The Rasmussen Reports telephone survey released Tuesday indicates that 61 percent of likely voters believe that a child born in the U.S. to a woman who entered illegally should not automatically become a citizen. The figure is slightly increased from a similar survey in August 2010 and, according to Rasmussen, is the highest level of support seen thus far for changing the law.

King, a Republican who represents Iowa’s 5th District, introduced H.R. 140, Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011, on Jan. 5, 2011. The Iowa Independent contacted his office following release of the Rasmussen results, and in response King issued the following statement:

Americans want their borders secured, and they understand that the practice of granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens undermines border security by encouraging illegal aliens to sneak into the country,” said King. “The current practice of granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is not mandated by the U.S. Constitution. It is based on a misapplication of the 14th Amendment that needs to be addressed by Congress. We now know that 61% of Americans oppose the practice of granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, and my legislation, H.R. 140, gives Congress the means to address this issue. It is important that Congress close the birthright citizenship loophole, and this high level of support makes it much more likely that Congress will.

The latest survey results show that only 28 percent of Americans now believe that the current practice of granting birthright citizenship should continue.

King’s proposed legislation has garnered 73 sponsors, although no other member of the Iowa delegation has signed on. It has been referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement where King serves as vice-chairman.

The bill seeks to amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act so that a newborn would only become a citizen if one of its parents are a U.S. citizen or national, a lawful permanent resident alien in the U.S. or an alien performing service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

A similar bill, S.723, was introduced earlier this month in the U.S. Senate by Sen. David Vitter (R-Louisiana) and has garnered three co-sponsors.

The issue of birthright citizenship, which King has previously referred to as “anchor babies,” has been on King’s to-do list for some time.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has sponsored the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act “to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” #

GOP representatives from Florida Sandy Adams, Jeff Miller, Richard Nugent, Bill Posey, Dennis Ross, Cliff Stearns and Allen West cosponsored the Act. #

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., earlier this month filed a similar version of this bill, cosponsored by three other GOP senators. #

Rasmussen Report adds that  the survey of 1,000 likely voters was conducted on April 17 and 18, 2011. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points, with a 95 percent level of confidence. #

It also highlights that “while most voters favor stronger enforcement of immigration laws 55% of voters nationwide also are at least somewhat concerned that efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants will end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens. Forty-two percent (42%) don’t share that concern. This includes 21% who are Very Concerned and 12% who are Not At All Concerned.” #

He traces the oil spill narrative roughly like this: Outcry about the environmental effects of the spill turned into concerns about the moratorium on drilling, which, when the moratorium was lifted, turned into everybody moving on to something else.

At first, it seemed like an inevitability that the oil spill would become a major issue in the midterm elections. And in some cases it was — Grimm points to Florida Gov. Charlie Crist’s early Senate campaign rhetoric on the environmental impacts of the spill, and I’ve written before about how Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.) zeroed in on the drilling moratorium.

But oil spill rhetoric has faded significantly for a number of reasons. The first is time. It’s been more than six months since the spill, and the incident rarely gets front-page billing these days. The second, as Grimm points out, is the administration’s decision to overturn the moratorium. The decision took some of the wind out of arguments that the administration was destroying the Gulf economy, though Sens. Vitter and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) have both raised concerns that new drilling rules will slow the pace of new drilling.

The third is a little more complicated. On the one hand, many Democrats seem reluctant to make the oil spill an election issue, because in doing so, they would have to acknowledge one embarrassing little detail: The Senate has failed to pass an oil spill response bill. On the other hand, many Republicans would have to reconcile their support for expanded offshore drilling with the obvious safety concerns. At the end of the day, it’s a thorny issue for both sides of the aisle.

After the midterms, once our elected officials trek back to D.C. to do the less glamorous job of legislating, the big question is this: How will Congress deal with offshore drilling? Right now, it’s unclear. The momentum to pass an oil spill response bill is gone, and with it go the prospects that we’ll see stand-alone legislation on the issue. While it could come up in the lame-duck session, it seems more likely that oil spill response provisions will make their way into a broader energy bill next year that will focus on low-hanging fruit issues like electric vehicles and efficiency, possibly paired with a renewable energy standard. Of course, the outcome of the midterm elections will likely determine the lame-duck agenda.

Just how stringent oil spill response provisions will be depends largely on the outcome of behind-the-scenes liability negotiations between, among others, Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who would prefer unlimited liability on any company responsible for a spill, and Sens. Landrieu and Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who are trying to devise a mechanism by which companies can pool their liability in the event of a large disaster.

The moratorium was imposed in the aftermath of the BP oil spill, which dumped 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The administration has issued new offshore drilling rules as a result of the spill, and Michael Bromwich, head of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, is putting the finishing touches on a report on the moratorium that will determine when and how the administration will lift the drilling ban.

Gulf Coast lawmakers are vehemently opposed to the moratorium, arguing that it adds an additional layer of economic hardship on the already-hurting region. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) put a hold on Jack Lew, President Obama’s nominee to head the White House Office of Management and Budget over the moratorium.

The administration has said that drilling will not immediately resume after the moratorium is lifted as companies will need to comply with new drilling rules. Calls to the White House and the Interior Department were not immediately returned.

The non-partisan Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Louisiana wasn’t amused by the add — they told a local TV station Thursday that Vitter’s immigration spot is “totally abhorrent and shocking” and “racist” in its depiction of illegal immigrants. “In this ad, he has these Hollywood stereotypes, caricature-types portraying Latino workers,” a spokeswoman from the Chamber said. “First of all, he uses the word ‘illegal’ so many times.”

Latino groups have pushed for politicians and media to stop using the word “illegal” in referring to undocumented immigrants, arguing its bad connotations create “an environment of hate.”

It isn’t Vitter’s first controversy over anti-illegal immigration campaign ads. Vitter also came under fire in the past week when ThinkProgress discovered he and Nevada GOP candidate Sharron Angle used the same stock photo to illustrate illegal immigrants. (Ironically, the photo is of Mexican citizens in Mexico, according to the photographer.) Angle’s ad, which is based on a rather dubious claim that opponent Harry Reid’s policies favor the undocumented over Americans, has also been criticized for its depiction of illegal immigrants:

“Sharron Angle is going way over the line with her anti-Latino campaign ads,” said Adam Luna, political director of America’s Voice. “While claiming to target the issue of unauthorized immigration, her campaign puts out a mailer demonizing the entire country of Mexico and her television ads paint a sinister picture of Dream Act-eligible youth who are, in reality, the poster children for the American success story. This is race-baiting at its worst, just like the Bush ‘Willie Horton’ ad or the Jesse Helms ‘hands’ ad. But in a state like Nevada, with its growing Latino population, this sort of thing may very well come back to bite Nevada Republicans where it hurts.”

While it is never a good thing for candidates to be accused of racism, it’s unclear to what extant outrage over the ads will impact Vitter and Angle’s campaigns. Both candidates have staked out hard-line stances on illegal immigration that are likely to scare off many Latino voters, a majority of whom support comprehensive immigration reform and favor Democratic candidates. Luna is right: The Latino vote is important in Nevada, where Latinos make up 26 percent of the population. But if Angle is not going to win Latino voters anyway, she may be tempted to play to her base with ads that overstate her opponent’s support for illegal immigrants.

The industry has given about $17 million to various House and Senate candidates this election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. At this rate, the industry is expected to spend much more than it did in 2006, according to the center.

Sen. David Vitter, who hold a steady lead over his Democratic challenger, Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.), in the race to keep his Senate seat, has received the most oil industry money so far. Vitter, like many Louisiana politicians, has been a vehement opponent of the Obama administration’s moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. He has also backed Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-La.) decision to put a hold on President Obama’s nominee for director of the Office of Management and Budget until the administration overturns the moratorium.

Here is the Center for Responsive Politics’ list of the Senate candidates who received the most money from PACs associated with the oil and gas industry:

And the House candidates that received the most oil and gas industry money:

According to the poll, Vitter would receive 54 percent of the vote and Melancon would receive 33 percent.

Things don’t look good for Melancon, even after Vitter weathered a number of high-profile controversies, most recently when a top aide resigned over domestic violence and drunken driving charges.

Now that the primaries are over and the campaigns will shift their focus to November full time, it may be worth taking another look at my story on oil spill politics and the Vitter-Melancon race. (I wrote it before the primary in anticipation of the candidates facing each other.)

Expect the moratorium on deepwater drilling to continue to be a campaign issue. And of course, the oil spill broadly will continue to color the race.

According to a poll conducted by WWL-TV and other local Louisiana stations, 48 percent of voters would reelect Vitter and 36 percent would vote for Melancon. Vitter’s lead is smaller than a June Rasmussen poll, which put Vitter ahead by 18 percentage points.

But both Vitter and Melancon have to win their Aug. 28 primary battles. Vitter has a competitive primary, with former Louisiana Supreme Court Justice Chet Traylor. But the poll shows that voters overwhelmingly prefer Vitter.

According to WWL-TV:

In the Republican primary, Vitter scores 74 percent of the vote. Former Supreme Court Justice Chet Traylor gets 5 percent and physician Nick Accardo earns 3 percent. “Undecided” gets the second highest number in the contest: 18 percent.

The poll also shows Melancon easily winning the Democratic primary.

For more, check out my story on oil spill politics in the Vitter/Melancon race

The new part is that Vitter’s Senate office expense account records indicate that the office paid for Furer to return home to Louisiana on two separate occasions — both of which line up with court appearances Furer was scheduled to make related to his 2004 DWI back in Baton Rouge. The news casts further doubt on Vitter’s claim that he was unaware of Furer’s multiple DWI charges until the media reported them in June.

Vitter’s challenger for the Senate seat, Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.) wasted no time in getting up a new video on his website that charges that “David Vitter paid for Brent Furer’s defense… with taxpayer dollars.” It’s just the latest attack that Melancon has launched against Vitter’s questionable character, but so far none seem to be making a significant dent in his polling numbers, most of which still show Vitter up by around 10 points.