Defeat this monstrosity: what Hill conservatives can do on immigration.

NOW that the U.S. Senate has made a strong argument for unicameral government by passing the "comprehensive" immigration monstrosity, attention turns to the House. It has already passed a sensible "enforcement only" bill. It should stand firm on that legislation, at most making it an "enforcement first" bill by promising to consider some of the Senate's reasonable proposals in the next Congress, if any can be found. But the Bush-Democrat coalition has an almost mystical attachment to the Senate's guest-worker and amnesty provisions. It will be faithful unto death in fighting for them. And since the most likely such death is that of the Republican-controlled House, a major struggle is in prospect this summer. House Republicans should stand firm and refuse all compromise. Here's how:

1. Underline on every possible occasion that this is not a "bipartisan" moderate bill. It is an extremist "open borders" law being pushed by a coalition of George W. Bush and the Democrats. This Bush-Democrat coalition is a radical one; it is not moderate, and it is certainly not conservative. Majorities of Republicans in both chambers of Congress are strongly opposed to the bill. Only continued firm opposition by Republicans can prevent an amnesty, a guest-worker program, and many other costly absurdities from passing into law. Republicans should want to boast in the midterm-election campaign that only their strong opposition did prevent this monstrosity's passing into law.

2. Inform Beltway-centric Republicans that the mood of about 70 percent of Americans is sulfurous on this issue. As some Republican moderates like Chris Shays have discovered, this anger is not confined to the party's "base," as the condescending media commentary has it. It is spread across the political spectrum. Some who have voted Republican tell you, unprompted, that they will never vote GOP again. Many voters will go passionately to the polls this November to ensure the defeat of the bill's supporters. Republican strategists--there's an oxymoron for you--whose great anxiety is that the GOP's grassroots supporters will stay at home are raving optimists. It's that bad.

3. Point out the absurdity of the Bush-Democrat coalition's argument that voters want "something" done about immigration and will punish those who do "nothing." (The dimmer bulbs and the media seem to have been impressed by this.) What the voters want is border security and sanctions on employers who break the rules; what they oppose is rewarding lawbreaking with an amnesty. The proposed comprehensive law is therefore very much worse than "nothing." The voters will punish those who support it and reward those who defeat it. Those lukewarm souls who pass it while saying it should be defeated they will spew out of their mouths. The Bush-Democrat argument--promoted by those Republican "strategists" again--amounts to saying that voters are too stupid to inquire into what the "something" called immigration reform actually contains. You wanna bet on that likelihood? Okay, strategist, make my day.

4. Think about why the Democrats don't seem to be suffering equally from the unpopularity of the Senate bill. They probably would be if the Republicans had been united in opposition and the Democrats were seen as its main promoters. But Bush and his GOP Senate allies, especially McCain, Martinez, and Hagel, have confused that picture--though perhaps not beyond repair. Besides, voters expect Democrats to favor this kind of legislation and the big government that goes with it. They may not like it, but they reasonably feel it does not amount to a betrayal. Finally, the Democrats may be prepared to take this risk in order to bring onto the electoral rolls the low-paid illegal immigrants who will be a massive net addition to their voters, recruits for the ethnic lobbies in the liberal-Democrat coalition, and fodder for the labor unions increasingly shunned by native-born Americans.

5. Realize that a Republican party united around this policy will go down to a united defeat. A divided GOP will have mixed results: Those who oppose it clearly, loudly, and on principle are likely to win, ceteris paribus, against Democrats who go along with the party line. Memo to Republicans running against those Democrats who voted against the bill, notably Debbie Stabenow and Ben Nelson: Save your money and take a good vacation.

6. Pay attention to the advice from David Frum in his National Review Online diary: The House Republicans can save themselves by--and only by--coming out against the bill and the president in a front-page-news way: Refusing to go to conference on the bill. Standing united on the steps of the Capitol behind Dennis Hastert as they unanimously reject it. Signing a full-page Washington Post or New York Times advertisement shouting "Not In Our Name." Of course, they may be too loyal, noble, and courageous to do such things. In which case: Sayonara, kamikazes.

7. Develop a Plan B in case the comprehensive bill is successfully euthanized. As games go, this will afford many hours of malicious fun. For instance, House Republicans should wait till September, introduce a new version of the current House bill offering "enforcement only" reform, pass it, send it to the Senate, and watch liberal Republicans and Democrats alike squirm as they have to decide between principle and reelection. Would Bush veto such a bill in those circumstances? Perhaps. But why is that a problem? If he allowed it to pass into law, then the House Republicans would have a bill that was a great deal better than "something" to show the voters in November. If he vetoed it, he would dramatize the independence of the House Republicans and their closeness to their constituents on this issue.

8. Realize that the White House and its congressional lobbyists are very skilled at prizing allies out of opposition groups and neutering them. For instance, some of the most repellent and idiotic provisions in the comprehensive bill have been put in there for the precise purpose of taking them out again in response to the complaints of the House Republicans. It looks to me that Senator Specter's last-minute insertion of an amendment to make building a border defense conditional upon consultations with the Mexican government was just such a provision. The calculation is that when such provisions bite the dust, the House can claim to have reformed the bill and made it acceptable. But it will still be an amnesty-and-guest-worker bill, in other words spinach. Say to hell with it.

9. Similarly, beware of House conservatives bearing gifts--such as respectable "compromises" that might satisfy the White House, soften the Senate Republican minority, and "unite" the GOP. Anything that does the first two of these things will not be a compromise but a surrender. Mike Pence, the Indiana congressman, is a sound fellow in general but his proposed "compromise" is an utter absurdity. It is the Senate's same old comprehensive litany of guest-worker, amnesty, etc., with private-sector enforcement thrown in as a sop to the economic prejudices (which I share) of economic conservatives. As veteran econometrics writer Ed Rubenstein has shown, it could not possibly work. Private-sector employment agencies do not exist of the size and numbers that would be needed to process the tens of millions of immigrants, legal and illegal, that this legislation would admit to the U.S. If they did, their economic incentives would probably mean that they would pass over Mexican workers in favor of much cheaper Africans and Asians. Of course, the Mexicans would then move back into the illegal sector, and in time the Africans and Asians would follow them as regulation made them too pricey for employers and taxation made their legal jobs less financially attractive. In sum, it is probably a good thing that such a proposal is unworkable, since, if it could work, it would make matters much worse.

10. Ignore any "compromise" proposals from congressmen who have recently traveled on Air Force One.

11. Ask conservative and neoconservative writers who have strongly supported the Senate bill the following question: As the bill progresses, it acquires more and more provisions that should be detestable to all conservatives: the tax provisions that allow illegal immigrants a 40 percent exemption on back taxes that the IRS would grant no American; the Social Security changes that give illegals credit for payments made on false identities; the transformation of the guest-worker program so that "temporary" status becomes permanent residence in a few easy steps; the provisions that give guest workers protections that U.S. workers don't enjoy; and the outright lies about such "safeguards" as that illegals must learn English to "earn citizenship" and that even then they will go to the back of the line, behind legal applicants. Why then do you raise little or no protest over these effects of the legislation or over the wider socialization of the U.S. economy they would inevitably impose?

12. Regard hatchet jobs of the "mainstream media" on conservative opponents of the Bush-Democrat compromise as badges of honor. Conservative Washington should give a public dinner in honor of Sen. Jeff Sessions, an amiable, soft-spoken lawyer, following his attempted assassination by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post. The tender-hearted Milbank called Sessions a "country tough" with big ears who nastily impugned the motives of his opponents with "typical ferocity." How exactly? Well, he suggested that some Senate advocates of border reforms favor them only "as long as they don't really work." That apparently counts as sheer brutality in today's Washington Post newsroom. It must be a very charming place to work. Still, Milbank's piece did raise some disturbing questions, such as: Don't they have editors at the Post these days? And are good manners making a comeback?

13. When colleagues look like they're going wobbly, quote the ad George Bush ran (in Spanish only) in his Texas gubernatorial race that said, "Vote Bush--so what if he's not a Democrat?" Walk away saying "Hmm ..."

14. Finally, show some backbone. You don't have to pass this bill. You don't have to go to conference. You can reject Kevorkian politics and the whole engine of party suicide. Well, what's stopping you? What are you? Thistledown?