Tim Huelskamp has a career ‘A’ rating from Numbers USA and reliably voted against Amnesty. In contrast, the Chamber of Commerce and other business lobbies backed Marshall, who said: “There has to be a pathway to at least have a job. I’m not ready to jump on the Amnesty bandwagon just yet, but we need to find a way to get these people into the system,” because “[w]e make it so hard for good people to become citizens” [Congressional challenger Roger Marshall supports paths for immigrants, block grants to replace ACA, by Justin Wingerter, Topeka Capital-Journal, July 16, 2015].
Some are calling this a “Waterloo for conservatives” [What conservatives are facing now is a Waterloo, by Garth Kant, WND, August 3, 2016], But paradoxically, I’m glad Huelskamp lost. Even though Marshall may well be useless in the House, he could well be harbinger for the political realignment that I have argued must occur if immigration patriotism is to have any political future.
Until recently, the immigration issue did not break down along party or ideological lines. Liberal Democrats like Gaylord Nelson and Richard Lamm and moderate Republicans like Alan Simpson and Pete Wilson led the charge for patriotic immigration reform. In the last decade, however, almost all elected Democrats have endorsed mass immigration, and most of the strongest immigration patriots in Congress are also Tea Party Republicans.
This has been a mixed blessing. Tying opposition to Amnesty to the boilerplate conservative agenda likely scared away many Republicans from supporting Amnesty for fear of a primary challenge. At the same time, conservative Republican positions on a host of issues from upper class tax cuts, outlawing abortion, and reducing entitlements are fairly unpopular among the general electorate. Regardless of what one’s personal views are on these issues, making immigration patriotism as part of package deal with them is an expensive proposition.
Then along came Donald Trump, who promoted immigration patriotism without even giving lip service to Conservatism Inc. slogans about limited government, the Constitution, or social conservatism. The only Congressional immigration hawks to support Trump during the primaries were men like Jeff Sessions, Scott Brown, Lou Barletta, and Duncan Hunter Jr., none of whom were fire breathing Tea Partiers on social or economic issues.
All of the strongest Tea Party immigration patriots in Congress not only supported Ted Cruz, but made personal attacks on Donald Trump. Indeed, they haven’t endorsed him even after Trump won the nomination.
Tim Huelskamp followed this Tea Party/Never Trump mold. (The image on the right comes from a Rush Limbaugh transcript: Never Trump Republican Loses Primary, August 3, 2016). A rabid Cruz supporter, he continued to attack Trump even after he won the nomination, calling him "demeaning" to women," "crass" and "vulgar,” who would not appeal to “values voters” because he was insufficiently pro-life. Absurdly, he compared Trump to “insiders in Washington” and said Trump is not someone “who takes a stand" [Rep. Huelskamp: Trump Too 'All Over the Map' on Life Issues, by Cathy Burke, Newsmax, May 15, 2016].
Huelskamp eventually said in a debate with Marshall that he would vote for Trump, but also promised to fight him in office because “I have conservative principles, and I’m going to stand on those conservative principles. If you don’t have conservative principles, I will work against you.” In contrast, Marshall said that “I will support the president and work with him to get things done” [First duel between Huelskamp, Marshall shows contrast in political approach, by Gabriella Dunn, Wichita Eagle, June 27, 2016]
Moreover, unlike Brooks and King, Huelskamp hasn’t actually earned much goodwill from immigration patriots. He has not made any bad votes for Amnesty, but he has never taken any proactive steps to reduce legal immigration or end birthright citizenship. Nonetheless, he was certainly willing to create controversy and even shut down the government over less important issues like defunding Planned Parenthood and ending farm subsidies.
These stances engendered the enmity of the GOP Establishment and groups like the Chamber of Commerce. Moderate voters by themselves were not enough to defeat Huelskamp in a conservative Kansas district. However, the Trump supporters who overlooked (or didn’t know about) Marshall’s support for Amnesty, but appreciated his willingness to work with Trump, combined with the establishment vote, doomed Huelskamp and his “conservative principles.”
As I have noted before, the opportunistic GOP Establishment is more likely to embrace Trump and immigration patriotism when they realize it’s a winning option. Some have already taken notice. Thus Establishment Republican David Perdue defeated his more conservative primary opponent Jack Kingston by running on his right on immigration. Since assuming office, Perdue heroically blocked the nomination of Hispanic activist judge Dax Lopez based solely on his membership in the pro-amnesty National Association of Latino Election Officials [David Perdue blocks Latino judicial nominee, by Greg Bluestein, Atlanta Journal Constitution, January 20, 2016]
In 2012 Ted Cruz’s Establishment primary opponent David Dewhurst also tried to run to Cruz’s right on immigration. That was not successful then, but if he had support from Trump voters, he might well have won.
If Trump wins the presidency, he’ll need more pragmatic immigration patriots and less “True Conservative” Cruz loyalists in Congress who would rather lose on immigration than give up on their “principles” about pointless issues.
Roger Marshall is far from this ideal. But his defeat of Huelskamp shows how this can be done in the age of Trump.
Washington Watcher [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.