Why Their Hate for Us Matters

Paul Cella draws on a study of actual al Qaeda terrorists to simply, directly, and (in my view) decisively describe the single most important action to be taken in defense of our nation (emphasis his):

Reading this, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the most important security measure against jihadist terror is the simple expedient of keeping the jihadists out. No jihadists in the United States, no jihadist terror in the United States. How blindingly obvious. But that is not all: Even if we concede that keeping every last jihadist out is nearly impossible in a society such as ours, this study suggests that merely keeping their friends and sympathizers out will produce the desired effect. Jihadist terror is nurtured by a distinct culture; without the culture, even the most enterprising jihadist will be trussed and frustrated.

The key points are 1) that al Qaeda jihadists aren't poor Third Worlders lashing out, and 2) that they aren't generally particularly religious before their affiliation begins. The goal, therefore, is to scuttle the circumstances that contribute both the environment and the grudge to the drive that ends in mass murder.

Sharks in the Flood

I had already planned to mention Heather MacDonald's City Journal article on illegal immigration and crime, but I didn't know what more to say than to suggest that, despite its length, the piece is very interesting; I daresay it's important. However, Jonathan Adler has given me a specific point on which to hang a post. He writes:

The MacDonald City Journal piece is worth reading, but it is important to note that the policies she describes are largely local policies against enforcing federal immigration law, even against those who are guilty of other crimes. This is certainly a problem. But I don't accept MacDonald's premise that America's cities are filled with illegal alien gang-bangers because the federal government is not doing enough to prosecute companies that are willing to hire illegals for otherwise honest work. I doubt that those illegal aliens who join drug gangs are the same illegals who cross the border in search of otherwise honest employment.

In response, Andrew Stuttaford correctly notes:

... the existence (tacitly accepted by the Feds) of a large population forced by the lack of documentation to exist on the margins of society must, surely, provide an ideal milieu in which such criminals can flourish.

However, Stuttaford doesn't go far enough. The largest, most galling information in MacDonald's piece is that police are being inexcusably bound in their enforcement capabilities for political considerations — whether it is a police chief, councilman, or mayor who fears the backlash for suggesting that immigration law ought to be leveraged to stop other crime. Thus, the flood of immigration not only offers mass cover for the sharks within it, but also supplies the political weight that hinders efforts to catch the criminals.

It isn't simply an issue of "local policies against enforcing federal immigration law." The policies forbid working with the INS, even when it would be in the direct and obvious interest of the community. There would simply be no political will to do such a thing if the waters couldn't be muddied with pleas on behalf of "illegals who cross the border in search of otherwise honest employment."

Partial Solutions Are Part of the Problem

I debated whether to post Mark Steyn's column on President Bush's recent immigration policy announcement, because the chance is slim to none that you haven't seen it linked somewhere else already. But Mark Steyn's work has that quality — quality — that makes one wish to quote it.

It's beautifully coded imagery: Whether you came here as slave owner or slave, standing in line and filling in the paperwork or through the express check-in, everyone's an immigrant, and all the rest is fine print. Who are we to distinguish between some uptight white-bread Pilgrim disembarking at Plymouth Rock and an Algerian terrorist with a forged Quebec driver's license making a break for it at the British Columbia/Washington state border en route to blow up LAX? Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Illegal Americans, Islamist Americans, Incendiary Americans, we're all in the same boat, whether we're rowing or planting the plastic explosives.

Apart from the writing, Steyn makes an important point that has floated around the fringes of discussion about Bush's new policy proposal: it isn't so much that some form of guest-worker, semi-legal category is objectionable on its face, and granting it to illegals isn't necessarily an overriding unfairness. The real problem is that the only way to justify the move is to make it part of a larger, multifaceted solution, and the administration doesn't seem inclined to propose any of the other facets.

Unfortunately, this appears to be one of the downsides of our governmental system generally. Effective, complete policies are sure to contain something to which somebody will object, and when important issues require some form of positive action, whittling down solutions to benignity can be worse than doing nothing.