|
 ix
months ago today, 19 foreign citizens living among us launched the
biggest attack yet in radical Islam's war on the United States,
giving a whole new meaning to the term "home front." But
little progress has been made in fixing the colossal problems with
our immigration policy highlighted by the attacks, and there are
even signs that border controls will be further eroded over the
next few weeks.
Taking its
cue from the groups pushing for increased immigration, the administration
has gone to great lengths to decouple immigration from terrorism.
For example, INS Commissioner James Ziglar, vying for the Norman
Mineta Award for Inappropriate Response to Terrorism, said "We're
not talking about immigration, we're talking about evil." Perhaps
the terrorists were summoned from a magic lamp rather than given
visas and admitted through our border-control infrastructure.
Another talking
point of the "evil, not immigration" crowd was that the
terrorists were not really immigrants at all, but just temporary
visitors. Leaving aside the fact that 40 percent of illegal aliens
start out as such "temporary" visitors, this objection
ignores the previous decade of Islamic terrorism on our soil. Since
1993, we know of dozens of foreign-born terrorists associated with
al Qaeda who have been active in the United States, and they represent
the whole gamut of immigration possibilities.
It's true that
many of them were on valid temporary visas at the time of their
attacks or arrests — as tourists, students, or business travelers.
But others were legal immigrants or naturalized citizens, including
Egyptian-born Ali Mohammed, who wrote al Qaeda's terrorist handbook,
and Mahmoud "The Red" Abouhalima, an illegal-alien cabbie
in New York who fraudulently received amnesty as an agricultural
worker. And who can forget Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, who was issued
an employment-based green card in the "minister of religion"
category. Yet other terrorists were illegal aliens, several of whom
were attempting to forestall deportation by applying for asylum.
So despite
the denials and wishful thinking, it's clear that Islamic terrorists
have penetrated every aspect of our immigration system. Has anything
been done since Sept. 11 to remedy this?
Many of the
measures widely discussed since Sept. 11 — such as a foreign-student
tracking system, computerized entry/exit tracking for visitors,
and federal standards for state driver's licenses — were actually
passed by Congress more than five years ago, but were repealed or
watered down in the interim. Not one lawmaker has been called to
task for his actions in weakening our defenses against terrorism,
though this may change as the November elections draw near.
Since Sept.
11, the various agencies responsible for border control have taken
some relatively minor administrative measures. The State Department,
for instance, has instituted more thorough checks for young male
visa applicants. The INS, meanwhile, has finally decided to hand
over to the FBI the names of people who absconded to avoid deportation.
Useful as they
are, such changes are mere baby steps in the right direction, and
woefully overdue baby steps at that. State Department visa officers,
for instance, are still handcuffed by a 1990 law which virtually
prohibits the denial of a visa to a foreigner based on his "beliefs,
statements or associations," if those beliefs, etc., would
have been constitutionally protected in the United States. Thus
the Palestinian woman we all saw on CNN ululating with joy over
the murder of our countrymen has to be let in as long as she hasn't
killed anyone yet.
The one piece
of legislation that holds promise has passed the House but is held
up in the Senate by a procedural matter. The bill would require
foreign visitors to carry an I.D. containing a fingerprint or other
identifier so their departure (or lack thereof) can be reliably
tracked. Interestingly, despite the fact that this bill has two
conservative Republicans among its original cosponsors, it is opposed
by the White House.
But administration
opposition to this kind of genuine improvement in visa control should
come as no surprise, considering that the official responsible for
long-term policy and planning at the INS is one Stuart Anderson,
a libertarian crusader for higher immigration and weaker law enforcement.
Anderson, formerly of the Cato Institute and later Sen. Spencer
Abraham's immigration staffer, has actually described the very limited
immigration law-enforcement response to Sept. 11 as "Gestapo
tactics" — a sentiment more in line with Susan Sontag
than John Ashcroft.
Such hostility
among some elements of the administration to enforcing the immigration
law may also help explain two border-busting proposals on the horizon.
As early as tomorrow, the House may vote to restore a provision
of the immigration law known in the jargon as section 245i. This
measure, strongly supported by the White House, is a quasi-amnesty
for people waiting for green cards but who are already living here
illegally. In addition to undermining the rule of law, such a measure
would undermine security by permitting perhaps one-fourth of our
entire "legal" immigration flow to undergo a background
check by an INS clerk in the United States rather than by a State
Department officer in their home countries, trained for that task
and experienced in the culture. It would also promote illegal immigration
more generally by rewarding lawbreakers and sending the unmistakable
message that obeying the law is for suckers.
The other potential
border-busting measure may come up during President Bush's trip
to Mexico March 22. News reports suggest that the White House wants
to announce a plan to put millions of Mexican illegal aliens on
the path to citizenship through the vehicle of a guestworker program.
Under such an approach, the illegals would be required to work as
"temporary" workers and, after a period of several years,
would be rewarded with green cards. Like the big 1986 amnesty, such
a program would overwhelm the INS, foster massive fraud, and increase
future illegal immigration.
Despite the
bad news, there is still hope that we will eventually act on the
immigration lessons of Sept. 11. There are important elements in
the administration strongly committed to immigration law enforcement
and effective border control, most notably Attorney General Ashcroft
and Gov. Tom Ridge. And it took three years after the first World
Trade Center attack to finally get immigration and antiterrorism
bills passed that sought to improve what would come to be called
homeland security.
But a lot can
happen in three years.
|
