Enforcement first.(immigration policy)

FOR the first time since the Republican Revolution ten years ago, the politics of immigration is shifting in favor of those favoring tighter laws. On August 12, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, a Democrat, became the first of two border-state governors-Arizona Democrat Janet Napolitano quickly joined him-to declare disaster areas on the border. David Brooks of the New York Times--a neoconservative not known for his worry about the Border--recently bewailed how illegal immigrants are "spreading a sub-culture of criminality" and "destroying the social fabric." Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute, a stalwart apologist for immigration from Mexico, has said tougher enforcement has to be part of any new immigration legislation. John Fund of the anti-enforcement Wall Street Journal says Bush has a "vulnerability" on immigration. Indeed, when Democrats can outflank Bush on immigration with the flimsiest of symbolic measures--the declarations of emergency will do nothing but provide some more money to the affected counties-he has left his opponents a spectacular opening.

Fortunately for the GOP--if not for the country--Democrats don't really have the stomach for crossing the ethnic lobbies on immigration. Richardson and Napolitano are talking tough, but still defend policies like giving illegals in-state tuition and driver's licenses that erode the difference between being a citizen and being an illegal alien.

The question is where the GOP goes under the leadership of President Bush. There are three basic approaches under consideration in Congress. The McCain-Kennedy bill has little in the way of enforcement and would give illegals an amnesty by calling them "temporary workers." Sens. Jon Kyl and John Cornyn, two of the lawmakers we respect most, have a better, competing bill that includes meaningful enforcement measures with a tighter temporary-worker program. But as Mark Krikorian argues elsewhere in this issue, our already-overwhelmed ...