He was confused a couple months ago, and with his link to the WashTimes guest editorial "Where is the debate on homeland security?" he's still confused. It's not that there shouldn't be a debate on homeland security, and it's not that that editorial doesn't bring up some very important facts, it's just that that editorial seems to offer some incorrect information about the current situation:

We also do not know what happened to Mr. Bush's immigration reform proposal. Although one could argue with the outlines of that proposal, its homeland security rationale is unassailable: Even with significant increases in Border Patrol funding, we cannot readily detect and apprehend potential terrorists smuggled into the United States unless we also take steps to decrease substantially the people who try to enter the United States illegally each year. These steps could include increasing the annual ceiling on lawful Mexican immigration, creating a temporary worker program, deporting rather than releasing people who enter the country illegally, linking our economic aid to Mexico directly to its ability to exercise greater control over its southern and northern borders, and focusing our investigations on smugglers rather than domestic employers...

Saaaay what? We certainly should greatly reduce the numbers of illegal crossers. And, yes, that would greatly benefit our attempts to stop terrorists from entering. However, the last phrase is completely wrong.

In the first five months of this year, just one company in the whole U.S. was fined for immigration violations. I'd hardly call that "focusing... on domestic employers."

If we fined hundreds of companies, those companies would stop recruiting and employing illegal aliens. It just wouldn't be worth it. Without all those illegal jobs, few illegal aliens would come here. Any amnesty proposal - even coupled with promises of strong enforcement - would simply lead to more illegals coming here.