Immigration compromise moving toward conservatives

NY Times:

The White House and senators from both parties mapped out possible changes in a comprehensive immigration bill on Wednesday, so they could better portray it as a way to bolster national security rather than to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

The changes would include a guarantee of several billion dollars for tougher border security and law enforcement and would allow the government to take more time before granting work permits to illegal immigrants who seek legal status.

The proposals were drafted as part of an effort to recast the debate on immigration and revive the bipartisan bill, which was pulled from the Senate floor late last week. They come a day after President Bush met with senators to try to persuade those on the fence to support the measure.

As the White House shifts its tactics on the bill, immigrant rights’ groups have begun their own push to move the legislation forward by emphasizing the benefits of immigration.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, who was haggling with senators over possible amendments, said: “This is a national security bill. We are fixing a national security problem.”

...

Despite the proposed changes and the effort to promote the bill as part of the war on terrorism, the provision that has generated the most criticism from conservative Republicans — a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants — remains.

President Bush is expected to depict the bill as a way to secure the borders and curtail the influx of illegal immigrants in remarks Thursday to the Associated Builders and Contractors, a trade group for construction companies.

...

By many accounts, the bill failed to attract enough votes because Republicans believed that the enforcement parts of the bill were too weak.

Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, a member of the small bipartisan group that wrote the bill, said Wednesday that its sponsors hoped to attract more support by passing an emergency supplemental appropriation of $3 billion to $5 billion to pay for the enforcement measures.

...

Even Democratic architects of the bill, like Senators Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Ken Salazar of Colorado, are portraying the bill as a way to restore the rule of law.

“It’s a matter of our national security,” Mr. Kennedy said Wednesday. “We have broken borders and a broken immigration system.”

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said the extra money could “persuade the American people and reluctant senators” to support the bill.

...

At this point it is hard to say how much of this national security talk is just spin. When it comes to the border, none of those doing the talking have any credibility on the enforcement issue. At least they now recognize that they have to take some credible action on enforcement to have a chance at a bill. They are also trying to address the criticism of the 24 hour "background check" which most people see as a joke. Kay Hutchison is also going to get a vote on her requirement that they have to go home before they can apply for legal status. They need to also reconsider Cornyn's amendment on barring felons from eligibility. At least they are looking seriously at the criticism instead of trying a cram down. Again Robert Pear who wrote the story for the Times shows much more understanding of the issues than his paper's editorial board which is completely divorced from reality on the issue.