The GOP’s immigration headache

MIAMI – Immigration: It’s the issue that won’t die. Opponents of a more liberal immigration policy retire (Alan Simpson). Champions of immigration reform die (Edward Kennedy). But the debate over immigration — specifically what to do with the nearly twelve million undocumented immigrants that live, work, get sick, get pregnant, drive, serve in the armed forces, and go to school in this country — never goes away.

As spring turns to summer, the issue has been joined once again — at the federal level and in our very own sunshine state. For the most part the battle lines are predictably partisan, with most Republicans rejecting anything that strikes them as “soft on illegal aliens.” Rewarding illegal behavior is bad policy, Republicans say, and letting in a bunch of immigration line-jumpers is unfair to those who have waited their turn.

Democrats, in contrast, argue that the majority of undocumented immigrants are hard-working people, doing jobs most Americans won’t take, and paying taxes. For Democrats, the right thing to do is to allow the undocumented to qualify for citizenship if they meet certain strict conditions. It’s also the practical thing. Immigrants contribute to the economy, and the clearer the path they have to a good job and a decent education, the bigger their contribution will be. Also, deporting twelve million people is unfeasible for a huge number of reasons, so why not face this reality sooner rather than later?

Although this partisan divide continues to be the big picture, there are some new twists this time around, namely some sharp divisions within the GOP, both at the federal level and in Florida. The space between the rock and the hard place Republicans are stuck in on immigration keeps shrinking.

Take Jeb Bush. Recently, he argued that undocumented immigration is an act of love because people come here mainly so that their children can have a better future. An act of love? It was only a few years ago that Republicans in Congress wanted to make undocumented immigration a criminal offense. More broadly, Jeb’s statement is anathema to a major sector of the GOP, especially in the base, the support of which is key to getting nominated. At the same time, many observers and not a few Republicans think Jeb Bush is the only Republican capable of winning the presidency in 2016. We may be at the point, or awfully close to it, when any Republican who can win the primaries is bound to lose the general election.

The fear such a prospect must strike in Republican hearts may be one reason that some folks are still optimistic that somehow the GOP-controlled House will approve some form of immigration reform this year. Their optimism was buoyed recently when House Speaker John Boehner publicly made fun of Republicans in Congress who whine when the leadership pressures them to pass immigration reform.

Let’s cut to the chase. It’s not going to happen. Once again, the hopes of millions of immigrants will be dashed. Whether Boehner is sincere or wants to have it both ways, it doesn’t matter. On this he doesn’t have the votes, is not in control of his members.

Republicans in Congress say they don’t want to vote on immigration in an election year and that they don’t trust that Obama will implement the enforcement components of the reform. These are merely the latest pretexts. The truth is that the GOP is about as eager for immigration reform as Netanyahu is for a Palestinian state.

Racism and xenophobia run deep in the Republican Party, but there also is a more rational, calculated reason for their opposition to immigration reform. In his blog in the Washington Post, Ezra Klein recently pointed out that while the Latino population has been surging, Latino registration lags behind and actual voting even more so. Thus the consequences of Latino aversion for Republicans at the state level have been modest. But what happens if immigration reform sharply increases the number of potential Latino voters who will almost surely lean Democrat? That would make immigration reform a losing political proposition for the Republicans.

It’s a persuasive argument and points to a real long-term conundrum faced by the GOP. But it needs some important caveats. The way immigration reform would be structured, it will be a long time before its beneficiaries would be able to cast a ballot. Moreover, the road from undocumented immigrant to voting citizen is designed to be tough and treacherous and not everyone will make it.

Yet the Republicans do have a whale of a dilemma. The more they oppose the symbolically-charged issue of immigration reform, the more they alienate and politically energize against them the millions of Latinos who are already voters plus the millions of young U.S.-born Latinos who will automatically become citizens when they turn twenty-one. Because the major source of growth of the Latino population is no longer immigration but natural increase, the number of potential new Latino voters able to cast a ballot real soon, not twenty years down the road, is huge. That is a clear and present political danger for the GOP.

On the other hand, should Republicans suddenly change their position, it’s not likely to help them much, so badly have they hurt their brand with Latinos and so clear will it be that they were dragged in kicking and screaming. Plus, eventually, in later decades, many of the formerly undocumented will gradually start to vote, thus hitting the GOP with a double whammy.

It’s hard to imagine how Republicans will be able to slither out of this trap largely of their own making. Yet Republicans continue to hurt themselves with Latinos even on issues on which they could score some points without such high political cost. As of this writing, hard-line Republicans in the Florida legislature, in defiance of some of their top leaders including the governor, are poised to kill a proposal to allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition*.

One wonders how the interests of the state of Florida are served by denying students the possibility of bettering themselves and thereby the entire community.

* If you’re a taxpayer and reside in the state then you pay in-state tuition. If you are from another state then you pay a higher, out-of-state tuition. This applies to public universities only.