NRO

September 18, 2002, 9:00 a.m.

“What Would Mohammed [Atta] Do?” Getting serious about immigration reform.

Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez

ichelle Malkin, a syndicated columnist, is author of the recently released Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Overall, how would you grade "immigration reform" since September 11, 2001?

Michelle Malkin: A big, fat "F." The United States is one of the few industrialized countries in the world that has not tightened immigration and entrance policies in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. Temporary visas for Middle Eastern students, tourists, and businessmen remain plentiful; immigrant visas continue to be given away at random or for the right price; the borders remain porous; the welcome mat for illegal aliens is expanding; and the deportation system is in shambles.

Despite strong public support for stronger controls, officials in both major parties continue to be paralyzed by political correctness and bureaucratic sclerosis. They have yet to come to grips with the reality of homicidal America-haters lurking at our doorstep — evildoers whose modus operandi is to infiltrate our country, then kill us. Our leaders have failed in one of their most basic constitutional responsibilities: to provide for the common defense.

Lopez: In what areas have there actually been practical improvements in the past year?

Malkin: Information-sharing between the Immigration and Naturalization Service and State Department improved after the attacks. Operation Tarmac weeded hundreds of illegal aliens out of high-security clearance jobs at airports nationwide. The Visa Express program disappeared this summer after relentless criticism by National Review. New, but temporary, scrutiny for young, male visa applicants from Middle Eastern countries was introduced. Congress sprinkled a few hundred more border-patrol agents on the frontlines. Immigration officers also received a few more boats, cameras, night goggles, and pepperball guns. The Social Security Administration began cracking down on illegal alien workers with bogus identification.

Lopez: What are the easiest ways for a terrorist to get into the U.S. undetected?

Malkin: The easiest way to enter is on a tourist, business, or student visa, just as the Sept. 11 hijackers did — without a comprehensive tracking system in place, there are no consequences for overstaying. The State Department has issued more than 120,000 such visas to Middle Easterners since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Terrorists who can't get in through the front door (i.e., with a visa) need not worry: There are plenty of ways they can enter the country through the back door (i.e., illegally).

Lopez: We hear outrageous stories about breast milk being questioned at the airports and the like, but what is most outrageous is in some of the more mundane routines — like visas still not being checked. You write about security personnel being pressured to not check visas or check terror-watch lists in the interest of getting the lines moving, even now. How widespread is that?

Malkin: Invasion documents how immigration inspectors at several large international airports across the country are rushed and overburdened. The airport pressure cooker has its roots in a 1990 amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which required INS officers to process foreign visitors arriving at air or sea ports of entry "within 45 minutes of their presentation for inspection." But the workforce has not kept pace with the onslaught of visitors — and national security is the sacrificial lamb. At the nation's busiest international airports, the time limit gives inspectors as little as 20 to 30 seconds to spend on each passenger's paperwork. That leaves little time to interview foreign visitors about their travel plans, a practice that is common in other countries.

The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act of 2002 included a provision repealing the 45-minute inspection limit, but added a little-noticed clause requiring the INS to staff ports of entry with the "goal of providing immigration services…within 45 minutes of a passenger's presentation for inspection." In other words: No relief from the speed demons.

Lopez: How is New York City, of all places on earth, a safe haven for terrorists-still?

Malkin: New York City's sanctuary policy for illegal immigrants was created in 1989 by Mayor Ed Koch and upheld by every mayor succeeding him. When Congress enacted immigration-reform laws that forbade local governments from barring employees from cooperating with the INS, Mayor Rudy Giuliani filed suit against the feds in 1997. He was rebuffed by two lower courts, which ruled that the sanctuary order amounted to special treatment for illegal aliens and were nothing more than an unlawful effort to flaunt federal enforcement efforts against illegal aliens. In January 2000, the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, but Giuliani vowed to ignore the law. The Twin Towers are gone and Giuliani is out of office, but the city's policy of safe harbors for illegal immigrants stands.

The reason the September 11 attacks didn't prompt reconsideration of New York City's sanctuary policy is that all of the hijackers entered the country legally. So people do not see a connection between interior enforcement and national security. Look past Sept. 11, and the link becomes clearer: Illegal aliens participated in the first attack on the World Trade Center, the Los Angeles Millennium bombing plot, and the New York subway bombing plot. Moreover, three of the September 11 hijackers were here illegally at the time of their attacks and several others obtained fraudulent ID cards with the assistance of an illegal alien. Clearly, illegal-friendly policies — not only sanctuary laws, but also driver's licenses, banking privileges, and college-tuition breaks — make it easier for terrorists to blend in and carry out their nefarious plans.

Lopez: How should the INS be dealt with?

Malkin: The INS bureaucracy is a cesspool of elbow-rubbers, string-pullers, chest-puffers and cover-uppers who care more about protecting their backsides than upholding the law. The current director of the agency, James Ziglar, freely admitted after Sept. 11 that "People who say I don't have any experience in the area are absolutely right," and assured illegal aliens that it is "not practical or reasonable" to deport them.

Americans deserve an INS that is committed to enforcing immigration laws. Ensure that all officials in immigration-related positions, including Ziglar's replacement, have no qualms about shoring up border security. Publish an annual list of INS officials convicted of misconduct, and remove them from sensitive positions. Strengthen federal whistleblower protections. Reward agency truth-tellers with plum management positions in their field of expertise. Demote or fire the supervisors who retaliate against them.

Lopez: If you were advising the president, in the interest of national security, what would you advise him — overall, and first — to do to deal with the immigration/porous-border problem?

Malkin: I would advise President Bush to stop pandering to pro-illegal alien ethnic groups and start treating immigration as a national-security issue. I would advise him to view immigration-related issues through the cold eyes of a terrorist killer like Mohammed Atta. I would advise him to ask at every turn: "What would Mohammed do?" How would he exploit our entry points, evade detection, and blend into the American mainstream? Then I would urge him to push for policies, like a moratorium on nonimmigrant visas to Middle Easterners, that will make it harder for the next Mohammed Atta to infiltrate our country. If the policy of preemption makes sense abroad, why not at home? There will be howling protestations from the usual suspects — Arab-American lobbyists, immigration lawyers, Saudi Arabian diplomats, the Wall Street Journal editorial page — but this is not the time to give in to abettors of terrorism.

Lopez: Why is immigration so untouchable, even after what happened last September 11?

Malkin: Our elected officials are unwilling to reform immigration because a conglomerate of interest groups stand in the way. The travel and tourism industries oppose efforts to eliminate dangerous visa-less travel programs. Education administrators, who reap $12 billion per year from foreign students, oppose commonsense efforts to track foreign students; multinational corporations oppose efforts to increase scrutiny of trucks crossing our borders or ships entering our ports; and alien rights' lawyers and ethnic lobby groups oppose efforts to beef up interior enforcement.

A book published in 1965 by economist Mancur Olson called The Logic of Collective Action argued that small, well-organized groups with strong feelings about an issue can defeat large, poorly organized groups, allowing narrow interests to trump the national interest. This insight explains why the obstructionists have won time and time again even though most Americans favor immigration controls.

Lopez: What's the worst thing you learned while working on Invasion?

Malkin: That it will take another terrorist attack before our leaders start fixing our broken immigration system.

-- Anonymous, September 18, 2002