Here's the dirty little secret about the GOP's immigration push

At long last, the Republican presidential primary contest is descending where everyone thought it would eventually: into an argument about which candidate can be tougher and meaner and crueler on undocumented immigrants. Given the role this issue has played within the GOP's intraparty arguments in the last few years, it was inevitable. But here's the irony: For all they're shouting about it now, if one of these candidates actually becomes president in 2017, they'll do almost nothing on immigration.

We'll get to why that is in a moment, but why is the argument taking place now? The best explanation is that the tide of stories in the media about how Marco Rubio is the obvious establishment choice and likely nominee now that Jeb Bush has fallen so far — despite Rubio's still-modest showing in the polls — has encouraged other candidates to take aim at him. And this was always going to be his greatest vulnerability, since he committed the unpardonable sin of trying to pass comprehensive immigration reform a few years ago.

That bill, crafted by the "Gang of Eight" senators, of which Rubio was one, passed the Senate but died in the House when conservative immigration opponents objected to its path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Rubio later disavowed the bill, but the damage had been done: The Tea Party which had championed his election in 2010 turned their backs on him, talk radio condemned him, and his conservative bona fides would forever be in doubt.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

And now, other candidates are going at Rubio with their knives out. Rand Paul says that Rubio's tax plan would give tax credits and welfare to "illegal aliens." Ted Cruz is telling colorful stories about the Gang of Eight: "They fought tooth and nail to try and jam this amnesty down the American people's throats," he said (you may have noticed by now that throat-jamming is a common way conservatives describe the legislative process; make of that what you will). "Ted is a supporter of legalizing people that are in this country illegally," Rubio responded. But if this "You love amnesty," "No you love amnesty" is too high-minded for you, Donald Trump will happily explain that Rubio wants amnesty because he's Hispanic.

Now let's imagine one of these statesmen actually becomes president. All this "amnesty" talk notwithstanding, most of the Republican candidates support some kind of legal status for undocumented immigrants. As they'll all tell you, that would come only at the end of a lengthy and difficult process, but if your definition of "amnesty" is broad enough, what most of them advocate would fit into it (with a couple of exceptions like Rick Santorum).

But they'll also tell you that we have to "secure the border first." Their plan was always to emphasize border security in the primaries, then say in the general election that they support comprehensive reform (a path to citizenship gets the backing of two-thirds of the public).

So what would someone like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio actually do if they got elected president? One thing's for sure: Their complex plans to deal with immigration would go nowhere. That whole multi-step process would have as much success of passing as the Gang of Eight bill did, maybe less.

Of course, the new Republican president would go down to the border and announce that at last, America's getting tough — and throw a few billion dollars more at the Border Service, which has already seen its budget double in the last decade. There would be money included for enhanced border fencing — not Trump's super-classy, luxurious border wall made from the finest cubic zirconia and gold plating, and not 2,000 miles worth, but something.

But it won't go much farther than that, because that's not what Republican constituents want. "Secure the border first" was always a dodge, a way of assuring base voters that the politician is going to be tough while simultaneously pretending to support comprehensive reform. That comprehensive reform, however, can be put off indefinitely on the grounds that the border is not yet 100 percent secure.

The next president is going to deal with a Republican caucus in both houses that's at least as conservative as it is now, and so will be no more eager for comprehensive reform. The typical Republican member, particularly in the House, may appreciate that passing comprehensive reform would be good for the party, but he also knows that his conservative constituents don't want it. In a recent poll, 49 percent of Republicans say Trump is the candidate who would do the best job on immigration; Rubio came in second with only 10 percent. Fully 65 percent agreed with Trump's statement that Mexico is sending drug dealers and rapists to America.

And consider this: For years, national Republicans have insisted that if the party is to win the White House back, it needs to improve its standing with Hispanic voters, and supporting comprehensive reform is the bare minimum necessary to make that happen. But if the Republican nominee does win — for whatever combination of reasons — then that rationale becomes moot. The urgency will be gone.

The next Republican president will throw some meat to the base with more border spending. But he'll quickly realize that he can't go any farther, and the the fundamental challenge of immigration will remain just as challenging as it is now.