Rewarding lawlessness: while it tends to the security of Iraq's borders, the Bush administration is collaborating with subversive groups to undermine our own

New American, The, Nov 3, 2003 by William Norman Grigg

More than two years after Black Tuesday, our nation's borders remain terrifyingly insecure, and our anemic economy continues to shed manufacturing jobs. Assessing this grim situation, the Bush administration has focused intently on the task of rebuilding critically wounded economic infrastructure and enhancing border security ... in Iraq.

With annual budget deficits sagging to unprecedented depths, the Bush administration has requested an emergency appropriation of $87 billion for the occupation and reconstruction of war-ravaged Iraq. That request includes $20 billion to address "critical needs for security and infrastructure," such as the nation's electrical, water, sewage and telecommunication systems, as well as housing, roads and bridges. Hundreds of millions of dollars would be spent on "private sector business initiatives and jobs training programs."

Why American taxpayers--drowning in debt, ravaged by inflation, and anxious about their own employment prospects--should pay to train Iraqi workers, the Bush administration won't deign to explain. Nor has the administration explained why it appears more eager to secure Iraq's borders than our own.

The Iraqi Provisional Authority has asked for $150 million to train new Iraqi border control and customs officials, as well as to refurbish scores of border outposts. "Without this investment," insisted the authority's request, "the nation will continue to be at tremendous risk of penetration by members of terrorist cells and other subversive organizations; smuggling will continue to bleed the revenues necessary for the Iraqi economy to stand on its own and Iraq will not be able to control its borders."

Much the same could truthfully be said about the United States, of course. Two years after the most devastating terrorist attack in our history, our borders--particularly our enormous southern border with Mexico--remain wide open. To cite but one telling example: An estimated 1,000 illegal immigrants pour into our nation daily via Arizona's Organ Pipe National Monument, where 28-year-old U.S. Park Ranger Kris Eggle was murdered in the summer of 2002 by an AK-47-toting illegal alien drug smuggler.

According to Ranger Bo Stone, a friend of Eggle, "We have caught people from China, Pakistan and Yemen coming through.... If 1,000 illegal immigrants can walk through the desert here, so can 1,000 terrorists." Eggle's father, Bob, a Vietnam veteran, regards his son as a casualty of war. "I gave an eye for one war," Bob told syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin. "Now, I've given my son for another. What is our president going to do about the war on our borders?"

The answer to Bob Eggle's question, tragically, is this: In the Border War, the president of the United States stands firmly on the side of our nation's enemies.

The Amnesty Gambit

"A move to lower the barriers to immigrants who want to live and work in the United States is picking up steam again, two years after it was stalled by the September 11 terrorist attacks," reported the Los Angeles Times on September 6. Last July, three Republican members of Arizona's congressional delegation--Senator John McCain, and Congressmen Jim Kolbe and Jeff Flake--introduced "guest-worker" bills intended to legalize illegal immigrants currently employed in the U.S.

The legislation (S. 1461 and H.R. 2899) would essentially allow the entire illegal alien population in this country to apply for permanent legal residency--provided that the applicant had an employer or family sponsor. There would also be no limit to the number of "guest workers" admitted annually. The legislation effectively seeks to reward those who violated our nation's immigration laws, while demolishing any remaining limit on legal immigration.

President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox "were on the verge of a breakthrough two years ago on a package that would have combined an expanded guest-worker program with amnesty for undocumented workers," notes the Times. The 9-11 attack demonstrated, at a hideous price, the mortal dangers we confront unless we regain control of our borders-and the lesson was not lost on the public. Reacting to the mood of the electorate, President Bush deferred action on the amnesty proposal.

However, "we are [now] out of the shadows of September llth," maintains B. Lindsay Lowell, an immigration researcher at Georgetown University. Still, Lowell continues, "I see it as a difficult thing to push through. You have to have all the players in the right place at the right time to make it happen." "The major missing person is Bush," adds Cecelia Munoz of the National Council of La Raza, a radical leftist Hispanic lobby. "That is interesting, considering he arguably started this whole debate." Congressman Kolbe agrees: "We need to have presidential leadership to move this debate forward."

For his part, President Bush reportedly told the Arizona legislators he was "enthusiastic" about the amnesty proposal. But he may prefer to lag behind the debate, allowing others to absorb the political consequences of what will be a very unpopular proposal. Seeking a way to make the amnesty proposal palatable to the public, Senator McCain (who prefers the euphemism "earned legalization") has sought to frame it as a way of enhancing national security. McCain insists that amnesty would eventually leave federal agents free "to focus their efforts on the individuals who do pose a potential threat to national security." Of course, this statement ignores the fact that people who break our nation's immigration laws are, by their own actions, defining themselves as potential threats to our security.