Even backers find fault with immigration bill

"Compromise" has been the watchword of the Senate debate over immigration legislation. But as the sprawling bill nears final passage, the compromises needed to keep the bill afloat have resulted in a bill that even its most ardent backers can find fault with.

Conservative Republicans have long opposed the bill, and efforts to nudge it to the right -- including the addition of provisions calling for a 370-mile fence along the border with Mexico and designating English the national language -- have not been enough to satisfy many in the GOP. Authors of many GOP amendments that have been adopted over the last two weeks still are unlikely to vote for the final package, including Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

Democrats, too, have many reservations, especially since adoption of some of the Republican-backed amendments. Minority Whip Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said members of his caucus who once were supportive of the bill have become less enamored of it.

"It's going to be leaving the Senate at a point where some Democrats are wondering 'should I vote for this?" Durbin said Tuesday. Durbin is telling members to vote for it, despite their reservations. "I'm urging them to err on the side of supporting it," he said, saying that Senate Democrats need to be "on the record" as supporting comprehensive immigration reform.

That might be important once the bill goes to a House-Senate conference. Unlike the Senate bill, which includes a guest-worker program, a path to legal-resident status for most of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States, the House bill focuses exclusively on shoring up the borders and boosting enforcement of immigration laws.

If the bill that emerges from conference is one Democrats cannot support, votes on the Senate version would be important political ammunition.

A solid Senate vote would demonstrate a willingness to tackle the problem, Durbin said. "Then the House has to rise to the occasion," he said.

Republicans, too, have political reasons for supporting a bill they do not love. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who said he opposes the bill, maintained Republicans must enact a bill to help their chances of retaining the majority in November.

"I don't think we're going to produce a good bill, but we have to produce something," said Lott. "I think we need results. We're in charge and it'll be on our backs" if nothing is accomplished.

Even members of the bipartisan coalition that came together to back the bill are dubious about aspects of the Senate legislation. That group -- including Sens. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., John McCain, R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. -- have steadfastly beaten back efforts to drastically alter the bill. Throughout the two weeks of debate and amendments, members of the coalition have voted against such amendments, "for the good of the cause," Graham said Tuesday.

Still, those who on balance support the bill see the glass as half full. "There's stuff in there that people love and stuff in there that people loathe," said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the immigrant-advocacy group National Immigration Forum. "That's the definition of compromise."

Immigration advocates opposed several changes to the bill, including a measure limiting the number of guest workers sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., Kelley said. But they nevertheless support the bulk of the bill.

There is little danger that the bill will fail in the Senate as the package nears a final vote, perhaps on Thursday. A vote today to cut off debate is expected to easily pass.

Members of the bipartisan coalition are expected to remain solidly behind it, regardless of their personal feelings. And both parties want to support a bipartisan solution to a politically explosive problem.