The Senate returns to work today to resume debate on the immigration bill. It’s a massive bill that claims “comprehensive reform” which means there’s plenty to complain about.

Mickey Kaus argues that, “far from being a sensible centrist departure from the sort of grandiose, rigid thinking that led Bush into Iraq, ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ is of a piece with that thinking. And it's likely to lead to a parallel outcome.” He backs his argument with ten similarities.

The New York Times worries that as the Senate continues to debate the immigration bill, it will be gutted of its most rational proposals. The Senate should be particularly worried about John Cornyn’s (R-Texas) back handed amendment that would destroy the hopes of citizenship for millions.

Charles Krauthammer warns against an immigration bill that claims to be “comprehensive.” You never know what you’re going to find in a 280 page bill. Example: the dissolution of the HB-1 visa, “a special category for highly skilled, world-renowned, and indispensable talent. Great musicians, athletes, and high-tech managers.”

The Washington Times says there is no “sugar coating” the implications of the immigration bill: it “contains massive loopholes that will make it easier for terrorists and criminals to enter and remain in the United States. It will facilitate the migration of much of Mexico's illegal-alien underclass to the United States, resulting in trillions of dollars in additional federal, state and local spending on welfare programs and other public services along with considerable tax increases over the next three decades or so to pay for it all -- tax increases that will largely take effect after most of the current membership of the Senate is dead.”