GOD’S COMMAND THE COMMAND AND THE DREAM: FULFILL THEM

GOD’S COMMAND CAN BE PRESERVED AND THE MOVEMENT’S PROMISE FULFILLED

What we are witnessing in the unceasing national attention via the mainstream media, so-called, the President, his Attorney General, the Congressional Black caucus and a multitude of left-wing publications, is a massive effort to overcome the results of a trial.  And the trial was one that, despite the visible reluctance of the presiding judge at points, was conducted in accordance with the Rule of Law.  There were proper jury instructions that were dictated by their being set as standard within the jurisdiction where the trial took place as they are in every U.S. jurisdiction  We witnessed jurors who took their obligations and the instructions that they were given seriously, spent hours deliberating and mulled over the actual evidence as presented to come to a just and proper decision.   

We see organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union departing from the left wing groups that they all too often run with along with a scattering of others to say that the jury has decided.  This only emphasizes that the drive to “correct” the jury’s verdict is a political drive aimed to overcome the rule of law in America.  If politics rather than a trial on the basis of the evidence can be made the norm in America, then the outcome of trials will be dictated by political power, which is what both the left, and also it can be determined from remarks coming from the theocratic rulers of Iran and leaders of jihadism in the Arab world, the violent revolutionaries of Islam, desire.  Here is was only the bringing of the charges against George Zimmerman in the first place were so dictated.  To the left and the jihadists it is desirable to reverse the famous thesis of Sir Henry Maine whereby the West grew powerful by moving away from legal results grounded in status to legal results determined by an overarching system of law that did not play political favorites.

We are mindful, going back to the Hebrew Republic that was so influential upon our founding, of a passage in Leviticus:  “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.”  Leviticus 19:15 NIV  Other translations translate this last part as “judge each alike based on individual justice.”

What is being demanded has nothing to do with the image of justice as a blind woman balancing the facts as presented upon a scale.  It has to do with all seeing elites who derive power from playing favorites, with the vision of the One in the Oval Office of “punishing our enemies” as preached to a race-based coalition.

This has nothing to do with “civil rights.”  Civil rights are the rights of the “cives,” which is to say, in translating the Latin literally, the rights that belong to all the citizens, not to one group more than any other, if the groups be divided along racial lines so as to split the cives into “fasces” or groups of individuals bound together in an unbreakable coalition so as to be able to override all others in the cives..  If the bulk of the cives be aroused about this effort then the bundle of “stick it to the rest of us through what was once a justice system” can be stopped and broken.  We can enjoy true civil rights based on trials on the basis of the evidence.  That would bring to fruition the Word and the dream of the “Movement” and bring both to a lasting reality.  It is not the dream of those elites whom we have mentioned at the outset of  this column nor their goal.  It is the opposite.

A LITTLE BIT ABOUT EVIDENCE AND THE ZIMMERMAN CASE

A LITTLE BIT ABOUT EVIDENCE AND THE ZIMMERMAN CASE

George Zimmerman was white and he was armed.  Trayvon Martin was not armed and he was black.  Therefore, the reasoning of the mainstream media runs, George Zimmerman was guilty of hunting down and killing Trayvon Martin because he, George Zimmerman, got out of his vehicle when, the story runs, he was told not to do so.   Moreover, this reasoning runs, George Zimmerman was “stalking” Trayvon Martin by following him. This line of reasoning then leads to a lamentation that because the unarmed teenager was killed by the armed older man he, Trayvon Martin, is not here to speak the truth that we must know based on race.

A further part of this litany, albeit unspoken,  is that we can’t know the truth of the matter not only because one of the two parties involved in whatever the confrontation consisted of that occurred between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin is alive and the other is not, but because we are missing what would be  decisive, namely direct evidence which would  consist of the testimony of the now dead Trayvon Martin.  The assumption is that if Trayvon Martin were alive he would tell the “truth” that he was stalked and killed because he was an unarmed youth by a white racist intent on killing him, a mere child, even though he was obviously (huh?) unarmed.   This narrative of the lamestream media is reinforced by the assertion that George Zimmerman as a volunteer participant in his community’s neighborhood watch program was a “wannabe cop.”  

Leaving aside for the moment that there are a large number of supposed “facts” in this reasoning that are contradicted by the evidence that those who have bothered to look into the matter closely have become aware of, there is one very striking assumption here: that assumption is that if the shooter was “white” and the person shot was black that the “white” shooter killed the black younger person then it was a criminal act and,  further, that the only reason that we don’t know that is that the dead young man, Trayvon Martin, is not available to tell us what the “truth” is.  This is an assumption that the direct testimony of the black teenager, were it available, would outweigh the direct testimony of the white older man who fired the single fatal shot.

The unspoken assumption that lies behind this assumption is that the circumstantial evidence that does exist would be outweighed by the direct testimony of the deceasdd Trayvon Martin if it existed.  This in the first place is mistaken.  It is not the case that direct evidence in the form of testimony outweighs what has been known for centuries as circumstantial evidence.  In its decision in U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 71, 714 n.3, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 75 L.Ed. 403 (1983) the Supreme Court pointed out that: “As in any lawsuit, the plaintiff proves his case by direct or circumstantial evidence.”  In another case the Supreme Court told us: “juries are routinely instructed that `[t]he law makes no distinction between the weight or value to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.’”  Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 100, 123 S.Ct.2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003) (quoting 1A K. O’Malley, J. Grenig & W. Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Criminal § 12.04 (5<sup>th</sup> ed.2000)).  In this same Desert Palace, Inc. case the Supreme Court also pointed out: “The reason for treating circumstantial and direct evidence alike is both clear and deep rooted; “  In fact the high court said in the same opinion: “`Circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient, but may also be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct evidence.’”   Here it was quoting one of its earlier opinions which was Rogers v. Mo. Pac. R.R.Co., 352 u.S. 500, 508 n. 17, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957).

So the unspoken assumption that if Trayvon Martin were only alive he could tell the truth and it would show that George Zimmerman was at fault and not Trayvon himself is not correct; it embodies a hypothetical proposition that has been long since established as having no validity under careful consideration not only by the Supreme Court but by numerous other courts as well.  So that the Zimmerman jury decided absolutely correctly on the strong circumstantial evidence that was put forward and the jury instructions that were received.

When one sorts out the actual circumstantial evidence that came out form the distortions of it that were commonplace in the so-called mainstream media from the outset of the overwhelming 24 hours a day coverage of the Zimmerman case it is overwhelmingly in favor of Zimmerman as not being at fault.  In fact it is so overwhelming that it would prevail under the lesser standard of a civil suit as opposed to a criminal prosecution.  In a criminal case as the public learned during this extensive coverage of the Zimmerman case, the standard is that guilt must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  In a civil case by contrast the plaintiff must win by a “preponderance of the evidence.”    All of the left wing commentators, like Bill Press, can only justify their criticism of the Zimmerman jury’s verdict by distorting, misrepresenting and omitting the actual facts that came out in the case and thus incorrectly make the assumption of which we speak based entirely on a judgment of their own which has nothing to support but a perverse racial profiling of their own.

A HOPE FOR THAT THIRD STAGE-TRUE CIVIL RIGHTS

A HOPE FOR THAT THIRD STAGE-TRUE CIVIL RIGHTS

Following along with the George Zimmerman trial from time to time as I worked on cases, and then when the verdict came I could not help but think of another trial, one that I attended throughout that occurred years ago, back in the days of the Movement.  It was down in Mississippi, in the heart of the Delta, Issaquena County, real Faulkner country.  I was there because a good friend of mine and law school classmate, who had been very active in the Movement was on trial on trumped up charges.  He was there working with The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and I had been drawn into the Movement, and went to Mississippi on several occasions because I was my friend’s friend and also because I was editor of my law school newspaper and in that capacity had to cover the law students from my school who were drawn into the Movement and its activities not only in Mississippi but elsewhere.  Mississippi was certainly, however, the point of the most intense focus of the Movement above everywhere else.

My friend had been beaten up by the Klan before he was tried on trumped up charges but had persisted.  The trumped up charge arose because although Mississippi had been compelled at the point where he was tried to integrate its public schools it had maintained segregated school buses.  My friend was following school buses to document this continuing segregation.  So he was charged first with reckless driving and then that was altered (with a ball point pen as the trial began) into violation of a state statute making it a crime to follow a school bus too closely.

A very historic thing happened for Mississippi as the trial approached and it was what then ensued in the trial itself and during its aftermath that the Zimmerman trial reminded me of.   As the trial of my friend approached the Movement had reached sufficient strength under remarkable leadership to a point where, for the first time since Reconstruction, blacks were in the venire pool and, as a result, blacks were on the jury.  In fact the jury was evenly split along color lines.  And the jury hung along racial lines.  This was a great day in American history.

It was what happened immediately after that Mississippi jury hung, while we were all, people of the Movement, black and white, still in the courtroom that came to mind as I heard the Zimmerman trial and heard its outcome.  After the jury hung in my friend’s trial, there was another trial that came on and went very quickly.  In it two young black men were on trial for poaching on a state game preserve.  To put it bluntly the two had been caught red-handed and were clearly guilty.  Yet in their case too the jury hung along racial lines.   At that point, Johnathan Shapiro, the lawyer who had represented my friend in his trial,(and who later became a very prominent civil rights lawyer of great acumen and reputation) leaned over from where he was standing and whispered loudly to all of us who were standing there: “Hopefully the third stage will be trial on the basis of the evidence.”

What was clear in the Zimmerman case was that the race hustlers, who have grown into a prosperous profession, wanted a verdict based on color as had happened all those years ago in Mississippi and yet, the Zimmerman case was decided based on the evidence.  I cannot say that we have yet reached that third stage that Jonathan Shapiro expressed a hope for all those years ago but we clearly have seen a sign that we can realistically hope to reach that stage.  To paraphrase from the words of Leviticus, we can hope to see cases decided not on the basis of who the parties are but rather on the basis of justice and truth, with all judge alike based on the evidence.  That would truly be a triumph for Civil Rights in the truest sense.

TO LIVE OR NOT TO LIVE: THAT'S THE QUESTION

TO LIVE OR NOT TO LIVE: THAT’S THE QUESTION

The United States Department of Agriculture runs the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).  This agency established by Congress uses the power of the federal government to regulate foreign commerce to prevent people bringing into this country, even travelers on airlines who are not doing it for profit, any plant material or animal that is infected with any contagious bacteria or virus that might infect U.S. plants or animals, including humans.  When aliens come here under legal procedures they, like plants and animals, are subject to having their health situation examining for the possibility that they may be carrying something that could harm Americans.

It is a striking and dangerous development that has been pointed out by Representative Michael Burgess (R. TX), who is a medical doctor as well as a Congressman, that because illegal immigrants clearly are not subjected to any comparable inspection and watch as is exercised for APHIS for plants and animals that might carry harmful diseases and similarly for legal visitors and immigrants, they can bring deadly diseases in to spread among us and we have no effective way to even know if it is happening, much less prevent it. 

As a direct result of the policies of our federal executive branch, which were formerly policies reflecting neglect and failure to enforce and carry out measures dictated by Congress, but which now, under the present regime, have passed into policies of willful malfeasance, while we actively work at the federal level to prevent plants and animals from bringing in deadly diseases, we open the door wide to people who could be doing the same.  The regime is quite determined to run any risk of harm to Americans to reap what it sees as votes on a massive scale for its political party, and as Representative Burgess correctly points out, dangerous and even fatal contagious diseases that affect humans, such as tuberculosis, are resurfacing in America.  The danger is all the greater in that illegals are bringing in these diseases in strains that are resistant to the treatments including vaccines that were used to bring them under control in the U.S. when they formerly ravaged huge numbers of people many years ago.   To this we must add new diseases that have spring up in other quarters of the world in recent times. 

For example, the Middle East is threatened with a new plague, one eponymously if not ominously named the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV, or MERS for short). This novel coronavirus was discovered in Jordan in March 2012, and as of June 26, 2013 there have been 77 laboratory-confirmed infections, 62 of which have been in Saudi Arabia; 34 of these Saudi patients have died.  Although the numbers -- so far -- are small, the disease is raising anxiety throughout the region. But officials in Saudi Arabia are particularly concerned.

This fall, millions of devout Muslims will descend upon Mecca, Medina, and Saudi Arabia's holy sites in one of the largest annual migrations in human history. In 2012, approximately 6 million pilgrims came through Saudi Arabia to perform the rituals associated with umrah, and this number is predicted to rise in 2013. Umrah literally means "to visit a populated place," and it's the very proximity that has health officials so worried. In Mecca alone, millions of pilgrims will fulfill the religious obligation of circling the Kaaba. And having a large group of people together in a single, fairly confined space threatens to turn the holiest site in Islam into a massive petri dish.

Meanwhile, back here in the States, on any given night you can go to the emergency room of your local hospital and in almost every part of the country, with a few exceptions in its far north you can hear Spanish as the predominant language.   This is now true not just in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas and the old Southwest of the reconquesta maps on the wall at La Raza.  You can go, for example, to the hospital emergency rooms of the wealthy suburban counties of Washington, D.C. and in Chicago and it is the case.  By law the hospitals are required to treat all who come to the ER, whether they have insurance or not.  This is the actual free healthcare that was serving millions who did not have insurance before the country was sold the big lie of “free” Obamacare, which is already driving up costs and decreasing the quality of care in far cry from the economic benefits that its namesake misled us about.  And now there have been credible reports of middle easterners slipping over the southern border passing themselves off as Hispanic illegals so as to blend in and not be singled out and stopped.

If we put this together with the fact being brought out by Representative Burgess we have the potential for recurrences of diseases we thought a short while ago had been long since conquered and eradicated and of new fatal diseases such as the MERS virus as well.  We have the potential to see again something like the great flu epidemic of 1918.  The days of the necessity of quarantine will be upon us it we are to prevent this from happening.  We can expect the alarm to arise and be sounded at the grass roots level, at the tea party level.  Leaders like Prince William County, Virginia’s Corey Stewart will urge decisive action and the grass roots will respond.  We can expect such leadership particularly in the border states where the danger, for obvious reasons, is the greatest.

The danger is highlighted at present by the explosive growth of fatalities from the CRE virus, immune so far to known antibiotics.  We do not know if this deadly family is growing elsewhere in the world and being brought in by illegals. There is an organization that tracks the growth of deadly bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics all over the world.   State officials could track these developments and identify the dangers and the countries from which they come.  Where did they come from?  A good part of our field of vision for finding out is blocked by the great influx of illegal aliens.

In former years, when the constitutional rule of law still prevailed, it was clear that “police power” was reserved to the states and their localities.  There was no question that they were empowered to abridge considerations of penumbra privacy to prevent their citizens from dying by taking measures necessary to know if those showing up in their hospitals that were diagnosed as carriers of any such threats were legitimately here.  Further their imperative would have been to assure accurate diagnoses to see if those who could reasonably be “profiled” as possibly carrying deadly diseases could be consistently and accurately diagnosed.  There is no reason from an originalist position to not use this police power through states and localities.  Visitors to Emergency Rooms, can be compelled by state and local authorities to reveal how they got here if they came from another land and when and from just where they came. .

Don’t put bets on this present occupant of the Oval Office allowing such reasonable measures to be taken.  They would be in direct conflict to his clear mission to destroy such local police power in the name of increasing the input of voters for his party as the midterm election approach.  His drive for centralized command and control to “transform” the county into one in which he is the ruler will outweigh his concern for our lives.  He will risk our death to get his way.  Perhaps we will at least witness the end of the utterly untrue recitation that he is a “nice guy.”   Chances are that we will be staring into a darkness that advances no one except those that are willing to violate the constitutional rule of law for votes and don’t care if in order to slake their thirst for centralized command power many will die.  But at the state level states still have the power to take away privacy to prevent death from those who might claim such protection.  Let the good leaders rising among them assert it.  This power would include the power to quarantine to save their citizens from death.

                                                     

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

NOTICE: All rights of copyright for the strory posts and articles on this blog are reserved to Laurence A. Elgin

SI SU CASA NO ES NUESTRA CASA

SI SU CASA NO ES NUESTRA CASA

The advocates of amnesty for aliens who entered this country illegally make what is called in law an argument on the equities.  The illegals, they argue, have been here a long time, working hard and paying taxes and wanting to become American.  Because the illegals “want to be American,” they argue, we should give them a “path to citizenship.”  There is thus a completely unexamined assumption.  It is an assumption that leaves out a simple fact: there are many here illegally who do not wish to become American, who do not wish to acculturate into our culture.   Advocates seem to hope that this simple fact of such a flawed assumption in their argument will be ignored by the people.

In April, 2013, a talk show was running on Washington D.C.’s conservative blowtorch station WMAL: A man called from Texas.  He had a Hispanic name and a noticeable accent.  He said he had come to the U.S. from Mexico and loves the U.S. and its founding principles.  He said that many of the Mexicans who surround him in Texas make him sick because they come here to the U.S. illegally with no interest in becoming American at all.  They undercut local workers in order to take their jobs and then send the money back to Mexico where they are buying land.  Their goal is to return to Mexico and retire there on the land and in the house there that they have acquired with the money that they have made here illegally.  They disdain this country and all it stands for. Their only goal is to use it so that they can be even more Mexican.  They march in parades here waving the Mexican flag while demanding better treatment and asserting “rights” to get benefits from the Norteamericano governments, state and federal, that they constantly criticize.

Our governmental elites oblige them, giving federal grants of money to the organization La Raza, which on the walls of its offices displays maps of the reconquista, a plan to reconquer all of what is now the United States that was conquered by us as a result of our war with Mexico in 1846 and to include also Texas and evcn parts of Kansas, to retake what the Texicans took from the dictator Santa Ana, the “Napoleon of the West” when his oppression and brutal treatment caused the Americans who moved there to revolt and ultimately, under Sam Houston at San Jacinto, defeat Santa Ana and declare a republic based on our founding principles and incorporating our culture as blended with that of the Spanish speaking there that identified with our founding principles rather than the “top down” (in the words of the Latin-American economist De Soto) system of Mexico itself..  In the “comprehensive immigration reform” bills presently before the Senate there is on that would actually give money to La Raza, “the Race,” to work with illegals, that is, to help the reconquista.  That is how out of touch some in the Washington elites are with those they supposedly represent.

Congress has passed laws to set out the categories of non-Americans who can come here temporarily under visas established pursuant to the directions of Congress.  These include skilled workers, agricultural guest workers, and all sorts of students, who, it is purposed and hoped, will return to the lands from whence they came, having learned about the United States in a favorable light, to impart skills to their own countries that will help to bring those countries into a more developed countries to whom we can relate in a favorable light.  Heretofore Congress has not seen fit to establish a category of workers, low in skill, of whom it would be wished that they come here, harm Amercian workers by displacing them and American businesses that believe in the rule of law and refuse to hire illegal aliens. 

Clearly Mexicans who come here illegally and work illegally and send money back home to acquire a house and land there to which the aspire to retire and promote Mexican culture which they view as superior to our Norteamericano culture are far outside any purpose which a representative Congress should be casting into law.  While they are here they are not only not assimilating into our society, they are harming Americans and America.  Their intent to return after being here illegally to the country from which they came and benefit it does not present a question of innocent children being harmed by the illegal actions of their parents.

Why do we not do something about these hostile elements and address what could we do about the problem?  What can a concerned citizenry in our Republic advocate that would, if voiced, stop this harmful behavior?  As we have pointed out before the great failure of most of our enforcement efforts to do something about the problem of illegal immigration stems from the simple fact that we have ignored the great tradition of our legal history that the purpose of a rule of law is to give practical remedies within the legal process to those who are actually harmed so that they may be compensated for the wrongs done them.  Instead all our executive efforts in seeking to carry out the expressed will of Congress to control immigration within legal bounds and procedures have been in the hands of federal bureaucrats who now, particularly under the present executive regime, have pointedly at the behest of the man presently occupying the Oval Office, made it clear that they do not want the laws passed by Congress effectively carried out and will, by direction from the top, go out of their way not to enforce them.

Quite clearly the transfer of funds from this country to Mexico, or, for that matter, any other country, is a transaction in foreign commerce.  Thus every such transfer, under the Constitution, is within the power of Congress to regulate.  On the other hand, the operation of businesses that effect such transfers requires state and  local business licensing.  Some states have already sought by law to stop financial institutions from accepting deposits and transferring funds for those who are not legally here.  As we have pointed out, rather than leaving such a remedy exclusively in the hands of a bureaucracy, as at present reflects a political pressure to seek to have such illegals become voters, State legislatures, using their power to create jurisdiction in courts, could make such entities engaging in transferring funds from illegals out of the country, liable civilly to those who are harmed by the illegals making the transfers.   It would be possible as a matter of state fair trade laws to make such entities liable as accessories to the workers displaced by the illegal workers and the honest businesses that do not employ illegals and are economically harmed as a result.  Strong injunctive relief could be provided enabling those harmed when they sue for treble damages to stop the transfers and be entitled to funds equal to those funds that were sent in violation of law. 

BOTTOM UP OR TOP DOWN

                                          BOTTOM UP OR TOP DOWN

The question is for those in the southern border states and states close to the southern border, where there seems to be a more realistic grasp of the facts: what can they do in the face of the confused non-solutions spewing from Washington’s elites?  Governor Perry, despite his comment about having a heart, wants the assets to stop the illegal influx on his long exposed border with Mexico.  Governor Brewer knows that if she does not get control of her state’s border with Mexico, her party will permanently lose power.  Senator Sessions, with his deep patriotic roots and solidly conservative bloc of state officeholders, knows that his fellows in the Senate are not being honest and realistic. 

Is there is a way that we can use the will of the people, starting in these states on and near the southern border, to initiate actual solutions to the problem of illegals?  Moreover, the question is can the people in those states and their leaders use our long-standing legal tradition to make sure that the borders are secure against more illegals invading that does not require the years and years that we hear the Washington elites talking of, measures which are promised and then delayed and never delivered?  The answer is yes.  Further they are solutions that strengthen the rule of law upon which our prosperity and leadership as a nation depends rather than further destroying it through all these so-called “paths to legalization?”   These measures can be implemented despite the ongoing effort of the great pretender occupying the Oval Office to not enforce the laws against such illegal immigration which Congress has passed in order to buy their votes for his party and his all consuming drive to “transform” this country by creating an ever=growing central command economy with himself at the center of it leading a “vanguard of the [illegal] masses.”   At present he sees illegal immigrants as a path to power, which to him, as it was for those he emulates and admires, is all that matters.  He has released illegal alien criminals into our streets to make it clear that he believes that he can against the will of our people force this mass of unacculturated supporters of his drive for power upon us. 

Ironically, here we can take a lesson from the great Latin American economist De Soto, who has observed that the most successful economies in the world are those like ours that have what he calls a “bottoms up” legal system as opposed to a highly centralized “top down” legal system.  Ironically, to insert a historical note this reflects an observation by Francisco de Miranda, the John the Baptist of Venezuela, in his diary, when he visited with our founders and observed as a guest of one of them a common law trial in Charleston before he went back and began the process as he saw it of creating a constitutional republic in his native Venezuela, that foundation which Chavez has now greatly destroyed in eerie parallel to what is being attempted by the great pretender occupying our Oval Office

It is our legal tradition to rely more heavily on remedying what Blackstone called “private wrongs” rather than an elite attempting to maintain a rule of law by enforcing “public wrongs.”  We need to ask ourselves who is wronged by the invasion of illegal aliens and why should they not have private remedies?  Those that are harmed by illegals are the workers whom they displace by working for less and those, generally smaller businessmen, who are too honest to hire illegal workers in order to boost their profits.  Such a small contractor from Northern California, for example, called in one of the most popular national talk radio shows and spoke movingly of how he was being reduced to a trickle of jobs because he would not hire illegal alien workers so that he could not win but a few bids for jobs that he once was able to obtain.

What would happen if in those states in which the popular will to stop the invasion of illegals is reflected in the legislative and executive branches, they went beyond making illegal alien employment unlawful and gave an effective remedy to private parties actually harmed by such illegality?  What if those actually harmed were empowered to go into court and seek their damages.  Those harmed are the workers who are displaced by the kind of wage disparity cited by Rand Paul in his CPAC speech and the businesses who choose not to hire illegal invaders who are in competition with businesses that seek a competitive advantage by doing so. 

If Arizona or any other border or greatly affected state were to take a leaf from the anti-trust laws and give standing to private parties harmed by the illegal invasion the right to go into its courts and sue those doing the harm for treble damages and costs to include counsel and expert fees; that would dry up the inflow of illegal invaders—rapidly.  Such law would close the borders without a cent spent by our strapped federal government.  Further, these private measures would identify the illegals those acting illegally to use them without federal expenditures.  Doing this would be within the rights of states to enact fair trade laws.  The choice is between advancing measures that enhance the rule of law rather than men or doing the opposite.

The displaced American workers have been sold out by their union bosses who hope to gain more dues-paying members and are indifferent to the legality or non-legality of those paying the dues.   Honest businessmen and business owners have been sold out by larger businesses and dishonest rivals who want the cheap labor regardless of the legality of their workers.   This unholy alliance does not reflect the will of the people and I completely ignores the rights of the ordinary American workers.  When workers are displaced by illegals they know what is going on.  Similarly when honest American businessmen are hurt by competition from dishonest competitors willing to hire illegals they know it.  If state fair trade laws were enacted that contained fee-shifting provisions to attract lawyers, the solid cases would be taken up on a contingent or largely contingent basis and thousands of suits would be filed.  These suits would cost the federal government nothing.  It would be the wrongdoers who would pay.  Once wrongdoers lost in court and numbers of them forced to pay, those contemplating engaging in the wrongdoing would be strongly deterred.  Those who have been engaging in the wrong doing who continue along the path would grow afraid and would begin to hire legal workers to replace illegals lest they get hit hard in the pocketbook.  Sanctuary city advocates and politicians and churches that want to help illegals to boost their membership would have to face the reality of the harm that they are doing to honest plaintiffs.  Cities and even states like Maryland that falsely believe that they are doing good by favoring illegals would find themselves unable to keep up their illusions as dishonest businesses were forced to give up the illegal practices or shut down.  They would have to look to honest businesses for revenues not dishonest ones.   Churches that favor illegals in the name of some illusory notion of Christian love would have to face the mandate of the Old Testament about doing justice without favor to one category of person or another.  They could not favor the poor illegals because they are poor and are falsely perceived as, therefore, being somehow superior to honest American workers.