Atlanta Journal Constitution
May 12, 2007

Isakson pivotal to bill on immigration
By Bob Kemper

Washington --- The Senate next week will reopen the volatile debate over illegal immigration, and while even those closest to the negotiations don't know what to expect, at least one lawmaker can already claim a victory: Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.).

Republican and Democratic leaders, fearing voter backlash if they fail to resolve the issue this year, are clinging to a formula Isakson first proposed last year. It would bridge the divide between the House's desire to focus on border security and the Senate's broader approach, which includes creating a temporary worker program and providing a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants living illegally in the United States.

Isakson proposed a framework that uses "triggers" to create a balance between punitive measures and broader, nonsecurity reforms. Under Isakson's plan, reforms would be triggered only after yet-to-be-determined standards for securing the border are met.

Republicans and Democrats close to the negotiations said a final deal on an immigration bill could either coalesce or collapse by Wednesday, the deadline Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) has set for action. If a compromise is reached, they said, it will be built around Isakson's trigger concept.

"I think there's a general agreement that that's the way to go," said Isakson, who has been brought into the closed-door negotiations. "There's a lot of [personal] satisfaction."

"You have to give him credit," said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum. "Any bill that passes this year will have to have the Isakson idea."

Sharry's group favors broader accommodations for immigrants. It opposed Isakson's proposal when it was came to the Senate floor during debate on last year's immigration bill, saying it was a "poison pill" that would delay nonsecurity programs indefinitely. Offered as an amendment to the bill, the measure was voted down.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), one of this year's negotiators, said Democrats have reservations about the triggers because it may be impossible to make the entire 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border secure, giving opponents of immigration reforms a way to indefinitely delay any action.

"We've already doubled the Border Patrol and raised their budget tenfold, [and] it still hasn't created more secure borders," Menendez said.

But he acknowledged that triggers remain a key to compromise.

Sharry and others agreed that the question is no longer whether there will be triggers, but how to devise measurable criteria to ensure nonsecurity measures are enacted in a reasonable timeframe.

Isakson has picked up significant support from the White House. President Bush favors creating a temporary worker program and providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who meet certain requirements. Although the Senate legislation approved last year included those measures, the House approved a bill that focused almost exclusively on border security, and efforts to reach a compromise stalled before Democrats took control of Congress in the November elections.

Members of Bush's Cabinet have been directly involved in the new negotiations over the past few weeks, and Bush is expected to address immigration in his weekly radio address today, putting more emphasis on securing the border than he did last year.

Even though Isakson's proposal was defeated last year, it drew more support than he expected, and he never gave up on the idea. Voter dissatisfaction with Congress' inaction was considered a factor in the turnover in control of Congress, and the pressure on the new leadership to act has only intensified.

"It is a pressure-cooker situation right now," said Laura Reiff, an immigration lawyer and co-chair of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, a business group that favors a comprehensive approach.

Negotiations over the bill between the House, Senate and White House are expected to continue through the weekend, though even those close to the negotiations say they have no idea whether a compromise will be struck or, if it is, whether it can clear both the Senate and House.

"This is something that can come together very fast," Isakson said. "Or it could fall apart very quickly."