We've been hearing for days that Republicans and the immigrant community are not happy with the compromise immigration reform bill that the Senate will begin debating today.

Add another group to the mix: Employers aren't happy either.

A bad bill is worse than no bill at all. The Senate has a long way to go to make this bill palatable. Can they do it?

Here are the employers' objections:

The LA Times has an article today about how the unions in Los Angeles are accepting former gang members who have done prison time.

There's life after gangs. All they need is a chance. Kudos to the unions for providing it.

Episode 84 is tonight: "The Second Coming."

This week, Phil turns down Tony's offer of compromise and A.J. despairs about the world and his future. Meanwhile, Tony takes offense over an affront to Meadow.

I thought last week was the best episode of the season, and a total surprise. It's winding down rapidly.

TalkLeft has been nominated for Best Political Blog in the Bloggers Choice Awards. Winners will be announced in Las Vegas in November.

I hope you'll go over and vote. So far, we're on page 8.

Among the provisions of the compromise immigration bill is one calling for the building of more detention camps.

SEC. 137. INCREASE OF FEDERAL DETENTION SPACE AND THE UTILIZATION OF FACILITIES IDENTIFIED FOR CLOSURES AS A RESULT OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE REALIGNMENT ACT OF 1990.

a) Construction or Acquisition of Detention Facilities-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall construct or acquire, in addition to existing facilities 1 for the detention of aliens, at least 20 detention facilities in the United States that have the capacity to detain a combined total of not less than 20,000 individuals at any time for aliens detained pending removal or a decision on removal of such aliens from the United States subject to available appropriations.

I'll be commenting on other provisions as I read through them.

I just got my hands on the 326 page compromise immigration bill. Here's a link (pdf.) Dated May 18, it's called The Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

It's not acceptable.

The New York Times gets it right in an editorial today:

It is the nation’s duty to welcome immigrants, to treat them decently and give them the opportunity to assimilate. But if it does so according to the outlines of the deal being debated this week, the change will come at too high a price: The radical repudiation of generations of immigration policy, the weakening of families and the creation of a system of modern peonage within our borders.

Debate is scheduled to begin Monday afternoon on the bill. How can debate begin on a 326 page bill when the first many Senators will have a chance to look at it is Monday morning.

This needs to be tabled until everyone has had a full chance to digest it and kick out the worst provisions. Otherwise it will be like the Patriot Act, passed in haste and repented for years to come.

I do not know who Monroe Anderson is, but I liked this column:

. . . Rather than deftly acting to bring the troops home, the Democrats continue their eye-shifting and throat-clearing while the killing and dying go on and on. Last week, the new majority party yielded to the oxymoron argument that we have to support the troops by keeping them in the line of fire. The Feingold-Reid Iraq Bill that would have cut the funding and thereby forced the president to bring the troops home was defeated Wednesday in the Senate. . . . The Americans who voted the Democrats into power have been let down. Instead of counting on the Democrats to deliver on their implicit promise to end the occupation, we continue to count the costs of not correcting Bush's calamitous course.

Read the whole thing.

Atrios reports on his discussions on the Sam Seder Show today regarding Iraq and the 2008 race:

Just finished chatting with Ellen Ratner and Lawrence O'Donnell on Seder's show. O'Donnell's under the impression that a year from now the Republican candidate for president will be against the war, or at least talking about getting out of it. I disagree, as I don't think there's any way they can climb out of the rhetorical trap they've placed them selves in (surrender dates, defeatocrats, have to fight them there, etc...) given that George W. Bush won't provide them with an opening for that. O'Donnell's comparison point was Nixon in 1968 . .

I think Nixon in 1968 is an apt comparison, to the Democratic Presidential candidates. You see, I don't expect whomever is elected President to end the Iraq Debacle for many years after 2008. After all, who wants to run for reelection having "lost Iraq?"

Of course they are ridiculous to fear being labelled as having lost Iraq, but fear it they will. They all fear what the Beltway Gasbags will say.

Here's one more reason to shake your head in disgust at the beleaguered Texas Youth Commission:

The agency that runs Texas' juvenile prison system said it will release 226 inmates after a review found their sentences were improperly extended. Advocates for Texas Youth Commission inmates and their families have complained that sentences are often extended inconsistently or in retaliation for filing grievances.

Jay Kimbrough, who is heading an investigation into allegations of physical and sexual abuse at the agency's facilities, formed a panel to review the records of nearly all inmates with extended sentences. The six-member panel, which included community activists and prosecutors, reviewed the cases of 1,027 inmates.

CNN reports the U.S. says seven soldiers were killed in Iraq yesterday, six by roadside bombs.

The Times Online has a feature article today saying time is running out on the two clocks running in Iraq -- the clock to beat the insurgents and the clock on the U.S. public's willingness to put up with Bush and his war.

Australian detainee David Hicks was flown back to Australia yesterday on a chartered jet.

He will serve 7 months in an Australian prison and then be freed.

The Australian Government says it will not enforce the ban on Hicks telling his story when his sentence ends in December -- he just won't be allowed to profit from it.

Australia was being mum on the details of the flight, no John Mark Karr moments disclosed of champagne and gourmet food -- but it did leak that the movie he watched was "The Departed."

Professor Jack Balkin has a fascinating post discussing Bruce Ackerman's theory of Constitutional moments, hos own theory of Constitutional change by partisan entrenchment and the possible Constitutional referendum of 2008. Balkin writes:

Both we [Balkin and his co-theorist Sanford Levinson] and Ackerman agree that if the public keeps returning a party to the White House, eventually this will result in changes in constitutional doctrine. For Ackerman, however, something more is needed-- a self-conscious mobilization on the part of the electorate demanding a constitutional transformation. Our explanation of the New Deal transformation is that the public kept reelecting Franklin Roosevelt to the White House and Democrats to the Senate, so that Roosevelt was able to replace eight Justices by the time the Court decided United States v. Darby and Wickard v. Filburn. If you keep returning the same party to the White House over and over again, eventually you are going to get significant changes in constitutional doctrine. Ackerman agrees, but argues that what was crucial was that the American public in the 1936 election self consciously sought and approved of constitutional transformation.

More...