The Immigration Divide

Before we tackle immigration laws, let's address the young scofflaws who say they were driven by their passions to skip school these last couple of days.

Every last one of them should have faced detention or worse. It was truly depressing to see the condoning shrug of schools across North Texas as thousands of kids spat on truancy laws to play protest games.

For every student who may actually know the name of a congressman who might affect these issues, there were 100 who felt the adrenaline rush of a free day to skip class.

Reflex cries of racism have already poisoned the debate among grown-ups; now the fear of such a label has neutered our schools when discipline could have taught a valuable lesson to these kids.

Hearing school districts sugarcoat this week's rowdy fiesta as "a civics lesson" is infuriating. Classes could have devoted time to a real discussion of the issue. Kids might have learned something. As things are, our country needs to determine what our immigration laws should be, and our schools should figure out whether their rules are worth the paper they're written on.

And so to the issue itself: President Bush chose the most ironic of audiences Monday for a tired defense of his largely despised guest worker program: a roomful of people who have achieved citizenship by obeying our immigration laws.

His goal was to make newly naturalized citizens - and the rest of us - feel just swell about his plan to make life easier for millions who have violated those laws.

In what can only be described as a colossal surrender, the White House now seeks to relieve us of the burden of deporting the estimated 11 million people who have flouted our laws to gain entry to the United States.

We are told that we cannot possibly find every illegal immigrant. No kidding. We also have no hope of finding every speeder and every drug user. Shall we abandon those law enforcement efforts as well?

Laws send messages. Millions of people drive at the speed limit because they know they might be caught. Same with millions who might otherwise dabble in drugs. A nation that fails to enforce its immigration laws invites lawbreaking, and that is what we have done for decades.

While toughening those laws does not bring the hope of nabbing every illegal alien, it would surely spark some respect for our borders, which are currently a cruel joke.

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas could not bring himself to cast a Judiciary Committee vote Monday for a bill that he feels grants amnesty. "It will encourage further disrespect for our laws and will undercut our efforts to shore up homeland security," he said in a statement after the measure's 12-6 passage.

This places Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in an interesting position. If he tries to build a get-tough alliance with senators like Mr. Cornyn and Arizona's John Kyl, he may create something that does not now exist - a noteworthy slice of Americans who want him to be president.

But before we even get to 2008, these issues now carry the clout to guide the direction of this year's elections.

As Republicans hope to benefit from possible improvements in Iraq and Democrats hope to benefit from competence issues like the controversial Katrina response, both parties may have to examine their stances on immigration.

Should Republican candidates energize the conservative base by supporting tight borders and tough penalties for illegals and those who hire them? Or do they fare better by siding with the president?

And what of Democrats, most of whom are probably friendly toward a guest worker program? Will they provide strange political bedfellows for a president they otherwise loathe?

The vocal Americans calling for tougher immigration laws have now been met by crowds in the streets calling for those laws to be let alone or softened further. We're about to find out which group has more political power.