GOP Fears Fallout Of Immigration Split

Many elected officials and political analysts say inherent differences between House and Senate members also help explain their approaches to immigration. House members must defend their seats every other year, and are much more likely than senators to have a homogenous constituency with clearly defined views on a matter such as immigration.

Senators have a six-year break between campaigns, and represent entire states that typically have a broader mix of urban, rural, conservative and liberal voters. Senators are far more likely than House members to have presidential aspirations, which prompt a more national approach to politics.

"It's the difference between long term and short term," said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who spent six years in the House and who opposed the Senate bill. "House members think about November, because they run every two years."

With their majority status at risk this fall, Thune said, House Republicans are taking a hard line on immigration because "it generates a lot of emotion," especially among conservative voters, whose turnout will be crucial.

House Republicans "are probably right in the short term," Thune said. But for Bush and Rove, he said, "the question is, 'How can we reach out to a group that is the fastest-growing segment?' "

Four key GOP backers of the Senate bill -- Hagel, McCain, Sam Brownback (Kan.) and Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.) -- have presidential ambitions. "They, like Bush and Rove, think about the long-term fate of the GOP and the importance of Latinos," said Thomas E. Mann, a Brookings Institution scholar and co-author of a new book on Congress.

Senators say most polls support their position. A New York Times/CBS poll in May found that 61 percent of Americans think illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for at least two years should be given a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status; 35 percent agreed with the House's position that they should be deported.

In a recent Manhattan Institute poll of likely Republican voters, 72 percent said it was extremely or very important "for Congress to solve the problem of illegal immigration this year." Yet the two chambers appear deadlocked.

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) says such surveys miss the point. "I think the Senate probably is reading the polls," he said, "but I think the House members are listening to real people in real situations. . . . People keep saying: border security, biometric cards [to prove legal status] and no amnesty."

Some lawmakers hope for a compromise in which tougher border enforcement eventually would trigger a broader guest-worker program and legal status for some of the undocumented workers already here. But Rep. Eric I. Cantor (R-Va.) is dubious.

"I think the frustration level is so high," he said. "If you are talking about triggers now -- without having proven you can control the border -- the question is, trigger what? Trigger amnesty?"

The Senate also shows little appetite for compromise. "I don't think the Senate will go for anything that is not comprehensive in nature," Hagel said. He fears that the debate and impasse are driving his party toward serious trouble with Latino and non-Latino voters alike.

"We are seen by too many as an intolerant party," Hagel said. "And the majority of Americans are not going to elect intolerant representatives."