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.
No comments:
Post a Comment