Immigration: Border Wars.

An 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.