Coming into the call, I had a quite a number of qualms with both the substance of the current bill and how I perceive the Democrats on Capitol Hill to be approaching it. On the first half of the equation, the complexity of the current compromise (the point system, the different classes of visas, etc.) coupled with the arduous touchback provision (which requires the head of a household to "touchback" in the nation they came from before becoming citizens) led me to believe that such a bill would be unworkable on the grounds of difficulty of implementation and the potential unwillingness by immigrants to join the process. On the second half of the equation I was worried that Democrats have little to gain by going after a bill in the current Congress, that they got a better (though still very flawed bill) through the Senate during the previous Congress despite the chamber being more Republican than it is now, that they could and should be able to get a better bill with a Democratic President and an even more Democratic Congress. What's more, it seemed to me that the Democrats on Capitol Hill were playing this as a losing issue, not one where they generally enjoy the backing of a large majority of Americans (judging by recent polling, including a comprehensive poll conducted last week for CBS News and The New York Times).

The initial response from Congressman Becerra to a somewhat rambling inquiry by me along these lines did not really go far in assuaging my concerns. In fact, it in some ways reinforced them. While conceding that the current agreement in the Senate was more conservative than the bill passed through the Senate last Congress, Becerra explained that he believed Democrats had to be careful on this issue because it was one that cut both ways; though there were some Democrats who won at least in part because of their moderation on the issue (Gabby Giffords in Arizona and Ed Perlmutter in Colorado being two examples he brought up), others (Tammy Duckworth in Illinois being his prime example) lost at least in part because of being hit for supporting "amnesty". Frankly, this isn't a line of reason that I buy into -- that the Democrats left some seats on the table because of their stance on immigration. However Becerra did say that although this was not a perfect bill, it was a good place from which to begin the dialogue.

Martinez De Castro followed up by noting -- I think quite correctly -- that immigration did not prove to be the type of wedge issue that Republicans hoped it would be in 2006. Rosenberg spoke along the same lines, calling immigration "catastrophic" for the Republicans in 2006 because:

1. There was an opportunity cost to talking so much (and spending so much on ads) about immigration reform and not as much about other key issues.
   
2. It reinforced the Democratic talking point that Republicans in the 109th Congress were all talk and no action, a "Do Nothing Congress" as it were.
   
3. It shifted the Hispanic vote decidedly towards the Democrats.

While these sentiments had led me to believe it's better to hold off until a future Congress rather than work towards a less than perfect bill during the current Congress, Rosenberg took a different tack. He noted, for instance, that by signing on to a path towards citizenship for those here illegally, conservative Republicans like Saxby Chambliss and Jon Kyl have already made it impossible for Republicans to attack the Democratic Party as pro-amnesty, one of their most often heard lines in recent years. What's more, the actions of Chambliss, Kyl and others of their ilk show a Republican Party in retreat on the issue, a party repudiating the very tactics it used in just the last election. To me these were fairly potent arguments on the political side.

Congressman Becerra jumped in again here, emphasizing that he indeed believed this to be a losing issue for Republicans and a winning issue for Democrats, which I wanted to hear affirmed during this call. Specifically, Becerra said that people aren't stupid. When, for instance, Republican Pete Wilson ran for reelection as Governor of California on a fairly anti-immigrant platform in 1994, the backlash was such that California moved from being a swing state to a strongly blue one almost overnight. Likewise, he said, the long-term outlook for Republicans on this issue is intensely bad.

Realistically, I'm still not sold on the current bill. I believe that this is a winning issue for the Democrats, both in the short term and the long term, and that Democrats in Congress need to understand this as they set about working to reform the current immigration policy. This means that they cannot cave on the issue or fall for the same tricks that others fell for when they believed the word of President Bush on compromises in the past.

At the same time, I am at least somewhat convinced that it is in the Democrats' interest to pass a reform measure during the current Congress rather than waiting until another Congress in the future. And, indeed, though the current compromise seems unworkable to me at this juncture, perhaps it can be cleaned up to the point at which it is good enough to be enacted into law.