Can they cut an immigration deal?

SOON, MEMBERS of the House and Senate will sit down together in the Capitol and attempt to resolve the impasse over immigration reform, a deadlock that has grown more intense over time, divided the electorate into warring camps and driven a deep philosophical wedge into the heart of the dominant Republican Party. It may be a nearly impossible task.

Part of the difficulty is built into the Constitution. The founders had a heavy bias against change. They established a system in which a law cannot be altered, or a new law created, without the support of the president and a majority of both houses of Congress. (If the president opposes the changes, the support in Congress must be overwhelming; a two-thirds vote in each chamber is required to overcome a presidential veto.) Even when both chambers want change, as is the case with immigration reform, it won’t happen unless the House and Senate agree on every provision of the new law.

That’s what the conference will be for -- a working committee that will try to reconcile a House bill, which seeks only to stiffen border protections, with a Senate bill that increases border protections but also establishes a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for the millions of illegal immigrants already here.

The details about the immigration reform conference haven’t been announced. How big will it be; who will serve on it; who will lead it; when will it start; will it be open or closed? All of that has yet to be determined, primarily by the majority leadership -- the Republicans -- in the House and Senate.

Usually the conference members are drawn from the committees that had original jurisdiction over the legislation -- in this case, the House and Senate judiciary committees. But anyone can be tapped, and in such a high-profile conference, little will be left to chance. Although it’s impossible to nail down exactly how every member will vote, that level of control will be the leadership’s goal.

And unlike the case in many House-Senate conferences, the representatives of the two chambers will enter the negotiations strongly resistant to compromise. Republican representatives of the House, in particular, are starting with a belief that if there is to be any caving in, it will have to be done by the Senate. They strongly oppose what they consider to be amnesty -- opening the door for illegal immigrants to move toward citizenship without first returning to their home countries and reentering the United States legally.

It is typical for both sides in a negotiation to posture, voicing outrage and intransigence, but in this case the hard line expressed by House majority spokesmen is almost certainly not a bluff. To them, this is a question of upholding or undermining the rule of law. They will not be easily budged.

Timing is another part of the reason. Only one-third of the sitting senators will have to face the voters this year, but every House member will be on the ballot in November, and Republicans will be in a fight for survival. Their reelections are threatened by general voter discontent and the president’s abysmal poll ratings. They will not be eager to cross the party’s base, which is inclined to support the hard-line position on illegal immigration. Add to that the fact that many Republican House members would remain locked into their opposition to amnesty even if the reelection calculus suggested that they should do otherwise.

On top of all this, compromise will be made more difficult if, as usual, the conference is open to the media and the public. Good government requires compromise and openness, but the two goals often cancel themselves out. During conferences, lobbyists and other advocates watch to ensure that none of their supporters betray the cause, and reporters keep tabs on any sign that conferees are abandoning publicly held positions, ready to expose wafflers to voters back home. Too much openness may make compromise impossible.

Does all this mean that there is no hope at all of an immigration reform bill? Not necessarily. It is not uncommon for senators and representatives to wrangle into the early morning hours and then recess for a short break, at which point most conferees will find themselves besieged by advocates urging them to hold firm or suggesting new strategies to push their agendas. Breaks also are an opportunity for the principal negotiators for the House and Senate majorities, with or without members of the minority party, to slip into a separate room (where they could be joined by key members of the administration or party leaders) and quietly -- out of sight of media and spectators -- hash out details of a compromise. It has happened before, even on contentious issues.

Late-night, last-minute, behind-closed-doors compromises may yet emerge. They may even survive when they’re taken back to both full houses for approval.

But I wouldn’t bet on it. Not this time.