In a meeting one night last week at a Monroeville fire hall, Sen. Rick Santorum bemoaned the threat of illegal immigration even though this region, by his own analysis, has remarkably little immigration of any kind.
But the embattled incumbent was betting that his audience contained voters who were nonetheless agitated over immigration, and that the state of Pennsylvania has lots more like them. In that, the Republican was following an issues path becoming increasingly well worn by politicians across the country.
"I don't know of [another] issue that I've gotten more feedback [on] in a short amount of time,'' Mr. Santorum said.
"For the most part, Pennsylvania is in line with most states we've looked at," said David Johnson, CEO of the Atlanta-based planning and public relations firm, Strategic Vision. "Even in a congressional district where immigration shouldn't be an issue, it is an issue. In Wisconsin, suddenly, it's become the number three issue.''
Mr. Johnson noted that poll numbers for a series of get-tough-on-immigration candidates had moved up sharply in recent weeks. One of those was Mike McGavick, a Republican challenger to Sen. Maria Cantwell, the Democratic incumbent in Washington state. Ms. Cantwell once had a double-digit lead in that race, but Strategic Vision's most recent survey put her advantage at just 47 percent to 43 percent.
In West Virginia, Republican John Raese is attempting to energize his challenge to longtime incumbent Sen. Robert Byrd with broadcast commercials criticizing Mr. Byrd's opposition to sending the National Guard to patrol the border.
Mr. Santorum was speaking on the same day that rival congressional hearings on opposite coasts were illustrating the divisions between and within the parties on the controversial issue.
The candidate's usual ally, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., was chairing a session in Philadelphia designed to highlight support for the approach of a bill that passed the Senate with bipartisan support. The measure combines calls for stricter border security with a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants already in the country.
State Treasurer Bob Casey, the Democratic challenger now leading Mr. Santorum in the polls, has said he would have voted for that bill. Mr. Santorum opposes it, contending that the path to citizenship amounts to amnesty for lawbreakers.
A survey conducted last month by Strategic Vision found 83 percent of Pennsylvania voters answered "no" when asked if they favored amnesty for illegal immigrants currently living in the United States
Amnesty, however, is not a legal term but a characterization of some of the bill's provisions that is embraced by its opponents and rejected by the measure's supporters.
"Sen. Santorum is entitled to his views," Mr. Specter told the Philadelphia Inquirer before the Thursday hearing. " 'Amnesty' is a buzz word that is used in derogation.... I think we're moving past that." Although Pennsylvania has some large pockets of immigration, particularly in the eastern part of the state, its overall immigration numbers and impact are dwarfed by those of Southern and Western border states.
Surrogate issue
For many Democratic leaders, a fundamental attraction of Mr. Casey's candidacy is his ability to defuse charged issues such as abortion and gun control, which Mr. Santorum and other Republican have used to attract votes from socially conservative Democrats. Several analysts said that in immigration, Mr. Santorum was seeking to cultivate a surrogate issue to shore up both his base and his cross-party appeal.
"What Santorum is trying to do is find an issue to make sure that his conservative base comes out," said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, a firm that has conducted numerous Pennsylvania Polls over the last decade.
"The gun issue and abortion are essentially mooted, so he needs something else to stir up his base because Iraq just isn't going to work the way it did two years ago."
Christopher Borick, a member of the political science faculty at Muhlenberg University in Allentown and the director of the school's polling institute, sees a similar attempt to rekindle the appeal among Democrats that has bolstered the Republican in past elections.
"One thing that is vexing for Santorum is that Casey takes away some of the issues that gave him inroads with the Reagan Democrats," Mr. Borick said. "He's searching for a way to reconnect with blue collar voters' concerns on the labor market and broader social issues.''
Mr. Casey has dismissed the incumbent's criticisms, responding with his own indictment of Mr. Santorum's immigration record. While rejecting the Republican's amnesty characterization as "the big lie in Washington,'' Mr. Casey has tried to portray the incumbent as an election-year convert "on an issue he's done nothing about."
Mr. Casey has criticized his opponent for votes against penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants. Last week, Mr. Santorum insisted that he supports sanctions against any firms that knowingly break the law, but said that the primary responsibility for insuring that workers are here legally lies with the government. He cited the need for caution in penalizing employers who hire immigrants whose forged documents make them appear legal.
Mr. Casey has also repeatedly charged that Mr. Santorum's rhetoric is belied by the fact that he voted seven times against increases in funding for border security. When asked about Mr. Casey's charge several weeks ago, Mr. Santorum said incorrectly that the votes were linked to Democratic attempts to raise taxes. While there are clear budget implications in the votes cited by the Democrat, they were not linked to reversals of any of the Bush administration tax cuts.
The Republican's campaign released a more detailed explanation of the votes last week, asserting that they had been cast on amendments that either called for funding in excess of levels that executive branch agencies felt they could effectively use or were not linked to offsetting cuts needed to stay under budget ceilings.
Mr. Santorum said that he has consistently supported the maximum funding levels sought by the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies.
While both sides contend that the other is vulnerable on the immigration issue, some experts said the incumbent had a greater potential to profit from its higher profile in the race.
"Santorum's taken the offensive on this issue. Anytime Santorum can set the agenda, it's a positive," said Mr. Borick, the Muhlenberg faculty member. "If he's spending all his time defending why he's different from George Bush, or talking about WMD, those aren't things that are going to win the election for him."
State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry, a sponsor of state legislative proposals aimed at illegal immigrants, contended that the issue has the potential to have as strong an impact in November as the pay raise controversy did in the May primary.
He cited a surprising interest in the issue among grade school students he addressed recently as evidence that, "it's a topic of a lot of dinner table conversation in many parts of my district.''
Mr. Metcalfe contended many voters were aware of the differences between the Senate bill, which is supported by Mr. Casey, Sen. John McCain and others, and the more penalty-focused approach of the House and of Mr. Santorum.
"I think it has the potential to have a huge impact,'' he said.
Mr. Coker, the Mason-Dixon poll expert, said he saw the issue as a potential but not overwhelming plus for the incumbent.
"It's not a silver bullet, but Santorum needs all the help he can get,'' he said.
First Published: July 9, 2006, 4:00 a.m.