 n
unhappy conjunction of events in mid March demonstrated both the folly
of current immigration policy and the enthusiasm of the political
establishment for it. On March 12, the House voted 275-137 to weaken
laws against illegal immigration. The same day, it was disclosed that
the INS had sent out student visas for Mohamed Atta and one of his
terrorist confreres. Our existing border-security regime does not
work, and Washington is more interested in exacerbating the problem
than solving it.
Nevertheless,
public sentiment for reform is rising. September 11 raised public
fears about current lax enforcement at the borders. Even American
Jews, who have traditionally embraced immigration wholeheartedly,
are now leaning in a more restrictionist direction. An American
Jewish Committee survey in 2000 found only 27 percent of Jews wanting
immigration cut. The same survey, in late 2001, found 49 percent
for reduction.
Yet instead
of taking measures to reduce legal immigration and deport illegal
immigrants, the House voted to make it possible for illegal immigrants
to stay in the U.S. legally upon payment of a $1,000 fine for their
lawbreaking. Even here, however, public opinion is making itself
felt: A majority of House Republicans, defying the White House and
their own leadership, voted against the bill.
For their pains,
the rebel Republicans, and especially Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo,
who rallied them, were condemned by the editors of the Wall Street
Journal. The congressmen who voted against the bill were accused
of "scapegoating our hard-working neighbors to the south"
and "exploiting the terror attacks to advance their anti-immigrant
agenda." As is often the case with people having a tantrum,
the Journal's editors were careless with facts. Twice, they
suggested that the bill would help only aliens who came here legally
but whose visas had expired. In fact, the bill covers not only people
who overstayed their visas — which is, by the way, illegal
— but people who had come in illegally from the start.
The Journal
spends most of its time arguing that there is no connection between
"immigrants who bus tables and those who hijack airplanes."
They also note that Tancredo ignores that "Atta and the other
hijackers had all entered the U.S. legally." (Wait a second-didn't
the Journal say that the bill covered only legal immigrants?
Wouldn't this point then tell against its position? Never mind.)
As most people can readily comprehend, however, a border that a
busboy can sneak past is one that an al Qaeda terrorist can also
sneak past, and a visa system that the one can flout can be flouted
by the other. The fact that we are not serious about enforcing immigration
laws is in any case a security problem in its own right, quite apart
from its connection to terrorism.
The Journal
then hauls out this lame argument: "Sending Mexicans away now
with the intention of readmitting them later needlessly burdens
already overworked U.S. consular officials whose time would be better
spent tracking down more legitimate threats." Handing out green
cards to illegal immigrants already here, of course, needlessly
overburdens INS officials whose time would be better spent getting
their act together. There is also an obvious solution to the difficulty
the Journal conjures: Don't re-admit people who have already
broken American laws.
|
