UPDATE: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on Bloomberg this morning:

Well, the compromise bill has some good points, but it also has some big holes in my opinion. I think that not having any requirement that a person go home to apply before coming in legally is a gaping hole. And I’m concerned about the impact on our Social Security system of people who got quarters credited illegally being able to use those quarters to go into our Social Security system. Those are two areas where I think we must strengthen the bill.

Senator Hutchison is signaling that the McCain jam down is in serious trouble. There are many other "big holes" in the bill as noted below.  Expect other GOP senators to underscore them throughout the day.  There is no way the bill gets through the Senate this week, and the Memorial Day recess will expose the GOP caucus to the base's boiling anger with the bill --and Senator McCain.

ORIGINAL POST

My 72 hours with the draft immigration bill began with an interview with Tony Snow and concluded yesterday afternoon. It yielded just under 10,000 words, spread over a dozen posts. I have had some requests to make the posts available in an easy-to-print and e-mail format, so here they are, beginning with Part 1 of the analysis. Posts on the interview with Tony, the e-mail from the Border Patrol agent, and one on the GOP's predicament follow the series on the draft bill itself. Be sure to read Dean's excellent summary of the situation the GOP finds itself in below. Then call GOP Senate Leader McConnell, GO Senate Whip Lott, and third-in-command Jon Kyl at 202-225-3121 to express your views. You can also examine the bill most easily by using N.Z. Bear's online version which also allows for comments on a section-by-section basis --a model that the Congress might consider using before announcing a John McCain jam down.

Reading The Fine Print, Part 1: Does The First Exception Swallow The Triggers Whole?

Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 3:08 PM

The draft of the immigration bill was released just before midnight last night, and I have now printed off all of its 326 pages and have begun reading it.

The obvious injustice of demanding a fast track to a cloture vote is the complexity of this law. Page 1, paragraph one, for example, purports to establish the much acclaimed "triggers," but begins with a cross reference to an exception to the trigger:

Translation: Except for those illegal aliens qualifying under Section 601(h), no illegal aliens can obtain new status until the Secretary of Homeland Security sends the president and Congress a letter saying all triggers have been met.

The proposed bill goes on to detail the triggers which include the hiring of Border Patrol agents until 18,000 are on staff, the construction of at least 200 miles of vehicular barriers and 360 miles of fencing, the end of "catch and return," the establishment and use of new enforcement tools designed to keep illegals from working, and the processing of applications of aliens for Z status.

The unreasonability of the schedule for debate on this bill is exemplified by the citation to Section 601(h), which begins on page 260 of the draft bill. Thus to even begin to review the draft bill you have to know how to read such a provision and be able to print off the bill or how to work the unwieldy online draft at NationalReview.com.

When you find Section 601(h), you may be surprised to read that the exception to the triggers appears to be enormously large:

Section 601(h)(2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) lay out additional provisions concerning this huge --indeed almost certainly 90% plus?-- portion of the illegals currently in the country that are not subject to the "triggers," and even notes in subparagraph (5) that if an illegal is arrested or detained prior to filing his or her application for Z permit status, "the Secretary shall provide the alien with a reasonable opportunity to file an application under this section after such regulations are promulgated." Unless the computer spits out a no within 2 days of submitting the application, the illegal gets probationary Z status --before even one more mile of fence is built or a workplace verification system is constructed.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I can only read Section 601(h) as a massive undercutting of the entire concept of "triggers," an undercutting which various talking points have not underscored or quantified, which points to why the jam down demanded by Senator McCain is so reprehensible. Ordinary citizens have almost zero chance of figuring out what this bill intends and how its provisions will interact, and the proxies on whom they might rely will hardly have any opportunity to fully vet the language.

As I noted below, the president and the GOP Senate leadership need to postpone any cloture vote until the law is examined, debated and amended.

Reading The Fine Print: Part 2: Title I --Who's Blowing All That Smoke?

Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 11:22 AM

A close read of Title I gives the impression that the drafters understood they'd be better off exhausting the reader with promises and declarations of good intentions before getting to the provisions of consequence.

Thus we have in Title I:

Are your eyes irritated by all the smoke?

I think it is quite possible that every single provision called for in Title I except the increase in the authorized number of PB agents and the requirement of $5,000 bail before the release of an alien from noncontiguous countries could be accomplished by executive order.

So Title I is about 85% filler. What about the increase in border patrol agents in Sec. 101?

The draft bill calls for "not less" that 2,000 in fiscal year '07, 2,400 in '08, and 2,400 more in each fiscal year through 2012, for a total of 14,000 over six years.

But of course appropriators are not bound by this direction: authorized doesn't mean funded. A serious enforcement bill would have authorized an increase of up to 14,000 in fiscal year '07 and beyond, and laid down a real trigger of funded and deployed at some level telegraphing seriousness of purpose.

Title I doesn't inspire confidence to say the least. It does no harm, of course, though paper shuffling and useless commissions aren't exactly cost-free.

A note on the bail provision. Sec. 1 promised the end of "catch and release" by pledging a "catch and return" policy. But the bail requirement of Section 113 seems to provide well-off illegal entrants with a "catch, pay, and release" option that --in practice-- would benefit an odd group of illegal entrants: those with financial resources, which may in fact be the very people we most want to question, correct? Section 113 is an amendment to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a)(2), which currently reads:

Sec. 113 "RELEASE OF ALIENS FROM NONCONTIGUOUS COUNTRIES" reads:

If you wanted to end "catch and release," wouldn't the law simply declare that no bond shall be available and the alien to be detained until such time as he or she can be returned to the country of origin? There may be an explanation here that eludes me, but it looks like "catch and release" is simply not outlawed by the new law, only made less automatic.

On to Title II.

Reading The Fine Print, Part 3: Title II: Send Lawyers, Clerks, Judges, And Background Checks

Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 12:16 PM

Title II takes us into the tall weeds of immigration law and practice, and I yield the floor to anyone who actually practices in the area, and assume that the changes proposed to various standards and proceedings are sound ones which reflect a consensus among practitioners as to overdue reforms.

Title II opens up with a substantial hike in trial attorneys for various agencies, adjudicators, judicial clerks and immigration judges etc. Fine. This assumes a much greater caseload, the result it seems of an anticipated upsurge in prosecutions (though given the enormous regularization that is also going to be unleashed by the bill, it seems counter-intuitive to assume a spike upward in caseload when nearly all of the immigrants in the country illegally will suddenly be immunized from prosecution, but I digress.)

There are useful new crimes detailed, such as Sec. 1541's criminalization of "Trafficking in passports," and Section 1543's "Forgery and unlawful production of passports." Sec. 1545's "Schemes to defraud aliens" stands out as not part of immigration reform per se, but as a very vague and potentially far-reaching new federal crime:

Law schools with Immigration Clinics had better take a long look at this one before a 2L gets carried away with his or her advice.

You'll be pleased to know that Sec. 213 prohibits the sale or possession of firearms by "certain aliens."

You will be alarmed, perhaps, that elsewhere the Secretary is ordered to study "alternatives to detention," which is odd since the end of catch and release is so prominently advertised as a selling point of the new law.

By far the most interesting aspect of Title II is "Sec. 216: STREAMLINED PROCESSING OF BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFITS"

I brought up in my interview with Tony Snow Friday the fact that everyone knows the federal governmnt simply lacks the ability to conduct millions of background checks on the illegal aliens who will be regularized by the law. The law provides they get probationary status upon filing their forms, so imagine a stack of 12 to 20 million folders, each full of a variety of documents. Anyone who has ever processed a loan application or checked references for a job applicant knows what happens next --a long, time-consuming an inexact hunt for confirming information which, more often than not, is abandoned and the paper pushed on.

Sec. 216 wonderfully looks ahead into the future of the background check program, and declares that

The section also authorizes the FBI to receive "such sums as are necessary for fiscal years 2008 to 2012 for enhancements to existing systems for conducting background and security checks necessary to support immigration security and orderly processing of applications," but does not begin to quantify what those sums are, or how the FBI --in a time of real terror threats such as the Fort Dix Six-- is supposed to staff up for the deluge.

The section also wants a report six months after the convening of the task force which will provide (A) a description of the background and security program; (B) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays associated with different types of immigration applications; (C) a statistical breakdown of the background and security check delays by applicant country of origin and (D) the steps that the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is taking to expedite background and security checks that have been pending for more than 180 days.

This section tells us that the bill's drafters are anticipated system breakdown and perhaps even paralysis. They are convening the scapegoat search two years before the first application is due because there is simply no way that the proposed application process can work.

We are about to swamp the FBI with a tidal wave of paperwork. Not only is this foolish in the extreme, the hint that "country of origin" might be a marker worth examining in the future suggests that we know going in that we won't be able to verify much of the data on criminal backgrounds from some countries where justice systems either don't exist or aren't credible --say Afghanistan and Somalia.

But what happens with such applications? The applicants receive probationary benefits, and their applications get pushed further and further into corners of offices overwhelmed with folders until, eventually, they are thrown out.

Perhaps the draft law has some provisions deeper in about managing this obvious impossibility, but it seems that this would have been the place to put the answers --if there were any.

Reading The Fine Print, Part 4: A Huge New Tax On Business

Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 1:47 PM

Title III contains the details of the promised crack-down on employers employing illegal aliens.

Title III has teeth. “Big pointy teeth that could mangle a man in a minute” as was said of the Killer Rabbit in Monty Python and The Holy Grail.

Section 302(e) (p. 116 of the draft released Friday night at just before midnight) spells out that each instance of hiring or continuing to employ an unauthorized alien will cost the employer $5,000. Employers previously fined for doing so fork over $25K per illegal alien, and three-strikers get hit for $75K each.

There are also record keeping violations of $1,000 per violation, which will send a shudder down the backs of honest employers who work hard to jeep the illegal aliens out of their workforce but who recognize in paperwork compliance penalties the ultimate blackjack for an out-of-temper bureaucrat.

Criminal penalties are available under 302(f) (p. 122) for employers engaging in a “pattern or practice of knowing violations.”

The ruse of using contractors to avoid the law is supposedly banished under Section 302(a)(3):

For purposes of this section, an employer who uses a contract, subcontract, or exchange to obtain the labor of an alien in the United States knowing that the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (b)(1) with respect to performing such labor shall be considered to have hired the alien for employment in the United States in violation of paragraph (1)(A).

Much depends upon the standard applied to “knowing,” and I can’t figure that out on my first read. If there is any obligation to affirmatively check a contractors’ employees, vast changes are afoot in the U.S. labor markets.

At first glance the costs associated with this new workplace system are huge, and I would have expected the Chamber of Commerce and others to strenuously resist transfer of the costs of immigration enforcement from the federal government to the private sector. There are some significant penalties here that ordinary businesses will simply be stunned to discover especially in the paperwork department.

The willingness to go along suggests that there’s a loophole the size of a black hole hidden within the text, and again we are taken to the loophole of “probationary Z visas,” discussed in my first post on the bill’s fine print.

In Section 302(c) are listed the documents that will satisfy an employers’ burden, and there in 302(c)(1)(B)(iii) is the answer:

Back to the immediate issuance of the probationary cards we go. The plan anticipates millions of probationary cards being issued in the immediate aftermath of the law’s passage subject to background checks which will at best be conducted months or years down the road, and possibly never. Employers will be quick to help their employees get their probationary cards and thus insulate themselves from the fines or even prosecution at least until the government catches up with its flood of probationary status applications, which as the previous post noted, isn’t likely to occur in a timely fashion, if ever.

I will leave it to software engineers to inspect the details of the proposed EEVS, but want to point out that the drafters employed some powerful language on page 107 in setting out the appeal procedures for liability determinations:

The specifics of the appeals process aren’t interesting. What matters is that the drafters used the magic language of “notwithstanding any other law” to sweep the path free of any other obstacles based on previous laws.

That’s exactly the sort of language the construction of the fence and the implementation of other border security measures requires, but which I have not yet found in the text.

Reading The Fine Print, Part 5: No Illiterate Nonimmigrants

Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 1:58 PM

Title IV is the "NEW TEMPORARY WORKER PROGRAM"and it runs 94 pages. These are the "Y visa" people, and I'll leave it to others to assess this section. I note just two provisions.

Section 218A ADMISSION OF Y NONIMMIGRANTS provides in subparagraph (d)(5)(C) that the applicant must (i)certify by signature that he or she "has read and understands all the questions and statements on the application form, (ii)certify under penalty of perjury that all statements are true and correct, and (iii) agree to the release of any information in the application for law enforcement purposes.

So we have the assurance of every future Y Visa worker being literate and bound by their oath not to have perjured themselves.

There is also, in subparagraph (m) "EVIDENCE OF NONIMMIGRANT STATUS" the assurance that each "y nonimmigrant shall be issued documentary evidence of nonimmigrant status, which...(3)may be accepted during the period of its validity by an employer as evidence of employment authorization and identity under section 274A(b)(1)(B)." The Y Visa thus seems to allow the holder to change jobs once inside the U.S., which is contrary to my understanding --which could be wrong as the bill is 630 pages-- that Y Visa holders were coming into the U.S. to perform a specific job.

Reading The Fine Print, Part 6: And The Grand Total Is?

Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 2:58 PM

I do not love thee, Dr Fell,
The reason why I cannot tell;
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not love thee, Dr Fell.

Title V "IMMIGRATION BENEFITS" is beyond the comprehension of a nonspecialist. What is clear is that the law is reshuffling the deck of get-out-of-jail-free cards, and the total number of visas it authorizes over the next few years --above and beyond the Y Nonimmigrant Visas and the Z Visas for illegals already in the country-- is impossible for a layman to calculate.

But it is certainly a very high number.

Now that doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad policy. On pages 240 to 241is an interesting grid of the point system that drives the "Merit-based Immigrant" visas, and which, for examples greatly prefers M.D.s and MBA's over high school diploma holders (20 points for the former, 6 points for the latter.) High grades on English proficiency tests also provide a huge pop to the merit application, which will certainly increase the demand for ESL teachers in certain parts of the world.

But does this reshuffling make sense in the overall scheme? Impossible to say because the sponsors of the bill did not include the sort of guide that laymen must have in order to understand the tradeoffs.

Thus Title V is another exhibit in the argument of why this bill should not be scheduled for debate until supporting materials and analyses have been developed by specialists --which means at least a couple of weeks delay before Senate consideration.

Reading The Fine Print, Part 7: "There's Been A Slight Change In Your Job Description"

Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 3:05 PM

Among the many surprises in Title VI "NONIMMIGRANTS IN THE UNITED STATES PERVIOUSLY IN UNLAWFUL STATUS" is the stipulation in Section 601(f) "Eligibility Requirements," is subparagraph (7):

Let's use the low number of 12 million potential Zs, and assume that an average of 3 Zs will appear for each interview, which means the feds need to schedule, conduct and write-up 4 million interviews. Is it fair to allocate, say, 2 hours per interview set-up, completion and follow up? So we need 8 million federal manhours.

Are these DHS hours? And which employees are tasked with the interview process? The bill is silent.

You should be pleased to learn that ineligibility for the nearly automatic Z status does exist, and is detailed, sort of, in Section 601(d)(1): "GROUNDS OF INELIGIBILITY" which include those already subject to a deportation order --luck of the draw, really-- and those for whom there are reasonable grounds for believing have committed serious criminal acts inside or outside of the U.S., and those "for whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding...as a danger to the security of the U.S.," which is pretty open ended. 601(d)(1)(B)

Also barred from Z-land under 602(d)(1)(D): An applicant who "has ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion."

What in the world is that all about? An attempt to keep out those complicit in genocide in Africa, or a bar of Hezbollah members, or simply a sort of P.C. savings clause intended to keep out the ideological riff raff.

BTW: "Polygamists, child abductors, and unlawful voters" are also ineligible under Section 601(d)(2)(A)(ii). That should help cut down on voter fraud --lose your Z status if caught.

Part of the rules of admission to Z-land is the production of proof of years of continuous presence, the forms of which are detailed in 601(i) "ADJUDICATION OF APPLICATION FILED BY ALIEN." The applicant has to come up with at least two types of reliable documents that "provide evidence of employment" which include the obvious business or employer records, union records, or "sworn affidavits from nonrelatives who have direct knowledge of the alien's work," which seem to me to become the document of choice given the understandable reluctance of employers or unions to provide the feds evidence that they had previously been law breakers,

I'm back to the nagging question of how in the world anyone thinks this paper, interview and follow-up-heavy process is really going to work? It makes sense that those under 16 and those over 65 don't have to show evidence of continuous employment (601(m)(1)(B)) and that aliens with physical or mental disability as defined by the ADA get a pass (601(m)(1)(B)(iii), but each exception or special circumstance adds an enormous burden of investigation and paperwork to the already leaning tower of bureaucratic overload.

The renewal of Z visas (601(k)) puts a premium on the showing of "an attempt to gain an understanding of the English language and knowledge of United States civics by taking the naturalization test described in sections 312(a)(1) and...by demonstrating enrollment in or placement on a waiting list for English classes."

Note that you don't actually have to learn any English or civics, just get your name on the right lists. Four years after the first Z visa issues (not the probationary ones) there is going to be a boom market in ESL and civics classes offered around the country.

By the time the second renewal comes around --8 years after the issuance of the original nonprobationary Z visa-- must pass the naturalization test, though "the alien may make up to three attempts to demonstrate such understanding and knowledge." There's an exception of course for those with physical or developmental disabilities, those over 50 who have been in the country 20+ years, and those over 55 who have been here at least 15 years.

There's much more in Title VI, including special sections for agricultural workers and for minors who entered the country illegally --they are eligible under the new law for student loans and federal work-study programs under Section 616. There's also an impossible-for-me-to-read section on Social Security benefits which seems to say no credit for years worked here as an illegal alien, though I can't be sure from the language.

Finally, under Section 601(n) the new, massive class of Z visa holders "may travel outside of the United States, and may be readmitted without having to obtain a visa if the alien's most recent period of authorized admission has not expired." (p. 278).

Thus any jihadist who got himself into the country prior to 1/1/07, worked under a cover and kept his nose clean, will now be able to legitimize his status and travel abroad to get additional instructions and/or training.

The draft act's wholesale failure to make distinctions between entrants from our hemisphere and those from across the oceans and particularly those from countries with significant jihadist networks seems startling at best.

Reading The Fine Print, Part 8: Humbug And Common Sense

Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 3:53 PM

Title VII is short, a sort of encore of common sense and humbug. The common sense is the recognition in Sec. 701 that aliens currently serving in the military don't have to get fingerprinted again. But the rest is pretty much humbug. There's a declaration of English as "the common language of the United States," followed by the announcment that this status does not "diminish or expand any existing rights under the laws of the United States relative to the services or materials provided by the Government of the United States in any language other than English." In other words, a no-effect bit of theater.

There's a provision of illegal aliens over the age of 75 and some additional funding for the "Office of Citizenship and Integration," followed by the high point of absurdity in the draft law, the establishment of the "Citizenship and Integration Councils" which looks very much like a Saturday Night Live skit. Money is to be made available "to states and municipalities for effective integration of immigrants into American society through the creation of New Americans Integrations (sic) Councils.

I nominate Mickey Kaus to the California council.

Here we are at the end of the bill and there is in fact no language whatsoever pushing the border fence forward "notwithstanding any other law."

Summary Of The Fine Print Read, And NZ's Easy To Use Text

Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 4:02 PM

UPDATE: Be sure to check out N.Z. Bear's online version of the draft immigration bill which allows for section-by-section comments.

His post explaining his effort is here.

I have spent a lot of my weekend reading the draft bill as was requested by both Jon Kyl and Tony Snow, and not just of me, but of all critics. Here are the relevant posts in order of their appearance:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

There are so many problems with this bill that it should not be introduced in the Senate absent a period of open hearings on it and the solicitation of expert opinion from various analysts across the ideological spectrum. Even were it somehow to improbably make its way to the president's desk, if it does so before these problems are aired and confronted, the Congress would be inviting a monumental distrust of the institution. There is simply too much here to say "Trust us," and move on. The jam down of such a far reaching measure, drafted in secret and very difficult for laymen much less lawyers to read, is fundamentally inconsistent with how we govern ourselves.

For more crucial background, see Powerline's entry on the McCain-Cornyn shouting match.

And Thinking Right has a focus on one aspect of the law which deals with disabled illegal aliens.

From A Border Patrol Agent

Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 10:55 AM

In a post below I referenced an e-mail from a Border Patrol agent. I have now receievd his permission to post it:

It seems to me that the draft bill needs to increase not only the amount of fence constructed prior to the first "probationary Z visa" issues, but also another30%+ hike in the number of BP agents.

Immigration Reform And The GOP

Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 12:43 PM

If you are "deport-them-all" anti-illegal immigration absolutist, you won't like this post. But if, like the vast majority of Republicans, you understand the need to regularize most of the millions of people in the country illegally, read on.

First, read my interview with Tony Snow for background.

Next, understand that Senator Jon Kyl is a great American who in essence volunteered to conduct the political equivalent of a suicide mission, and that Tony Snow has been tasked with defending the result. Both are superb public servants and great conservatives, as is the president that Tony works for and with whom Senator Kyl is a partner. The fiasco of the past week may have been a necessary part of achieving clarity on the bill, and Senator Kyl’s request for a close reading of the bill is one every serious conservative ought to grant..

The extraordinary blowback against the Senate "deal" has its source in three realities: First, John McCain issued one of his famous diktats which was guaranteed to rend the GOP and he did it with the usual “screw you” tone (a tone he has taken to using with his Senate colleagues.) Dean’s got a theory on why Senator McCain acts this way, which is interesting –even compelling-- but also irrelevant to the damage the Arizona senator routinely inflicts on the GOP.

In addition to the terrible branding the bill got thanks to Senator McCain, the key issues for more than a majority of the conservatives were compromised away –border security and citizenship as opposed to residency. Some additional problems come with the award of social security benefits for years worked illegally in the country, etc.

Finally, the arrogance of announcing that a deal has been reached when it hadn’t even been written combined with the jam down schedule for Senate consideration of the vast bill struck many as the ultimate insult: Here is a vital bill of incredible importance on a subject that has been passionately debated for years, and the people aren’t even invited to the debate or given the text on around which the debate revolves. That is not how a republic operates, especially for people who take their citizenship seriously.

So, can the situation be salvaged? Only if the Democrats want a bill more than they want some short-term political advantage, and only if the White House realizes how badly it managed the rollout.

First, if Senator Kyl is willing to take another one for the team, he has to announce the revisions in the collective GOP position made in response to the tidal wave of criticism. Senator Kyl alone has the sort of standing with the GOP base as to make the revisions credible. If Senator Kyl comes forward with a half dozen revisions which the GOP will insist on, including construction of the entire fence and additional barriers that were authorized last year’s law prior to the beginning of the “paperwork period” for regularization and very clear, very easily quoted language that citizenship is not open to anyone who entered the country illegally for at least the 18 years an ordinary American born here must wait to exercise his or her franchise, the DOA bill will begin to show signs of life. The benefits question also looms large, as does the national security question: We should not treat Mexicans and Central American illegal immigrants the same as young men from Arab or Central Asian countries, period. This means a deeper, thorough background check of those who come from lands with very well-developed jihadist networks, but we cannot reasonably do anything else if national security matters. We cannot pass over the prospect that jihadist sleeper cells are in this country illegally that would be legitimized and empowered by the proposed "compromise." Similarly, the proposed expansion of the Border Patrol is simply not enough –I hope to get permission to post an e-mail below that I received from a Border Patrol agent on this subject. Enough of incrementalism –get the force to its necessary size for an era of global terror networks,

Finally, the debate on the Senate floor and the final version of the bill that will go to the House should take place before cloture is voted upon. Before the final Senate version is agreed to the Senate shoudl not guarantee passage over the cloture hurdle so often employed by the Democrats over the first six years of the Bush Administration. Here is where Republicans expect Leader McConnell to insist on the rights of the Senate minority to the full extent they were employed by the Democrats. Republicans have long insisted that filibusters of legislation are unobjectionable as they are rooted so deeply in Senate history, though filibusters of judicial nominees are not. Leader McConnell will earn extraordinary stature among the party loyalists if he demands and receives the very tools that the Dems so often employed during their minority years.

There is an urgent need to regularize the illegal population for a variety of reasons, and to assure the flow of legal immigrants into the country, a flow that has usually been welcomed and absorbed. The GOP rejects the natavism of the extreme right, of course, and there are compelling reasons to endorse guest worker programs and specialized skill visas. There is also a widely-held belief in compassionate treatment of the long resident illegal and their families. The e-mail from one illegal, posted below, testifies to the extraordinary complexity of the status of the millions who are watching and waiting for this debate to conclude in a fair result.

It is possible that Dems would not welcome a fair resolution of this situation, one that is urgently needed. But if that is the case, the GOP cannot simply abandon the core beliefs of the large majority of its members in order to get something done. President Bush is to the left of his party on this issue, and his stewardship of the party ought to oblige him to respect and insist upon the changes noted above. To proceed with John McCain’s jam down will have far-reaching an terrible effects on the party. The fact that both Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson denounced the deal is the truest signal of where the party is, and that signal should be noted and absorbed if the president wants his work of his eight years to be continued by a responsible successor in 2009.

Here’s where I will post the e-mail from the Border Patrol Agent when I get back his permission to do so:

[E-mail from Tucson BP Agent]

And here’s the e-mail from an illegal immigrant, “Abe”:

Tony Snow On The Immigration Bill Fiasco

Posted by Hugh Hewitt | 9:58 PM

Here are a few of my questions and Tony's answers from this afternoon. You can read the entire interview here. The audio will be posted here later tonight. My first question concerns one of the key areas where the immigration law intersects with national security:

and

and

and

and

and