The Senate created a bipartisan immigration bill. As it goes to the House many see hope, while others on both the left and right are not happy with the compromise.

Glenn Hurowitz argues that immigration is not just an issue of immigration. There are serious environmental consequences to the immigration of low wage workers, but most environmentalists have stayed out of the debate: “With environmentalists largely sitting it out, many usually pro-environment Democrats are all too happy to ignore these hidden costs of immigration as they seek to placate immigration advocates and foes alike.”

Rep. Tom Tancredo doesn’t hear his constituency calling for a compromise on immigration: “ Citizens are insisting that border security be demonstrated as an actual achievement, not simply a plan on Mr. Chertoff's desk or a ‘trigger’ in some legislative package. A new president and new Border Patrol leadership might salvage the morale and the mission of that law enforcement agency, but until that happens, the border will continue to be a sieve and our nation's security will continue to be at risk.”

James Edwards says that the Senate immigration deal is “capitulation, not compromise”: “An amnesty-guestworker program is bad anyway you look at it. Bad policy. Bad politics. Republicans: Surrender at your peril.”

The LA Times sees much hope in the new immigration bill, but worries that the Democrats will not step up to pass the legislation in the House: "Speaker Nancy Pelosi…has already expressed 'serious concerns' about the bill, and the freshman class of Democrats does not seem enthusiastic. The consequences of failure this spring would be catastrophic.”