Okay, so I’ve been reading up. I recently spoke with someone in the administration about the bill. I debated it in part this morning with Peter Beinart for a forthcoming installment of “What’s Your Problem?” So I’m beginning to form an opinion about a still moving target. Here’s what I think, so far, in no particular order:

1. The White House has an enormous political tin ear and was caught very much off-guard about how immigration plays with the base of the party. It is simply amazing how the Rovian approach wants things both ways. On the one hand, they want to govern by pleasing the base in a 50-50 country (which isn’t fifty-fifty anymore) while at the same time they’re stunned when the base gets miffed when the White House betrays the base in the name of bipartisanship, and then proceeds to mock the base as a bunch of yahoos (see #8).

2. The chief cause of misunderstanding is the issue of trust. The White House thought that that if they had all sorts of conservative mechanisms in the bill that conservatives would be placated. What they didn’t understand is that the anti-”amnesty” wing of the Republican party simply doesn’t believe any of these enforcement measures will implemented until they in fact are implemented. “Trust but verify” has simply become “verify.” And until there is real enforcement — both in terms of current law and new laws — the base simply doesn’t care about any other bells and whistles. “Been there done that” is the de facto official policy of the base when it comes to promises of enforcement, i.e. “No more promises, just enforcement. Then we’ll talk” (This basic reality is why I came out in favor of a wall on the border).

3. I think this is a fair, legitimate or, at minimum, understandable position for a very frustrated constituency to take.

4. That said, I think much of the bill is actually very good. The end to unlimited family unification, the fines, the language requirement, the point system, ID requirements and all of the rest sound good or at least defensible and I think a serious, passable, immigration bill should have many of them.

5. But, again, the issue comes back to trust. The base of the party doesn’t really care about the details because they’ve been promised nice-sounding details before only to see them evaporate in the sausage-making process, remain unenforced restrictions in name only or prove to be smokescreens. Sign a deal with Ted Kennedy and you’ll end up with cider in your ear.

6. Hence we’re at a stalemate. No law that can pass will receive the support from the anti-”amnesty” crowd, and no law that this crowd wants will pass without some kind of “amnesty” attached to it.

7. I used quotation marks around “amnesty” because I don’t think that’s really what it is and that conservative opponents have succeeded in calling anything short of victory (variously defined) as “amnesty.” How smart this tactic proves to be in hindsight remains to be seen.

8. My guess: the law doesn’t pass. The status quo endures. Bush suffers even more erosion of his support (in part because many of his most loyal supporters relish the opportunity to vent their more generalized anger at him on a non-Iraq issue). And David Frum is proved correct on points 1-7, particularly 6 and 7. I’m not sure about 8.