How Do We Stop The Invasion?

By every definition an invasion of our nation is underway. Justin Haskins, Heartland Institute, visited with Preston to discuss the ramifications of what is happening and what, if anything can be done about it and by whom. 

Episode Transcript

(00:12):
Turning the page on the rundown,It is show five thousand, one and
thirty three, now into year twentythree of The Morning Show with Preston Scott.
I'm Preston. He is Grant Allen. Great to be with you this
morning, and I am so delightedto have back on the show as a
New York Times bestselling author, directorof the Socialism Research Center at the Heartland

(00:34):
Institute, and in fact editorial directorat the Heartland Institute. But more important
than any of that, he lovesJesus and he's our friend. He's Justin
Haskins. Hello, sir, I'mdoing great. How are you? I
love, how I love, howI love Jesus and he's my friend are
the most important things. That's that'svery true. You did put Jesus first.

(00:55):
Absolutely. You might flip it,no, but you got it right.
No. Absolutely, Jesus is first. Hey. I was a little
taken aback by the latest piece inNewsweek where you're tackling the southern border because
we have been talking about the Greatreset esg for so long. I forget

(01:15):
that your eyes are covering lots ofdifferent horizons. So let's talk about the
southern border. How did we gethere? How did we get to where
A buddy of ours on the show, Scott Beacon, he said, more
illegals have entered in Biden's administration thanforty years of peak immigration through Ellis Island.

(01:38):
Yeah, I mean it's absolutely astounding. I think we all know how
we got here. This is theeasiest softball question of all time. Thank
you. Democrats and a lot ofestablishment Republicans don't want to do anything about
border security. And over the pastforty fifty years we've seen that play out
over and over and over again.The problem has been getting progressively worse.

(02:01):
And finally what happened is we gotan administration that is so far to the
left that they've essentially said, justcome on in. We don't care,
we don't care anymore. Just comeon in. Anyone can claim asylum,
and it doesn't matter if you're cominghere under suspicious circumstances, it doesn't matter
who you are. We will notonly welcome you into the country, we

(02:24):
will, you know, allow youto go to all sorts of different places,
will fly you across the country.We'll do all kinds of things.
And I think a lot of peoplein Mexico and in Central America and South
America are and around the world whoare coming across the border, because we're
finding all sorts of evidence that peoplefrom China and other people are coming across

(02:45):
the border through Mexico now realize thatthis could be their last opportunity for a
very long time to have this,you know, just walk across the border
with no consequences. And so Ithink that's what's going on here. This
is sort of the last ditch fIf Donald Trump becomes president, we know
a lot of this is going toget shut down, and a lot of
other people around the world know thatas well, and that's why we're seeing

(03:06):
this massive flood that coupled with theradical policies as the Biden administration, it's
just been getting progressively worse, andif Biden wins, it's going to get
even crazier over the next four years. I think we understand why the left
side of the aisle wants to dothis. I think we get a little
bit of that. Tell me aboutthe right side of the aisle. Why
are established Republicans? Is it becausethey want to turn an eye for those

(03:31):
that hire these people? Or whatis it? Man? I have heard
all kinds of different explanations from people. I think some of it is genuinely
compassion. I think they feel badabout the situation. They don't want to
just round up a bunch of peoplewho've been living here for years and sending
them home. They I think partof it is just it's really difficult to

(03:53):
get anything passed in Congress. Republicanscouldn't even get Obamacare reversed after they promised
for years and years years to dothat, you know. So I think
there's there's a degree of that.I think that there are some establishment Republicans
who have ties with big gigantic corporationsand big gigantic corporations, some of them
benefit from a legal immigration because illegal immigrants work for a lot less than

(04:16):
than American workers, and so,you know, big agriculture and you know,
certain industries like that I think benefitfrom it. So I think there's
a lot of different motivating factors onthe right on the left. I think
it's just really simple. They wantmore people to come here, and then
they're going to hope that they'll votefor them, which I think is all
this is about. Welcome to ma d radio network. Make a difference

(04:39):
Radio Network and this is the MorningShow with Preston Scott. Eleven minutes after
the hour, Justin Haskins with usfrom the Heartland Institute. Justin we talk
about some businesses, some industries benefitingfrom this, and when I ment that,

(05:00):
I always hear from a friend ofthe program that says it's time to
name names rather than allowing that tokind of be a shadow cast on business
in general and industry in general.Is it time to name and call out?
Do we know the actual names ofthe businesses the organizations that are benefiting

(05:25):
from illegal immigration and how do theyget around you know, the issue of
wage laws and paying people under thetable and all that. Yeah, I
mean, I think that's all.That's a great question. I think we
should. I think we absolutely should. I have not done the research to
know exactly which corporations are promoting this, but if I were going to look

(05:48):
into that, and maybe I will, would I would start with who is
giving money to the various causes andorganizations that are promoting this ideology, Which
corporations are giving money to those causes, which donors and which donors are you
know, shareholders of these big corporations, and that sort of thing that are

(06:09):
giving money to promote these policies inWashington, d c. And at the
state level and all of that.I think usually when you follow the money,
you'll find the answer that you're lookingfor. I think, generally speaking,
in a variety of different ways,directly and indirectly. I think corporations
kind of all benefit from it inthe sense that, you know, regardless

(06:31):
of whether you as a corporation hiresomeone who's here illegally, you might do
business with a supplier that does,or you might hire a building company that
does, or you might or ormaybe you just have customers that do right.
And so there's just maybe you justthink it's good for the overall economy
generally and in your area, andyou do you know. So there's so

(06:55):
many different factors that relate to this, but I don't think you can say
separate that part of it from theequation. I really do think that's one
of the most big motivating factors onthe right with establishment Republicans. I know
that the left has been working sohard to remove the term illegal from the
immigration equation. They want us tolook at it as if it's just immigration,

(07:18):
but it's not. There's legal immigration, and there's illegal immigration, and
they've conflated the two, and theydo that quite intentionally, and they do
it well. So how do weWhat do you believe is the answer and
where does it lie? Does itlie in the states? Does it lie
with the federal government? Right?So I believe strongly, and this is

(07:39):
a little bit of a controversial view, but I believe strongly that states have
the authority to do a great dealon immigration. I would argue that border
states have the ability to build wholeborder walls to stop what's going on right
now. I would argue that stateshave the authority to pass all kinds of
laws would remove illegal immigrants from theirstate and do other things like that detain

(08:05):
illegal immigrants. And the reason Ibelieve that is because Article one, section
ten of the Constitution says that nostate shall, without the consent of Congress,
engage in war unless actually invaded orin such imminent danger as will not
admit of delay. And another sectionof the Constitution says that the federal government
shall basically protect states in the eventof an invasion. So I believe that

(08:33):
what we're seeing right now is clearlyan invasion. I think we've seen that
over the past forty or fifty years. And the reason I believe it's clearly
an invasion is because if you lookat the history of the use of that
word at the time of the FoundingFathers, which is what my Newsleague article
is all about, it's very obviousthat the word invasion included all kinds of

(08:54):
scenarios that would apply to this situation. For example, James Many Madison,
who was widely considered to be thefather of the Constitution, wrote in the
Federalist Papers, which were essays advocatingfor the passage support of the Constitution,
that pirates were invaders. This wasan example of invasion, and that he

(09:16):
was making a case for why weneed to have navy and all this other
stuff. Twelve of the thirteen dictionariesthat were available at the time included a
definition of invasion that was extremely broadand did not apply to just military incursions.
The piracy thing was brought up overand over and over again by numerous

(09:37):
It was a huge issue in theeighteenth century, as you might imagine.
And I don't know how you couldmake the case that pirates were invaders in
the seventeen and eighteen hundreds, butthat drug cartels from Mexico are not invaders
today, and so I think prettyclearly the federal government is doing is not
stopping drug cartels. They have noteffected done that because the borders are wide

(10:01):
open. Therefore, states have theauthority to stop drug cartels. Drug cartels
are invaders just like pirates are invaders, and I think it's a pretty open
and shutcase. They can do whatthey need to do in order to stop
that. But there were also otherthings that occurred in the eighteenth century.
There were peaceful immigrations between states.So there was a huge conflict between Connecticut

(10:24):
and Pennsylvania in the latter half ofthe eighteenth century where a bunch of people
from Connecticut were moving into lands thatwere claimed by Pennsylvania and they were setting
up towns and doing things like that, and the state of Pennsylvania for fifty
years argued this was an illegal immigrationand all of this stuff into their states,

(10:45):
and they specifically referred to them asinvaders on multiple occasions. Benjamin Franklin
wrote about this, calling them andcalling it an invasion. At one point,
the Pennsylvania legislature officially declared in aresolution that they ended up sending to
Congress saying this was an invasion andit was illegal. Justin Haskins with us

(11:09):
for just a few more minutes.So West Virginia is cracking down on major
banks. They're the latest state justinto push back against ESG. Are we
seeing a bit of a tipping pointwith what's happened in Florida, Texas,
now West Virginia, a handful ofother states. Yeah, I think there's

(11:31):
I'm hoping that there's a tipping point, you know. I think last year
with the law that was passed inFlorida with ESG and cracking down on financial
institutions and ESG discrimination with banks andpension funds and things like that in the
state, I really hoped that thisyear would be a wave of anti ESG
laws, And we saw a littlebit of that, but not as much

(11:54):
as I would have liked. ButI do think that we are reaching that
point where states are realized they haveto do something or else banks are just
going to run wild with this.Other financial institution's insurance companies, they're gonna
run wild with it. This year. Actually, Tennessee is on the verge
of passing a very very good law. It's probably the closest ones of the

(12:15):
one that was passed in Florida ofany law that we've seen. Since it's
already passed the legislature, it's waitingfor the governor's signature if they expect that
he's going to sign it sometime soon. So that's really good news on the
ESG front. So in America,I do think we are seeing a pretty
good pushback in the States. I'mhoping next year we're going to see an
even bigger pushback, not only becauseI'm hoping the election goes well, but

(12:39):
also because next year we have someincredible, incredible things happening in Europe that
I think are going to require statesto really start taking this seriously. The
European Union is on the verge ofpassing its own ESG law, except this

(13:00):
ESG law is going to require massivecompanies all over the world to basically impose
ESG on their employees if they dobusiness in Europe. Wow, it's a
really crazy ESG laws. There'll bea vote on it this month coming up.
Implementation would start over the next fewyears, and I think that's going

(13:22):
to scare the heck out of alot of people. If it actually passes
what about what Mississippi did the Secretaryof State there, Michael Watson, basically
suing Blackrock and hitting it with acease and desist order over untrue statements about
ESG investments. Yeah, I thinkthis is great in states that can't get
bills passed for whatever reason, andthere's a bunch of them. There are

(13:46):
a lot of ags and others whoare putting pressure on big financial institutions,
big asset managers like Blackrock to say, hey, look, you can't do
this kind of discriminate. In somestates, they've started requiring companies like Blackrock
to just the right an attestation sayingwe don't discriminate like this, and then

(14:09):
that opens the door to them suingthem later on if it turns out that
they are discriminating. So really reallyclever tactics for out of Mississippi. Louisiana
has done some good stuff in thatsame way, and we've seen it in
other states as well, West Virginia, et cetera. So there is a
lot of progress that's been made,but unfortunately we need a lot more progress.
Next year. We have Texas,we have some really big states that

(14:31):
are going to be taking this legislationup that either weren't in session this year
or weren't doing non financial bills thisyear, because some states do things differently,
they do it every other year orsomething, And so next year we've
got some really big states that areup for grabs, and I have really
high hopes that we're going to seesome massive momentum in twenty twenty five.

(14:54):
Where and when is the vote goingto take place? What body is making
that vote in Europe? So it'sthe European Parliament, which is one of
the two legislative bodies in the EuropeanUnion. The Council in the European Union
has already approved it, and theEuropean Parliament had already approved an earlier version.

(15:16):
So now they're just in the processof reconciling it. And basically,
if they don't pass it, thevote is in a couple of weeks.
I think it's the twenty fourth ofApril. If they don't pass it,
it will be because it's not radicalenough, essentially, and so I think
it's going to pass because this istheir last opportunity to do it for a
while. All right. As always, justin thanks so very much, my

(15:37):
best to you and your family andwe appreciate the visit. We'll talk to
you next month. Thank you,Sarah, think care all righty. Justin
Haskins with us this morning on theMorning Show with Preston Scott