Monday, June 18, 2007 | 7:03 a.m.
Washington
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has spoken with great compassion about his own family's immigration story, the way his wife's father came to this country from Russia, and the need now for "tough, fair and practical" reform of a broken system that allows a population the size of Las Vegas to sneak across U.S. borders each year.
Reid insists that he wants to get an immigration bill out of the Senate. He has put the blame squarely, with some accuracy and success, on Republicans whose conservative base cannot bear the thought of allowing 12 million illegal immigrants the right to stay in this country.
But as the immigration debate unfolded over the past two weeks, Reid's commitment to the bill has been a topic of great discussion.
Many a hallway discussion has dwelled on how he balances desire to reform immigration against a chance to splinter an already weakened Republican Party by having the bill fail. Although Democrats are far from unanimous in their support of the legislation, divisions are much sharper among Republicans.
Now, with a deal reached to move immigration back to the Senate floor as early as this week, Reid will be in the spotlight in what is likely to be a defining domestic policy moment for this Congress and his tenure as leader of the Senate.
Angela Kelley, a longtime immigration activist at the National Immigration Forum, one of the leading advocacy groups, is among those who believe that Reid wants to do more than make political mischief out of something as emotional as immigration. Still, she said, Reid's sincerity is "going to reveal itself in time."
The New York Times wrote that Reid has been lukewarm to the immigration debate from the start, and perhaps rightly so. Immigration is one of the great issues of our times. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are likely to emerge fully satisfied with any "grand bargain," as the deal to reform immigration for the first time in 20 years is being called.
Democrats have a opportunity to give illegal immigrants a chance to become legal, but through a lengthy and cumbersome process that includes fines for the time they have lived in the United States unlawfully.
Many Republicans are willing to accept legalization in exchange for a temporary-worker program advocated by businesses that rely on that labor pool and for a new merit-based system that welcomes newcomers based on education or skills, rather than family ties, as has been tradition.
As Reid took to the floor of the Senate when the debate unfolded in May, he understood the enormity of the challenge.
The legislation "is not perfect, but I think we can all agree that the spirit of bipartisanship behind it is encouraging," he said. "If we can continue along that road in the coming days, I am confident that we can write another chapter in America's great immigration story that makes our country safer, treats people with dignity and keeps our economy strong."
But when Reid allowed a decisive midnight vote Wednesday night on a so-called killer amendment from Democrats, questions about his motives began to mount. The amendment would limit guest workers to five-year stints - a ceiling that drew predictable opposition from business. The bill stalled immediately.
Why Reid would have let the deal-breaker go to a vote was the first question from reporters the next day. Reid bristled. He said it made perfect sense to revisit the issue in five years.
Later that night, Reid refused to yield more time for Republicans to offer amendments, essentially killing the bill even as his own party's top negotiator, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, pleaded for a few more days.
In the days after , observers began speculating about Reid's motives.
Conservative columnist George Will, in a piece The Washington Post headlined "Harry Reid's Sham," speculated that the majority leader was sparing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi the hot potato the bill would be for Democrats.
Post columnist David Broder, pointing to the temporary-worker amendment showdown, said Reid "went out of his way to rewrite that bill to meet the demands of organized labor."
Reid's office dashed off a paragraph-by-paragraph retort.
Republican Sen. Larry Craig of Wyoming told reporters midweek that Reid "is being torn by both sides of his party" - immigration advocates and those supporting the unions.
Reid's office counters that if the leader was so torn, why would he have brought the bill forward at all?
Now that a new deal has been struck, Reid's actions are being seen in a new light.
The five-year limit on guest workers that had been called a deal breaker now seems to be less toxic. Republicans have conceded they probably will not fight to extend it.
Even more, by pulling the bill from the floor, Reid essentially put pressure on both parties to rethink their positions and start negotiating over a new measure. Public opinion polls show that a large majority of Americans want tough immigration reform. Lawmakers do not want to face voters in 2008 without having acted on the issue.
Republicans blamed for obstructing the bill quickly began rounding up the 20-25 votes needed from their side to win approval.
President Bush heeded Reid's challenge to get Republicans on board for "the president's bill." Bush went to Capitol Hill to lobby in person.
Immigration advocacy groups also stopped picking apart the provisions they despised, and Spanish radio personality Piolin showed up in Washington with 1 million signatures from supporters of reform.
Although Republicans all week said Reid's actions to limit debate had emboldened their conservative senators to keep fighting any deal, by week's end one, GOP aide conceded that Reid had stiffened the resolve of senators who were committed to reaching a deal.
Reid spokesman Jon Summers said, "Look where we are: We're going to get to finish it. We are where we are because he's the one who put pressure on negotiations."
As the spotlight now turns back on Reid to take the bill to the floor, he has pledged to work through next weekend and the Fourth of July holiday week to get it done.
His every move will be watched.
"We're not going to know until the end," said Jennifer Duffy, a political analyst at the Cook Political Report. "He either looks smart or he doesn't."
archive
