BY APPOINTING Florida senator Mel Martinez to chair the Republican National Committee, President Bush sent a blunt message to conservatives: "Drop dead." That's the opinion of Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, who has lobbied hard against Bush's "comprehensive" immigration reform package. Hyperbole, perhaps, but it highlights the GOP fissure on immigration--one deepened by the recent election.

Martinez, a Cuban refugee who fled the island in 1962, supports the Bush vision of a guest-worker program for future immigrants and a "path to citizenship" for illegal aliens. He is also a prominent GOP envoy to the Latino community. His elevation to RNC chief, says Krikorian, shows how "emotionally" invested Bush is in passing an "amnesty" bill. "This is something the president can't let go."

Bush, of course, rejects the word "amnesty." But his decision to tap Martinez for the RNC post may reflect unease over the GOP's loss of Hispanic votes in 2006. Like Bush, Martinez breaks with most conservatives on immigration: He accepts the need for stiffened border control, but also wants to expand channels for legal immigration and create a process for illegals to earn citizenship. The Hagel-Martinez bill, which Bush strongly favored, did just that. It passed the GOP-led Senate by a vote of 62-36 last May, before dying at the hands of House Republicans, who refused even to appoint conferees.

In the meantime, Congress passed, and Bush signed, a bill calling for 700 miles of reinforced fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. But the guest-worker and earned-citizenship ideas languished--until the election was over. At his press conference the next day, Bush agreed that a Democratic Congress would give him (in a reporter's words) "a better shot at comprehensive immigration reform." It is an issue, Bush said, "where I believe we can find some common ground."

Maybe. But almost as soon as this became the new conventional wisdom, it was supplanted by the even newer conventional wisdom, according to which House Democrats may resist pushing any umbrella bill that House Republicans can deride as "amnesty." There are several reasons for this. Democrats may wish to deny Bush the pomp of a signing ceremony, not to mention any credit with Latinos. Democrats may also be leery of forcing such a tough vote on their freshmen, several of whom ran to Bush's right on immigration. No doubt House Republicans will be trying to peel off Blue Dog Democrats with whom they can create an "anti-amnesty" bloc.

Krikorian guesses that "the overwhelming majority" of House Republicans oppose the Bush plan, which means they would oppose a revived Hagel-Martinez bill. "There's a small hard core that would pretty much vote for any amnesty that was presented to them." If Krikorian is right, it suggests an irony liberals should appreciate: The same president that many caricature as a right-wing partisan is closer on immigration to Ted Kennedy than he is to the House GOP caucus.

But not all conservatives agree about the House Republicans. Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist thinks there has always been a functioning House majority for comprehensive immigration reform. So what happened last summer? "The radio talk-show hosts got out there and poisoned the atmosphere," says Norquist, who worries that being overly harsh on immigration contributed to the GOP's loss of Congress.