Continued from Amnesty, shamnesty. Maybe it'll die in the Senate, which was getting too long to suit me.

Senate Debates Immigration Reform Bill

WASHINGTON —  The Senate takes up Monday a complex immigration reform bill expected to receive criticism from both sides of the aisle but which several lawmakers predict is the best chance to get legislation passed to address the millions of illegal immigrants in the United States.

The centerpiece of the new legislation is a "Z visa," to be offered to some 12 million illegals if they pay fines, learn English and return to their countries to file paperwork. That would set them on their way toward permanent residency.

Separately, a temporary guest worker program would be set up to allow foreign nationals to work in the U.S. for up to three two-years stints provided they return to their home country for a year in between each work period.

The White House hopes to get the bill through the Senate by Memorial Day, but that may not happen though a test vote is scheduled for late Monday.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., threatening a filibuster, said it is "unthinkable" that the Senate would complete the measure this week.

"I'm prepared to use whatever tactics are appropriate to resist that," Sessions said. ...

Jeff Sessions would make a damned fine VP except for the minor detail of a President from Tennessee and a VP from Alabama bein' a might hard to sell to the rest of the country. Maybe as a running mate for Giuliani or Romney if enough people are too dumb to vote for Fred! in the primaries. Repeating something I said in Part 1 of this post:

Friends and neighbors, the best we can hope for under the current administration is no action of any sort on immigration. I realize that's a gamble. The bill currently under consideration is a wonderful bill compared to what we can expect under an Clinton or Obama administration, but if either of them ends up in the White House immigration is going to be a minor issue compared to the other problems we'll have anyway. As long as we keep the 12 or 20 or 30 million people who are in this country illegally illegal there's at least hope that under a Thompson administration an actual reasonable compromise can be worked out and actually implemented. Stall for time, people, stall for time.

Below the fold:

• Conservatives Trying To Slow Down The Runaway Immigration Reform Train
• Don't Run for the Border
• Why People Who Hate The Immigration Bill Should Back The Immigration Bill
• Cloture Means You Never Have To Say You're Sorry

*** *** *** Fold (but please don't spindle or mutilate) *** *** ***

Conservatives Trying To Slow Down
The Runaway Immigration Reform Train

Key senators and the White House are eager to push their bipartisan immigration deal through the Senate by Memorial Day, but as the Senate opened debate on the issue Monday, hope for that deadline was slipping.

Critics of the measure denounced its key elements, including its quick grant of legal status to millions of unlawful immigrants, and said they would seek to revise it.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said it was "unthinkable" that the Senate would complete the measure this week, issuing a thinly veiled filibuster threat should proponents try to speed it through.

"I'm prepared to use whatever tactics are appropriate to resist that," Sessions told reporters, before he took to the Senate floor to launch an afternoon-long speech outlining his worries about the bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he had reservations about the bipartisan agreement, calling it a "starting point" for reshaping immigration policy. ...

Tensions run high on immigration, and the bargain reached last week sparked intramural hostility between Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who had a bitter exchange during the last closed-door meeting before a deal was announced.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said she has "great concerns about the bill," and announced she would seek to alter it to mandate that illegal immigrants go back to their home countries before gaining legal status.

Under the proposal, that requirement only applies to heads of households seeking green cards and a path to citizenship. The estimated 12 million immigrants here unlawfully could obtain visas to live and work in the U.S. indefinitely without returning home.

"I do have concerns that people can come here and not ever have to go back and get right with the system," Hutchison said.

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, has warned that the immigration debate is likely to tie up the Senate for a while.

The bill would toughen border security and create strict workplace enforcement rules to prevent illegal immigrants from getting jobs. It would also institute a new point system to prioritize employability over family ties in deciding who can immigrate to the U.S. in the future.

The White House has begun an active lobbying effort to drum up support for the measure, especially among Republicans who voted against an immigration overhaul last year.

President Bush is still hoping to sign the bill by summer's end, said Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman.  ...

***

Don't Run for the Border 
America needs comprehensive immigration reform, but not a law enacted in haste.
John Fund

It's understandable that the White House and its Senate negotiating partners want to rush through the compromise immigration bill they agreed to Thursday. Supporters acknowledge that the delicately balanced legislation could collapse if a single destructive amendment is attached to it. Its sponsors admit they want to minimize the political debate. "We all know this issue can be caught up in extracurricular politics unless we move forward as quickly as possible," says Sen. John McCain, a key architect of the bill.

But this is no way to debate the most sweeping change to our nation's immigration laws in two decades--especially since the last comprehensive attempt, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, failed so spectacularly. The new bill is set to pass with much less analysis in the Senate than the 1986 law, known as Simpson-Mazzoli, had. Senators did not even receive the bill draft until midnight Saturday. After a test vote scheduled for today, Majority Leader Harry Reid is planning a final vote on the bill this Thursday, only one week after the compromise was struck. Shouldn't senators have time to actually read the bill they're being asked to vote on?

Even a key supporter of the bill, Sen. Jon Kyl or Arizona, admitted to radio host Hugh Hewitt that "we don't have to rush the bill through the Senate in a week. . . . Hopefully, the majority leader would allow it to carry over beyond the Memorial Day recess so we could complete it." ...

Why the rush? Because, to be blunt, the senators don't trust the American people to make sound judgments on such emotional issues as family reunification and national sovereignty. But the proper response to this is to engage the public in the discussion, not to short-circuit the deliberative process. One of the reasons the American people are cynical about government is that they don't believe its officials take the time to discharge their duties properly. Now a 1,000 page immigration bill is being put before senators for a vote without anyone having the time to study its details. Many will merely be leaning on talking points prepared by their staff.

There is no doubt that the lack of deliberation will create surprises if the bill passes. Last year the Senate passed, but the House never took up, an 850-page immigration bill. Among the reasons the bill died in the House was that members were furious about last-minute Senate amendments. One required the U.S. to consult with Mexican officials before any new fence construction could take place along the border. Another allowed for discounted in-state tuition at state colleges and universities for illegal aliens who reside in those states. Legal immigrants and citizens who resided in other states would still have had to pay the full price.

The irony is that this is the Internet age. The entire immigration bill could and should be posted online in a format that would allow changes to be instantaneously added and highlighted. We pay our legislators well to represent us and evaluate legislation, but the immigration bill would probably benefit by giving constituents the ability to look over their shoulders and shine a light on provisions that might sink the bill further along in the legislative process. ...

***

Glenn Reynolds writes:

WHY PEOPLE WHO HATE THE IMMIGRATION BILL SHOULD BACK THE IMMIGRATION BILL: Okay, I had this thought last night as I was drifting off to sleep. But the Nyquil wore off and I still think it may make sense.

Lots of people think that the immigration bill stinks, and want to punish the GOP by staying home in 2008. Fair enough. But if you plan to punish the GOP in 2008, then you might want to support the immigration bill now. Why? Because if the Democrats win the White House and Congress in 2008, you'll get a bill that you like a whole lot less! So if you plan to punish the Republicans later, you should encourage them to pass their bill now . . . .

There's got to be something wrong with this analysis, I just can't figure out what it is. Anyone? Kaus? Anyone?

Mickey Kaus has thoughts here.

***

Cloture Means You Never Have To Say You're Sorry 
Ed Morrissey

For those who have tried reason, patience, and calm, the Senate will make all three a waste of time later today or tomorrow morning. Depending on which source one gets, advocates of the immigration reform compromise will seek cloture on debate in order to limit the discussion of the legislation -- and compound the impression that they are rushing for a reason:

If the reports of the scheduling of a cloture vote for tonight on the draft immigration bill are correct --I have read them, but haven't seen or heard any official comment on it-- the Republican senators who vote for it should expect lasting damage to their standing in the party. Very few --if any-- senators have read the final bill, and having spent hours this weekend studying the Friday night draft, I know the complexities here are far too great to puzzle out in even a couple of weeks' time. Demanding cloture today or even this week is a giveaway that the bill is fundamentally flawed. It will also be a lasting marker of contempt for their supporters' opinions on the part of those senators voting to end debate before it has even begun.

This bill has many complexities that have to be researched and analyzed before anyone can think about limiting debate. So far, I have not even heard that the legislation has been entered into the record -- so no one even has an official copy of the bill. That means that advocates want to press for approval before anyone reads it and has a chance to offer improvements. What exactly does that say about this legislation?

And what exactly is the rush? This proposal purports to solve a number of problems -- border security, the status of 12 million people illegally residing in our country, labor management for low-skilled jobs, and the creation of a vast bureaucracy to handle all of these projects. All address problems that have existed for 21 years. Can't we take a couple of weeks, at least, to peruse the bill to make sure it does it effectively?

And if not, why not? ...

I've moved the item that used to be here to the top of this post.