Movin' our way: Giuliani and Romney toughen up on immigration, but both still have problems ...

THE debate over immigration reform didn't end with the Senate defeat of President Bush's comprehensive plan. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are now touting their support for tough enforcement measures--while charging each other with having been lax on illegal immigration in the past. Their opposition to the Senate bill he championed prompted Sen. Mel Martinez (R., Fla.), the general chairman of the RNC, to scold them for not "leading on the tough issues." But it's tough to lead without followers, and the public clearly doesn't want to follow politicians heading down the path to amnesty.

Senator Martinez's stubborn support for a comprehensive reform that includes amnesty for illegal immigrants is at odds with a large majority of his party and its elected officials. Most Republican senators voted to block the reform he defends and a majority of House Republicans also rejected the plan. The Bush administration's new enforcement initiatives and the tough talk of GOP presidential contenders are clearly concessions to the public opinion that sank the Senate reform. Martinez praises John McCain as "courageous" for defying the will of the voters, but there is no virtue in dismissing informed, pragmatic public sentiment.

Recent polling by Rasmussen Reports finds broad support for cracking down on illegal immigration. The public thinks a reduction in illegal immigration should be the primary goal of reform, and only 16 percent believe the Senate legislation would achieve that goal. Only 28 percent think that legalizing the status of illegal aliens is very important, and only 12 percent think the federal government is doing enough to reduce illegal immigration.

Meanwhile, proposals to cut off federal funds to "sanctuary cities"--jurisdictions that refuse to enforce immigration laws--enjoy majority support. Three-quarters of Republicans back these measures. Given the overwhelming Republican sentiment so evident on the campaign trail, Romney has been blasting sanctuary policies; for his part, Giuliani pledges to end illegal immigration, and says he would require foreign visitors to carry ID cards. Both favor beefed-up border enforcement. Neither opposed last year's comprehensive immigration reform--but both objected to this year's version.

The top contenders' criticisms of each other have focused on their past positions. As mayor of New York, Giuliani defended his city's sanctuary policies--and candidate Giuliani makes no apologies for his unwillingness to enforce immigration laws against an illegal population of about 400,000 during his tenure. He argues that discouraging illegal aliens from reporting crimes, getting medical attention, or sending their children to school would have a negative effect on public health and safety.

As mayor, Giuliani also opposed denying non-emergency welfare benefits to illegal aliens. Although he now pledges to end illegal immigration, as recently as a year ago he was claiming that illegal aliens "are not really doing any damage to our society, might even be making vast contributions to it," and counseling that we "don't try to legislate against the inevitable forces of, you know, social movement and the economy because it isn't going to work." He still favors legalizing illegal aliens who would "go to the back of the line" before achieving citizenship.

When Romney criticized New York's sanctuary policies, Giuliani pointed out that Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, took no action against some "sanctuary cities" in his own state. Romney did veto a plan to allow in-state tuition for illegal aliens, opposed granting the illegals drivers' licenses, and encouraged state troopers to enforce immigration laws; a year ago, he favored deporting illegal aliens who committed crimes. Yet he also explained that "I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country"; and while he declared that "I don't believe in amnesty," he nonetheless believed that illegal aliens should be allowed to pursue a process that would lead to citizenship. He now opposes rewarding illegal behavior with legal status and, like Giuliani, backs increased border security and workplace enforcement.

Let's stipulate, then, that the two candidates' views on immigration have evolved; conservatives should welcome converts to the cause of crafting sensible reforms that secure our borders and enforce our current laws. But--because experience tells us that granting legal status to illegal aliens before we implement enforcement reforms will only encourage more illegal immigration--Giuliani's position in favor of amnesty hasn't evolved nearly enough. And Romney risks going too far in arguing that cities should be denied federal funds if they fail to enforce immigration laws against illegal aliens seeking police assistance, medical care, or education services. Here, too, Romney is on the side of public opinion: The frustration with defiant local officials who declare themselves "federal-law-free zones" is understandable. But years of federal neglect can't be easily remedied. It will be hard enough to implement some of the basic overdue reforms--e.g., the denial of drivers' licenses to illegals, tougher workplace enforcement, increased border security, and effective tracking of foreign visitors--that would reduce the number of illegals through attrition, without also trying to police all those who call 911 or get wheeled into an emergency room.

Giuliani argues that cooperation between reluctant local officials and overwhelmed federal authorities should focus on criminal illegal aliens. He recalls that, when he was mayor, federal authorities deported only a small number of the thousands of criminal aliens city officials reported to them. Newt Gingrich, in response to the recent execution-style killings of three college students in Newark by illegal aliens (one of whom was out on bail from a previous felony charge), proposes denying federal aid to any jurisdiction that refuses to check the immigration status of anyone arrested for a felony. In the absence of positive proof of legal status, there would be a presumption of illegality and the suspect would be detained. Public support for forcing an end to all sanctuary policies might be satisfied with a workable reform that prioritizes federal detention and deportation resources to protect the public from criminal aliens.

As for the Democrats, their candidates' support for amnesty and opposition to most enforcement measures puts them at odds with public opinion; but they might be able to count on the public's awakened interest in the immigration issue to dissipate, as it has in the past. Meanwhile, they hope to court Hispanic voters at the Republicans' expense. Republican candidates would be foolish to ignore the counsel of party strategists who fret about alienating a bloc of voters whose support in some states can be decisive. The challenge for Republicans is to avoid hyperbole while highlighting the importance of the issue; to promote workable reforms that tackle criminal aliens--and the magnets for illegal immigration--without demonizing millions.