advantage for Democrats.

Partisans tend to be the ones to vote in primaries (and for that matter, midterm elections). That said, whoever manages to win a bulk of independents will probably win the general election. Mark Kirk certainly has the chance to appeal to independent voters if his Republican base doesn’t force him to move to the right. Conservative Republicans simply can’t win elections in Illinois.

In the race to challenge incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer, Republicans have three candidates to choose from. Among them are Campbell, who switched from the governor’s race to the Senate race. It appears that was a good move as he currently leads his two rivals, former HP CEO Carly Fiorina and Teabag candidate Chuck DeVore. PPIC finds that Campbell has 27%, 16% for Fiorina, and a distant third for DeVore at 8%. Fiorina has positioned herself as a moderate alternative to the ultra-conservative DeVore, but has not gained much traction. While Fiorina was the early favorite, particularly of the establishment, that is clearly no longer the case.

The general election is shaping up to be a Democratic win, though, as President Obama enjoys a 61% approval rating in the state (34% disapproval). That’s considerably higher than much of the rest of the country and indicates that the party’s coalition is holding up – at least in the Golden State. Compare that to Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger whose approval rating is in George W. Bush territory – only 30% approve and 60% disapprove. Barbara Boxer has an approval rating just below 50% at 49% with 44% saying that they disapprove.

The other major poll out is of the Illinois primary for Senate, which will be held tomorrow. Democrat Alexi Giannoulias, the State Treasurer, leads the pack with 31% support, compared to 23% for Hoffman, and 23% for Jackson. The Republican Party is set to nominate the moderate Republican Congressman Mark Kirk, a Chicago suburbanite that voted for President Obama’s cap-and-trade bill but now says that he opposes it. While his support for those policies helped him in his Democratic-leaning Chicago suburb district, it is not popular at all with Republicans. That said, Kirk manages to poll better than both Hoffman and Jackson in this heavily Democratic state. Either of them winning the primary puts this seat once held by President Obama in serious jeopardy. The general election polls are below:

42% Giannoulias, 34% Kirk
37% Kirk, 36% Hoffman
38% Kirk, 36% Jackson

While Giannoulias leads Kirk by a healthy 8%, his two competitors are in extremely tight races with Kirk. Also decided on Tuesday will be the candidates to replace Mark Kirk in his suburban Chicago district, as well as competitive primaries for governor in both parties.

The Chicago Tribune polled the race, which is set for February 2, 2010. Governor Quinn leads with 44% support, while Dan Hynes trails by only 4 points at 40% support. There are a large number of voters that are still undecided, leaving the race wide open. If Dan Hynes sounds like a familiar name, it is because he ran against Barack Obama in the Democratic Senate primary in 2004.

The Republicans are also going to the polls on February 2 to determine their candidate for governor. Andy McKenna, the former Republican Party Chairman in Illinois, has a tentative lead of 19% over Jim Ryan, who is staking 18% of the vote. Kirk Dillard, a former judge and current member of the Illinois State Senate, trails with 14% of the vote. Dillard is notable for having supported President Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign, being featured in an ad in Iowa.

With the Blagojevich scandal and budget cuts, one would think that the Republicans would have a decent shot at winning the Governor’s Mansion in Illinois. However, the GOP has an extremely weak bench in the state with zero statewide elected officials and dwindling members in the House. Democrats are looking to pick up Republican Mark Kirk’s House seat, a suburban Chicago district that went for Barack Obama, as he runs for the Senate in 2010. Either Quinn or Hynes would undoubtedly be favorites in the fall against a weak field of Republicans.

For whatever reason, undoubtedly political, Republicans are proving to be a self-destructive force in their opposition to the president. In some countries, such as Great Britain, the opposition party is known as the “Loyal Opposition”. We have no such opposition party in this country. If President Obama is for getting the Olympics, Republicans are opposed to it. The reaction from Republican politicians is laughable and childish, but has proven to be true throughout President Obama’s short tenure.

“Listen I think it’s a great idea to promote Chicago but he’s the president of the United States, not the mayor of Chicago,” Minority Leader John Boehner said. “And the problems we have here at home affect all Americans and that’s where his attention ought to be.”

Where, Mr. Boehner, was your opposition when President Bush visited Beijing for a week last year as our economy was crashing? What purpose did his presence serve other than to spend more vacation time as president? President Obama actually tries to do something positive, winning the Olympic Games for his country, and all you have to say is that he should be at the White House 24/7 as Republicans in Congress oppose everything that he puts forward anyway. It is truly mind boggling how Mr. Boehner is in a leadership position.

Speaking of Republican “leaders”, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is among the Republicans rooting against America. Gingrich posted a duo of Tweets bashing President Obama for his efforts:

President Eisenhower had a rule that Presidents of the United States went to the meetings after success had been assured

Somehow charm and oratory dont (sic) seem to work in foreign affirs (sic) but historians have warned that foreign policy is different than campaigning

Using Gingrich’s logic, one should never compete in something unless they are guaranteed to win. There was no conceivable way that the White House could have known the outcome of the vote. They figured that the benefits of winning would outweigh the political risk of losing. Clearly the Republican leadership was more interested in sabotaging the President and country for political gain than they were bringing the Olympics home. I might remind people that Democrats did not act this way in 2005 when New York was rejected by the IOC.

Which brings me to my final thought. If Republicans want something to complain about, it should be the IOC. The IOC is not a representative body. There are two members from the United States out of nearly 100 total. They weren’t even allowed to vote since we had a city in contention. The Europeans, meanwhile, have roughly 50 members (depending on your definition of “European country”). That is a 50 to 2 disadvantage that we faced when you compare the number of European members vs. American. This unbalanced approach needs to be addressed before the United States even considers putting up a city again. North America has roughly the same population as Europe. This formula is equivalent to giving Texas 50 electoral votes and New York only 2 when the states are fairly close in population. Only the IOC could come up with a system that is worse than the Electoral College.

Chicago is already recognized as a world class city. From its sprawling skyline, terrific museums, miles of sparkling beaches, vast diversity in ethnicities, cultures, foods and languages, Chicago is not only a microcosm of the United States, but of the world. Just pay a visit to Chinatown, Boystown or La Villita. Holding the Olympics would only add to its reputation of greatness.

A tremendous amount of time, money and planning has been put into Chicago’s bid to hold the 2016 Olympic Games. Everyone from Mayor Daley to average citizens have played their part. Now is time for President Obama to make his voice heard. Not because the city requires his star power, but instead to make the case that the United States wants to once again be a leader in the world.

President Obama is a product of many cultures, races and nationalities. He was born in Hawaii, spent a few years in Indonesia and graduated from Harvard. It’s fitting that President Obama made Chicago his home during his adult life. He represents the city well and would do the same in Europe if he were to make the trip to Copenhagen. Given the support the voters of Illinois have shown for him, it’s really the least he can do.

I also visited the University of Chicago, a magnificent campus in the historic Hyde Park neighborhood. Below is video I took at the Oriental Institute Museum:

SOUTH BEND — Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama spoke to a crowd of 3,500 late Wednesday night at Washington High School.

He began by talking about why he is running for president, including ending the war in Iraq and improving health care, taxes and education.

He said the reason he is running for president now, even though some others have said he is too young, is that the country cannot wait any longer for change.

“We cannot wait,” he said, “And that is why I am running for president of the United States.

“But I’m also running because of you, I’m running because I made a bet on the American people.”

He went on to say that change happens from the bottom up, and he is betting that the American people are ready to make that change.

“If we can all just come together,” he said, “I believe there is no problem we cannot solve.”

The rally was the first stop on Obama’s three-day bus tour of Indiana, which holds its primary May 6.

From here, he next goes to Gary, Lafayette and Muncie.

Obama was introduced by South Bend Mayor Stephen Luecke, who gave a surprise endorsement of Obama over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain.

“Because he connects our minds and our hearts,” Luecke said of supporting Obama. “He makes so many different connections.

“I believe in Obama because he knows us, from the South Side of Chicago to South Bend.

“He’s right on the issues, he’s right in terms of his heart, he’s right on the values.”

During earlier introductory remarks, former U.S. Rep. Tim Roemer, D-South Bend, said he is proud to have supported Obama from early on in the campaign.

Obama has also picked up endorsements from Michigan City Mayor Chuck Oberlie and Goshen Mayor Alan Kauffman, Roemer said.