A prerequisite to restoring control over the functioning of immigration is make it clear to foreigners, both those here illegally and those abroad who’d like to come, that we decide who comes, not them. This may seem obvious, but isn’t. The Post has a story today featuring some ordinary people who came here illegally who reject, in principle, the idea that we have the right to keep them out. Here’s one of them:

“Honestly, I didn’t even think about the idea that I was breaking the laws of this country.”

The other justified himself by saying that “So I think that if you are dying of hunger, it’s okay to cross the border,” then admitting that he wasn’t actually dying of hunger, and saying that the fact his son was already here (it’s not clear in what status) justified sneaking in.

As for foreigners abroad, look at the Tariq Ramadan case, where last month a judge ruled against his lawsuit trying to secure a visa through the courts. The ACLU claimed that “a portion of the Patriot Act denying visas to people who ‘endorse or espouse terrorist activity’ was unconstitutional and that the free speech rights of the academic groups had been violated because they could not meet with Mr. Ramadan in the United States.” The open-borders side has been trying to get visa decisions into the courts for years, based on the implicit premise that every foreigner has the right to come here, unless we can offer a specific reason — defensible in court — as to why not.

How can you even talk about “comprehensive immigration reform,” whatever the conditions, when its supporters and beneficiaries reject the moral right of the American people to make such a decision?