France and Germany? Because theyndo.”nWhatever the gravity of illegal immigration,nthinking Americans mightnask some questions before they beginncooperating in a scheme that wouldnvastly improve the federal government’snability to code and trace theirndaily business. Mr. Simcox admits thatnsuddenly “asking” Americans to carryna national identification card would benpolitically intolerable, adding that morensevere forms of internal identificationncontrol would require “back door”nproposals like Mr. Simpson’s. Theynsound benign — the card won’t benused by the IRS, you won’t have toncarry it, etc.—yet something aboutnrecent history forebodes an expandednprogram by which Congress mightnincrease its ability to collect taxes fromn”delinquents,” to cite just one grimnpossibility. And if this federal worknpermit can’t sweep back the tide ofnimmigrants from Mexico, wouldn’tnCongress be encouraged to adoptnstronger measures?nThe problem with the idea is thatnthe only people who will use this cardnaren’t breaking the law. Like gun controlnlaws, a national work permit willnaffect only those who obey laws tonbegin with. Criminals don’t care aboutngun control statutes or about civil andnreligious codes forbidding murder andnrobbery. Why should anyone expectnillegal aliens to stop flooding the countrynbecause Uncle Sam issues a newnimproved Social Security card? Anyonenwho uses it won’t need it.nAs for the “Europeans are doing it”nargument, Mr. Simpson and his followersnhaven’t told the whole truth.nFrance, which uses its national identificahonncard for everything from immigrationncontrol and collecting taxes tonhanding out welfare, hasn’t been ablento stop the illegal immigration of NorthnAfricans. And whatever Europe’s successnwith national idenhficahon cards,nor any other policy for that matter, itnshouldn’t necessarily serve as a paradigmnfor the States. Mr. Simpsonnmight recall that our ancestors not onlynleft Europe to escape the kind ofngovernment philosophy a nationalnidentification card represents, but alsonstaked their lives and fortunes on a warnto cast off the legalistic and pettynintrusions of the British Crown. If theynlike the European way of doing things.n46/CHRONICLESnMr. Simpson and his followers shouldnreturn whence their ancestors came.nWhen Jerry Seper of the WashingtonnTimes landed in Chula Vista, California,nfor his five part series on illegalnimmigration, one evening he visited annillegal entry point with a border controlnofficer. After about four hundred Mexicansngathered at the hole in the fence,nthe officer told Seper they’d have tonmake tracks because “they’ll come upnhere and drag the three of us across thenborder and kill us.”nThat story is emblematic of thensimple truth that Congress and thenPresident have abdicated their constitutionalnresponsibility to protect the livesnand property of American citizens andndefend our national borders from anforeign invasion. As with laws respectingnmurder and robbery, our leadersnhave failed to enforce immigrationnlaws, so to make things easy they’renprepared to “ask” American citizens tonbear the burden of reporting to statenand federal governments. Simcox andnhis adherents reply that Congressnwon’t appropriate enough money tonenhance the Border Control authorities,nwhich is true enough. But that’snonly because Congress is too busynspending money elsewhere.nIf our elected officials want to stopnillegal immigration, they can do sonwithout forcing — or “asking,” as theynput it—the rest of us law-abiding citizensnto carry identification papers. Anfew simple rules would suffice: no worknpermits for foreigners; no visas fornMexicans except government officialsnand businessmen; all travelers mustnpresent return plane tickets or travelnplans at the point of entry, plus annaddress and phone number where theyncan be reached; anyone cutting throughna fence or illegally crossing an opennborder will be shot.nIf the last sounds draconian, at least itnis a protective measure for the citizensnof this country, which cannot be saidnabout expanding the federal government’snpower to meddle in people’snlives with snooping devices like identificationncards and retina scanners. Or donyou look forward to the day when anfederal agent comes into your Amtraknsleeper to demand: “You’re papers,nplease”?nR. Cort Kirkwood is an editorialnwriter for the Washington Times.nnnTELEVISIONnThe Queen Is Deadnby Janet Scott BarlownPerhaps you heard that RoseannenBarr recently sang the national anthemnat a Padres-Reds game in SannDiego. If not, then you’re one of maybenthree people in America who missed it,nso let me fill you in. Looking like shenhad just rushed over from an all-dayngarage cleaning, Barr took the field innJack Murphy Stadium and proceeded tonsing “The Star-Spangled Banner”nbadly — aggressively badly, in-your-facenbadly. When she finished what shenobviously had thought would be annendearingly awful performance —nindeed, an ironic performance (“Theynknew they weren’t getting an operanstar,” she said later) — she grabbed hern”private parts,” as some journalistsnphrased it, then spat on the ground.nShe was loudly booed, and two days ofnmedia frenzy followed, every minutenof which I enjoyed.nOne of the many interesting aspectsnof this episode was its context. RoseannenBarr was asked to sing the nationalnanthem on “Working Women’snNight” because the San Diego Padresnmanagement considered her an obviousnand fitting representative of Americannworking women. That made ancertain kind of sense, since some verynserious-minded people in this countrynalso consider Roseanne Barr an obviousnand fitting representative of workingnwomen, especially blue-collarnwomen. What’s more, such publicationsnas the New York Times, the NewnRepublic, and Time have certified thisn