JOHN LEO'S BLOG

Kaus, the sharpest of the blogosphere's immigration-watchers, has a question on the president's alleged get-tough proposal to require "a new identification card for every legal foreign worker." Kaus asks: "How would creating an ID card for FOREIGN workers prevent illegals, using forged documents, from posing as citizens?" The obvious is true: Bush's tepid speech is an attempt to look strong without doing anything meaningful. A sensible policy would be to close the border first, then talk about amnesty and guest workers. But politicians, having delayed 20 years or so, want the Hispanic vote more than they want to be seen as doing anything effective.

The media keep treating the immigration issue as inside-the-beltway partisan jockeying instead of as a serious and urgent national issue. Carefully phrased poll questions are intended to create the impression that the public is ambivalent about the uncontrolled flood of illegals entering the country. But it isn't. In this month's Zogby poll, about two thirds of Americans want strong action on immigration. Support for the House bill, routinely labeled "harsh" by the media, reached 81 percent among Republicans, 72 percent among independents, 57 percent among Democrats, and 53 percent among Hispanics.

Media accounts routinely dismiss numbers like these, depicting those who want more control of illegal immigration as angry conservatives whom Republicans must "appease" or "placate." The New York Times features two relatively new appeasement words today: mollify and salve.

An interesting religious angle to the immigration debate: Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles ordered cards to be passed out during Sunday mass in his parishes, asking parishioners to sign them to request "a path of citizenship" for illegals.

The cards will be sent to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. Many people objected loudly to evangelical ministers involving themselves in politics in the Bush campaigns. Will those critics say something now about lobbying on immigration during mass?