A good column by Tony Blankley on immigration and political realities.
I tend to agree with the basic thrust of his column: if we can accomplish genuinely secure borders, which will protect our country from terrorists and a continued influx of illegal aliens, the other issues (i.e., guest workers) are negotiable and there will probably have to be some compromise on all sides. This is a variation on Charles Krauthammer's wise suggestion that the government focus on border security first and negotiate the other issues later; unfortunately, the Administration seems determined to tackle everything at once.
I agree with Victor Davis Hanson (author of MEXIFORNIA) and others that a guest worker program is a bad idea because, among other things, it establishes a permanent, unassimilated underclass -- look at the problems this has caused in France. But if it's secure borders and a guest worker program or no secure borders, what then? That issue is the crux of Blankley's essay.
My great concern is that I'm not sold that secure borders are a big -- let alone the biggest -- priority of the Administration or Congress. If the President's border proposals are carried out, that would be a step in the right direction. However, given how strong the President has been on the war on terror, I find it curious that he has such a seeming blind spot to the threats posed by our currently open borders. (All it takes is one suitcase nuke from Iran...) Addressing the borders in a serious, substantive way has been a long time coming. I would like to see the President pursue securing the "homeland" with the same vigor with which he has rightly fought the War on Terror abroad. The optimist in me is coming to the fore as I hope this week will, in the long run, prove to have been a genuine turning point rather than a perpetuation of the status quo.
Wednesday Update: Power Line discusses Blankley's column.