Border Clash

Since immigration policy barely drew a mention in the 2004 presidential race, it would be logical to conclude that the issue is likely to remain a political non-starter in the 109th Congress-at least as anything other than a minor addendum to homeland security debate.

Yet that assumption would be wrong. While immigration reform may have been overlooked in the presidential campaign, evidence from the 2004 congressional campaign trail suggests that a fierce conflict over illegal immigration is about to erupt on Capitol Hill-and the Border Patrol is already caught in the middle of it.

This year, as always, illegal immigration surfaced as a key issue in congressional races in border states such as Arizona, California and Texas. Yet it also emerged in some unlikely places-in states as varied as Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, North Carolina and Utah.

For Republicans, this turned out to be a troubling development because the debate over illegal immigration often occurred not in the general election against Democratic opponents, but within party primaries. Hard-liners against illegal immigration challenged those in their own party who would make it easier for undocumented immigrants to live and work in the United States.

Now that much of the GOP's base is anchored in Sun Belt states and suburbs where the Hispanic population is exploding, those intraparty divisions come at great political peril. Republican strategists remember all too well the lessons of California's Proposition 187, a 1994 GOP-backed ballot initiative that sought to deny virtually all social services to illegal immigrants and their children. While the measure won easily, the victory proved disastrous. It generated a Latino voter backlash that dramatically reconfigured California's political landscape. A decade later, the California Republican Party has yet to recover.

On the other hand, now that the effects of illegal immigration are being felt in places far from the border, the GOP's conservative wing, led by Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, is demanding that the issue be addressed with more enforcement and restrictive measures.

Congressional Democrats aren't exactly uninterested observers. The party, which controls the lion's share of Hispanic-majority seats, sympathizes with constituents' fears and concerns about La Migra-the Border Patrol.

These conflicting imperatives are precisely why the Border Patrol, the nation's front-line agency on illegal immigration, finds itself caught in an impossible position among three congressional factions. Never was it more richly illustrated than last summer after a Border Patrol unit apprehended 450 illegal immigrants during a 19-day period in inland areas of Southern California.

To the Riverside County-based agents, the arrests made perfect sense. Their jurisdiction is not limited to border interdiction; they are authorized to apprehend undocumented immigrants anywhere in the United States. But to some California Democrats in Congress, the inland sweeps went too far.

Though 50 House Republicans sought to expand enforcement, the Democratic protesters ultimately prevailed. The Bush administration had no intention of antagonizing Hispanic voters; Asa Hutchinson, the Homeland Security Department's chief of Border and Transportation Security, quickly backed down. He noted that the department would consider the "sensitivities" surrounding any future inland operations.

To the frustrated and muzzled Border Patrol rank-and-file, the fallout from the sweeps smacked of a sellout. "Why don't you let us do our job?" demanded National Border Patrol Council President T.J. Bonner at a tempestuous community meeting in Temecula, Calif., attended by Hutchinson.

It was a fair question. But it's likely he already knows the answer.