Policy, security & illegals



By Salena Zito
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, April 2, 2006


Brace yourselves, folks.
The single most defining domestic issue for the midterm elections and beyond -- immigration reform -- is up for political debate and it won't be pretty.

On the right is the already-passed House bill that many moderates and liberals consider too stringent. It makes security its centerpiece.

To the left-slash-right is the bipartisan McCain-Kennedy bill. It makes policies its centerpiece.

Left in the cold is the average American, who just wants to know the doors to his country are locked when he goes to bed.

A pundit's take

Tony Snow, syndicated radio talker and host of Fox News' "Weekend Live," boils the immigration debate down to this: "How do you protect the border? What do you do with the 11 (million) to 20 million illegals in the country? And how do you restore the fundamental idea that citizenship is a privilege and not a squatter's right?"

Snow feels the McCain-Kennedy bill does a fairly good job on all three counts:


It goes for "high-tech border security," rather than what he considers the awful idea of hemming in the United States behind a wall.

It tries "to separate good apples from bad apples," "by deporting (immigrants) who commit crimes or go jobless for more than 45 days."

It pays "homage to the law by insisting that illegals pay a $2,000 fine and go through an 11-year hike toward citizenship." That puts them at the back of the line, behind those who legally applied to become citizens.
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., whose name is marqueed on the bill, believes it "reflects our values as a nation of immigrants, deciding who can earn the privilege of American citizenship."

"The McCain-Kennedy bill will strengthen our national security by protecting our borders more effectively."

But how?

We can see the constant stream of walk-ins but not much enforcement of existing laws.

DeLay's reality

Congressman Tom DeLay, R-Texas, believes real immigration reform begins with the entry points: "Only after our borders are secure, will any sort of guest worker program" -- or anything else -- "even make sense, let alone fulfill its intended purpose."

In other words, if the border is not secure, the policy is moot; the illegals will just keep walking in.

"Illegal immigration is called 'illegal' for a reason," Delay says, "and until the laws that punish such illegality are enforced, every other proposal for reform -- from amnesty programs to fences -- is secondary."

Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, who chairs the House Immigration Reform Caucus, agrees. "Why would anyone come in the front door when the back door is wide open?"

Political marbles

Are we putting the cart before the horse? Shouldn't we secure our borders before debating policy?

Washington can't ignore the problems caused by our porous borders and the risks that have escalated since 9/11. We have to think beyond offending vote-rich ethnic blocs and think in terms of security and enforcement.

As this debate plays out, our eyes should be on our leaders and how they approach security.

Just ask yourself: Is this in our nation's best interest -- or in the politicians' best interests? Are they protecting me -- or protecting their political marbles?

Salena Zito is a Trib editorial page columnist. Call her at 412-320-7879. E-mail her at szito@tribweb.com


http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune ... 38826.html