Eyes Wide Shut: Linda Chavez Leads Open-Borders Counter-Attack


If the United States were attacked by foreign
terrorists who had managed to sneak into the country
legally under our current immigration laws, what`s the
first and most obvious thing for the U.S. government to
do in response? Aside from retaliation itself, most
people would say

stop legal immigration,
at least until we can figure
out how to prevent other terrorists from coming here. To
date, it has occurred to no one in the federal
government to do so.

Instead we have waged a full-scale and largely
successful war halfway around the world against a
country that had little or nothing to do with the Sept.
11 attacks, announced various

bizarre internal security
measures of

dubious legality
, nabbed hundreds of
suspicious-looking Middle Easterners, almost none of
whom may be terrorists and some of whom may not even be
Middle Easterners, and forbidden passengers on airplanes
to carry toenail clippers. I for one would feel a good
deal safer if, in place of this wave of draconian
repression, we really did close the borders.

But not only has it occurred to no one to do so,
instead the stalwarts of the Open Borders lobby are now,
on the eve of victory in Afghanistan, trying to make
sure absolutely nothing is done to limit, reduce or
control the massive immigration that made the Sept. 11
attacks possible. Last week in the Wall Street
Journal
, where the Open Borders lobby regularly
unbosoms its fatwas, the lobby`s high priestess,

Linda Chavez,
implored the nation,

"Don`t Seal the Borders."

Miss Chavez, who presumably wants the borders to
remain unsealed for reasons other than the cheapness
with which she pays her

personal domestic help,
is willing to crack down on

certain categories
of immigrants and the countless
ways by which they invite themselves into this country.
But, she assures us, "Americans won`t be any safer from
terrorist attacks by drastically limiting the number of

Indian engineering students
or

Mexican poultry workers
." I wouldn`t necessarily bet
we wouldn`t, but of course there are many other reasons
why such immigrants shouldn`t be admitted besides
obvious concerns about Middle Eastern terrorism.

Miss Chavez says, more or less correctly, that "the
best way to stem the flow of illegal aliens altogether
would be to create a flexible

guest worker
program." Actually, the best way would
be to put U.S. troops on the border to stop the

invasion
taking place there, but failing that, a
real guest worker program would be helpful. Miss Chavez
also says that such a program cannot just now be
implemented, in part due to fear of foreign-born
terrorists. That`s true also, but what the
administration seems to have in mind is not a real guest
worker program so much as an

amnesty
disguised as a guest worker program.

In all the palaver about the guest worker program,
hardly anyone has raised the issue of what would happen
to the children of foreign guest workers who happen to
be born on U.S. soil. Under

current law
, every one of the children would be a
U.S. citizen, and he or she would eventually be able to

import relatives
as legal immigrants. If a guest
worker program is going to be implemented, that little
detail needs to be changed.

You also have to figure out how the Immigration and
Naturalization Service would enforce the program—that
is, how we would keep track of all the aliens who come
here under the program and how we`d make them go home
when the time came. If you imagine that there is
virtually no way for the INS to do so

under current laws and rules,
you`re probably right.
That`s one reason almost any guest worker program today
is really an amnesty for illegal aliens—at least for
those who overstay their visas.

As for protecting the nation against terrorism,
that`s not what the administration is now talking about.
Instead, we`re hearing about a plan, proposed originally
by U.S. Ambassador to Canada

Paul Cellucci,
for a "security perimeter" around
Canada, Mexico and the United States, to be enforced
mainly by—guess who? Canada, to its immense credit, is

said to be concerned
about the implications of the
plan for "surrendering Canadian sovereignty." So should
Americans and, for that matter, Mexicans.

What the "security perimeter" protecting three huge
countries, two of which are foreign nations, has to do
with protecting this nation against foreign terrorists
is unclear, but then, as suggested above, so is most of
what the U.S. government has done since Sept. 11, not to
speak of the phony

"guest worker program"
that Open Borders eggheads
like Miss Chavez are pushing. Wouldn`t we all be a lot
safer if the government had simply done what should have
been obvious and halted immigration? 

COPYRIGHT 2001 CREATORS
SYNDICATE, INC.

November 29,
2001