At a Senate press conference announcing a “comprehensive” immigration deal with the White House, Senator Lindsey Graham — flanked by Arizona’s Jon Kyl (seemingly trying to keep a straight face) and California Democrat Dianne Feinstein — waxed on like a regular Tocqueville, “This is what my ninth grade teacher told me government is all about and I finally got to experience it.” (Senator Graham has been in Congress since 1995.)

But in the wake of the announcement that the bill is a done deal, a group of Republican senators worked to frustrate the dealmakers’ desire to prevent deliberations on the bill in the Senate. Some — like Senator Jim DeMint — were clear from the outset that they opposed simply dropping the amnesty plan in the Senate hopper.

Good ninth-grade civics teachers know there is more to getting a bill passed in the Senate than an agreement between a handful of senators in a closed-door session with executive-branch officials. They appreciate that bills should be read and then debated and that the research of good think tankers like the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector should be considered before a vote is taken.

They also might appreciate an honor roll of Republican senators who have expressed serious concern and opposition to the legislation before them — Republicans, including some usually loyal soldiers, who are challenging the leaders of their party. Not all senators listed here are officially opposed to the bill — Bob Corker of Tennessee could use some encouragement; others — Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, for instance — deserve nothing but gratitude. The point is that none of them is parroting White House-Kennedy-McCain talking points.

Jim Bunning “A few senators and the administration have crafted a large-scale, get-out-of-jail-free pass,” Kentucky Republican Jim Bunning blasted. “No matter what you call it, X, Y or Z visa, this bill will grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.” On the Senate floor, he he added:

Last week’s so-called immigration agreement is not a compromise in the traditional sense of the word. The proposal was written in secret by a small group of senators and the administration. This bill may not be a compromise, but it is compromising to this country’s economy, national security, and very foundation as a democracy rooted in the rule of law.

John Cornyn Some may give Texas senator John Cornyn points simply because John McCain, a co-sponsor of the bill, lost his temper when Cornyn nagged him for a more restrictive bill. According to Scott Johnson’s piecing together of the story , “Senator Cornyn, tacitly supported by Sen. Jon Kyl, pushed hard to streamline legal procedures to allow prompt deportation of illegals.”

On the Senate floor Monday, arguing against fast-track passage of the bill, he said:

I remain very concerned about the substance of the bill. For instance, my staff’s preliminary review indicates that there are potentially some very problematic provisions in the language. In addition, because of the “rush” to produce language to meet the Monday deadline for a cloture vote, there are a number of technical drafting errors which also have a substantive effect and were being worked on as late as this afternoon.

Bob Corker As he voted against the cloture vote Monday, Senator Corker said:

After an initial review, I have serious concerns, and I believe we need real debate on this very important issue. We received this bill at 1:58 a.m. on Saturday morning. This legislation will have a tremendous affect on citizens and institutions across the country, and we need time to digest it.

Jim DeMint South Carolina’s Senator Jim DeMint was using the “a word” — “amnesty” — from the get-go on Thursday. Among his objections:

I hope we don’t take a thousand page bill written in secret and try to ram it through the Senate in a few days. This is a very important issue for America and we need time to debate it.
But the little we do know about the bill is troubling. According to reports, the bill contains a new “Z Visa” that allows those who entered our country illegally to stay here permanently without ever returning home. This rewards people who broke the law with permanent legal status, and puts them ahead of millions of law-abiding immigrants waiting to come to America. I don’t care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty.

Charles Grassley On MSNBC on Friday, Iowa’s Senator Charles Grassley said: “Are you going to let people go through red lights at the intersections and have chaos? If we are a society based upon the rule of law, you have to enforce the law and that also means our immigration laws.”

In a statement made on Thursday, he said:

I support legal immigration. I support reforms to our visa process to strengthen national security. I support more legal channels for those wanting to work in the United States, and I recognize that some regions and sectors of our economy need more workers. But, I do not believe amnesty or even indirect amnesty is the answer. I voted for amnesty in 1986, and learned that rewarding illegality only promotes illegality. The legalization component of the 1986 law was for the estimated 3 million illegal immigrants who were in the United States at that time, and it was supposed to fix the problem once and for all. Instead, today we have an estimated 12 million people in the United States illegally. So I won’t repeat the mistake of 1986 by voting for amnesty this year.

Kay Bailey Hutchison Texas senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has “great concerns about the bill.” Writing in an op-ed Tuesday with Senator Cornyn, she said:

In 1986, Congress approved a similar compromise plan that, in return for amnesty for most immigrants here illegally, promised an end to porous borders and disregard for our laws. Those promises were not honored. The amnesty legislation instead actually encouraged further disrespect for our laws and led directly to the situation we face today.
As the bill reaches the Senate floor this week, our goal will be restoring the integrity of our borders, providing guest workers with opportunity, not amnesty, and preserving our social security for all who legally qualify. Our contributions to the debate will continue to be positive and constructive.
Our country needs immigration reform. We must ensure that it’s done and done correctly.

Jeff Sessions Taking the floor lead in opposition to the bill on Monday, Alabama senator Jeff Sessions lambasted his Senate colleagues who lauded the behind-closed-doors legislating.

He said in a statement Friday:

I will not vote for, and will actively oppose, immigration legislation that does not meet the expectations of the American people on important issues such as border security, citizenship, and a transition to a merit-based “points” system.
I am deeply concerned with the compromise announced yesterday. Both the process by which the bill will be considered in the Senate and the content of the proposal are troubling. Supporting an agreement on such a complex and important issue cannot be justified when legislation has not yet been written. I will be carefully reading the bill, expected to be about 800 pages, to determine whether the details of the legislation have merit.

By Monday he was armed with charts and graphics — including a refresher for senators on how a bill becomes a law.

Sessions ominously added: “I feel like that, unless we stand up with clarity and resoluteness, we may see an attempt to move this bill through this week with a very limited number of amendments and very limited debate, and that’s unacceptable. I’m prepared to use whatever tactic is appropriate to resist that.”

On Bill Bennett’s radio show this morning, Sessions, cautioning that he is generally reluctant to throw around the word “amnesty” because it is so emotionally charged, said that the bill is indeed an amnesty. He warned that the legislation “erodes the moral principle that if you come here illegally you should not get all the benefits of citizenship.”

David Vitter On Monday, Senator David Vitter of Louisiana called the Senate immigration legislation “pure, unadulterated amnesty.” “If the American people knew what was in this bill,” he said, “there would be a massive outcry against it.”

Earlier this month, Vitter said:

I firmly oppose amnesty and believe that it should not be included in immigration reform legislation. Amnesty sends the wrong message — that of a reward — to those who have been evading our laws. Rewarding illegal aliens by giving them amnesty will only compound the problem of illegal immigration. Amnesty will encourage others to enter our country illegally with the expectation that they will also be given amnesty in the future. In addition, it sends an unfair message to all of those legal immigrants who came to our country and followed all the rules to achieve citizenship.