Las Vegas Review-Journal - Vin Suprynowicz

There seem to be a substantial minority of Americans who believe that since granting amnesty to 4 million illegal aliens 24 years ago had the effect of bringing us the 12 million illegal aliens who are here loudly demanding amnesty today, therefore giving amnesty to the 12 million illegal aliens currently in the country — without bothering to mine or otherwise make the southern border at least as secure as the fence around a typical military base or nuclear power plant — will result in "a comprehensive solution to the illegal immigration problem."

Sure, if by "comprehensive solution" you mean that 24 years from now we'll have 36 million new illegal aliens in the country, flooding our jails, evading responsibility for the traffic accidents they cause, sending their earnings "home" to another country rather than investing them in America, embracing none of our traditions of limited, constitutional government, demanding free education through college and free medical care for themselves and their extended families, and that all our signs be printed in two languages.

While well-educated, English-speaking would-be immigrants of every color with needed skills who are willing to obey our laws and embrace the principles of our constitutional republic languish overseas, simply because they lack a handy land border.  

Furthermore, like kicking when the doc taps the knee with that little rubber hammer, this gang seems to believe they've come up with a really clever sound bite: They blame the presence of these illegal aliens on their favorite villain, "greedy corporate CEOs" who offer said illegals gainful employment.

One letter-writer to the Review-Journal today, for instance, asks: "Does anyone seriously believe that the illegal immigrant 'problem' would not be greatly reduced, if not almost eliminated, in a very short time, if the CEO's of corporations and owners of businesses that hire them were to serve, say, a minimum two-year jail term for first offense and even more years for subsequent offenses with a hefty fine? The problem would go away almost overnight. ..."


CATCH-22

I've spoken to some actual business owners — I don't hobnob with that many big-time "corporate CEOs," but I suspect a lot more of these illegals end up working for landscaping outfits and restaurant kitchens than for Goldman Sachs, anyway. They explain an interesting "Catch-22." Under current law, if someone applying for work who speaks with a thick Spanish accent (or even needs a translator) presents a set of documents which we know can be purchased as a package from any number of illegal sources at a current going rate of $125 — driver's license, "green card," Social Security card, etc. — the employer who has been advertising for help is legally required to accept these documents at face value, in many cases he or she IS NOT ALLOWED to carry his or her diligence or skepticism any further, lest he or she face quite harsh negative repercussions from a federal outfit called the "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission."

For instance, imagine how long a would-be employer would be allowed to run advertisements stating: "Thanks to the plethora of illegal immigrants from south of the border presenting what appear to be valid work and residency documents, we are going to follow the suggestion of those who blame 'corporate CEOs'  for the current illegal immigration problem: In order to do our part, no one who speaks with an accent that might lead us to believe they're from a foreign country need apply for this job. Skin color is no problem, but we're not going to hire anyone who sounds like they didn't grow up here, period."

Will those who propose "a minimum two-year jail term for first offense and even more years for subsequent offenses" for anyone who hires an illegal alien who has presented false documents, agree to allow such advertising? Will they agree to de-fund and disband the EEOC, or at least support legislation specifically instructing the EEOC to no longer go after employers who take such a step to avoid hiring any illegals?

Why not? No one is talking about refusing to hire based on skin color or religion or femaleness — just foreign accents or the inability to speak English like a native. Not only should this fall under the constitutional right of free association, but how can you propose jailing someone for an "offense," and then disallow them the most effective method by which they can make (fairly) sure they're not lured into committing the offense by a criminal cheat?

Unless, of course, those who stake out this position don't really want to find a way to force the illegals to go home, at all — unless this proposal is merely a scam, designed to silence the opposition, frighten capitalists out of creating new jobs, and distract attention from the fact they don't want any "solution" but another amnesty?


IS THIS A MONTY PYTHON SKETCH?

A guy on the radio Saturday asked, "If you could better your family's lifestyle by taking a few days' risk, wouldn't you sneak across the border?"

The problem is that this same question could be used to justify sticking up a bank.

Why don't they propose two years growing crops on the prison farm for the illegals who PRESENTED the false documents, for example? Or for anyone caught making up and selling such documents — a set of criminals who could be apprehended by a series of undercover stings so straightforward they could easily be carried out by Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys?

This is like something out of "The Emperor's New Clothes." We're being asked to accept utter absurdities as established fact. "No way to round up 12 million illegals"? There's no way to round up all the nation's pot dealers, but I don't notice Congress making a lot of headway on a drug amnesty. Instead, we continue to happily fill our prisons with people who sell plant extracts less harmful than alcohol to willing adult customers.

In fact, assign a few immigration officers to question non-English speaking adults who try to register their kids for free tax-funded schooling, or as they exit hospital emergency rooms where they've sought free treatment, and you could fill up some buses in a hurry. Bus them to Galveston, place them on ships, dump them on the shores of the Yucatan. That's what Eisenhower did, quite effectively, with his "Operation Wetback." Start questioning anyone who visits a post office or a private competitor to wire money south of the border. (ICE officers ARE allowed in post offices, aren't they? How come we don't see them there?) Round up and question all the guys seeking day labor on street corners or outside local nurseries. Give them a fair chance to prove legal residency — but not "Oh, that Social Slave number isn't valid, or it belongs to some old lady in Duluth? Just gimme a few hours; I'll go buy you another one."

Round up and deport the first half million. Make it reasonably unpleasant, and the rest will start to get the message.

Until you create some harsh and reasonably likely negative repercussions for violating our immigration laws, we essentially have none. And a nation that can't control its borders — can't demand following the law and demonstrable allegiance to our heritage of limited government as conditions of citizenship — won't be a sovereign nation for long.