By Blocking Immigration Reform, House Republicans Secure GOP Death Spiral

Continued from previous page

If you're a House Republican in a solidly red district with few minority voters, not only do you not care about appealing to minority voters, but you're also deathly afraid of upsetting your white constituents – particularly, if those white constituents are none too fond of "illegal immigrants". Although one might understand the logic of having the national party appeal to Hispanic voters to win presidential elections, the perception that you are turning your back on white voters is a recipe for political disaster. And so, for rank-and-file GOP congressmen, the smart strategy has always been to block immigration reform.

Now, on the surface, this may seem like a selfish move and one that is focused on short-term political considerations rather than the long-term future of the party. Beyond the devastating hit to the hope of minimizing the party's disadvantage with Hispanic voters, blocking immigration reform will almost certainly do further harm to the GOP brand among other minority groups (African Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans), as well as socially tolerant whites.

The problem is that House Republicans have a powerful counter-argument: all of this might be true, but passing immigration reform won't do all that much to help.

They are probably right. Millions of Latino voters are not going to suddenly provide their appreciation – and votes – to Republicans for passing a bill championed by a Democratic president. Moreover, a bill that offers a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants – which is a key Democratic requirement – will create millions of potential new voters, many of whom will likely be casting a ballot for the party that shepherded immigration reform over the legislative finish line, rather than the one that was dragged there kicking and screaming.

Meanwhile, resentful white voters might be a shrinking part of the population, but there still are quite a few of them, particularly in red states. So long as they are willing to vote Republican – and keep the House in GOP hands – why risk upsetting them?

In a rare joint  editorial in the Weekly Standard, Rich Lowry (editor of National Review) and Bill Kristol (editor of the Standard) made the point quite clearly:

The Republicans eager to back the bill are doing so out of political panic, 'I think Republicans realize the implications for the future of the Republican party in America if we don't get this issue behind us,'  John McCain says. This is silly. Are we supposed to believe that Republican Senate candidates running in states such as Arkansas, North Carolina, Iowa, Virginia and Montana will be hurt if the party doesn't embrace Chuck Schumer's immigration bill?

Of course, there is a third option – which is having the House vote on the Senate bill and allowing those Republican members who accrue some political benefit from voting for an immigration reform measure to join with  Democrats in passing the bill. But that would mean Speaker of the House  John Boehner would have to agree to suspend the informal Hastert rule, which says that any legislation passing the House must have a majority of Republicans. For Boehner to take that step would further isolate him from his caucus; not surprisingly, it's a political step he doesn't want to take.

The irony is that the group of Republican politicians being most politically selfish is the group pushing reform. For someone like Rubio, who wants to run for president in three years and hopes to do so with a political base larger than the one Mitt Romney lost with, passing reform is far more about assisting his political future than it is about helping the GOP – because, in the short term, immigration reform will do far more than harm than good to his party. Indeed, one could look at Rubio's own fortunes to see why. As Micah Cohen pointed out at fivethirtyeight.com a few days ago, his standing has slipped among Republicans – and immigration appears to be  one of the key contributing factors.