To the Bush White House, a comprehensive immigration bill combining border enforcement, a guest worker program and eventual permanent legal status for illegal immigrants is a political must.

To most House Republicans and many in the Senate, it is a political disaster, promising amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and undermining public demands for effective border enforcement.

They can’t both be right. Or can they?

The White House and a majority of congressional Democrats believe the compromise measure that passed the Senate last week provides both a short-term answer to the most pressing problems stemming from the presence of 12 million illegal immigrants here and a long-term promise of citizenship that will be embraced by the burgeoning number of Hispanic voters.

Presidential advisers say it would help the Republican Party with a minority voting group that is destined to play an expanding role in the country’s politics over the coming decades.

The White House also feels enactment would strengthen the image of President Bush as a leader willing to reach out beyond his normal political base, regardless of short-term consequences, and show that the Republican Congress is able to confront – and resolve – controversial problems.

At the same time, failure to act would threaten the national GOP with the anti-Hispanic reputation that California Republicans gained a decade ago when Gov. Pete Wilson sought to limit public health and education funds for the families of illegal immigrants.

None of those arguments, however, is likely to appease House Republicans who fear that opposition to legalization within their conservative base could hurt them in November’s elections.

Even more than presidential contests, midterm elections tend to turn on turnout. GOP lawmakers already worry that concern over the war in Iraq and the growth in federal spending could keep many Republican voters at home in November.

To be sure, political concerns are not the only reasons some Republicans oppose the Senate bill. Some consider it unworkable, a view also expressed by some Democrats who backed it.

Whatever their prime motivation, however, the views of House Republicans may determine whether any bill is passed this year. They are in position to determine whether a Senate-House conference committee can agree on compromise legislation and, if so, how far it will go beyond the emphasis on border security in the House version of the bill.

They appear to have two choices. One is to stand firm and insist on a narrow bill, concentrating on border enforcement. The second is to accept a bill with a limited guest worker program but no permanent legal status.

In essence, both reflect the short-term politics of their own survival this November, regardless of the risk of long-term damage to their party. And both likely would mean no bill will pass this year.

Their position seems to have been fortified by a survey showing preference for the narrower House bill over the broader Senate measure. John Zogby conducted the poll for the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonpartisan research group that favors greater curbs on immigration.

Some other surveys show more national support for an approach akin to the Senate plan for long-term citizenship for illegal immigrants. But an analysis of various polls suggested that the voters who care most about the issue are those who favor the House position – primarily Republicans.

Indeed, many are constituents of the House GOP hard-liners, who mostly represent heavily Republican, predominantly white, conservative districts.

Given House Republicans’ growing fear of stiff challenges this fall, it’s hardly surprising they would put their own political survival over White House hopes of expanding support among Hispanic voters.

But while they may be right about the short-term political impact, the White House is probably right about the long-term impact.

After all, the proportion of white voters nationally is declining and the number of those of Hispanic origin is growing, especially in such Southwestern swing states as Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico that could be crucial in the next several national elections.