[Mb-civic] First a Wall -- Then Amnesty - Charles Krauthammer - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

First a Wall -- Then Amnesty
<>
By Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post
Friday, April 7, 2006; A19

Every sensible immigration policy has two objectives: (1) to regain 
control of our borders so that it is we who decide who enters and (2) to 
find a way to normalize and legalize the situation of the 11 million 
illegals among us.

Start with the second. No one of good will wants to see these 11 million 
suffer. But the obvious problem is that legalization creates an enormous 
incentive for new illegals to come.

We say, of course, that this will be the very last, very final, 
never-again, we're-not-kidding-this-time amnesty. The problem is that we 
say exactly the same thing with every new reform. And everyone knows 
it's phony.

What do you think was said in 1986 when we passed the Simpson-Mazzoli 
immigration reform? It turned into the largest legalization program in 
American history -- nearly 3 million people got permanent residency. And 
we are now back at it again with 11 million more illegals in our midst.

How can it be otherwise? We already have a river of people coming every 
day knowing they're going to be illegal and perhaps even exploited. They 
come nonetheless. The newest amnesty -- the "earned legalization" being 
dangled in front of them by proposed Senate legislation -- can only 
increase the flow.

Those who think employer sanctions will control immigration are 
dreaming. Employer sanctions were the heart of Simpson-Mazzoli. They are 
not only useless; they are pernicious. They turn employers into 
enforcers of border control. That is the job of government, not landscapers.

The irony of this whole debate, which is bitterly splitting the country 
along partisan, geographic and ethnic lines, is that there is a silver 
bullet that would not just solve the problem but also create a national 
consensus behind it.

My proposition is this: A vast number of Americans who oppose 
legalization and fear new waves of immigration would change their minds 
if we could radically reduce new -- i.e., future -- illegal immigration.

Forget employer sanctions. Build a barrier. It is simply ridiculous to 
say it cannot be done. If one fence won't do it, then build a second 100 
yards behind it. And then build a road for patrols in between. Put in 
cameras. Put in sensors. Put out lots of patrols.

Can't be done? Israel's border fence has been extraordinarily successful 
in keeping out potential infiltrators who are far more determined than 
mere immigrants. Nor have very many North Koreans crossed into South 
Korea in the past 50 years.

Of course it will be ugly. So are the concrete barriers to keep truck 
bombs from driving into the White House. But sometimes necessity trumps 
aesthetics. And don't tell me that this is our Berlin Wall. When you 
build a wall to keep people in, that's a prison. When you build a wall 
to keep people out, that's an expression of sovereignty. The fence 
around your house is a perfectly legitimate expression of your desire to 
control who comes into your house to eat, sleep and use the facilities. 
It imprisons no one.

Of course, no barrier will be foolproof. But it doesn't have to be. It 
simply has to reduce the river of illegals to a manageable trickle. Once 
we can do that, everything becomes possible -- most especially, 
humanizing the situation of our 11 million illegals.

If the government can demonstrate that it can control future 
immigration, there will be infinitely less resistance to dealing 
generously with the residual population of past immigration. And, as 
Mickey Kaus and others have suggested, that may require that the two 
provisions be sequenced. First, radical border control by physical 
means. Then, shortly thereafter, radical legalization of those already 
here. To achieve national consensus on legalization, we will need a 
short lag time between the two provisions, perhaps a year or two, to 
demonstrate to the skeptics that the current wave of illegals is indeed 
the last.

This is no time for mushy compromise. A solution requires two acts of 
national will: the ugly act of putting up a fence and the supremely 
generous act of absorbing as ultimately full citizens those who broke 
our laws to come to America.

This is not a compromise meant to appease both sides without achieving 
anything. It is not some piece of hybrid legislation that arbitrarily 
divides illegals into those with five-year-old "roots" in America and 
those without, or some such mischief-making nonsense.

This is full amnesty (earned with back taxes and learning English and 
the like) with full border control. If we do it right, not only will we 
solve the problem, we will get it done as one nation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040601380.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060407/2e78bbb4/attachment.htm