It didn’t take long for proposals to house Guantanamo Bay detainees at a nearly empty Illinois prison to spark tough talk by Republicans — across the Mississippi River in Iowa.

U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, claimed the plan would lead to a “terrorist enclave” just a few miles from Iowa. U.S. Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa, introduced legislation that would prohibit the transfer of the detainees to Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and eight other Midwestern states.

U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said he understands why Iowans would be worried about the prison plan.

And Republican Party of Iowa head Matt Strawn challenged Iowa’s three Democratic members of Congress to oppose the move.

“Will they stand up to President Obama and tell him that these terrorists aren’t welcome in the Heartland? Iowans deserve an answer,” Strawn said in a statement.

For their part, Democrats have emphasized the possibility of 3,000 new jobs for a region about 10 miles from Clinton, Iowa. The prison is just outside of Thomson, Ill.

Drake University political science professor Dennis Goldford said Tuesday the proposal by President Barack Obama raises significant questions, but he wondered whether politics were getting in the way of seriously examining the plan.

“It’s being used to rally a political base on each side,” Goldford said.

The questions stem from the federal government’s plans to buy the 1,600-cell Thomson Correctional Facility, opened by the state of Illinois in 2001 but never fully opened due to budget problems. The Federal Bureau of Prisons would buy it, lease part of it to house Department of Defense detainees and use the rest to hold about 1,500 high-security prisoners.

King, who represents Iowa’s 5th District, said his biggest concerns revolve around security. He fears the Guantanamo detainees would draw a dangerous mix of lawyers and family members sympathetic to terrorists.

“It creates an enclave of terrorist sympathizers that would be created in the name of economic development,” King said in a telephone interview.

Grassley said he sympathizes with King’s view.

“I wouldn’t necessarily share King’s concern, except I have read exactly the same thing from experts on terrorism, that they have followers,” Grassley said in a telephone interview.

Others have noted, however, that the Defense Department limits visits to detainees to their lawyers, the Red Cross, diplomats and law enforcement officers.

Under legislation backed by Latham, the prison would be banned not only from Illinois and Iowa but also Minnesota, Missouri, Arkansas, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Nebraska, and Kansas.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley has emphasized potential economic benefits to his district, just across the river from the prison.

“(Braley) has received assurances from the White House that this will be the most secure facility in America,” said Braley spokeswoman Caitlin Legacki. “He has taken the time to make an informed decision on this rather than immediately trying to play on people’s fears.”

Braley has toured the prison twice, once accompanied by Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin. Both say they support the prison plan.

Democrats note that the White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates the prison plan would create nearly 3,000 jobs, including about 600 in Iowa. Clinton and Jackson counties, across the river from the prison, have more than 7 percent unemployment, about half a percentage point higher than the state average.

But Iowa State University economist David Swenson, who has studied the proposal, said the actual job figure would likely be somewhat lower. He said the prison probably would draw correctional officers with experience, meaning many from outside the area would be hired over local job seekers.

“What you may get is a movement or migration of these workers out of existing correctional systems into the federal system,” Swenson said.

For politicians, Goldford said one benefit of the controversy, however it’s settled, could be the ability to capture the attention of party activists. He thinks that’s the motivation behind at least some of the comments.

“To a great extent, each side is speaking to its own base,” Goldford said. “In that sense, it’s a no-lose with your base because you gin them up a bit and if you happen to lose, that’s a source of further antagonism and outrage.”