Immigration Inaction
Six months later, and little has been done.

By Mark Krikorian, msk@cis.org, executive director, Center for Immigration Studies & NRO contributor
March 11, 2002 10:10 a.m.

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.