Time for action

Election watchers agree that Republicans won big on Nov. 4 but disagree on why. Democrats point to an unfavorable map, international crises out of their control, and a deeply unpopular president. Conservatives take a different view: As I attended Washington meetings and interviewed grassroots leaders in the days after the election, they consistently pointed to two issues House Speaker John Boehner in an election night statement completely omitted as the primary reasons for Republicans’ decisive win: immigration and Obamacare.

How the GOP answers the why question will say a lot about how successful its governance may be over the next two years. Obamacare battles will likely unfold over time (see sidebar), but the immigration issue will erupt soon. President Barack Obama, facing intense pressure from pro-immigration advocates who say they’re tired of his broken promises, has vowed to act unilaterally on immigration, and he reiterated his plans in a postelection meeting with GOP leaders at the White House. Many Republicans ran against what they call Obama’s “executive amnesty,” and polls show many voters agree with them. But polls also show that Americans want Washington to break the gridlock on a variety of fronts, especially immigration reform. A closer look at some important midterm election results shows Republicans do have a path forward—on both policy and politics.

Among the many midterm takeaways for Republicans, two stand out above the rest: Conservatives can win Hispanic support without sacrificing principles, and voters reward bold action. In Colorado, where Hispanics make up 14 percent of the electorate, Rep. Cory Gardner softened his immigration rhetoric and in August was one of 11 Republicans to vote against an enforcement-only House bill that would have ended President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). He maintained a border-security-first position on immigration reform, but he also said overhaul plans should include a path to legalization, though not full citizenship, for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants already in the United States who meet certain criteria.

Colorado exit polling did not record exactly how much Latino support Gardner received on Election Day, but he prevailed by less than 50,000 overall votes and Hispanics cast more than 260,000 ballots. Gardner won the white vote by only 10 points (Republicans won whites nationally by 22 points), so extrapolated data indicate he may have nearly doubled Mitt Romney’s 23 percent showing among Colorado Hispanics in 2012.

“If he had taken a hard-line, anti-immigration stance or voted to end DACA, I believe he would not be Senator-elect Cory Gardner,” said Michelle Warren with the Denver-based Christian Community Development Association, a group connected to both evangelicals and immigrants in the state.

In Texas, state Attorney General Greg Abbott preached a border security message, but he did it respectfully and directed Republican lieutenant gubernatorial candidate Dan Patrick to tone down his inflammatory rhetoric on immigration. Abbott, whose wife Cecilia is of Mexican heritage, touted the benefits of Hispanic immigrants during the campaign (see “The GOP’s Greg Abbott,” May 31), aired thousands of ads in Spanish, and supported amending, not ending, the 2001 Texas DREAM Act that gave benefits to immigrants unlawfully brought into the state as children.

The result? Abbott crushed Democratic hopes of turning Texas blue, even a little, defeating state Sen. Wendy Davis by 20 points. He won 44 percent of Hispanic voters in a state where they comprised 17 percent of the electorate.

(Abbott and Gardner have something else in common: Both are staunchly pro-life and ran against two candidates who are very much pro-abortion. Perhaps more than anyone else in 2014, Wendy Davis and Colorado Sen. Mark Udall represent Democrats’ failed “war on women” narrative. Hispanic support for Abbott and Gardner also reflects the community’s support for traditional values.)

AS MUCH AS BOEHNER MIGHT WANT to wish away an immigration debate, conservatives of various stripes say doing nothing is no longer an option. “I think Republicans understand they need to govern and legislate if they’re going to maintain the Senate,” said Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles. “It’s not enough to reject everything.”

Immigration could easily become the defining issue of the 114th Congress. Soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Obama’s threatened executive action could “poison the well” on reform—“like waving a red flag in front of a bull”—and possibly end hopes of compromise in other areas. Yet Republicans likely have much more to lose than Democrats if that happens. President Obama won’t be on the ballot again, but in 2016 the GOP will play defense in 24 of 34 Senate seats up for reelection, including several in states that Obama won twice.

A September NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found 72 percent of Americans favor an immigration solution that includes a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, if they pay a fine, pay back taxes, and pass a background check. Many Republicans and their conservative supporters want to focus on border security. Obama knows this better than anyone realized: The Wall Street Journal recently reported Obama and Boehner engaged in a year of secret talks aimed at finding consensus on comprehensive immigration reform. Negotiations broke down over the summer, but Boehner did convince the president, in principle, to use a step-by-step approach to the issue.

Many conservatives consider “comprehensive” a dirty word, believing it means Obama gets everything he wants and Republicans get nothing but empty promises. “What the base wants is border security first,” Brent Bozell, chairman of the grassroots organization For America, told me. Bozell, who acknowledged the United States can’t deport 11 million people, said he knows the border will never be 100 percent secure, but those efforts should take priority before other policy changes occur. “The longer we dither on this, the more illegals will be in this country, and at a certain point those people dithering will have to take responsibility.”

But free of future election accountability, Obama could issue millions of work visas to halt most deportations with few repercussions. The predictable result: Republicans will swing into action, pass legislation to override Obama’s executive order, and enact enforcement measures, including more border security. This would please much of the GOP base, but it will come across as harsh and force GOP presidential candidates to take hard-line positions on immigration—similar to the way Obama’s 2012 executive order creating DACA forced Mitt Romney to oppose it.

Matthew Soerens with the Evangelical Immigration Table told me the absence of DACA was the biggest reason 2014 Republicans fared better among Hispanics compared to Romney, who had pledged to end the program. DACA recipients cannot vote, but they have networks that do. “The best possible thing for Hillary Clinton would be for Obama to do executive action, for the GOP leadership in Congress to stick to their statements when the president ‘poisons the well,’ and then for GOP presidential candidates to face questions in primary debates and from press in Iowa and South Carolina,” Soerens said. “Embracing the president’s action may cost them in the primary, but opposing it will cost them the general election.”

The irony of it all: Focusing on border security and legalization ignores the biggest problem. The lack of a functioning legal immigration system has plagued the United States since the 1960s, when labor unions successfully lobbied to end a robust guest worker program that allowed circular migration. Illegal immigration subsequently skyrocketed, and major immigration laws Congress passed in 1986, 1996, and 2005 have failed to address the root causes. If congressional Republicans are serious about effectively dealing with the problem, they’ll address all three areas—even if they do what Gardner suggests and offer legalization that stops short of a path to citizenship.

WHEN REPUBLICANS GET weak-kneed about going bold, they can look at some of their governors for inspiration. Following the 2010 wave election, new GOP governors enacted major reforms across the nation: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder both took on big labor with worker-friendly legislation; Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback signed into law sweeping tax cuts; Florida Gov. Rick Scott expanded school choice and signed a bill allowing children of illegal immigrants who grew up in the state to qualify for in-state college tuition. The controversial moves led pundits to pronounce looming political deaths, but voters rewarded all four governors with reelection on Nov. 4.

Although much opportunity exists, significant immigration progress remains a long shot. It would require intraparty compromise for the sake of unity, which may sound impossible, but Republicans proved they are capable of it during the recent campaign season. Libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul became best buddies with fellow Kentucky Sen. McConnell, an endangered establishment Republican. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin campaigned with the establishment-backed Sen. Pat Roberts in Kansas. Tea party groups, after backing Roberts’ primary challenger, broke down and endorsed the embattled incumbent shortly before the election. The results were compelling. Now the question is whether Republicans can find that same unity when it comes time to legislate.

Without 60

When Republicans won control of the U.S. Senate on Nov. 4, it was easy to imagine a steady stream of conservative bills en route to President Barack Obama’s desk, starting with a full Obamacare repeal. It’s not quite that simple.

Senate rules stipulate a bill must have 60 votes to invoke cloture—a procedural move to end debate and bring a measure to the floor for a vote. (In 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., lowered the 60-vote threshold for approving judiciary appointments, but the rule remains in place for legislation.) Since Republicans will likely only have 54 seats when the Senate convenes in January, incoming Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have to find Democratic support for anything he wants to pass. This is why Republicans were able to stop many Democratic priorities from passing even the Senate, including gun control and a legislative effort to overturn the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision.

The odds that any six Democrats would agree to consider repealing Obamacare are near zero, so conservatives are pushing Republicans to use budget reconciliation—the process by which a bicameral panel irons out House and Senate budget differences—to follow through on their campaign promise, even if they know Obama will veto it. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said the GOP will only press for repeal once a full replacement is ready.

McConnell said Republicans plan to start immediately repealing some of the most damaging parts of the law, including restoring the 40-hour work week and dismantling the individual mandate. Aside from Obama’s controversial unilateral changes, the president has signed into law some 15 different bipartisan bills tweaking parts of the Affordable Care Act; but he said, “The individual mandate is a line I can’t cross.”

Obamacare lawsuits are still working their way through the court system and will likely affect what legislation is crafted during the 114th Congress. On Nov. 7 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging the legality of Obamacare subsidies. Since most of the roughly 7 million individuals enrolled receive subsidies, the court could deal a serious blow to the structural integrity of the law if it rules against the administration. —J.C.D.