America’s illegal alien overrun has to be fought on several fronts. The first and most important is national security. Do you realize how insane it is to have people taking off their shoes and sometimes submitting to pat downs at airports, when illegal aliens, who walked right across the southern border, are working in secured areas of the same airport, as well as highly sensitive areas of government facilities?
It’s as if politicians underestimate terrorists’ determination to kill us. If you’re on a mission to kill infidels so you can see Allah and those 72 virgins after you die, you’re extremely motivated to get the job done and a lot smarter than the average government bureaucrat. Most of us can’t even comprehend such homicidal/suicidal notions, but it’s what terrorists do.
It’s also lost on open-border types, especially the elites who don’t have to compete with illegal aliens for jobs (I’m talking to you, George Bush), that terrorists have long since figured out just how porous the southern border is and how stunningly naïve and lazy Americans can be when it comes to immigration enforcement. A country is supposed to be aware of who is entering it and why, and deport those who entered illegally. Such should have been the highest priority after 9/11, even before going into Iraq.
The second front of attack should be on American businesses who hire illegal aliens. Notice I didn’t use the word knowingly. Having illegal aliens on the payroll, whether you actually knew you were breaking the law or not, should be subject to penalties. As long as American companies keep hiring “undocumented” workers, the “undocumented” will keep coming.
I’m glad to see that at least one state is not playing around when it comes to curtailing some of the damage down to its infrastructure caused by foreigners on the government dole. Lawmakers in Arizona just approved a measure that will penalize businesses that hire them. From the Arizona Daily Star:
[I]f HB 2030 becomes law, only citizens and legal residents could get adult education classes and subsidized child care. And students at state universities and community colleges would have to pay the higher tuition normally charged to out-of-state residents.But senators first tacked on a series of amendments to also deal with the other side of the equation of illegal border crossers: They would financially penalize companies that are found guilty of violating federal law by knowingly hiring people not in this country legally.
For example, an employer would be denied tax credits and state contracts. Potentially more significant, a company would lose its state license to do business for six months for a first offense — and permanently for repeat violations.
As you may recall, the people of Arizona overwhelming passed Proposition 200, a common sense measure that requires “proof of citizenship to register to vote, photo ID to vote, and proof of eligibility for non-federally mandated public benefits.”
Blacks should be the most concerned about the hiring of illegal aliens. According to The Economic Policy Institute, employment rates for blacks continue to fall. There are several factors involved, of course, and the Institute speculates that the “labor market still discriminates against minorities, particularly African American males.” They’re right for the wrong reasons.
The assumption is that blacks are being discriminated against by white employers because they’re black. False. Black workers are discriminated against because they’re legal citizens and unionized workers, and it’s cheaper to hire illegal, non-unionized aliens.
Where is Jesse Jackson when you need him?
Addendum: Someone should start a group blog that reports on or exposes American businesses that hire illegal aliens. The bloggers could also encourage and organize boycotts. Money talks.
Related posts:
Related stories:
You are absolutely right. See my post just last night on my blog about how seriously Taiwan is taking illegal immigration with regards to National Security. I hammered Open Borders Surrender Monkey Chris Cannon(R-UT) pretty hard, too. (he-he)
Comment by Texas Republicans Against Bush — 05.06.05 @ 7:25 am
” Such should have been the highest priority after 9/11, even before going into Iraq.”
I thought we knew how they entered and why.
Comment by actus — 05.06.05 @ 8:19 am
A friend of mine when to a location where companies pick up day laborers. He went there for 2 weeks and was never chosen for a job.
He wasn’t a union member.
Comment by DarkStar — 05.06.05 @ 8:33 am
In fairness, DarkStar, your friend was (I’m assuming, correct me if I’m wrong) a legal, U.S. citizen. Even non-Union citizens are entitled to minimum wage, whereas illegals aren’t (or rather, won’t complain to the relevant authorities for fear of being deported). It seems probable to me that he may have been passed over for that reason.
Comment by AWG — 05.06.05 @ 8:55 am
“The assumption is that blacks are being discriminated against by white employers because they’re black. False. Black workers are discriminated against because they’re legal citizens and unionized workers, and it’s cheaper to hire illegal, non-unionized aliens.”
But that explanation doesn’t explain the differences between african-americans and other groups.
But I’m happy to see you reading the EPI’s great work!
Comment by actus — 05.06.05 @ 9:06 am
AWG, I’m not sure, but I think that’s what DS was referring to.
Comment by La Shawn — 05.06.05 @ 9:20 am
La Shawn, your front page is still messed up.
Try cleaning your cache, and refresh. - Admin
Comment by Bonnie — 05.06.05 @ 10:09 am
La Shawn Barber illuminates another of the dark corners of illegal immigration…
Pingback by Common Sense Junction — 05.06.05 @ 10:16 am
We have a handy-dandy I-9 form in the file of every single employee we hire. These forms include verification of citizenship or legal alien status. Great, huh? Right. The only teeny-weeny problem is that no one from local, state or federal government has ever looked at the forms. Not once. Not ever. Typical government paper-wasting nonsense.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.06.05 @ 10:41 am
La Shawn, I see the ‘one liner rhetoric’ is still suffered on your site.
Comment by Jim R — 05.06.05 @ 11:00 am
LaShawn, I am not sure you can simply disregard discrimination as a variable of unemployment, although I definitely agree with you, that illegal aliens take jobs that otherwise would go to LEGAL individals…
The thing that gets me is this…
ILLEGAL aliens…
They are illegal, need we say more?
And it also dissappoints me that more so-called black leaders aren’t speaking to this issue…
Comment by Dell Gines — 05.06.05 @ 12:05 pm
If the federal government cracked down and fined businesses who hire illegal immigrants it would only take between 10 and 20 key crackdown/fines on businesses in several states like CA, FL and NM. There is the 80/20 rule. 80% of the cleanup would occur with those key “enforcements of the law”.
And what would be the impact?
My belief is that the over 60% who voted for prop 187 in CA would turn out and vote Republican just for having backbone and helping clean up the state.
Legal Hispanics vote with a majority for that measure. It’s not racist, it’s pro-enforcement of the law.
There is a way to properly come to this country and be documented and there is a way to not come properly.
In this time where National Security is of utmost importance (probably will be so till the end of time) we need to know who is coming into our country and deport if they are overstaying their visa’s as the 9/11 hijackers did.
Comment by Baklava — 05.06.05 @ 12:27 pm
“If the federal government cracked down and fined businesses who hire illegal immigrants it would only take between 10 and 20 key crackdown/fines on businesses in several states like CA, FL and NM.”
Do you think that works with other regulations like employee safety and pollution?
Comment by actus — 05.06.05 @ 12:48 pm
“Do you think that works with other regulations like employee safety and pollution?”
In a word, YES. When I hear about a big OSHA fine somewhere, I get nervous and start reviewing our policies to make sure we’re in compliance.
Comment by RedBeard — 05.06.05 @ 12:58 pm
Answer = Yes.
One of my colleagues is a big liberal Actus. He’s kinda like you in philosophy (my perception). In any political discussion he rails on business and “corporations”.
One of the things it seems liberals fail to recognize is the enormous progress of employee safety and corporate responsibility with pollution. The premise of your question fails to recognize that over 80% (out of the 80/20 rule) has already been addressed. Sure there are a few people (not the fortune 500 generally - they are audited and inspected daily by internal workers dedicated to this and external government types) in a few corporations who don’t do the due diligence required to protect others around them.
But now we’ve gotten into the ridiculous also. We got many lawsuits against baby walker manufacturers because the baby walked that walker to the edge of a stairs and then tumbled down them.
Me thinks that if your stairs are open that you should watch your baby to make sure that he/she isn’t going to tumble down them.
Comment by Baklava — 05.06.05 @ 1:28 pm
Shees, after reading RedBeard’s response Actus, I must admit to that I have a business. However, I do not have ANY employees. I will not take on the overbearing task of employees as you become a target in this day in age.
Show me an employer (company) without a lawsuit against them today and I’ll wager you a gentlemen’s bet that they’ll have one against them in the next 10 years.
Comment by Baklava — 05.06.05 @ 1:32 pm
“The premise of your question fails to recognize that over 80% (out of the 80/20 rule) has already been addressed”
The premise of my question is to say that just as immigration doesn’t get addressed so does other problems. Welcome to the club of whining about corporate power my friend. Its about time.
And here’s an interesting one… does that mean that for every 20% we cut back on enforcemen, there’s actually 80% getting away with it?
Comment by actus — 05.06.05 @ 3:36 pm
HA. Your Reading Comprehension needs to be rearranged 180 degrees.
I said colleague. NOT ME. Thanks for reaffirming your attitude about corporations. You guys are an interesting breed.
Your last question shows again your 180 degrees wrong way of looking at the 80/20 rule. The 80/20 rule is usually applied positively to look at HOW someone could effectively solve 80% of an issue quickly.
Comment by Baklava — 05.06.05 @ 4:16 pm
“The 80/20 rule is usually applied positively to look at HOW someone could effectively solve 80% of an issue quickly”
right. the idea is little enforcement gets a lot of cooperation. so does that mean that little cuts in enforcement do a lot of harm?
Comment by actus — 05.06.05 @ 5:23 pm
Backwards 3 times in 2 comments.
Comment by Baklava — 05.06.05 @ 5:32 pm
so lax enforcement = automatic harm?
Companies have more than just the government to worry about when it comes to pollution and employee safety. PR is a huge concern as well. And don’t forget their insurance carriers.
Most companies I know are more worried about these factors than an OSHA fine.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 05.06.05 @ 5:33 pm
There are good arguments for more aggressive enforcement of border control and employment of only those who have a legal right to work in the United States. And border control is also an aspect of national security.
There are also good reasons to criticize airport security measures such as requiring people to take off shoes.
That said, I disagree with La Shawn Barber’s conflating these two issues. The main reasons to enforce immigration law are to help assure that American citizens are able to earn fair wages for their work, and to limit the costs to state and local governments of providing schools and other basic services to illegal immigrants.
There is little evidence of would-be terrorists sneaking into the United States across the Rio Grande.
But we do have 40 years of history of airplane hijackings, and with one major exception in 1991, our passenger screening and x-raying of luggage were highly successful in preventing hijackings. Unfortunately, that horrible experience of September 11, 1991, informed us that we have to be even more careful about airline passenger and luggage screening.
We can criticize the system’s overcaution in some ways and undercaution in other ways. But the appropriate level of security for protecting our aviation system is completely different from what’s appropriate to protect a 2000-mile border. One hijacker can cause at least hundreds, if not thousands, of deaths. On the other hand, we have millions of illegal immigrants causing exactly zero deaths. Aviation security and border control are both important problems, but they are different problems and not really comparable security threats. Given a choice of hiring one more aviation security officer or one more border control officer, it’s easy to see why the resources might go to aviation security.
Comment by Anomalocaris — 05.06.05 @ 9:06 pm
Sorry, of course I meant September 11, 2001, not September 11, 1991.
Comment by Anomalocaris — 05.06.05 @ 9:07 pm
La Shawn:
I agree with your post. The flip side to this issue is the problem that many legal immigrants face.
My wife is a legal immigrant from Africa. She has never committed a crime of any kind anywhere, has no health problems, and the US is darned lucky to have her as a legal resident. Her visa saga was a 9 month-long bureaucratic nightmare that finally required the intervention of our local Congressman. I think the guvmint is landing hard on legal immigrants because they are doing comparatively little about illegal immigration. We did the right thing by being honest and above board in coming here legally, but it still rankles me when I think about it.
Why should any terrorist with half a brain try to come into the USA legally (and possibly die of old age waiting for the State Department to act on his visa) when the largely undefended borders to the north and south beckon?
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 05.06.05 @ 9:30 pm
Anom: “On the other hand, we have millions of illegal immigrants causing exactly zero deaths.”
Really, that’s news to me as well as those living down on the border when coyotes invade homes and kill owners. Or how about the thousands of illegals that died at the hands of their transporters over the years. Or how about the victims of auto accidents cused by uninsured illegals. IIRC, there was a major accident a few years back where illegals were running accross the interstate and got hit, which in turn caused a pilup. Yep, exactly 0 deaths. Tuth be told, in the aggregate, more were killed by illegals than on 9/11.
“But we do have 40 years of history of airplane hijackings, and with one major exception in 1991, our passenger screening and x-raying of luggage were highly successful in preventing hijackings.”
Define sucessful. One per year?
How do you know that our screening prevented hijackings? Maybe no one was really trying, other than the occcasional crackpot.
As recently as 1994, I could holster & carry a double-edged 5.75″ knife on board with me (anything over 6″ had to go in checked baggage}. Until 9-11, I almost always carried a knife, be it a buck knife, swiss army or leatherman. Seems to me if the passengers had knives, they could have stopped 9/11.
Also, IIRC within the past 15 yrs there were two flights that originated within CONUS that were crashed by deranged crew-members. One was an Egyptian pilot, which to this day, EgyptAir and the Clinton admin insists was not Islamic related, never mind the blackbox/ground control recordings to the contrary.
The other a disgruntled & fired black steward that overcame the pilots and dove the jet into the ground in CA. He used his badges, which should have been confisticated, to get on board.
We’ve also had several other intra-US hijackings, on average 1 every couple of years, usually someone wanting to go to Cuba or some nonsensical destination.
Comment by Andy — 05.06.05 @ 10:26 pm
You for got about the other millions of illegals that cause hundreds of deaths via murder.
Just look at the LA County Jail for proof of that.
So, because the other millions don’t kill anyone, that excuses the fact that they already broke the law by coming here? You can’t justify the simple fact that they are called illegals for a reason.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 05.06.05 @ 11:39 pm
How could I forget those? [Smacks forehead] Thanks for covering my 6.
Comment by Andy — 05.07.05 @ 12:16 am
Andy: “Seems to me if the passengers had knives, they could have stopped 9/11.”
The hijackers of 9/11 were armed with boxcutters, and not with guns or knives, but their most powerful weapon was that the passengers and crew believed that cooperation could save their own lives. They didn’t know that the hijackers were on a death mission. But the passengers on the fourth plane knew what had happened to the first two planes, and overpowered the hijackers. They didn’t need knives. All they needed was to know was that the hijackers were planning a death mission, so they had nothing to lose by fighting back. I hope you don’t seriously think we can make our airplanes safer by arming passengers with knives. All that would do is increase hijacking risk.
You are correct, an Egyptian co-pilot deliberately crashed his plane. Aviation security measures wouldn’t have helped, because aviation security is based on the premise that airline personnel are the good guys, not the bad guys. This has been true except for that one flight, and possibly one other that you claim. You are incorrect in your assertion that the Clinton administration covered up any part of the EgyptAir incident. The Egyption government attempted to establish that the incident was caused by equipment malfunction, and has successfully convinced many Egyptian citizens of this incorrect story, but the Clinton administration wasn’t part of this mischief.
I stand by the main point of my previous post: aviation security is extremely critical, something where screening out only 99% of would-be hijackers would be a serious failure. On the other hand, border security is nowhere near as critical, and if we successfully prevent 99% of would-be illegal border crossers, I’d consider it a smashing success.
Comment by Anomalocaris — 05.07.05 @ 12:57 am
Clinton vis a vis Egypt (The plane crashed on 31 Oct 99)
01 Nov 99: Officials, Clinton say no evidence of terrorism in EgyptAir crash, even tho FAA issued an alert to airline and airport security personnel about a month ago after agencies received an unconfirmed warning that a bomb might be planted on a plane. (sound familiar WRT Condi and the Aug 01 bulletin prior to 9-11?)
http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/31/plane.clinton.02/
05 Nov 99: The crash of EgyptAir 990 is the most recent example of an apparent Clinton administration policy to deny terrorist involvement in airline disasters, according to independent investigators
http://www.greatdreams.com/bomb2.htm
23 Nov 99: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak obtained a pledge from President Bill Clinton to delay an investigation of the Oct. 31 crash of EgyptAir Flight 990, an Egyptian minister said on Monday.
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/11/23/80610
Don’t click on my name if you don’t want to see the truth about how slack Clinton was regarding this crash, as well as a host of other intelligence issues. FWIW, it’s a roundup of intelligence news published by the Federation of American Scientists.
Regarding the issue of security screening, checkout the link to Aviation Security at
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay_cat/7.htm Bottomline, screening did not prevent hijackings, it did however deter other would be hijackers. IIRC, there has only been one or two would be hijackers that were caught during the screening process, but plenty of stories about screeners failing live tests.
But I’ll grant your point that in the 75 years this month since the first recorded hijacking, we’re doing better than four 9s (99.9999%)
As for increasing the hijacking risk, I don’t think so. The fact that others may be armed is enough to deter most — an equalizer. The 19 knew they could control a planeload if they were the only ones with the power. (No need to discuss that concealed weapons States have reduced their violent crime rates)
Unfortunately, the Taking Scissors Away TM bureaucrats think it’s more important to frisk granny for her nail clipper than to profile potential hijckers. That and mandating that Air Marshalls wear their “uniform” when on duty and to board the plane separately from the passengers.
Fortunately for the imaginative, almost every seat contains an assortment of lethal weapons, from bludgeons to slingshots to edged weapons, as well as restraints. That plus there is political talk of allowing those with CCW permits to fly armed, but that pobably won’t happen as long as Norm Pinhead has his job.
Comment by Andy — 05.07.05 @ 4:23 am
Everybody should have a quality wing-man.
I think a certain beverage company made reference to that not too long ago.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 05.07.05 @ 10:23 am
Anom, air security is only more critical if your # 1 fear is another plane as bomb scenario. The Oklahoma City bombers went nowhere near a plane, and look at what they accomplished. The first islamist attempt on the World Trade Center was also airplane free.
I work in the energy industry, with nuclear, gas, coal, hydro and oil plants. We may worry about planes, but I can tell you we’re much more nervous about a panel or semi truck pulling up with diesel and fertilizer or another explosive mixture. And we know that the terrorists had and likely still are, scouting power plants, refineries and other sites that could hurt the economy and the environment.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 05.07.05 @ 1:10 pm
Anom, I posted a longer response, but it’s probably held up in moderation.
Don’t click on my name if you don’t want to read the Federation of American Scientists regarding Clinton & EgyptAir in their Intelligence series. It so happens that this roundup includes a host of Clintonian breeziness regarding terorism in generl & specifics.
I should also point out one interesting parallel between 9/11 & EgyptAir. Each was preceded by an advisory warning of impending terrorist acts one month prior to the incident. While Condi was getting roasted on what and when did she know, Clinton & his Terror Czar were given a pass.
There are some other juicy articles if you Google “Clinton Egypt Air Crash”, including the tidbit that Clinton promised Mubarak not to let the FBI start a criminal investigation.
Comment by Andy — 05.07.05 @ 1:28 pm
Click on my name to the Centennial History of Flight and follow the link to Aviation Security.
The 1st recorded hijacking happened 75 years ago this month, when Peruvian revolutionaries seized a Pan American mail plane with the aim of dropping propaganda leaflets over Lima.
Granted given the ratio of hijackings to the number of flights, we’ve done better than five 9s (99.99999%). However, I would say the sucess is attributed to both deterence and relative lack of would-be hijackers and not to screening/enforcement. I’m at pains to recall when, if ever, a would-be hijacker was caught during screening, especially within the US.
As for “I hope you don’t seriously think we can make our airplanes safer by arming passengers with knives. All that would do is increase hijacking risk.”
Again, I point to the relative calm in the late 80’s and 90’s when I almost always carried a knife. I certainly wasn’t the only one carrying. And knowing what we know now, the airways would be safer if everyone was obligated to carry a knife; for the simple premise that any hijacking attempt would have to factor that every passenger is armed.
There’s talk of allowing passengers with CCW permits board flights with their CW of choice. Granted that won’t get anywhere as long as Norm Pinhead is in charge. As for detering crime, CCW States are full of stats extolling the benefits.
It goes without saying, that for the imaginative, practically every seat is equipped with several makeshift weapons suitable for bludgeoning, cutting, slingshoting, stabbing and of course restraining–even more in 1st class, where one also has china, cutlery and glassware handy as well.
Comment by Andy — 05.07.05 @ 1:49 pm
Hmm, that’s the second post regarding Clinton & EgyptAir that didn’t make it thru the filter. Shoulda been one for #28, bumping the other comments up 1 and again for #31
Comment by Andy — 05.07.05 @ 1:53 pm
Scuzzy-
Everyone fears the truck laden with ammonium nitrate and fuel. Perhaps its why its such a popular terrorist scenario on most anti-terror games.
These terror attacks are years in the making. They require careful planning and a long time to execute. The best way (and maybe the hardest) to stop them is to keep the terrorists from entering the country, and to track down the ones who are already here.
Our work is made harder by the fact that these individuals do not value life in the same way that we do. The cause means more to them than their own life. Only with dilligence in ALL areas can we have success.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 05.07.05 @ 9:10 pm
i love the anti-immigration talk…..except for one thing. the two most conservative american presidents (reagan and george w) have been exceptionally lenient with immigrants ..whY? because they all know no american-white , black, latino (born here) will ever pick fruits, package meat and do all the dirty work. people here would rather: 1. take welfare checks 2. sue for money 3. drugs, prostitution etc.
you can continue the rants…..but no one will stop this illegal immigration. its the dirty little thing that keeps our economy stronger than everyone else’s
Comment by sel — 05.09.05 @ 2:26 pm
Sadly, you are correct.
Comment by La Shawn — 05.09.05 @ 2:39 pm
You can’t arrest people who hire illegals and not arrest public workers who accomodate those same illegals. Start throwing politicians in jail for passing sanctuary laws and for firing workers who cooperate with immigration, and I will agree with firing employers, too.
Comment by Walter E. Wallis — 05.09.05 @ 11:37 pm
If you don’t live in a Border state SHUT UP
About immigration. I mean, I love La Shawn normally, but stuff like this just irritates me. I mean really, people in non-border states don’t know what they’re talking about.
Trackback by The Opinionated Bastard — 05.09.05 @ 11:42 pm