Captain's Quarters -

I decided to do a little lunchtime blogging, and the first item I see is this Examiner column by Charles Hurt outlining the Democratic priorities on national security -- relaxing visa requirements to enter the US. Harry Reid took all of about six weeks after capturing the majority for the first time since the 9/11 attacks to demonstrate his party's understanding of security priorities, and a few Republicans appear to be supporting him, including George Bush:

The Senate’s anti-terrorism bill would relax visa requirements for foreign travelers coming to the United States, a move that some worry will leave the country more vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

“Nineteen murderers got into the U.S. because of lax scrutiny of their visas,” Rosemary Jenks of the nonpartisan Numbers USA said, referring to the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. “Now the Senate wants to eliminate visas for millions more people.” ...

“There are many countries helping us thwart terrorism around the world, and they should be rewarded for their continued cooperation,” said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio. “This legislation will improve both our national security and economic interests while helping to solidify these relationships and improve good will toward the United States for years to come.”

Already, 27 mainly European countries are exempt from obtaining visas for travel for up to 90 days in the United States. The anti-terrorism bill would allow the administration to expand that waiver to 13 additional countries that are determined not to pose a security risk.

It's bad enough that the Senate wants to relax entry requirements while we're at war with people who mainly attack through infiltration. The Senate should be embarrassed to be loosening security requirements in a bill they advertise as "anti-terrorism". However, Harry Reid takes it even father by blocking some common-sense amendments that would address some other holes in the entry process -- because he says they're off-topic.

Charles Grassley, for instance, has proposed an amendment to eliminate judicial review of visa revocations when the holder is already in the US. At the moment, someone traveling in the US belatedly found to be a risk can appeal the revocation of a visa and remain in the country, sometimes for months. Given that no one has a right to a visa, it's hard to understand why people determined to be security risks have to be allowed to remain in the US after that determination is made. Jon Cornyn wants to add an amendment that will allow the Department of Homeland Security to detain illegal aliens after a judge orders their deportation, and not wait until their home country has agreed to accept them back.

Reid won't allow either of them to come to the floor. Why? They're related to immigration, Reid says, and irrelevant to national security.

I contacted Charles Hurt, and he has graciously agreed on short notice to appear on CQ Radio this evening. Be sure to tune in at 9 pm CT, when I will interview him about this concerning development. (via Instapundit)