Republicans and Immigration
Forward Article to a Friend
Print Article
The Republican Party often comes across as tirelessly united, even monolithic. In 1998, for example, Hilary Clinton declared the existence of a “vast right wing conspiracy.” All but one Republican Senator voted in favor of the 2002 resolution giving President Bush the power to invade Iraq. More recently, in the 2004 elections, 93% of Republicans voted for Bush. But the party is not actually as united as it may appear. The issue of illegal immigration has quietly been ripping the party in two.
The split first took shape during the 1990’s. The number of illegal entries into America skyrocketed, making immigration reform a new political priority for Republicans and Democrats alike. Then September 11th and the War on Terrorism made immigration reform a political necessity. Illegal immigration has always been an economic issue, but in the post-September 11th world, it has also become an issue of national defense.
Modern Republicans value both the free market and national defense as party platforms. But when it comes to illegal immigration, these priorities cannot coexist. The American economy is dependent on the labor of illegal immigrants, but American national defense demands the deterrence of illegal immigrants. Republican leaders have to prioritize. They have to ask themselves, “Do the economic benefits of illegal immigration outweigh the potential security drawbacks?”
In one corner, moderate and liberal Republicans—surprisingly, President Bush, and, not surprisingly, Senator John McCain—champion a guest worker program. They believe that, in the end, the clear economic benefits of illegal immigrant labor overrule possible national defense issues. In the opposite corner are conservative Republicans—Senator John Kyl and Pat Buchanan, for example—demanding an increase in security along the U.S./Mexico border and the active removal of illegal immigrants already inside the U.S. This side sees illegal immigration as a local and national threat; illegal immigration negatively affects local communities, and increases the risk of terrorists sneaking in and doing harm. To them, the Federal government has abandoned the security of Western states for the sake of its big business compatriots. (For example, in the summer 2005, Arizona and New Mexico declared that they were each in a “state of emergency” due to illegal immigration.) On a national level, however, the divide has played itself out through opposing legislative proposals. This was most clearly demonstrated when Bush drafted an elaborate legislative initiative concerning immigration.
In January 2004 President Bush, announced his intent to create a guest worker program. The program entails giving “legal status to the millions of men and women now employed in the United States and to those in foreign countries who seek to participate in the program and have been offered work here.” Clearly Bush recognizes America’s economic dependence on illegal immigrant labor and wants a policy that will not disrupt the current state of affairs. Instead of, say, announcing an increase in INS agents, Bush has centered his immigration policy on bringing in more illegal immigrants.
Bush did manage to throw in some lines on national security for broad appeal: “America must control its borders. Following the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, this duty of the federal government has become even more urgent. And we’re fulfilling that duty.” Bush also gained solid Republican support by timing his proposal well. He chose to announce it in an election year, during the Democratic primaries. Any possible debate about the program had to be sidelined until after the election. “We were all willing to shut-up during the campaign. We were not going to attack the president. But the campaign is over with and the gloves are off on this issue,” Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado said in early 2005. Tancredo may dislike the Bush plan, but he detests the McCain plan.
Senator John McCain of Arizona proposed an even more liberal immigration plan. Working in a partnership with Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy, McCain proposed a bill that would allow 400,000 workers into America each year in a structured program not entirely unlike Bush’s. The immigrants would have opportunities to become citizens or establish lives in America. McCain vaguely mentions an additional “strengthening of the border,” but does not specify how. Clearly, then, McCain chose his side; he wants to allow, even encourage, illegal immigrant labor. This proposal has gained some momentum among moderate Republicans, true moderates and Democrats. But many conservatives have bashed the proposal. Fox commentator Bill O’Reilly invoked the local security issues that Arizona—McCain’s home state—is facing: “Senator McCain’s state, Arizona, is getting torched by illegal immigration. Everyone down there is affected. Some hospitals and schools are on the verge of collapse... McCain’s constituents are getting hammered.” What other issue would invoke such a scathing indictment of one Republican-supporter to a Republican?
Both Bush and McCain are hoping to get their bill passed this year, but first they must deal with the vocal opposition, as represented by Tom Tancredo and Bill O’Reilly. Pat Buchanan, one of the most active opponents of Bush and McCain’s plans, said: “The reason they call it ‘guest worker’ is because they know it’s amnesty, but they know the American people know what amnesty is and they’re opposed. So they just call it by another name. That is duplicitous. It is nothing but amnesty.” He went on to say, “They are going to force it on the American people. And the reason they are going to do it, go against the will of the American people, is because their corporate friends are desperate for this. And that is what’s wrong.” He, like most on his side of the debate, sees illegal immigration as an invasion that is ruining the nation. Thus, they have thought-up their own ways to deal with the issue.
In July of 2005, Senator John Cornyn of Texas and Senator John Kyl of Arizona proposed legislation emphasizing national security. They asked for the mandatory registering and fingerprinting of all immigrants, a two year work visa, and a “mandatory departure program” for illegal immigrants already in the country. This piece of legislation is the complete opposite of both the Bush and McCain proposals. The conservative proposal aims to control the flow of illegal immigrants, and, ideally, cut it back significantly. The use of fingerprinting addresses the issue of terrorists immigrating to America. Then the relatively short visa period of two years intends to prevent migrant workers from settling into a long term American life. Finally, the “mandatory departure program” basically means the systematic deportation of illegal immigrants already in the United States. Clearly Kyl and Cornyn are not focused on keeping a large, active workforce of immigrants like Bush and McCain. Instead the focus is on preventing terrorist attacks and restoring order to the border region.
Both sides make legitimate points and have laudable goals. Both sides are also correct to assume that illegal immigration is a pertinent issue. Simply living in California affords us the ability to see both the negative and positive affects of illegal immigration. At this point, however, illegal immigrant labor has become an invisible foundation of the American economy. Without all the millions of illegal workers quietly doing labor that Americans won’t do, the American economy would be devastated. Some type of guest worker program seems to be an admirable solution to the issue of illegal immigration. Both McCain and Bush seem to be on the right track, and have the most balanced priorities. But clearly not all Republicans agree. The real question is, then, how will the Republicans deal with their disagreement. President Bush will soon be gone, and Republicans will be picking new leaders. They must begin addressing some important questions. Will they be able to rally around a leader that has a different view on immigration? Will they be able to maintain their image of monolithic unity? Will 2008 be the new 1912? Is it true that “a house divided against itself cannot stand?”
