DOA?
Today's big news, of course, is the immigration compromise that was announced yesterday by a bipartisan group of Senators and hailed by the White House. The proposal is problematic in a number of ways, and has been criticized from both right and left. Remarkably, I think, criticism from the left has focused mainly on the fact that under the new plan, some green cards would be awarded on the basis of merit rather than consanguinity.
A basic question, though, is whether there is any serious chance the "reform" package will become law. This morning, it was reported that the measure may not even be brought to the floor of the House:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., acknowledging deep divisions on immigration among Democrats, says she won't bring it up unless President Bush can guarantee he will produce 70 Republican backers—a tall order given GOP concerns that the bill is too lenient.
There are currently 201 Republicans in the House, so if Pelosi sticks to this position, more than one-third of them would have to commit to supporting the bill for it even to be introduced. Others can judge this better than I can, but it's hard to believe that 70 House Republicans can be persuaded to back the compromise bill.
Pelosi's reaction is interesting: obviously, she is looking for political cover. She won't make Democrats vote on the bill unless she knows in advance that it can be passed on a bipartisan basis. What that means is that Pelosi knows the measure will be unpopular with most Americans. Which raises, once again, the question: why should Republicans give Democrats the political cover they need?
