Regardless of their true intentions, Democratic governors are changing the debate.

In 2003, Gov. Bill Richardson welcomed a bus caravan of “undocumented workers” – i.e., illegal aliens – traveling through his state on its way to Washington, D.C. He enthused: “Thank you for coming to Santa Fe. Know that New Mexico is your home.”

Turns out that they aren’t so welcome after all. Last week Richardson became the first of two border-state governors – Arizona Democrat Janet Napolitano quickly joined him – to declare disaster areas on the border, exactly because so many undocumented workers are coming across it. When two savvy Democratic governors spectacularly change their posture on immigration, it’s a sign of a significant political shift – perhaps, finally, public outrage over the out-of-control border is making an impression on the political establishment.

Richardson has been a conventional Democrat on immigration. He signed a bill giving illegal immigrants living in New Mexico in-state tuition at its public colleges. New Mexico is one of the few states in the country that gives driver’s licenses to illegals. Napolitano has been similarly hostile to the enforcement of immigration laws.

There is little sign yet that these newly border-conscious Democrats will actually get tough on illegals. They appear to be trying the Hillary Clinton tack on immigration, which is to sound pro-enforcement while not doing much. Clinton declared at the end of last year, “I am … adamantly against illegal immigrants.” But John Fund of The Wall Street Journal notes that in a recent speech before the Hispanic group La Raza, the only immigration measures she talked about were in-state tuition for the children of illegals and amnesty for illegal immigrants who graduate from high school in the U.S.

Richardson defends New Mexico’s extended hand to illegals on grounds that the state is “immigrant friendly” and has to be “practical.” What’s impractical is the idea that immigration enforcement can be a matter of simply better policing along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. Interior enforcement has to be part of the solution, including a crackdown on employers who hire illegals and steps to signal to illegals that they aren’t welcome here. It is nonsensical to say, as Richardson and Napolitano are in effect saying, “Gee, the border is too porous, but we’re going to give illegals the same privileges as citizens when they get here.”

By rights, Democrats should be the most anti-illegal-immigration of the two parties. The benefits of illegal immigration go disproportionately to employers and people rich enough to hire nannies, pool cleaners, etc. They get to hire low-paid workers with very few rights. The costs fall on minorities and low-skill workers, whose wages are undercut.

Richardson and Napolitano’s looming 2006 re-elections surely prompted their border moves. But bad faith has its uses. When Bill Clinton said, during the 1992 presidential campaign, that we should “end welfare as we know it,” he didn’t mean it, but it changed the politics of welfare forever.

Richardson and Napolitano have taken a step toward giving pro-enforcement immigration reformers the whip hand in the debate over the border. In Congress, the debate is divided between those advocating tougher laws and those who want an amnesty and a new temporary-worker program. Even those favoring the latter approach are now calling for a grand bargain including tougher laws. The counteroffer from the pro-enforcement side should be that since there is only a consensus that we need better laws, enforced more thoroughly, that should be the starting point for any reform. Only after serious enforcement has been tried – for the first time in decades – should any amnesty or guest-worker program be considered.

The leader of the pro-enforcement forces should be President Bush. After a brutal year defending an unpopular war and a less popular Social Security initiative, favoring something the public wants – an immigration crackdown – might be what he needs. Of course, that would require Bush, who has been pushing for a quasi-amnesty and a temporary-worker program, to change his tune. But if Richardson and Napolitano can, why can’t he?

Syndicated columnist Rich Lowry can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].