Coming Debate

James Pinkerton, writing in Newsday, distorts a few things in a column today. Well, either he did or an editor did. Regardless of who did what, it changes the entire tone of the debate.

More than anyone else, Tancredo has put immigration on the front burner. In the course of tirelessly stumping across the country - most recently as a no-hope presidential candidate - he has riled up citizens on the need for better border security, English only, federal standards for driver's-license documents, and preserving and perpetuating the "American identity." He has been called every name in the book, but he has persevered. Today his ideas are winning, even if he himself has been marginalized.

That's the fate of many polarizing figures, those who carry an issue from the fringe to the mainstream. In that sense, Tancredo resembles Jean-Marie Le Pen, the Frenchman who campaigned against immigration in France for decades - until finally, in the last few years, after the immigrant riots, Le Pen's platform became the conventional wisdom.

Now the new president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, elected on a tough law-and-order platform - he famously referred to the mostly Muslim rioters as "scum" - has sought to implement Le Pen's restrictionist agenda. On Tuesday, for example, the national legislature adopted a bill that would mandate DNA tests to prevent fraudulent "family reunification."

This measure outraged the left, of course. The International Herald Tribune denounced it as "pseudoscientific bigotry." But, as cops know, there's nothing unscientific, or bigoted, about DNA testing.

Meanwhile, here at home, nobody calls Spitzer a racist. He is so politically correct, it kills you - or, more precisely, it will kill him politically. Spitzer has put forth a plan for issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants that is opposed by 72 percent of New Yorkers. Earlier this week, the State Senate, including nearly a third of its Democrats, voted by a ratio of more than 2-1 to reject the Spitzer plan.

But one might ask: How is Spitzer's view different from that of most national Democrats? Answer: It's not.

Notice the slight difference? Tancredo, Pinkerton alleges, is anti-immigrant. Spitzer is pro-illegal immigrant. This is, as far as I know, not Tancredo's beef. His problem is first and foremost the illegals. The rest is a position that ensures that legal immigrants become American.

The left is trying to paint any anti-illegal immigrant beliefs as "racist." While some people who don't like the flood of immigrants are probably racist or biased, that does not describe the vast majority of people who oppose illegal immigration. A high fence with a wide gate and a hearty welcome for legal immigrants is something this country can and should be doing. What we do not need is a permanent underclass of unassimilated people who broke multiple laws to get here. Nor do we need a free pass for people who might not be coming here just for work.

There is a huge majority of legal citizens in this country who want the borders controlled. They do not want a flood of people sneaking in in violation of this nation's sovereignty or of the nation's laws. They do not want a permanent underclass who cannot even speak the language. They do not want children who should not be here in the first place receiving preferential treatment that our own native-born children do not get. They do not want a Federal insurance program that hands taxpayer-funded health insurance to people who are here illegally.

So yeah, the debate going forward into 2008 is going to focus more and more on this issue. But the issue is illegal immigration - straight up. If done properly, this is a boon to all people in this country legally. Including legal immigrants. Because it keeps new, illegal arrivals from jumping ahead of those who played by the rules. High fence, wide gate, hearty welcome for those who choose to be Americans legally.

Its a good platform.