Immigration and the New Political Math

Tired of contentious, polarizing issues that pit red- and blue-state Americans against each other and make it impossible for them to find common ground? Well, rest easy. It's time for consensus-building, bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform!

Seriously. It's OK. Starting the debate now won't usher in the apocalypse, despite the fervor of the few and the loud who have so effectively demonized immigrants and distracted the country from the truth about immigration.

Consider the fact that Democrats and Republicans alike want to fix the immigration system -- and not just by deporting all the immigrants. A poll by Benenson Strategy Group earlier this year found that three out of four respondents wanted Congress to act on this issue. The same poll found that 68 percent wanted a pathway to citizenship for those currently living here illegally. The Pew Research Center found a similar consensus in March and April, with 63 percent of those surveyed supporting naturalization for immigrants.

Remember, too, that comprehensive immigration reform is not a new idea -- it has been widely debated in recent years, and many wrinkles have already been ironed out. In fact, in 2006 a comprehensive immigration reform bill easily passed in the Senate with 38 Democrats, 23 Republicans and one independent voting in favor.

President Obama and key Republican leaders want it too. Or so they said last summer when they met at the White House, where Obama acknowledged the efforts of Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham and their willingness to see beyond "short-term politics."

So the public wants it, politicians want it, and interest groups as diverse as labor unions, chambers of commerce and religious communities want it. Suddenly it doesn't sound so outrageous to say that now is the "appropriate time" for reform, as Labor Secretary Hilda Solis recently observed. Simon Rosenberg of the progressive think tank NDN predicts that comprehensive immigration reform would enjoy "more bipartisan support than any legislation under consideration right now."

Ah, yes, you say, optimism is good -- but surely the economy trumps all. With unemployment hovering around 10 percent, isn't this precisely the wrong time to talk about welcoming foreign workers into the U.S. work force?

It's a fair point, and it illustrates the very reason that some organized labor has consistently balked at immigration reform. In the past, the AFL-CIO, the U.S.'s largest labor federation, sharply criticized a proposed guest worker plan. This frightened away many Democrats who might have supported such a proposal.

Yet the AFL-CIO now stands behind the first reform bill in the House of Representatives this session: the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009, introduced by Democrat Luis Gutierrez of Illinois. The federation supports the bill because, rather than expanding temporary worker programs, it proposes to base future immigration flows on the rulings of an independent commission.

Now, there is no question that any kind of comprehensive reform will generate intense -- if not broad -- opposition. Some Americans continue to believe that immigrants are taking their country away from them. Combine that with the growing skepticism in recent months about the federal government's ability to tackle crucial issues effectively, and the immigration debate will almost certainly turn ugly.

Gutierrez's bill also raises questions about a potential fissure within the Democratic Party. In explaining his reasons for introducing the legislation now, Gutierrez expressed disappointment with the White House. "We've waited for it to be taken up by this Congress and our president," Gutierrez wrote in The Huffington Post on Dec. 14. "And the time for waiting is over."

It wasn't so long ago that Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff and a former congressman, was directly involved in efforts to stall comprehensive immigration reform in the House. Emanuel has said that he did it to protect vulnerable Democrats in conservative districts. But some immigration experts, including Frank Sharry, founder and executive director of the left-leaning pro-immigration group America's Voice, are convinced that political calculations have changed since then, and that Emanuel's views have evolved along with them. Emanuel once observed that a Democratic president would have to wait until a second term to take on the issue of immigration. But Sharry predicts that Obama's re-election will depend "in a very significant way on Latino voters coming out in 2012."

The political calculations should have changed for Republicans, too. In an analysis of the 22 most contested congressional races in 2008, America's Voice found that the winners in 20 of them had campaigned on immigration reform.

If Republicans believe, as so many observers do, that their party has suffered because of its vitriolic anti-immigrant tone in recent years, they may find it unwise to oppose comprehensive reform this time around.