Thread: GOP Fears Fallout Of Immigration Split

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00681.html

GOP Fears Fallout Of Immigration Split
Fight May Weaken Party, Some Say

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 16, 2006; A04



They monitor the same polls and national debate over immigration, yet House Republicans are reaching dramatically different conclusions from President Bush and Senate GOP leaders regarding which political and policy routes to take, a disagreement that may haunt their party in years to come.

House Republicans overwhelmingly favor a get-tough approach that deals only with tightening the U.S. border with Mexico and bolstering efforts to capture and deport illegal immigrants. With time growing short for a compromise, House members appear more wedded to their stand than ever and have held hearings that ridicule the approach taken by Bush and the Senate.

The Senate bill would tighten borders but also provide an expanded guest-worker program and opportunities for many of the nation's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants to achieve legal status, possibly including citizenship.

House Republicans reject the approach as "amnesty" that rewards lawbreakers.

Both camps say they are right not only on the issue's substance but also on its politics. Each group claims to have the Republican Party's best interests at heart. By definition, both cannot be right, and if the party misplays its hand on the volatile issue, the consequences could be dire, according to a variety of politicians.

"If we lose a generation of Hispanic immigrants, the Republican Party will be a minority party for a long time," said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a chief sponsor of the Senate bill. That is what will happen if the House approach prevails, he predicts, and things will not be much better if the House and Senate fail to reach a compromise before the November election.

Americans "want this problem resolved," Hagel said, and if it is not, "the Republicans, I believe, will be blamed, because we control the process."

House GOP leaders are equally convinced that they are the ones reading the political winds correctly and saving their party from a harsh voter backlash.

"I believe that the American people are much closer to where the House is," Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said last week. Asked how veteran, successful politicians from the same party could assess the situation so differently, Boehner replied: "I wish I knew."

It is not the first time the GOP-controlled House and Senate have clashed, but in most cases Bush has been aligned with the House. That was true during protracted debates over renewing the USA Patriot Act, curbing interrogation techniques allowed on military detainees, and limiting the number of pet projects added to a spending bill for the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina recovery. Bush also sided with the House in seeking constitutional bans on flag desecration and same-sex marriage, which the Senate rejected.

In all those cases, Bush and the House took more conservative stands than did the Senate. But in the immigration debate, Bush is aligned with the more liberal Senate position -- which most GOP Senate leaders embraced but most rank-and-file Republicans opposed -- because of a philosophy and goal he shares with Hagel, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and others.

Since his days as Texas governor, Bush has advocated comparatively generous treatment of illegal immigrants who work hard and avoid trouble. He and political advisers such as Karl Rove dream of bolstering the GOP well into the future by attracting large numbers of Latinos, the fastest-growing segment of the American electorate.

Many elected officials and political analysts say inherent differences between House and Senate members also help explain their approaches to immigration. House members must defend their seats every other year, and are much more likely than senators to have a homogenous constituency with clearly defined views on a matter such as immigration.

Senators have a six-year break between campaigns, and represent entire states that typically have a broader mix of urban, rural, conservative and liberal voters. Senators are far more likely than House members to have presidential aspirations, which prompt a more national approach to politics.

"It's the difference between long term and short term," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who spent six years in the House and who opposed the Senate bill. "House members think about November, because they run every two years."

With their majority status at risk this fall, Thune said, House Republicans are taking a hard line on immigration because "it generates a lot of emotion," especially among conservative voters, whose turnout will be crucial.

House Republicans "are probably right in the short term," Thune said. But for Bush and Rove, he said, "the question is, 'How can we reach out to a group that is the fastest-growing segment?' "

Four key GOP backers of the Senate bill -- Hagel, McCain, Sam Brownback (Kan.) and Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.) -- have presidential ambitions. "They, like Bush and Rove, think about the long-term fate of the GOP and the importance of Latinos," said Thomas E. Mann, a Brookings Institution scholar and co-author of a new book on Congress.

Senators say most polls support their position. A New York Times/CBS poll in May found that 61 percent of Americans think illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for at least two years should be given a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status; 35 percent agreed with the House's position that they should be deported.

In a recent Manhattan Institute poll of likely Republican voters, 72 percent said it was extremely or very important "for Congress to solve the problem of illegal immigration this year." Yet the two chambers appear deadlocked.

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) says such surveys miss the point. "I think the Senate probably is reading the polls," he said, "but I think the House members are listening to real people in real situations. . . . People keep saying: border security, biometric cards [to prove legal status] and no amnesty."

Some lawmakers hope for a compromise in which tougher border enforcement eventually would trigger a broader guest-worker program and legal status for some of the undocumented workers already here. But Rep. Eric I. Cantor (R-Va.) is dubious.

"I think the frustration level is so high," he said. "If you are talking about triggers now -- without having proven you can control the border -- the question is, trigger what? Trigger amnesty?"

The Senate also shows little appetite for compromise. "I don't think the Senate will go for anything that is not comprehensive in nature," Hagel said. He fears that the debate and impasse are driving his party toward serious trouble with Latino and non-Latino voters alike.

"We are seen by too many as an intolerant party," Hagel said. "And the majority of Americans are not going to elect intolerant representatives."

I do believe that it's time to set term limits on the Senate. Period. End of that discussion.

The Senators certainly aren't interested in what the people of America want. They're only concerned about their own political ambitions.

As an American citizen I honestly believe that the American people will never forget or forgive what the senate is doing.

Originally Posted by sawdust

As an American citizen I honestly believe that the American people will never forget or forgive what the senate is doing.

My God, I do hope you're right!!

I too hope Cheyanne is right, but I fear those cowardly weasels in the Senate will try to Ram-Rod S.B. 2611 through after the election, while in session between the Thanksgiving break and Christmas. Then they will cut and run home to let things blow over during the Holidays. I have no proof, just a sick feeling in the pit of my already nauseated stomach. Stay on 'em with phone calls, tell 'em to move to another state if they vote the wrong way on the issue!

Not that it matter much in the scheme of things, but no one who supports the Senate bill (S. 2611) or the Pence plan (delayed amnesty) will ever, ever, ever, receive my vote for anything other than soup kitchen worker! You have my solemn promise on that.