House and majority of Senate Republicans oppose amnesty legislation, but Bush continues to push for passage

May 27, 2006

Illegal immigration, and legislation to deal with it, threaten to split the Republican party and its majority in Congress facing reelection in November.

The U.S. Senate and House are “180 degrees apart” over immigration legislation, says House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., author of the House’s Enforcement First legislation. He is about to become a prominent player in House-Senate negotiations to develop legislation both the House and Senate can agree upon, and says compromise is possible only if the Senate jettisons its pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens.

The Senate proposal, which would allow millions of illegal immigrants to pursue citizenship, he said, amounts to amnesty, and "amnesty is wrong, because amnesty rewards someone for illegal behavior."

‘‘On its face (an agreement) doesn't seem like a strong possibility,' said John Keeley, communication director for the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C. ‘‘Since they have come back from Easter recess, (House members) have remained steadfast, and I think it's because their constituents are so vocal on this.'

But the Bush administration is counting on the House to yield to the Senate in conference committee. White House press secretary Tony Snow told the press that House Republicans will want to pass border security badly enough to back down from the fight against what many consider amnesty for illegal aliens.'

But The House's top GOP leaders made no effort to tone down Sensenbrenner's pointed comments. Sensenbrenner told the press: "The president dispatched Karl Rove, guru in chief up there, to the Republican conference, both this week and last week. . . . And they [House Republicans] jumped all over Rove. And they said the president is not where the American people are at. The Senate is also not where the American people are at."

Even a majority of Senate Republicans voted against the Senate version of immigration legislation, with only 23 Republicans voting for it, and 32 voting against.

The GOP divisions underscored the issue's complexity and its resistance to easy analysis. Among Arizona's Republicans, Sen. John McCain led the fight for the bill, while Sen. Jon Kyl was a key critic. Representing South Carolina, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham championed the bill, while his state's other GOP senator, Jim DeMint, derided it.

Of five Republican senators weighing presidential bids in 2008, only one, George Allen of Virginia, voted against the bill. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), also an opponent of the bill, said yesterday, "I think Allen comes out closer to where Republican primary voters are."

Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University, said the immigration issue poses a serious threat to the party. Since the early Reagan years, he said, "it's been a stable coalition between the party's business and chamber-of-commerce wing and its social conservatives." Now, he said, the first group cherishes the cheap labor that illegal immigrants provide, "while many Republicans, especially in the Sunbelt, really feel the country is being overwhelmed by the alien tide."

In December, the House passed an immigration bill addressing tougher border and workplace enforcement, which would make felons of the 12 million or more illegal immigrants in the country. By contrast, a key element in the Senate bill would allow most of those immigrants to remain in the country and possibly become citizens.

Sensenbrenner is committed to opposing the Senate provision, even if it were allowed to take effect only after there is proof of dramatically fewer illegal crossings from Mexico, due to tougher border enforcement efforts.
"Amnesty . . . is a non-starter," he said. A guest-worker program "can be on the table if it does not contain an amnesty," he said, "but only if the employer sanctions and the increased border patrols are effective."

Sensenbrenner said many of the illegal immigrants in the U.S. will leave voluntarily if the government enforces the House's proposed sharp sanctions against employers who hire them. "With the border controls and the enforcement of employer sanctions, the jobs for illegal immigrants will dry up," he said. "And if you can't get a job because employer sanctions are enforced, my belief is that a lot of the illegal immigrants will simply go back home."

Disputing the theory that there are "jobs that Americans will not do," Sensenbrenner said "Americans will do and have done any job as long as they're paid enough money."

Americans "are willing to spend whatever it takes to secure the border," he added. As for his reputation as a tough negotiator against senators, Sensenbrenner proudly cited an article that said "I've been known to eat them for breakfast and to pick my teeth with their bones."

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.), the chamber's third-ranking Republican leader, "shares the concerns about the Senate approach raised by Chairman Sensenbrenner," his office said yesterday. Blunt opposes "any plan that creates a path to citizenship for those who are in the country illegally," the statement said, and he "remains focused on a border security-first approach."