http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_3165423

Conor Friedersdorf. Staff Writer

(This is a twice weekly column written by Conor Friedersdorf, who is managing the Daily Bulletin's blog, or special Web site, on immigration issues. The blog is designed to provide a forum for opinions and information on immigration. The blog is at www.beyondbordersblog.com) Where's the outrage at those who hire illegal immigrants?
During talk radio rants, anti-illegal immigration rallies and conservative political speeches, far more aspersions are cast at foreigners who cross our borders illegally than at Americans who provide the incentive for them to do so. Isn't that backward?

Without employers willing to hire illegal immigrants, the flood crossing our borders would fall to a trickle. Individual citizens are guilty too, hiring laborers without documentation and patronizing businesses that do the same.

How odd that those breaking the law to escape extreme poverty attract more ire than those breaking the law to enhance their profits. The result: public pressure has triggered better enforcement on the border, inadequate though it remains.

Meanwhile, enforcement against employers has diminished, even as public sentiment against illegal immigrants has intensified. The statistics are shocking. Work site arrests dropped 83 percent between 1999 and 2003, according to the Government Accountability Office. Over roughly the same period, fines issued to employers fell from 427 citations in 1999 to just three citations during fiscal 2004!

Why has the Bush Administration felt able to let workplace enforcement wane so much? Surely the relative apathy anti-immigration activists display toward that corner of immigration law played a role.

Of course, there are voices calling for enforcement against employers -- even among vocal illegal immigration critics like Mark Krikorian, Tom Tancredo and Jim Gilchrist.

In fact Gilchrist, the Minuteman founder, proves instructive. His volunteers have flocked to the border to patrol small areas, ensuring that authorities are called to catch any illegal crossers. Media are contacted, too, drawing valuable attention to the issue.

Yet there is no coalition of volunteers searching for companies that employ illegal labor, notifying authorities and putting on a show for the press. Why not? Gilchrist is just one man, but where is his counterpart on the employer front and the masses to follow him?

Their absence provides rhetorical fodder for open borders apologists. If Americans really wanted to be rid of illegal immigrants, as they say, they'd target the people who hire them. Instead, immigrants alone are targeted, so the movement must be driven xenophobia rather than genuine concern that America's laws be enforced, they reason. In fact, anti-illegal immigration activists are right to oppose such absurdities as drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants and the construction of day labor centers with public money. Yet those struggles are trivial compared to employer enforcement if your goal is the reduction of illegal immigration rather than an emotionally satisfying fight.

Imagine the impact even a small (but vocal) boycott on corporations found to employ illegal labor would have. Alternatively, consider how corporations would react if just 5 percent of companies that employ illegal immigrants faced hefty fines.

Whatever strategy is used, it is clear that any effective strategy for reducing illegal immigration must target employers. An enforcement regime targeted at immigrants will collide with the reality that even if caught, most have nothing to lose attempting to come here, and a better life to gain. In contrast, Americans who hire illegal immigrants have much to lose. * * * In coming weeks, Beyond Borders Blog will be covering the impact that immigration -- both legal and illegal -- has had on native workers.