Stephen Dinan reports in today's Washington Times that federal officials themselves predict that the controversial proposed Senate immigration bill, if implemented as written, would stem annual illegal immigration by only 25 percent:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said in its official cost estimate that many guest workers will overstay their time in the plan, with the number totaling a half-million in 2017 and reaching 1 million a decade later.

Bob Owens says the bill will "provide hogs with pilot licenses," while Captain's Quarters says:

Any immigration bill has to succeed at two tasks: stop illegal immigration by securing the border, and reach a resolution of some kind for the millions of illegals already here. According to the CBO, this bill won't do either very well. All it does is reduce annual illegal immigration by 25% -- which is not nearly enough.

The Center for Immigration Studies cites the Census Bureau for the figure that 500,000 new illegals enter the country annually. If that trend holds and the amnesty bill reduces the flow by 25%, then you're still looking at 3.75 million total by 2017.

In 1986, we had 3 million illegal aliens. We gave them amnesty.

In 2007, we have 12 million aliens.

They are not all Mexicans. They come from all over. The Russian mafia, for example, is well represented in LA and NYC.

But we're trying amnesty again and anyone who disagrees is a racist.

Don Surber is reporting that Mitch McConnell will not step away from this monstrosity. And the fallout will be very, very ugly when the voters have their say. Both parties are going to suffer from this little fiasco.

My advice: Call. Your. Senators. Make it very clear that you want the problem of illegal immigration solved - but securing the border is the first order of business.

What's not taken into consideration here is the idea that granting any sort of amnesty to the illegals already here will encourage more illegal immigration.

Politicians define success as bill passage and could care less about the ultimate results. This is why President Bush repeatedly says he'll sign anything they put on his desk. But take a moment and think about how reckless a statement that is. If the bill gave a Z-Visa to bin Laden, our president basically said he'd sign it. This whole thing just boggles the mind.

For President Bush and his shrinking group of minions, the people who elected him -- and have stood by him through thick and thin -- are now the enemy.

Reasoned and historically-based opposition to the Bush-Kennedy illegal immigrant amnesty bill is being attacked as bigotry. As the business lobby plays him like a marionette, it seems the only thing this stumblebum president has learned in seven years is how to sling mud like the Left.

While the Senate debate over this hurried and odious bill stumbles forward, every one of us should ask ourselves the questions posed quite succinctly by columnist Cal Thomas today: "Whose country is this? Does it belong to illegal immigrants and politicians, or to the citizens of the United States of America?"

-- Fran Coombs, managing editor, The Washington Times

Often lost in the big picture coverage of major legislative issues like the now-troubled Bush-Kennedy immigration bill are the little moments that say everything about how Washington works. They're the little moments that your legislators don't want you to know about and figure will never make it back home through the media.

But Stephen Dinan, our excellent national political reporter who has led the way for months on coverage of immigration legislation, captured this priceless moment in his story this morning as the supporters of the bill struggled to keep it together.

The late-night vote was on an amendment that would require illegal aliens who get legal status to have a minimum level of health insurance. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who is the chamber’s most liberal member, was -- not surprisingly -- opposed.

Writes Mr. Dinan: "Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona both went to check with Mr. Kennedy before casting their votes to match his. Soon after, (Arizona Republican Sen. Jon) Kyl also switched his vote to match Mr. Kennedy's."

The amendment was defeated.

All three of these Republicans proudly claim to be conservatives. Strange bedfellows indeed.

-- Fran Coombs, managing editor, The Washington Times

Everybody was talking about it this morning: Paris Hilton out of jail after only five days?
Ms. Hilton, originally found guilty of reckless driving, was sentenced to 45 days in a Los Angeles County jail after violating probation.

With good behavior, she had been expected to serve at least 23 days. Now, under house confinement, her sentence is up to 45 days once again.

Quite a few of us are wondering if the celebutante is getting a deal the rest of us regular Joes could only dream of.

So The Washington Times interns are out today asking folks around the District their reaction. Fair? Or favoritism? What do you think?

-- Brandon Leonard, intern, The Washington Times

ONLINE EXCLUSIVE / DEVELOPING:

Membership in the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has declined more than 90 percent since the 2001 terrorist attacks, Audrey Hudson will report in Tuesday's editions of The Washington Times.

According to tax documents obtained by The Times, the number of reported members spiraled down from more than 29,000 in 2000 to less than 1,700 in 2006, a loss of membership that caused the Muslim rights group's annual income from dues to drop from $732,765 in 2000, when yearly dues cost $25, to $58,750 last year, when the group charged $35.

The organization instead is relying on about two dozen individual donors a year to contribute the majority of the money for CAIR's budget, which reached nearly $3 million last year.

Asked about the decline, Parvez Ahmed, CAIR board chairman, pointed to the number of individual donors to the organization.

"We are proud that our grass-roots support in the American Muslim community has allowed CAIR to grow from having eight chapters and offices in 2001 to having 33 today," Mr. Ahmed said.

The self-described civil liberties organization for Muslims seeks to portray "a positive image of Islam" through public relations and the media, but has instead alienated some by defending questionable accusations of discrimination.

Critics of the organization say they are not surprised membership is sagging, and that a recent decision by the Justice Department to name CAIR as "unindicted co-conspirators" in a federal case against another foundation charged with providing funds to a terrorist group could discourage new members.

What people here and, no doubt around the world, are wondering is this:

How the heck does a guy like this, a guy who starts crying over his lost pants, ever manage to land a job as an administrative law judge in the District?

The Post's Marc Fisher reports today that Roy Pearson was unemployed for two years before becoming a judge. He also reports that Pearson claims to have spent 1,400 hours preparing his lawsuit against the dry cleaner who lost his pants.

That's 35 full 40-hour work weeks! Goodness. When did Judge Pearson find time to actually adjudicate?

-- David Eldridge, managing editor, WashingtonTimes.com

If you're strapping yourself with explosives and detonating yourself in public in such a fashion as to kill and mutilate civilians, you might be "considered" a terrorist ... but not by ABC News:

During a World News report on American options in the aftermath of Hamas' violent takeover of Gaza last week, ABC's Dean Reynolds on Monday got out the ten-foot pole to describe the group whose suicide bombers have killed numerous Americans in Israel as well as hundreds of Israeli civilians: "Now that Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by Washington, has taken command in Gaza, some things are becoming painfully clear about the Bush administration's course of action up to this point."

"Considered a terrorist organization by Washington"?! That's an echo of the formula favored by the late Peter Jennings, who in 2002 referred to the group that blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut this way: "The Bush administration says Hezbollah is a terrorist organization." As if it's only our government's biased opinion.

One suspects the reason that ABC News doesn't use the word "terrorist" is a desire to avoid offending their sources within Hamas.

--Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times

I've been watching this one like a hawk:

A judge ruled today in favor of a dry cleaner who was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants in a case that garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform.

The owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's consumer protection act by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign that was once placed in the store window, D.C. Superior Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled.

Judge Bartnoff ordered Mr. Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung. The costs were slightly more than $1,000 and include photocopying, filing and similar expenses, said the Chungs' attorney. A motion to recover the Chungs' tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be considered later.

Thankfully, a fair and just ending came in what may have very well been the silliest lawsuit in history (well, maybe not THE silliest).

Let's face it, we've all been subject to less-than-satisfactory service at some point -- an overcooked order of french fries, an illegible tattoo, a slightly inaccurate palm reading, etc.

And in the heat of the moment, sure, it's plausible to want to sue the pants off the local dry cleaner (no pun intended) for losing your garments. But a few days to simmer should've cleared this guy's head and led to an amicable solution.

For a judge, of all people, to go to these lengths as a matter of principle -- and over a pair of pants -- is laughable. Unless there was a winning lottery ticket for $54 million in the pocket of said pants, this case had no business existing outside of small-claims court.

Maybe it's time for someone else to get "Nifong-ed."

-- Tarron Lively, reporter, The Washington Times

What conservative blogger wasn't liveblogging the cloture vote on the immigration bill this morning?

Over at MichelleMalkin.com, her lead story is a liveblog from the Senate floor today.

HotAir launched a video campaign against reviving the bill, calling a vote for cloture equal to one for amnesty, and Allahpundit posted entries live throughout the lunchtime vote.

Even Captain's Quarters updated readers as the votes were unveiled this morning.

The result: a 64-35 vote to bring the bill back to the floor.

The irony: 5 out of 10 Americans stand in opposition while almost 7 out of 10 senators push for "a comprimise."

In the end, what are we, the people supposed to think? Is anyone listening up on The Hill?

-- Brandon Leonard, intern, The Washington Times