The White House and the Senate struck a deal on immigration.

And that may be the easiest part.

Now comes the HARD PART: the selling of this deal to one side that feels it may not be enough and another side that feels it may be too much..with a race horse called Election Year quickly galloping up to the scene, with the potential of throwing a monkey wrench into compromise as other factors (such as talk radio hosts on the left and right and weblogs who don’t like parts of the bill) begin to kick in.

For instance, commentator/blogger Michelle Malkin, reflecting the view of those who feel the bill goes too far writes: “The amnesty sellout arrives.”

And, indeed, look for there to be a big debate over whether this is an amnesty or not. But, no matter what the outcome of that debate, fasten your seat belts because it’s going to be a frantic ride: if immigration reform fails (again) this year it’ll likely be years before a semblance of bipartisanship will emerge on the issue — and the issue could remain on the back burner unless one party or the other decisively wins the Congress and the Presidency.

The New York Times describes the political minefield that both sides are going to have to tip-toe through:

Senate negotiators from both parties announced Thursday that they had reached agreement on a comprehensive immigration bill that would offer legal status to most of the nation’s 12 million illegal immigrants while also toughening border security.

If the bill becomes law, it would result in the biggest changes in immigration law and policy in more than 20 years. That would provide President Bush with a political lift and a tangible accomplishment for his second term. It would also be a legislative achievement for the new Democratic leaders in Congress, though they said they would seek changes in the measure.

At the heart of the bill is a significant political trade-off. Democrats got a legalization program, which they have sought for many years. Republicans got a new “merit-based system of immigration,” intended to make the United States more competitive in a global economy.

But the politics of the deal are precarious. Democrats are already trying to tamp down concerns of Hispanic groups, who fear that the bill would make it more difficult for immigrants to bring relatives from abroad. At the same time, Republican negotiators face blistering criticism from some conservatives, who say the bill would grant a virtual amnesty to people who had broken the law.

The bottom line: the bill is reportedly raising a lot of eyebrows in some parts of Congress.

The AP:

The formula was enough to satisfy liberal Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. _ viewed as his party’s decisive voice on immigration _ and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., a conservative who has been adamantly opposed to past overhauls….

…..It was clear, however, that many Republicans and Democrats were deeply skeptical. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called the proposal a “starting point” for next week’s debate and said it needed improvement.

“I have serious concerns about some aspects of this proposal, including the structure of the temporary worker program and undue limitations on family immigration,” Reid said.

In a reminder of the delicate nature of the alliance, some lawmakers on both ends of the political spectrum who attended the weeks of closed-door talks that yielded the agreement deserted it at the last moment.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said the proposal “tears families apart” because a new point system used to evaluate future legal immigrants would value family connections well below employment-related criteria.

“When you anchor yourself to the far right and you give, I think, relatively little, it’s hard to meet the challenge” of producing a workable bill, Menendez said in an interview.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he had “very serious concerns with the principles outlined” in the agreement.

And conservatives on both sides of the Capitol derided the deal as “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, using a politically charged word that figured prominently in campaigns across the country last year.

“I don’t care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty,” said Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

Congressional Quarterly gives some more details about the bill:

The legislation would allow the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the country to stay and work, but they would have to wait up to eight years to apply for green cards.

They would have to return home before being eligible, and pay a fine of $5,000.

A new temporary worker program would allow new immigrants to come and work for up to six years, but they would have to return home every two years.

A key goal for Republicans has been ending so-called “chain migration” of family members of new arrivals by incorporating a new point system for awarding green cards that would include other factors.

A Democratic aide said that under the deal more than 50 percent of green cards still would go to spouses and non-adult children of immigrants. Only about 30 percent of the new green cards would be subject to a new merit-based system, which would award points based on job skills, education and English proficiency.

Meanwhile, in TMV’s home base of California, the bill is being welcomed in some circles, as the AP notes:

Farmworker shortages that have left tons of fruits and vegetables unplanted or unpicked would be relieved under a proposed immigration deal.

Thursday’s accord includes a pilot program for legalizing agricultural workers, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

The aim, she said, is “to see that we have a consistent labor force for agriculture, the one industry in America that almost solely depends on an undocumented work force.

“I believe that we have achieved that in this bill,” Feinstein said at a press conference.

Farmers say that as immigration enforcement has tightened in recent years, worker shortages have ranged from 10 percent to 30 percent across the labor-intensive produce industry and have affected dairy farms and nurseries, too.

In some cases pears, strawberries and other crops have gone unharvested. In others, farmers have chosen not to plant, or have reduced plantings of the most labor-intensive crops, such as asparagus. Economic losses have been estimated in the millions.

“We’re looking at deterioration of the work force and the inability of people to survive. We’re looking at the failure of farms and small businesses,” said Craig Regelbrugge, co-chairman of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform.

But the key question becomes: in the early 21st century culture of instant political mobilization and opinion-promoting new media (weblogs, talk radio) can this kind of precarious compromise bill triumph? Or will it get beaten back as some politicos heading into an election year face the inevitable organized pressures?

The Democrats are joining with President George Bush on this one, but recent news reports show that many of Bush’s own party members are increasingly reluctant to put their heads on the political chopping block for a President whose popularity rating is somewhere in the South Pole and whose popularity in Congress is increasingly akin to Rosie O’Donnell’s popularity with Donald Trump.

Does Bush have the clout to bring reluctant members of his own party along on this one? Or is he too much of a lame duck — a lame duck losing more clout with Congress each day, as he flits around with an albatross named Alberto Gonzales hanging around his neck.