Dana Milbank writes politics for The Washington Post, here he focuses on the GOP's unwillingness to tackle "comprehensive" immigration reform, aka amnesty for illegal immigrants. He only alludes in passing to why they are unwilling, so let's make it explicit.
Most House members represent so-called "safe districts," districts in which one party is almost guaranteed to win. Therefore, most House members are only concerned about primary challenges by other members of their own party.
Who votes in primary elections? Typically the most motivated (i.e., extreme) members of each party vote in primary elections. These are exactly the voters who are willing to punish incumbents for across-the-aisle collaboration or ideological impurity.
GOP House members know their mostly white constituents disapprove of "comprehensive" immigration reform, or amnesty. Self-preservation suggests GOP members have nothing to do with amnesty, lest they face a primary challenge by someone who will hold their pro-amnesty vote against them.
Political gurus like Milbank argue the GOP must find a way to "make peace" with Hispanics in order to win presidential elections. Gerrymandered "safe" House districts make this outcome extraordinarily difficult, and unlikely.
