New York's Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, has introduced a parallel piece of legislation that would create a 2-year pilot green card program for science and tech grads without nixing the so-called diversity visas.

Thus, a consensus issue has been split down party lines. As a result, it might not even make it through the House, where it will take a two-thirds majority to pass under the special procedure that's being used to bring it to a vote.

In fairness to the GOP, the diversity visa program has its share of problems. Created in 1990, it randomly selects applicants from qualified countries who either have the equivalent of a high school education and at least two years of work experience in a job the requires training. They don't need to have any family here in the states, prospects for employment, or special skills. But as the Government Accountability Office noted in a lengthy 2007 report, even the bare minimum qualifications can be hard to enforce. Although the lottery winners are subject to an extensive background check before they can receive their green card, applicants often submit fake documents, frequently with the help of corrupt local officials. The State Department, meanwhile, has cautioned that such frauds could open the door to national security problems, since the program admits citizens of countries that sponsor terrorism, such as Iran.

Although there's no actual evidence that rogue states are using the diversity program to funnel terrorists into our borders, these are sincere concerns that should be addressed. But why now? Conservatives have had their sites on the diversity visa program for a while. What's the policy rationale of letting this particular fight potentially sink an idea that everyone otherwise agrees would be good for the country?

To get an explanation, I called up the House Judiciary Committee, where one of the aides spoke to me on background. Theey explained that committee chair Lamar Smith of Texas, "did not want to increase legal immigration at a time when 8 percent of Americans are unemployed."

Bad answer. Right now, jobs might be scarce. But over the long term, as the Baby Boomers beginning to retire, the United States will need more young immigrants to come here so they can work and pay taxes. Moreover, it's a bit nutty to suggest that engineering Ph.D.'s are competing in the same job market as high school grads from, say, Chad. You might think that by limiting the number of low-skill immigrants, we'll open up opportunities for unemployed Americans. But that has nothing to do with the number of science grads kicking around into the country.

From policy perspective, then, there's really no reason these two programs should be mentioned in the same breath, other than that they both involve the word "immigrant.' Yet, if I were a congressional Democrat, I'd still accept the Republicans' offer. While the long-term aim should be to welcome more immigrants to the country, the GOP authored bill doesn't cut the number down. And while some may worry at sealing off an avenue for immigration permanently, it's a flawed avenue that could be made up for by expanding other programs if we ever get a comprehensive immigration reform bill one day. Keeping more foreign science whizzes on our shores would be a worthwhile upgrade.

But should we expect compromise from either side on this? You tell me.