January 03, 2006|By GEORGE W. GRAYSON
Republicans fear that the flagrant misconduct by some of their members could cost them control of the House in the November election. Thus, the GOP, which now outnumbers the Democrats 231 seats to 202, has grabbed the immigration issue as a lifeline to preserve the majority it has enjoyed since Newt Gingrich swept the party to power in 1994.
Because of the benefits of incumbency - lots of political action committee money, greater name recognition than challengers, continual access to the media and custom-made districts - only about 35 of the 435 seats are usually subject to real contests. Once elected, most members of Congress can stay in office as long as they like - unless, of course, they find themselves ensnarled in scandal.
This is why Republicans are worried. Last year featured a series of high-profile cases in which GOP big shots faced charges of pocketing big bucks from big business in exchange for favors.
Tom DeLay of Texas was indicted on charges of unlawful fundraising; Ohio's Bob Ney was accused of accepting payola from a prominent influence-peddler; and Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham of California resigned after taking $2.4 million for helping defense contractors nail down lucrative Pentagon business.
Mr. Cunningham may become the poster felon for Democrats who insist that 11 years of GOP control of Congress has engendered "a culture of corruption." They may be able to make the case, for the Pew Charitable Trust recently found that if the elections were held now, 51 percent of voters would opt for Democrats and only 41 percent for Republicans. Further, Americans believe that Republicans are "too close" to big business.
To change this perception, GOP honchos went searching for an issue on which they could stake out their independence from giant corporations. Bingo! They decided it would be immigration.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Restaurant Association and the Associated General Contractors of America had been urging the Republicans to kill a measure that would require businesses to verify that their workers are in the United States legally and would boost penalties for hiring illegal employees. These mega-groups announced that a legislator's stance on immigration would be a key factor on whether they supported him for re-election.
Yet Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri - who is acting as majority leader while Mr. DeLay awaits trial - appears eager to cross swords with his party's traditional allies. "Congressman Blunt sees no problem with being in a different place from the Chamber on this legislation," his spokesman told reporters.
The driving force behind the get-tough approach is Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado Republican who heads the 92-member Immigration Reform Caucus. He says the business community is "addicted to cheap labor, which illegal aliens provide. It's in their interests to keep the border porous."
Mr. Tancredo and others crafted a bill that would not only crack down on employers who hire illegal workers but would also make it a crime to live in the United States without proper identification. In addition, it would prevent social service agencies and church groups from offering support to unlawful immigrants.
Meanwhile, it would require the detention of some immigrants, deny federal assistance to localities that furnish services to immigrants without checking their legal status and lower the number of legal immigrants each year by deep-sixing a program that provides 50,000 green cards. Needless to say, the House unceremoniously axed President Bush's proposal for additional guest workers.
"This is a gesture to the xenophobic wing of the party, and that is alarming," Cecilia MuM-qoz of the National Council of La Raza told The New York Times.
The Senate could dilute or even kill the initiative. Yet the 33 senators who must face the voters this year might perceive that the House is more in tune with public sentiment than are their cronies in corporate boardrooms.
A Fox News poll conducted in April found that a large majority of Americans believes undocumented immigration to be a "very serious" (63 percent) or "somewhat serious" (28 percent) problem. Sixty percent of respondents to a mid-December ABC News/Washington Post survey backed erecting a barrier at the border; only 26 percent disapproved.
Thus, opposition to immigration reform could find senators in political hot water with neither a safety jacket nor a lifeline to save them.
George W. Grayson teaches at the College of William & Mary in Virginia. His e-mail is gwgray@wm.edu.
Columnist Clarence Page will return Friday.
