Immigration impasse may mean long election night for the GOP

David S. Broder / Syndicated columnist

WASHINGTON — This Memorial Day finds the nation's capital consumed by the issue of immigration — a topic that reaches as deep into our history and values as any that could occupy our holiday thoughts.

The debate that unfolded in the Senate over the past few weeks tested notions of sovereignty, explored questions of national character, measured our idealism and tolerance — and carried major political implications for both parties and for America's relationships with its neighbors.

It is a worthy subject and, for the most part, was worthily explored, with almost all the lawmakers acknowledging the difficulty of the choices and the need for action.

Now the issue moves to another arena — one where the level of public scrutiny is much less and the opportunity for mischief-making much greater. At some point soon, the House and Senate will be expected to name conferees to negotiate the vast differences between the bills passed by the two chambers. The chances of roadblocks being thrown in the path are abundant.

Congressional history is rich with examples of strong-willed senators and representatives battling fiercely over the final terms of legislation. These conference committee sessions can be long and brutal, and policy differences are compounded by the institutional jealousies involved. Veterans of Capitol Hill will tell you of conferences where the rivals almost came to blows over custody of the papers containing the final agreements.

Since 1995, when Republicans took control of both sides of the Capitol, the negotiating sessions often have been confined to GOP senators and representatives, with the Democrats locked out along with the press.

That arrangement has been reinforced by the "Hastert doctrine," the policy formally enunciated by House Speaker Dennis Hastert that he will bring to the floor only bills that are supported by the majority of the Republican caucus. Because of that policy, bipartisan coalitions have become rarities in the House. The emphasis now is entirely on shaping bills in conference that most House Republicans can embrace.

In the case of the immigration bill, that may well spell doom for the kind of broad-based, comprehensive approach endorsed by President Bush and embodied in the Senate version. Conservatives in the House — and Hastert's top lieutenants — have staked out a position calling for immediate major steps to close the border with Mexico. As Bush requested, the Senate bill would link the tighter border enforcement to a new guest-worker program, allowing immigrants to come in legally for a time to work available jobs, and create a procedure that permits longtime illegal immigrants to pay a fine and back taxes, learn English and then apply for citizenship.

An odd thing has happened. While the Senate was debating immigration and moving to give the president most of what he wants, the attitude of House Republicans has stiffened. If anything, more of them seem more determined than they were a month ago to shut the border — and do nothing else. They believe the public is with them.

Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, a former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of the House GOP, is symptomatic of the shift. A few months ago, Davis, who represents the affluent Washington, D.C., suburb of Fairfax County, was decrying fellow Republican Jerry Kilgore's tactic in attempting to use immigrant sentiment as a wedge issue in his losing campaign for governor.

Last week, Davis said that even his highly educated and financially comfortable constituents favor the House approach more than the Senate's. "They want a tough bill," he said, adding that immigration has become "a hot issue" for more than "the hard-right." As a campaign strategist, Davis said, he fears that an impasse over immigration "certainly doesn't help the Republican Congress." With voters already frustrated over Iraq, gasoline prices, and scandals in Washington, the climate for the midterm election is grim. "We need to change things, or it's going to be a long election night," Davis said.

For that reason, he threw out several hints that he hoped Hastert would bend his rule — and open the way for the House to "work its will" on immigration with a coalition of most Democrats and a minority of Republicans. But with Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the principal author of the House bill, likely to lead the House negotiators, it's doubtful Davis will get his wish. And it's doubtful that Bush will get his bill.

David S. Broder's column appears Sunday on editorial pages. His e-mail address is davidbroder@washpost.com

2006, Washington Post Writers Group

Mexican standoff

So our current paranoid administration is building up a border fence on land that was stolen to begin with ["Looks like fences will go up on the U.S.-Mexico border,", May 18]. Meanwhile, our elderly and baby-boomer citizens are flocking to Mexico to purchase medications, dental and medical care, or to simply retire because they can't afford to live here any longer. Fair trade, I say.

Now, along with gasoline, your food prices will rise even higher because there's no one left to pick the fruit. What happens when we get everyone mad at us instead of building good neighbor relations? Maybe Mexico will kick out all those retirees and then our children will have to support them instead and we'll have a majority of our population at poverty level with no medical care.

Let's be careful how we look at this. I happen to know there are many Americans living there who never bother to learn the language or mix with the locals while they continue to ruin the environment. What a shame. Mexican citizens are a beautiful, friendly people who were first screwed over by the Spaniards and now us.

We don't need a fence, we need to question why we are letting these things happen. Instead, let's see what's really going on with George Bush. Be afraid, be very afraid.

— Jana Schreurs, Snohomish

In a pinch (Gas)

In a pinch (What hurts us only makes us stronger)

When the price of gasoline gets to the point that consumers will not pay for it (lower demand), oil-producing countries will have to reduce the price or exploit another market, like China. Supply and demand, pure and simple.

If the cost of oil remains high (and supply low due in part to oil-field nationalization), energy companies will have to develop alternative fuel sources to survive.

The same holds true with car manufacturers. If demand for fuel-inefficient vehicles drops, then alternative-fuel vehicles will have to be developed.

Cutting our dependence on the unstable governments of oil-producing countries by not buying their oil is vital. We have an opportunity now to make huge changes that should have been made in the '70s.

Change only follows pain. In this case, our pain is higher gas prices. Bring it on!

— Bob Russell, Woodinville

The Mexican revelation

The Mexican revelation

America was built on the backs of immigrants, immigrants who came through Ellis Island legally. They came on boats from Europe and Asia, waving American flags, with little or no money, in hopes of having a better future for themselves and their children.

Italians, Irish and Chinese came in droves and were exploited by employers and often lived in squalor. They worked hard to assimilate in America, and the cultures blended together to form what America is today, a country made up of many different ethnic and cultural backgrounds.

How then can one plausibly demand U.S. citizenship while waving Mexican flags and singing a Spanish variation of the national anthem, which makes no effort to demonstrate one's willingness to actually assimilate in the American culture?

How can one expect amnesty by entering the country illegally while thousands of potential immigrants have been waiting years to legally enter the country?

How can one work for incredibly small wages that no one should have to work for and turn around and say that if they didn't do these jobs, then nobody else would? Others would do those jobs, but they would do them for fair, legal wages.

Immigrants need to enter the country legally no matter where they are from, for security and economic reasons. Employers need to hire only workers who can legally work in the U.S. And Americans need to accept those legally entering the country as a part of American society.

Showing Americans that the only thing you are bringing to the U.S. is the flag and language of your home country and making no effort to actually become a legal part of American society does nothing. If you can show so much support and pride for your home country, then what is the point of leaving it?

— Victor Masters, Bellevue