Alan Keyes
May 23, 2002

ALAN KEYES, HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I am Alan Keyes.

One of the Catholic Church's most outspoken zero tolerance advocates today is under fire for abuse himself. Documents surfaced today proving Milwaukee archbishop Rembert Weakland paid a man $450,000 for his silence in a sexual assault charge against the archbishop 22 years ago.

The archbishop denies the charge of abuse, but in a handwritten letter sent to the alleged victim before the settlement he writes, “I felt like the world's worst hypocrite. So gradually I came back to the importance of celibacy in my life — not just a physical celibacy but the freedom the celibate commitment gives. I have neglected — not only prayer — these months but so many people as well because my life was so caught up in yours.”

In light of the letter it appears that the settlement may have been intended to cover up Weakland's homosexual attraction for the alleged victim. This is just the latest in a string of disturbing accusations against a prelate who has been celebrated by some in the Catholic community for helping victims of priest abuse for more than a decade.

But in the past Weakland has been accused of knowingly shuffling around predator priests, much like Boston's Cardinal Bernard Law. One of them, Father Dennis Pecore, abused a 13-year-old boy named Greg Bernau for four years.

After it became common knowledge Father Pecore was abusing Greg, he was moved to another parish where he sexually abused another youth. Pecore was later arrested, tried, and is now serving a jail sentence for his crimes.

In a settlement agreement with the family of the abused boy, the archdiocese agreed to pay $595,000. In the settlement's terms, the family was then ordered to keep silent about the abuse. A judge ruled, however, that this settlement, the seal on it, could be broken, and Greg, who is now 32 years old, joins us from Milwaukee. Greg, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

GREG BERNAU, VICTIM OF PRIEST ABUSE: Thank you.

KEYES: Now I think that when people hear about something like this and they look at the settlement that was reached with the family, who knows what goes through their minds, but what I would like to ask you, can a money settlement like that address the kind of harm and damage that was done to you when you were young?

BERNAU: Absolutely not. It doesn't cover half of the expenses that I had incurred for therapy and emotional distress that I had gone through. It covered some of it but I am still going to counseling when I feel that I need it, and it's costing money.

KEYES: Well, what kind of an effect did this have? I mean, you were a 13-year old boy. What kind of an effect did this have on, first of all, on your faith and your sense of a relationship with the Catholic Church?

BERNAU: Immediately after this I disassociated myself with the Catholic Church. I do not consider myself a Catholic at this time, and I cannot even go into a church, any kind of church now because of the feelings that I have for the Christian faith.

KEYES: Now, is this a feeling of betrayal? How would you describe the sort of feelings that have beset your life in the time since this abuse took place?

BERNAU: I would say betrayal, that I can't trust anybody involved with the Church because of how this whole thing was covered up and not taken care of, in my perspective, the correct way. And I feel that if — I can't walk into an establishment and preach my faith or render my faith to anybody because of that fact.

KEYES: Now, as you have been watching the developments over the last little while in things that have come out, not just about abuses that are occurring, but about the cover-ups that have occurred, what has been your reaction to this, particularly when it was raised, for instance, in the context of the archdiocese there in Milwaukee, based on what you knew and had been involved with?

BERNAU: It is very upsetting because of the fact that this whole thing has been going on for so long. Even before my case there had been cases here and there, but when my case came up and came into the public eye, it was sort of like just swept under the covers and forgotten about.

And now we see it again and I'm — when this whole thing came up again, I called my mother and I said, I can't believe it. These — they didn't do anything about it. They continued to sweep it under the covers. They continued to just try to deny the things that are going on and they don't want to deal with the issue at hand, and that is there are priests abusing young children.

KEYES: Now, there are priests abusing young children. You were the victim of that kind of an abuse. In terms of the effect that this whole thing has had on your life, do you think that the abuse was compounded by the fact that there was an effort made to silence the whole thing and that as you've watched it develop over the years what has that perception of the cover-up done to your sense of the whole situation?

BERNAU: Well, it just made it a lot harder to deal with, because there are times that I'm afraid to talk about certain things and I'm afraid of what is going to happen to me if I go out and talk about these things or if I get involved with any discussions about these things.

The more I talk about things, the better I feel. I feel it's part of the healing process. And going through the counseling that I have gone through, they say that the more I talk about it, the more you're going to heal.

KEYES: Well, this was one of the things, though, wasn't it, that Archbishop Weakland put an emphasis on? That he had these listening sessions precisely intended to provide a forum for that kind of healing. When you heard about those sessions, what did you think?

BERNAU: I believed that nothing was going to come out of them. I remember reading an article in the “Milwaukee Journal” stating that he — a woman had confronted Archbishop Weakland about her daughters getting abused by a priest and he did not have any sort of reaction to that at all. If these were listening sessions, I feel that there should have been a — he should have given some kind of reaction to people's feelings.

KEYES: Yes. Greg, I want to thank you for joining us today. Appreciate it. I know that talking about these things in some ways has got to be painful and watching these events, but I appreciate your willingness to come and give us a sense of what this whole situation has done to your life. Thank you for joining us.

One of the administrators in Greg's school actually notified Archbishop Weakland about the abuse by Father Pecore. This is one of the things that I have to say particularly struck me in this whole thing. It's one of the reasons we're having this show tonight, because there were people of decent conscience that stepped forward when this pattern developed and they started to notice things they thought were wrong, and they made an effort to bring it to the attention of the archdiocese and of the archbishop.

Now, in a terse reply to this effort, the archbishop wrote in a letter, “I would note that any libelous material found in your letter will be scrutinized carefully by our lawyers.”

Now as a matter of fact, the teacher was later fired and subsequently sued the archdiocese for wrongful termination. The teacher lost that case in court.

We know, of course, that subsequent events have shown the teacher's concern to have been justified in the case of Father Pecore, but the thing that I found most disturbing was that a person of decent conscience, a moral Good Samaritan comes forward to try to stop the abuse that is taking place, to lift up a young victim out of the ditch of this abuse and deal with them as Christ said one should, in the spirit of the Good Samaritan, deal with them, and what was the response from the church? Legalese, suggesting that if you keep it up we're going to come after you with the law.

I find this to be an extremely disturbing response, and one that suggests not only a spirit of cover-up in the sense of paying people off and that kind of thing, but of actively discouraging the good conscience from speaking out and from reacting against the evil deed and the misdeed. This is hardly what one would expect from the Catholic Church and from the leadership of the Catholic Church, which is supposed to act, of course, in the spirit of Jesus Christ.

Well, next we'll get to the heart of the matter. We're going to talk about the larger implications of the Weakland scandal, including, of course, the fact that as some folks have been pointing out for a while, it seems there is an element of homosexuality involved here. Weakland's vulnerability on that score made it — may have made him more open to the possibility of trying to cover up for other priests in his archdiocese.

What does this mean for the credibility of the spiritual leaders of the Catholic Church? We'll debate this and more with an author who is a former Catholic priest, and a representative of the Catholic Alliance, a Milwaukee radio personality who has covered the story very closely.

We'll be back with these three folks. You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: A little-reported story out of Arizona on the Mexican border. A U.S. border patrol agent claims that members of the Mexican military fired upon him. Also accusations that some members of the Mexican military are guarding the bad guys and their merchandise in the cross-border drug trade.

Can we trust Mexico to help protect our shared border? We'll debate that in our next half hour. A reminder, too, that the chat room is sizzling tonight, and you can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.

But first, joining us to get to the heart of the matter on the cover-up in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Richard Sipe, a former Catholic priest and author of the book “Priests and Power: The Anatomy of a Crisis.” Larry Cirignano, president of catholicvote.org, a political action group that is part of the Catholic Alliance, and Charlie Sykes, a radio talk show host in Milwaukee who has been following the Weakland case for several years.

Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE. I would like to start for a minute, first with you, Charlie Sykes, because you have been following this for a while, and I wanted to ask you about that aspect of all of this that really seems to me to be the most disturbing in some ways of all, and that is the response of the archdiocese to the folks who stepped forward to try to call this abuse to the attention of the archbishop, and who then claim that they were fired and put upon and so forth and so on.

You have followed this story. Is their claim that they were acted against, in your opinion, a credible one?

CHARLES SYKES, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Yes. I think it is credible and I think that, in fact over and over again, you saw in this archdiocese not only the penchant for secrecy, a tendency to minimize the severity of sexual abuse, but you had these cases where people who tried to call potential abuse to Archbishop Weakland's attention found themselves threatened with libel suits or even lost their jobs, a real vindictiveness that was always very puzzling.

It raised a lot of questions, because it was one thing to simply cover up and tolerate this kind of behavior, it is another thing to actively threaten people who came forward, and unfortunately the revelations of the last 24 hours may go some distance to explaining this kind of attitude and approach.

KEYES: Now, have folks ever questioned the archbishop about why one would take this incongruous attitude toward people who are just trying to end a moral wrong? Because it would seem as if the church would want to aid people who are acting out of decent conscience. Has he ever addressed the question of why this sort of a response is in any appropriate?

SYKES: Well, there have been some people who have questioned it, but the fact is that I think that Archbishop Weakland has been treated with kid gloves in general, and I think part of it has to do with the fact that he is a very highly respected intellectual.

He is one of the great liberal theologians of this country, and I think that there was a sense on the part of the local media that he was one of the good guys. But again, you had a pattern of behavior over a long time that — in which Rembert Weakland would tolerate certain behavior in which he would actually promote priests who had engaged in potential misconduct and then you had this kind of — this, over and over again, an attempt to sort of rationalize what was going on.

I mean, a couple of years ago he told a newspaper when he was asked about these cases of pedophilia: what happens so often in these cases is that they go on for a few years and then the boy gets a little older and the perpetrator loses interest. That is when the squealing comes in and you have to deal with it.

The “squealing.” Now people were wondering, I mean, what a strange thing to say about victims of sexual abuse, and I think that perhaps given what we've learned over the last 24 hours, perhaps that's the way he sees his own situation. This was the template in which Rembert Weakland was — in a crucial member of the hierarchy — was looking at other victims and other accusations of sexual abuse.

KEYES: Now, if I can go for a minute to Richard Sipe. We are looking at someone has a reputation as a liberal theologian, someone who has championed the causes that are certainly controversial within the context of the church in many ways. And yet now it comes forward that in ways that are, I think, in fundamental contradiction of some of the church's teachings, particularly about the proper moral response to moral abuses, there seem to be some serious questions now raised. How can one defend this kind of behavior?

A.W. RICHARD SIPE, AUTHOR, “PRIESTS AND POWER”: Well, the tragedy of Rembert Weakland is the tragedy of the American bishops as a whole. There are a lot of good bishops. They do a lot of good things. Weakland has done a lot of good things. But what has opened up is now beyond the sexual abuse of minors, which is all over the country. What has opened up is the question of the sexual lives, the sexual secrets of bishops and superiors.

You see, the sexual corruption in the Church does not come from the bottom up, it comes from the top down. The bishops are always talking, we have to get a better screening processes. We're getting as good candidates as we ever got. That's not the problem. The problem is that once they're in the system that the system itself doesn't know how to handle sexuality, and Rembert talks about this beautifully in his letter.

He fell out of celibacy. He fell in love. He had to rediscover celibacy, but in the process people get hurt, and bishops still don't get the real fundamental hurt to the victims.

KEYES: Now, I have gotten that impression. Do you think that that is an emotional problem? I also see a spiritual dimension here, because the moral harm that is done to the victim from the point of view of the faith — as I was talking to Greg right now and someone saying I was pushed away from the Church, turned away from the Church. I lost respect for the Church.

I mean, the Church exists to call people to God, not to damage their relationship with God. Why aren't the prelates more sensitive to that moral spiritual damage?

SIPES: Well, I think that you're putting your finger on it. It is a spiritual thing at its very base. And it has to do with other things. Like poverty, like using material things not for their own glorification and not to aggrandize themselves but to serve. The ministry is meant to serve. And Christians are called to serve. And...

KEYES: Larry Cirignano, I look at what is going on here and I am thinking now that we've seen a lot of emphasis on the priest's problem. Repeatedly on the program I've tried to point out to people that I think probably the greater problem is the one revealed in the hierarchy, in the credibility of the Church's authority.

Don't you think they are going to have to address this in June when they come together if they are going to move in a direction that renews and starts the Church toward healing?

LARRY CIRIGNANO, CATHOLICVOTE.ORG: Absolutely, Alan, and we have said, the couple times that we have talked about this, that he has to come out of Dallas with a complete statement of zero tolerance and what that means. Full disclosure to the public authorities — there is some discussion about that but I don't think there is any real question that that is going to have to be done, and to open up the process to the lay people.

Obviously this is different in that the money actually came right out of the collection plate, not an insurance plan and not out of special funds, but this was coming out of the collection plate.

KEYES: Well, but Larry, one of the things that I guess has bothered me a little bit is there is a tradition in the Church of repentance and of the need to do penance for the kinds of moral harm that one has done.

Don't we find, especially if we're to restore the sense of integrity in the prelates and the hierarchy, a need here for folks to examine their own background, voluntarily reach the conclusion that they need to take some action to spare the church harm if there are things like this in their background, and then move not only to say I'm sorry and all this, but visibly and openly to do penance for the moral harm that is done, the scandal that is given in the faith sense, not in the public media sense.

Don't we have to see something done to address that spiritual tradition that goes beyond apology, goes beyond compensation and gets to the question of real repentance when this kind of moral scandal has been given and harm has been done?

CIRIGNANO: That's absolutely right, and there have been a number of problems with this in that the people have not come out and apologized. They've not publicly said that they were sorry. In fact they've been hiding it. We've talked to all these victims. Really, they will never be happy no matter what, but certainly that these priests shouldn't be allowed to practice their priestly duties, that they should be removed from any place that they could do harm, and that they should publicly have to say that they are sorry.

KEYES: Well, but what I'm thinking in particular, though, Larry, about the prelates. What about the Archbishop Weaklands, what about the Cardinal Laws, what about the prelates elsewhere who may have fallen into this pattern of cover-up which then compounds the problem by implicating the authority of the Church in the abuse?

Isn't some penance going to be required here in order to restore a sense of credibility to the authority of the church?

CIRIGNANO: Yes. And I think, you know, Father Frank Pavone had a column that he talked about how after the fire is out in the West, and we saw all the parks and we thought, oh, how terrible that was, but after 20 years later now we've seen so many new things, and I think the same thing will happen with the Church. We will see great newness come back to the Church as we get rid a lot of this problem areas. I think a lot of these things have to come out.

KEYES: Go ahead, sorry.

SYKES: That was one of the most striking things, I thought, about Archbishop Weakland's non-denial denial today, was the complete lack of contrition.

If he would have come forward and said yes, you know, I made a mistake 20 years ago and I'm deeply sorry and I'm sorry for the hurt that I caused, I think it would have gone — taken a step toward the kind of renewal that you're talking about.

Instead, you got the sense that he still thinks that he is somehow — that he is the victim here and that he is rationalizing his behavior, and I think that until the Church can find a way to get beyond that it is not going to heal itself.

The lack of contrition, the lack of really understanding of the spiritual damage that they've done to people like Greg is one of the really troubling parts about this scandal.

I mean, we all fall short, we all sin, but the refusal of someone of Archbishop Rembert Weakland's stature to even say “I'm sorry” or to go through the process of repentance, I think really underlines your point, Alan.

KEYES: Richard Sipe?

SIPE: Yes, it's not merely just saying I'm sorry. They are all — bishops are saying all over, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. But I think the point is it's confession. It is the early Christian sense of confession.

Like St. Augustine. I have sinned. These have been my sins. And it's not this abstract, “Oh, we are so sorry.” I've been in a lot of legal settlements where the lawyers are saying I'm speaking for the bishop and we're all so sorry. It doesn't ring true. The truth rings true. I have sinned and this is what I'm going to do to make up for it. I think this is the fundamental shift that you're talking about, Alan, and it's fundamentally Christian and it is not just saying I'm sorry, there is a penitence about it that is personal and deep.

KEYES: I have one last question, though, Richard, because Archbishop Weakland is known as someone who has been a liberal intellectual within the Church and so forth. One element of that liberalism has been a greater openness, perhaps, to certain kinds of secular approaches on sexuality and so forth.

Now, I happen to believe that part of the problem here is that the sexual world is far more relaxed now about sexual sin than the church can afford to be given its doctrine. Doesn't the openness to the secular understanding of human sexuality actually make clerics and people in the hierarchy more vulnerable to this kind of dangerous sort of misjudgment?

SIPE: You know, I don't believe that. I don't think this has to do with conservatism or liberalism. Sexuality is sexuality and everybody has it, and sometimes the most rigid people are the ones who have the deepest hidden life. No, the secret system has been opened, and that means these are the questions: what kind of sexuality, what kind of celibacy is this bishop, whether he's liberal or conservative, whether he has a small diocese or a big diocese, how is he practicing his celibacy?

Let that be a witness and not just a word. And let it be yes, this is how I practice my celibacy, and let him put it on the line.

KEYES: Gentlemen, I want to thank you all for joining us tonight. I know that this is a difficult topic for all of us who are Catholics. It is continually talked about but I think it's important for us to try to help folks to understand it in a way that also contributes to a constructive outcome.

And that of course was my purpose in getting into this this evening. We know that there is going to be a meeting of the prelates in June. I think that there has been a tendency in the media to focus on the priestly problem, to focus on the priestly abuses and to act as if the major part of this scandal that really endangered the credibility and authority and reputation of the church didn't more have to do with the question of how the bishops and cardinals had reacted, how they had used or abused the authority and resources of the Church to implicate the Catholic Church in these sins and abuses and to betray what ought to have been the spiritual priorities of their pastoral leadership.

The first concern of the Church is the salvation of souls, and when you have priests out there leading people down a path that destroys and ruins their moral lives, that in and of itself is a deeply damaging abuse. But the prelates haven't come forward with a sense that this was so.

Now we have in the Weakland case possibly something that suggests that maybe there is a root of this that goes beyond intellectual ideas and influences and has to do really with the integrity of one's commitment to vocation and celibacy and the discipline of faith, and that can then render one vulnerable to circumstances where you're going to be willing to cover up for others, but in a way you have been willing to cover up in yourself.

And that seems to have been, perhaps, one of the difficulties here in Archbishop Weakland's case. Now as the bishops come together to try to address this, what can they do? Just throw up their hands, try to pretend one strike and you're out? No, that's not going to address the problem of the prelates and their authority and their credibility.

Some of us have called for the resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law, but is that going to deal with the problem of other folks who might, like Archbishop Weakland, have problems that make them vulnerable somewhere in their conscience and their background? I think what needs to be done is that the bishops need to stop preaching reconciliation and penance and start practicing it in and of and for themselves, and to lay out a course of action at this conference whereby they open themselves in the hierarchy to the need for penance and reconciliation, starting with a call that all of those in positions of influence ought to examine their conscience and if they find in their background things like this that make them vulnerable, they should voluntarily come forward and lay down their commissions before somebody else has to reveal the problem.

They ought to give a certain amount of time to let that happen, and if folks then don't respond within that time voluntarily to come forward and lay down their commission and be introduced to a path of counseling and healing within the Church, when these scandals come out I think there ought to be a clear understanding that the responsible cardinals and bishops who are in positions of authority will be removed from those positions without discussion, without pretending that it is because of outside pressure.

No, this is the moral pressure of the faith that requires this. So I think one ought to be open to forgiveness and healing but at the same time set a standard for penance and reconciliation that will help to restore the confidence of the laity and the world in the entrusted authority of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church so that they can stand again with integrity for the one they are supposed to represent, who is Jesus Christ.

Next, can we trust Mexico to help guard our shared borders? There are episodes coming forward that raise serious questions about this. We're going to debate that next. You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.

Late last week, a U.S. Border Patrol agent was shot at by people he claims were Mexican soldiers. He was having a routine patrol along the Mexican border when it happened. It was near Papago Farms, 90 miles from Tucson. Mexican officials are denying that the shooters were soldiers. But a representative for the border patrol said the agent was able to identify the Mexican soldier's uniforms, quote, “to a T.”

Is our border with Mexico safe? There have been other reports suggesting that folks identified as Mexican soldiers were found in some of the tunnels that have been dug underneath the border that have been associated with the drug trade, and that they've been involved somehow possibly in guarding the merchandise or the people conducting that trade.

Obviously, this would be very disturbing information, suggesting a level and degree of corruption, perhaps, within the Mexican law enforcement and military establishment that could be severely damaging, particularly in these times of terrorism and especially knowing what we know about the network of links between terrorists and the drug trade.

Well, joining us now to discuss this, from Washington is Daniel Griswold. He's the associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies; and Dan Stein, the executive director of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

DANIEL GRISWOLD, CATO INSTITUTE: Hi, Alan.

KEYES: Dan, let me start off with a question for you, because I know that the whole situation we're in with terrorism, with immigration, with these kinds of reports now emerging involving the drug trade and the possible effects of corruption within the Mexican military and police establishment.

Are we coming to a day when we just have to acknowledge that this is not an open border situation, we must fortify the border and basically put ourselves in the situation of a lot of other countries in the world where borders have to be closed and fortified and carefully guarded by hundreds of thousands of troops?

DAN STEIN, FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM: Borders are — borders are borders. Borders are very important in the modern world. There's just no question about it. The nation-state is under assault worldwide, Alan, because we see immigration pressures certainly on the developed countries, the wealthier nations like we've never seen before in human history.

And certainly with the Mexican government, you know, the election of President Fox was supposed to be a new day, a dawning and a new relationship with mutuality of trust and respect, and we were both going to respect that border between our two countries. That incident the other day, a Mexican army officer shooting at a U.S. Border Patrol agent is not the first time. It's evidence of systemic corruption and drug trafficking, and it's got to stop.

KEYES: Daniel Griswold, is this a tolerable situation?

GRISWOLD: Well, look, we don't know what happened down there. We don't know if they were Mexican soldiers. They may have been in pursuit of people in criminal activity. We just don't know.

But one thing I do know, it is irresponsible to talk about this as some kind of act of war, as one member of Congress did the other day. Look, we have real enemies out in the world, al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein. Mexico is not our enemy. The Mexican government, the Mexican people are not our enemies. We have a 2,000-mile border with Mexico. We've probably never had better relations with the Mexican government than we do today with Vicente Fox. This is a calling out for cooperation, not confrontation.

KEYES: But when you say that we have to pay attention to our real enemies, isn't one of the problems of a porous border that, in some sense, is not being properly patrolled on one side, possibly, and where there are these possible elements of corruption. I mean, if drug trade people can corrupt, so can terrorists corrupt. They have access to a lot of money, some of it the same money as the drug dealers. Doesn't this pose also a security problem in that context, Daniel Griswold?

GRISWOLD: Well, one of the problems we've had is that our immigration policy has been obsessed with catching Mexican construction workers. And that has taken resources away from catching terrorists. We had 10 times as many agents on the Mexican border before September 11 as we did on the Canadian border, even though the terrorists tend to prefer the Canadian border.

We need to drain this swamp. We need to legalize the flow of Mexican workers into the United States. That would take away this underground network and make it more difficult for terrorists to get into this country. And it would free up resources to go after people who want to blow up our buildings instead of going after people who want to help us build them.

KEYES: Dan Stein, do you think that this means more — we should have more openness and that's somehow going to solve this problem?

STEIN: I cannot understand how anyone could ever reach that kind of analysis. How are you ever going to catch terrorists if you can't determine who is coming into the country?

President Bush and the United States has a choice. He is either going to reassert the sovereignty of the United States and control that border or we're going to have anarchy. And it doesn't matter whether a Mexican worker is coming up here to do construction work or someone from some other country is coming in to blow up a building, we're entitled as a nation to control our borders. And people coming across that border illegally...

GRISWOLD: Look, we can't control our borders.

STEIN: If you live down on that border, Mr. Griswold, you would find out...

GRISWOLD: We can do more to control our borders.

STEIN: ... that people are contending with trespass, destruction of property, threats to their physical safety. We have got a great border patrol.

GRISWOLD: That is a result of policies espoused by Dan Stein.

STEIN: We've got a great border patrol down there and they're not getting the support from the higher levels of the government and the administration that we need to see.

KEYES: Now, go ahead, Daniel Griswold.

GRISWOLD: What happens, Alan, is that we have been trying to nab Mexican construction workers and it's taken our attention away from terrorists. We've passed a good border security bill in Congress that's doing the right things. It's going after people from terrorist countries that have links to terrorism. It is requiring tamper-proof documents. It is beefing up the border patrol. These are the things we should be doing.

Dan Stein has another agenda, and that is to keep out peaceful tourists, hard-working immigrants. There has been not one single act of terrorism committed by a Mexican coming to the United States. They're coming here to work, to save, to build a better life for their families. We should welcome these people. And that will make the border easier to patrol because they will be coming in in an orderly fashion rather than creating these underground smuggling networks which are a result of our failed restrictionist policies.

KEYES: Now, wait a minute...

STEIN: Alan, I mean...

KEYES: Go ahead.

STEIN: Alan, I mean, he's making a bunch of wild assertions about us opposing tourists. Of course not. What we want is a system of rules that are to establish the rule of law. In Mexico...

GRISWOLD: Every one of these September 11 terrorists came in and tourists...

STEIN: Will you let me talk? The Mexican government has a responsibility for its own people. They can't just send people up here to the north without regard to whether or not the laws of our country are going to be honored or obeyed.

We could work out a cooperative agreement with Mexico you would think to repatriate the illegals in this country and provide maybe a Marshall Plan to help them build an infrastructure, create jobs at home.

But NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement was enacted and it made it impossible to control that border now. We don't have the resources and the deterrence value. And you can't — it is like a needle in a haystack. You can't say, well, we're going to let 5 million illegals come in and hope that somewhere, a terrorist not involved. That's just not realistic.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Let me get a word in here. Let me get a word in here. Hold on. Hold on. Let me get a word in.

Because I'm listening to this discussion and I'm kind of wondering whether we're not talking at cross-purposes.

As I understand what you have said, Dan Griswold, you have talked about something that was going to be done in an orderly way, that was going to be done according to rules that we would establish and so forth. It sounds good, but if you're not in control of that border, rules don't mean anything. If people can just kind of wander across when they feel like it and you're not really able to patrol it and don't get the cooperation necessary to do so, your rules, whatever they are, are pointless because they're going to be disregarded. So don't we have to have control of the border before any regime of rules is going to make any difference?

GRISWOLD: You know, Alan, think of Ellis Island. We basically had open borders for most of our history, but they came in in an orderly fashion through Ellis Island. We can have Mexican migrants coming to this country to work, a lot of them not permanently, work for a year or two and then go back, but have them come in an orderly way, a legal way.

Let's legalize the millions of Mexican workers who are here working, helping to build a stronger economy. Let's legalize them so we have a better idea of who is in the country and then we can focus our resources on the terrorists.

KEYES: Well, we're going to have to take...

(CROSSTALK)

We're going to have to take a brief break here. We're going to be right back with more from our guests right after this.

And later, we'll get to my “Outrage of the Day.” A teacher has sex with a 13-year-old and gets — well, you just wait to here what she got as a punishment.

But first, does this make sense? According to today's “Los Angeles Times,” the inspectors who monitor U.S. ports of entry were working with a computerized watchlist that omitted 3,500 people identified as suspected criminals, potential terrorists, or otherwise ineligible to enter the United States. Authorities said this Wednesday.

Now, the Immigration and Naturalization Services' computer system, it had a breakdown. It lasted from March 23 to May 15. Authorities said no one knows who might have been flagged by the computers, but got through during this time. Now, we're in the midst of a terrorist alert. We have people coming possibly to this country to kill and destroy us. And with all the billions that float around Washington, don't you think we would want to spend extra resources to make sure the computers that help us to keep the bad guys out are up-to-date, are working and aren't falling apart? Doesn't that make sense?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: We're back with Dan Griswold and Dan Stein talking about the situation along the U.S./Mexican border. Reports that there have actually been cross-border firings on a U.S. Border Patrol agent and reports that have stirred up, I think a little bit of a hornet's nest in Congress, a concern about the security of that border.

Daniel Griswold, we can talk all we want about the good relationship that may or may not exist in some formal sense between our governments. But if incidents like this are occurring, don't they raise disturbing questions and shouldn't we investigate to try to understand what is going on?

GRISWOLD: Well, I think President Bush has it right. We should be talking with Mexico about cooperating to regularize and legalize the flow of workers across the border. It's good for our economy. These workers are filling important jobs.

Alan, right now, as we speak, Mexican immigrants are helping to rebuild the Pentagon. They fill important jobs in the hotel and motel industries. These industries were devastated by September 11. If we do what Dan Stein wants and deport hundreds of thousands of them, it will be equally devastating to those industries.

And then there's the moral question. Do we want millions of people living in a kind of legal twilight, hundreds of them dying in the borders? I think if we were to legalize it, if we were to follow President Bush's initiative and legalize and regularize this flow, you would see less confrontation, less problems on the border and we'd free up resources to combat terrorism. Let's keep the bad guys out, but welcome people who come here to work and save and build a better life for their families.

STEIN: Alan, I fear for my country, I fear for my children to hear the kind of irresponsible discussion I'm hearing. First of all, it's irresponsible. Secondly, it's very expensive. We did an amnesty once. We amnestied 3.2 million illegals in 1986. What did it produce? A tidal wave of more illegal immigration and a whole lot more legal immigration as their relatives came.

It's also going to crush the INS. The INS doesn't have the capacity, as we all know now from September 11. They don't have the ability to enforce the law. How would you ever administer a mass amnesty without totally destroying what's left of the INS?

And then it's expensive. Who is it that pays for this cheap labor? The employer doesn't. He gets to pay low wages and unskilled Americans pay the cost. Who pays the taxes for state educations, housing, health care and all those issues? We do, taxpayers. Look, we...

GRISWOLD: We are squandering billions of dollars now trying to keep hard-working people out of this country.

STEIN: It is a very bad deal...

GRISWOLD: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) from the American taxpayer.

KEYES: Excuse me, if I can get a word in here, I have to tell you as I listen to this discussion, one of the problems I have, Dan Griswold, is that the economic reasons from the point of view of Mexican workers may sound very good. But I think we are looking at a situation where if we are not careful, we're setting ourselves up for a situation in which we have a flood coming across that border.

You talk as if, well, we'll set up these rules, we'll regulate. What we're really doing is sending the message that our laws mean nothing. That, in point of fact, you don't have to pay any attention to the rules we put on the books because every time we have to deal with illegal immigration...

GRISWOLD: Alan, these are not bad people...

KEYES: Let me finish. I let you talk. There will be an amnesty. There will be a change of rules. There will be a liberalization. What we essentially will end up doing is giving the impression that that is a simply open border where there are no rules and y'all come. And in that event — believe me, I did consular work for a while, we start to give the impression that our immigration laws mean nothing, the world will tilt and flood this nation with people from Mexico and elsewhere. And if that happens, believe me, we won't have both either the cultural or the material infrastructure to bear it.

And I think to send that kind of a message of lawlessness with respect to our immigration is a huge error and it is the error I think President Bush is making. It doesn't make any sense to me and I don't see why we should go that way, quite frankly. One last word from each of you quickly.

GRISWOLD: Alan, I think these are not bad people. These are bad laws. I think we should follow President Bush's initiative and welcome people who want to come to this country and work and build a better life. A lot of them go back. That's the historical experience.

KEYES: Now, let me give a quick last word to Dan Stein.

STEIN: The president is making a huge mistake pandering to the ethnic vote. And let's face it: Mexico hasn't given up anything. All they're doing is making demand after demand after demand and we're sick and tired of it.

KEYES: Thank you, both. I really appreciate your coming. I think one of the problems is we're not going to end up with good laws or bad laws, just no laws at all that anybody pays attention to.

Next, my “Outrage of the Day,” a teacher who has had sex with a 13-year-old student. She's 43 and the judge gives her — well, I'll tell you when we come back. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Now for my “Outrage of the Day.”

A teacher who admitted having a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old student has been spared a prison term. Pamela Diehl-Moore, 43, of Lyndhurst, New Jersey, well, she pleaded guilty. They plea bargained. She was supposed to get three years. When it came before the judge, instead of getting the three-year term and five years, she got five years probation.

And guess what the judge said? I really don't see what harm was done and certainly society doesn't need to be worried. Forty-three-year-old teacher, 13-year-old student, we don't need to be worried? I have got a 13-year-old. I'm worried about that judge.

That's my sense of it. Thanks. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. Have a safe holiday week.