The headline in the NYT says it all "Republican Split on Immigration Reflects Nation's Struggle". As a nation of immigrants (my ancestors came from Scotland, via Canada, as well as England and Germany) we are all naturally sympathetic to the efforts of people who wish to come to America and participate in the American dream. Yet, we also are a people who hold the rule of law in high regard. We want people to come here in a legal, orderly manner. We also don't want native-born Americans to lose jobs or find their earnings diminished because of competition from illegal immigrants. The GOP struggle on this issue is driven, in part, by these contradictions. But the political disconnect, which also impacts the Democrats, is driven more by the power of interest group politics than anything else. As Tony Blankley points out in his column in today's Washington Times, the public overwhelmingly supports tighter restrictions on immigration.

National polling data could not be more emphatic — and has been so for decades. Gallup Poll (March 27) finds 80 percent of the public wants the federal government to get tougher on illegal immigration. A Quinnipiac University Poll (March 3) finds 62 percent oppose making it easier for illegals to become citizens (72 percent in that poll don't even want illegals to be permitted to have driver's licenses). Time Magazine's recent poll (Jan. 24-26) found 75 percent favor "major penalties" on employers of illegals, 70 percent believe illegals increase the likelihood of terrorism and 57 percent would use military force at the Mexican-American border. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (March 10-13) found 59 percent opposing a guest-worker proposal, and 71 percent would more likely vote for a congressional candidate who would tighten immigration controls. An IQ Research poll (March 10) found 92 percent saying that securing the U.S. border should be a top priority of the White House and Congress. Yet, according to a National Journal survey of Congress, 73 percent of Republican and 77 percent of Democratic congressmen and senators say they would support guest-worker legislation.

The prime reason why Democrat and Republican leaders are so out of touch with the mainstream public on this issue is that those leaders are supported by powerful interest groups that have an interest in maintaining the flow of legal and illegal immigrants. Business interests want a cheap labor pool. Hispanic interests want to serve their members and their families by building a larger power base to shape policy at the local and national levels. Republicans are beholden to business interests. Democrats are beholden to ethnically-based interest groups of all stripes.

The irony of this political conundrum is that there are powerful groups in both parties that should be fighting against any kind of amnesty or guest worker program. The Conservative base of the GOP is steadfastly against legalizing the illegals, and steadfastly for building a fence on the border. Ironically, a CNN anchor, Lou Dobbs, probably best expresses the outrage of that segment of the party, which may be driving his improving ratings. In the Democratic Party, the labor unions should be leading the charge against a guest worker program. As Paul Krugman points out in a recent column, illegal immigrants hold down wages at the low end of the scale.

...while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration - especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst- paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.

Robert Samuelson made the point even more clearly in a column from last week.

Guest workers would mainly legalize today's vast inflows of illegal immigrants, with the same consequence: We'd be importing poverty. This isn't because these immigrants aren't hardworking; many are. Nor is it because they don't assimilate; many do. But they generally don't go home, assimilation is slow and the ranks of the poor are constantly replenished. Since 1980 the number of Hispanics with incomes below the government's poverty line (about $19,300 in 2004 for a family of four) has risen 162 percent. Over the same period, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty rose 3 percent and the number of blacks, 9.5 percent. What we have now -- and would with guest workers -- is a conscious policy of creating poverty in the United States while relieving it in Mexico.

And these are just the economic arguments in opposition to a guest worker program. There is also the question of terrorism. Our virtually open borders are an open invitation to terrorists to cross into the country for the next big attack. Unfortunately, I fear that because the labor unions appear unwilling to challenge the Democratic leadership and Conservatives are overpowered by the business interests in the GOP on this issue, the Congress will probably pass something unpalatable and unecessary. Will someone step forward and ride the tiger of anti-illegal immigration feeling to electoral success? He (or she) will be called a racist, and worse. But the political payoff could be enormous in 2008.