One of the many lies told by immigration "reform" supporters is that their massive amnesty has widespread public support. The Democrats are dumb, just not that dumb:

Democrats say they won't shoulder the responsibility alone for any comprehensive and politically sensitive plan that includes Bush's proposals to give 12 million illegal aliens a chance at citizenship and to create a guest-worker program.

It's not just Bloomberg reporter James Rowley imagining this, he's got quotes:

Substantial Republican support is "a prerequisite," said Democratic Representative Howard Berman of California. Key Democrats and congressional aides from both parties suggest 50 to 60 of the House's 202 Republicans is the minimum backing to guarantee passage. "I would hope the number would be closer to 100," said Illinois Democrat Luis Gutierrez, a sponsor of immigration reform.

..."The only way for us to do meaningful immigration reform is for it to be bipartisan," said Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking House Democrat. "If that issue's politicized, we're not going to get anywhere."

There are at least 175 House Democrats who would support comprehensive legislation, Gutierrez said. If Republicans produce from 50 to 60 votes, that would put the plan over the top with room to spare and provide the bipartisan political cover both sides want.

"It ain't going to happen without the support of Republican members -- if it happens," said Illinois Representative Rahm Emanuel, a Democratic House leader and supporter of revamping immigration law.

...Arizona Republican Representative Jeff Flake, a sponsor of comprehensive immigration legislation, said he is hopeful for compromise. "A good section of my party" will buy that idea, he said, drawing a parallel with bipartisan support for raising the minimum wage.

Shouldn't the need for "bipartisan political cover" be somewhat of an indication that what they want is a bad idea?