Door knockers

On the morning of sept. 11, I learned of the terrorist attacks from the guy who mans the coffee wagon outside our building. Seeing me gawk at the smoke pouring from a building 30-odd blocks away, he explained in slightly strained English, "A plane hit World Trade Center. I see it." At that point, of course, we didn't know the assault would be traced back to Afghanistan, the land he'd left for a new life here.

The fellow spends every weekday morning inside a four- by-seven-foot cart, filling cup after cup of coffee, bagging muffins and crullers with a flourish. No air-conditioning in the summer, no heat in the winter, a drop in patronage if it's raining or freezing, transactions probably averaging less than $2 in the best of weather. He starts preparing my order the instant he sees me approach the window, knowing I could switch to four other places within a block. It's the livelihood that drew him from halfway around the globe.

The guy comes to mind as our government struggles to decide how wide our door should be open to the world. Restaurateurs and other low-wage employers have pressed for measures that would allow immigrants to enter or remain part of the U.S. workforce more easily. And they were making progress until that day I stood slack-jawed at the coffee wagon.

But afterward, as they say here in New York, fuhgeddaboudit. How can you ease immigration when foreign fanatics are already slipping within our midst and killing us by the thousands? Security trumps all other concerns.

The industry has wisely not said otherwise. You might as well kick a puppy.

But, more recently, the trade has tactfully suggested that there may be ways of allowing more immigrant workers to enter or stay in the U.S. without compromising safety. The National Restaurant Association talks about the need for "common sense legislation," where security isn't promoted at the cost of reason. Recently, for instance, the association urged the U.S. Senate to join the House in extending the measure that allows legal immigrants to apply for residency without leaving the country. If that provision isn't renewed, says the NRA, a legal immigrant would have to return home for three to 10 years before settling here again. Sounds very reasonable to us.

Yet any type of immigration reform is a tough sell in Washington these days, despite the numbers. The restaurant industry alone employs 1.4 million immigrants. But because 19 foreign extremists used airplanes as missiles against us on Sept. 11, the very phrase "immigration reform" puts lawmakers on their guard. No wonder the National Council of Chain Restaurants uses the term "migration reform" in discussing new ways of monitoring the flow of persons to and from Mexico.

The industry's cause isn't helped when the safeguards currently in place fail spectacularly. Think about it: The Immigration and Naturalization Service issued student visas to several of the hijackers exactly six months after a) they were dead; b) they were dead because they'd attacked us; c) everyone including people living in caves knew the visa applicants were mass murderers. Hadn't the issuing agents read a newspaper since 9/11?

But that should galvanize us to fix that agency, not throttle true immigration reform. To us, the matter comes down to the sort of risk-benefits analysis consultants are constantly pitching. Sure, foregoing immigration reform would probably bolster security. Heck, we could virtually eliminate the threat of foreign terrorists slipping among us if we just kept everyone out. No more assailants. But no more newcomers like my friend downstairs, slinging coffee and bagels the way my grandfather once dragged a rake, or your ancestor swung a sledgehammer, or yours stocked a fruit stand, or yours twirled a nightstick, or yours made Fords. Is it worth it?

Is that even a question?