Position on immigration testing Democrats

GOP may try to exploit divisive issue

Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York bowed to foes and dropped a plan to offer driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Rivals of Hillary Clinton had pounded her on the issue. (Yuri Gripas/ REUTERS)

The stir in the Democratic presidential race created by New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's proposal to provide driver's licenses to illegal immigrants may begin to ebb now that Spitzer this week abandoned the plan and Hillary Clinton said unequivocally that she opposes the idea.

But the two-week-long dispute, in which Clinton's rivals attacked her repeatedly for refusing to give a firm answer on Spitzer's measure, raised a question that is not going away: How will Democratic candidates position themselves as the immigration debate churns?

Illegal immigration is already a major flashpoint in the Republican primary, as the leading candidates clash over who would crack down the hardest. Rancor over the driver's license plan elevated the issue in the Democratic race, too, presenting a minefield for candidates as they engage voters worried about the economy and the direction of the country.

"It's rising in importance," said Jill Derby, chairwoman of the Democratic Party in Nevada, where Democratic presidential contenders gathered last night for their latest debate.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois said during the debate that Americans are "justified in feeling frustrated" about illegal immigration because the Bush administration has done nothing to solve the issue. "It has become an extraordinary problem," he said.

During a spirited discussion, he and the other Democrats sparred over the driver's license issue, but all said they support comprehensive immigration reform.

Polls suggest there are conflicting views among likely Democratic voters. Respondents indicated that they were far more concerned about healthcare, the war in Iraq, and the economy than about illegal immigration. But roughly three in 10 Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states to vote, said in recent surveys that a candidate's position on immigration was "very important." And the candidates themselves report receiving sharp-edged questions on the campaign trail, particularly in Iowa, where an influx of Hispanic immigrants working at meatpacking plants has inflamed passions.

"I'll be in the middle of talking about the war and healthcare, and everybody's cheering, and then some guy stands up in the back and says, 'What are you going to do about the illegals?' " John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, told Globe editors recently.

In this climate, the Democratic presidential hopefuls are offering nuanced solutions that combine increased border security with a conditional path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally - elements of a comprehensive plan that President Bush failed to get through Congress earlier this year.

But there are distinctions among the candidates.

Obama supports giving driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants as a public safety measure, while Clinton and Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut do not. Edwards said in 2004 that he supported doing so, but his campaign says that he now supports the move only as part of an immigrant's path to citizenship. The candidates also differ on a guest worker program that would allow more foreigners to work in the country lawfully.

As Democrats compete in the primaries and look ahead to the general election, they must be mindful of the many - and often competing - forces in play.

"On the Republican side, the answer is easy," because many GOP voters favor a hard line, said Eric Herzik, chairman of the political science department at the University of Nevada in Reno. "The Democrats have the more delicate dance."

Candidates who advocate more forgiving positions on immigration - such as driver's licenses for those here illegally - may do well among liberals. But those candidates may suffer in voter-rich blue-collar cities and among labor activists and among pivotal independent voters - three constituencies in which sentiments against illegal immigration appear to run higher. Those advocating a harder line, however, risk alienating Latino voters, especially in Nevada, a key early caucus state that is a quarter Hispanic. And Democrats know that whatever they say about immigration now could be used against them by the Republican nominee next year.

Concerns over illegal immigration, which are far more pronounced among Republican voters, have grown more visible in recent years, fueled by conservative pundits, stories of government benefits going to noncitizens, and fears about a terrorist infiltration. Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, a US representative from Colorado, launched a TV ad this week warning that "spineless politicians" are letting terrorists into the country by not securing the borders. The ad ends with the sound of an explosion at a shopping mall.

For Democrats, opposition to illegal immigration relates to broader economic anxieties, with fears that newcomers are taking American jobs and lowering wages in industries such as hospitality and construction. Some party leaders say Democrats must respond to such concerns.

Democratic voters and activists in key states say immigration remains a second-tier issue, but that it is being discussed more. The Ames, Iowa, chapter of Drinking Liberally, a left-leaning social network, discussed the issue at its gathering last Friday night, the first time participants remember doing so. The general feeling among the group, said Jan Bauer, the local Democratic party chairwoman, was that immigrants are being scapegoated for broader problems, and that Democrats should stand firm on the issue next year.

Obama echoed that sentiment on a recent campaign swing through Iowa, where he was frequently pressed on immigration.

"There's no doubt there will be attempts made to hit whoever the Democratic nominee is on this issue," Obama told The Washington Post. "And we have to stand our ground and not be defensive."

Democrats' concerns are well-founded. A Republican Party official said the GOP will undoubtedly exploit the Democrats' perceived weaknesses on the issue.

"It's not hard to figure out what the ads would look like against Hillary Clinton or the Democrats on this issue," said the official, who agreed to talk about the strategy only on condition of anonymity.

And yet, Democrats say, their presidential candidates should resist giving pat answers to complex immigration questions.

"If anyone wants to give a 30-second answer to the problem, then don't believe them," said Kathy Sullivan, a former New Hampshire Democratic Party chairwoman who has endorsed Clinton. "Because there is no such thing."

Jenn Abelson of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Scott Helman can be reached at shelman@globe.com.