A two-step for America: addressing our immigration problems.

'THERE is a paralyzing fear of the illegal-immigrant lobby." That's how one Senate GOP aide explains why some Republicans helped get an amnesty and a guest-worker program through the Judiciary Committee. Militant advocates for illegal immigrants smear those who oppose legalizing 11 million aliens as hostile to Hispanics. Regrettably, Republican strategists seem to echo this charge, warning that strong border enforcement is a betrayal of our immigrant ancestors.

But America is a nation of legal immigrants. The way to maintain that tradition is for Congress to reject the amnesty and guest-worker bills in favor of a two-phase approach. In Phase One, Congress would get serious about enforcing the immigration laws--and only afterward, in Phase Two, increase legal immigration. This approach would be pro-enforcement, pro-immigrant, and in accord with public opinion.

The American public are sticklers for obeying the law. They see a program that permits illegal aliens to live and work in the U.S. while awaiting citizenship as an amnesty for lawbreakers. And they recognize that millions around the world would jump at the chance to be accorded this privilege--if only they met the prerequisite of having violated our laws. Public opinion overwhelmingly favors getting serious about border control and cracking down on illegal immigration. A Pew Research poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans and 37 percent of Democrats favor letting illegal aliens stay permanently. Polls indicate that more people view immigration as a security issue than as an economic one. A majority favors stationing troops at the border with Mexico and building a 2,000-mile security fence. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that, by a margin of 71 percent to 11 percent, Americans are more likely to vote for a candidate who favors tighter controls on illegal immigration than for one who does not. Beefing up border security is good politics.

Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike understand this. Even senators McCain and Kennedy, the authors of the leading amnesty plan, have bowed to public sentiment by adopting a rhetoric of strengthening the borders. Of course, this is merely a pose, as their plan actually rejects all serious enforcement proposals. It neither increases the number of agents nor builds new barriers at the border. It does not make employers verify the legal status of new hires. It requires little more by way of enforcement than the creation of a national strategy to deal with our porous borders some time in the distant future. Its approach, in other words, is amnesty now, security later.

Supporters of McCain-Kennedy say that we have to adopt a guest-worker program and enact an amnesty because we can't control the border. But they are unwilling to try to control it in the first place.

New enforcement measures aren't enough. We also need to fix the federal agencies that are responsible for implementing them. Four years ago, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that immigration fraud owing to the widespread use of phony documents was "pervasive and significant." This poses a security problem: Two-thirds of the 94 foreign terrorists known to have operated in the United States between the early 1990s and 2004 committed immigration fraud. The GAO also concluded in a recent study that the Department of Homeland Security has little prospect of discouraging the use of fraudulent documents because it has no strategy for punishing offenders.

Another report found that although U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has a statutory mandate to eliminate its backlog of immigration applications by September 2006, at least 1.2 million such cases remain and are unlikely to be eliminated by the September deadline. "Comprehensive" immigration reform would add amnesty applications from 11 million illegal aliens, and visa applications from at least an additional 400,000 guest workers a year, to a bureaucracy unable to cope with its current caseload.

Yet another GAO report reminded us that "strategies to deter illegal immigration require both a reliable employment-eligibility verification process and a worksite enforcement capacity to ensure that employers comply with related employment laws." The immigration reform of 1986 promised both of these things. Twenty years later, there is a verification process that employers can use voluntarily (the Basic Pilot Program), but the GAO concluded that it is unable to detect fraud. In 2004, only four employers were prosecuted for employing illegal aliens.

Phase One of immigration reform should set appropriate benchmarks to establish that our borders have been strengthened, the problem of fraudulent documents has been addressed, the backlog of immigration applications has been eliminated, and an effective system of workplace enforcement is in operation. Our first priority should be dramatically to reduce the number of illegal entrants, currently about 800,000 a year. A reduction would permit easier assimilation of legal immigrants--and consideration could then be given to increasing their numbers.

There is no reason to wait until an enforcement system is in place before debating what future legal-immigration proposals should include. Our current immigration system prioritizes family reunification, but many critics want to see priority given instead to skilled immigrants who would meet labor shortages in critical areas. The incentive for illegal immigration could be reduced if, along with effectively enforcing our borders and ruling out amnesty, we gave preference in any future guest-worker program to those who have resided in their countries of origin for two years prior to entering the U.S. Privileged consideration should also be given to immigrants who demonstrate a strong desire to assimilate and become Americans by learning English.

There is little reason to think that illegal aliens will have more respect for the laws Congress passes than Congress has itself. Today's dysfunctional system is a creature of Congresses that habitually pass immigration laws they have no intention of enforcing. By undertaking reforms in the two phases outlined here, the current Congress could win the public trust necessary for fundamental--and positive--change.

Kate O'Beirne, NR's Washington editor, is the author of Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports.