The Republican establishment has finally discovered the immigration issue. Months after an enraged electorate forced its senators to back off and start again, and two years after House Republicans saw the demand for an enforcement-first strategy, the party's intelligentsia has caught on.

"October 2007 may turn out to be the month that immigration became a key issue in presidential politics," writes Michael Barone, arguing that last week's presidential debate has now crystalized the differences between the
two parties.

But for those who have followed this issue closely, those differences have been apparently for some time. That's why the Republican-led House passed its enforcement-only bill back in 2005, and it explains why this year's Senate immigration bill -- which Mr. Barone supported -- foundered so badly. In truth, many Republicans have occupied the security-first ground for years.

So what has really changed? George Bush, or rather, the absence of him.

No longer does the party have an advocate for what can reasonably be argued as amnesty at its head. Remember, this is the president who bashed his own base, accused his own party of trying to "frighten people" during this year's debate, and said they didn't want to do what was right for the country. Even as his own party machinery, the RNC, tried to adopt a get-tough stand, Bush insisted they accept Mel Martinez, one of the premier advocates for legalization, as their chairman.

With the 2008 elections looming, Republicans now have a slate of folks to view as the head of their party — and every single one of them now supports an enforcement-first strategy, to varying degrees.

This doesn't mean immigration is the winner many Republicans believe it to be. We don't know that answer yet. We will soon find out.

-- Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times