Republicans are angry with the president over his unilateral executive action to defer the deportation of more than 5 million undocumented immigrants. Rightly so, as immigration is a complex issue that can only be fixed through legislation.
Moreover, that is clearly not the way to start building a good working relationship with a new Congress. If you have a problem with your co-worker, you cannot just slap him in the face and then offer to sit down and work out your misunderstanding.
It seems that the president and his fellow Democrats are not really interested in talking to Republicans. They would rather keep the immigration issue unresolved so they can use it politically to get the support of Latino voters, advancing the false and simplistic narrative that they are their friends and Republicans are their foes.
Democrats, however, are also aware that Latinos are tired of waiting for a solution to the immigration problem. They turned against Democratic candidates in the midterms, with 36 percent of Hispanics at the national level voting for Republicans in House races — 9 points better than what Mitt Romney got only two years ago. Republicans also did remarkably well in statewide races — in Georgia, Republican candidate David Perdue got 42 percent of the Latino vote, and in Kansas, incumbent Republican Sen. Pat Roberts got 46 percent.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott got 38 percent of the Latino vote. Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal got 47 percent; in Texas, Attorney General Greg Abbott got 44 percent; and in Kansas, Gov. Sam Brownback got 48 percent, beating his Democratic opponent among Hispanics.
The results demonstrated that where Latinos do not see a difference between the two parties on immigration, they are open to consider voting for either of the two. When immigration disappears as a wedge issue, Democrats may start to lose their grip on the Latino vote.
The president’s executive action is a strategic political maneuver to respond to this political dilemma for Democrats. It seeks to reconcile with Hispanics by trying to show them that they have finally done something to help the undocumented.
At the same time, it is purposely intended to antagonize Republicans, with the hope that they will resist any immigration legislation. That way, Democrats can keep demonizing the GOP as anti-immigrant.
Republican displeasure over this unilateral move by the president is totally understandable and warranted, but Republicans should not take the bait of this Machiavellian political trap. They should fight the White House but also work to pass legislation through both chambers that truly fixes our dysfunctional immigration system.
Republicans should not feel that they must either side with Obama and his amnesty plan or side with restrictionists who argue the problem will go away if we just enforce the law. There is a third way, and it is a conservative way. It starts with securing the border and bolstering domestic enforcement of immigration law, but also includes setting up a market-based guest worker program that ensures American employers can hire the foreign workers they need to grow their businesses and create good-paying jobs for working Americans.
Once this is in place, we can go ahead and provide a path to legal status for those here illegally — but not a special path to citizenship.
Obama will not like that plan. He opposes both additional border fencing and a market-based guest worker program, and he wants a special path to citizenship for the undocumented. But if he were to oppose or veto such a Republican plan, Latino voters would see where he really stands.
Most Americans reject the president’s move on immigration. Nevertheless, most of them still want Congress to pass immigration reform. Republicans can accomplish what Democrats promised but did not deliver.
Alfonso Aguilar is executive director of American Principles Project’s Latino Partnership and former chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship under President George W. Bush. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions for editorials, available at this link.
