National Review’s David Foster makes some of the same mistakes The Washington Post did when they editorialized on The Heritage Foundation’s amnesty study, but his conclusion about Schumer-Rubio is spot on:

Instead of fighting it out all summer on the empirical question of the cost of amnesty, as they have been fighting it out on a dozen other issues, pro-amnesty Republicans should admit that their anti-amnesty colleagues raise a legitimate concern, and they should use the debate as an opportunity to strike a compromise: Amend the Gang of Eight bill to include means-testing, market-like competition, and block grants for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, respectively, along with a gradual scaling-back to pre-recession levels for food stamps, unemployment benefits, and the like. Allay the Heritage crowd’s concerns by trading amnesty for significant entitlement reform.

Sounds like a good deal to me. Diana Furchtgott-Roth also has a column out titled, Lets Cut Benefits, Not Immigration. Great idea. Pro-amnesty Republicans should do that. And they have an opportunity to do so tomorrow when he Senate Judiciary Committee begins voting on amendments to Schumer-Rubio.

Will any of them put forward an amendment that reforms entitlements in return for amnesty?

Or will they just give Obama his biggest legislative priority, wrapped in a bow, with absolutely nothing in return?

We’ll start finding out tomorrow.