Who says that illegal immigration isn't good for the economy? Try telling that to what The Guardian calls the "border industrial complex'. This refers to companies that are looking to market their high tech drones, sensors, advanced radar and i-phones with fingerprint apps to the Department of Homeland Security at events such as the "Border Security Expo" trade fair in Phoenix.

The Guardian writes in its April 26 article:
Inside the US 'border security industrial complex: spy tech meets immigration crackdown as follows:

"In a big conference room in the Phoenix Convention Center this week, senior Homeland Security officials gave statistics-heavy speeches to a rapt audience of executives, sales reps and law enforcement officials, each listening for hints about policy shifts and strategic goals that could make their products just what the government is looking for. Then, in the afternoon, attendees crossed the lobby to the exhibition room, where private companies hawk their wares."

Move over, Fashion Week, you ain't seen nothing yet.

The Guardian

"' This is the border-industrial complex,' said James Cooper, a professor at California western School of Law, who was attending the conference to research a book. 'This is like Dwight D. Eisenhower meets the medieval fortress, You're seeing this privatization of what is essentially a governmental function.'

(For the sake of younger ID readers, the above is a reference to a warning that President Eisenhower gave just before leaving office in 1961 against allowing the "military-industrial complex" to have too much power - a warning which has obviously been totally ignored in the ensuing more than half a century.)

The Guardian continues:

"Business is clearly booming.One estimate expects revenues from the global border security and biometrics market to double to $32 billion by 2021 - roughly half the size of the Department of Homeland Security's 2015 budget."

With huge amounts of money coming into the private border security companies, one might think that their biggest nightmare would be for the Mexican border actually to become secure, as many of our politicians claim to have as their policy objective.

But not to worry: The Guardian concludes:

"But it's not in the interests of any of these companies to agree that the frontier is tight and that the threat from criminal gangs or terrorists is being tackled correctly. 'Obama says he's tough on the border, but everybody knows he's not,' one vendor said.'"'

Nor, one might add, is it in the interests of the groups that are opposed to immigration reform on the grounds of "border security first" for the border in fact to become secure. Then immigration opponents would lose their main argument for blocking reform.

But, one might imagine, there could be an even worse nightmare for the border security complex, as well as the booming private immigration prison industry, which is now being accused of being responsible for abuses at the family detention centers at places such as Karnes, Texas.

What would happen if large numbers of people stopped trying to come to the US without authorization? Then, America's economy might really have a problem - at least in its private border security sector.

The Guardian's report is at: