WASHINGTON — Immigration reform is having a “Kumbaya” moment, with support from the White House, a bipartisan contingent in Congress, business and labor.
The Republicans are petrified after their dismal showing among the fastest-growing slices of the electorate, Hispanics and Asians; President Barack Obama wants to reward the loyalty of those voters. Business and labor, as well as many politicians, want to fix a totally dysfunctional system. There are more than 11 million undocumented immigrants, 5 percent of the work force. Many of these people live in fear of discovery, while jobs go unfilled in some areas.
Hold the Champagne. When it comes to immigration laws, the concept is always easier than the reality. Change failed to happen six years ago, despite the push from the high-powered coalition led by President George W. Bush and Senators John McCain and Edward M. Kennedy. The dynamics are more favorable today. Still, the same obstacles persist; the powerful countervailing considerations include these issues:
A predicament on citizenship There’s a fairly broad consensus for ending the illegal status of the undocumented. The White House, Hispanic groups and most Senate supporters insist that any overhaul must lead to a pathway to citizenship.
That approach, however, faces great resistance. Some lawmakers demand that any move toward citizenship must come second to solving the border-security problem, at a minimum. For some, this is a political cover; under the Obama administration, resources for border security have been increased sharply, including the use of drones. And deportations of undocumented immigrants are at a record high.
A border-security trigger is realistic if it includes quantifiable goals, like the number of new Border Patrol agents, the amount of resources allocated and the new technologies utilized. It isn’t reasonable if it requires meeting an amorphous standard like “operational control” of a border that is always changing.
Hispanic groups assert that the real motive for such demands is to unreasonably stretch out any possibility of granting citizenship.
“There would be a backlash if citizenship is delayed for 15 or 20 years,” warns Gary M. Segura, a Stanford University professor and co-founder of Latino Decisions, the leading research organization on Hispanic public opinion.
The future of immigration policy Equally contentious is the question of future flows of immigrants. One proposal would link the number of legal immigrants to economic conditions: More would be let in when times are good, fewer in tougher times. That sounds easier than it is. There will be clashes over how great a priority should be given to those with high-tech skills or to agriculture workers or to family reunification. Small businesses will rebel against any costly verification plan.
Most independent studies show that immigration is a decided economic plus, bringing in revenue and increasing productivity and innovation.
Yet the arguments of the populist right may resonate more as the debate heats up. NumbersUSA, a leading anti-immigration group, is reviving charges that an immigration overhaul would drive down wages for middle- and low- income workers. Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state who authored anti-immigration measures in several states and the Republican Party’s platform position on the issue last summer, charges that taxpayers would be hit with $2.6 trillion in added food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, which are government health care programs, and in welfare costs. That estimate is refuted by reliable studies; it still cuts.
The House Republican leadership J. Dennis Hastert, a former Republican speaker of the House, decreed that any bill must command majority support among majority party members. Last month, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, waived the rule twice to pass measures, one avoiding the so-called fiscal cliff and another providing aid to victims of Hurricane Sandy.
The speaker, along with most party leaders, understands his party’s serious difficulties with Hispanic voters and fears making matters worse by blocking an overhaul. Two of the most virulent anti-immigration Republicans in the House, Lamar Smith of Texas and Steve King of Iowa, no longer hold important committee chairmanships.
Yet with anti-immigration sentiment still running high among many Republican rank-and-file voters, it’s tough to imagine a majority of the party’s House members backing a comprehensive bill, even if, as is certain, the Senate goes first. Mr. Boehner’s only option might be to let a bill pass primarily with Democratic votes.
To do that, he would need the support of the House majority leader, Eric Cantor, and the whip, Kevin McCarthy; there’s no shrewder politician than Mr. McCarthy, who is always attuned to the party’s base. He’s also from California, where, since Governor Pete Wilson played the anti-immigration card in 1994, the Democrats completely dominate politics.
The lack of a skilled deal maker The successful, if flawed, passage of Mr. Obama’s health care measure probably wouldn’t have been possible without the savvy hand of Rahm Emanuel, who was the White House chief of staff. Congressional Democrats and some outside advocates see no Emanuel counterpart in the current White House; privately, some say they would like the White House to enlist a special envoy — perhaps Henry G. Cisneros, former housing secretary and former mayor of San Antonio, Texas, or Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader — to shepherd legislation.
Egos and tensions already are surfacing among supporters of an overhaul; Republicans don’t trust the White House, and some Democrats worry that Marco Rubio, the ambitious young Republican senator from Florida, will look for a reason to peel off as he comes under pressure from his party’s right wing. There is no senator today who possesses Mr. Kennedy’s skill for navigating these shoals.
It’s still a slightly better bet that a big immigration bill will be enacted in this Congress. Getting there will be ugly, and the measure will seem to die more than once as it battles these cross-pressures.
