I wrote this in the Spring of ’06 as part of a larger essay entitled and predicting Civil War II during the outrage in the heartland over all the Mexican flags being waved in our streets by illegal aliens demanding their “rights.”

I got a bit tired of the hypocrisy of some conservatives ranting about the Mexicans violating our supposed “rule of law.” I didn’t see it as the illegal aliens’ fault, but the fault of our government for not enforcing the security of our Borders and making it so attractive to illegally come here.

What rule of law?

There is no such thing as “the rule of law.” There never has been, and fortunately there never will be; for then we would have to pay a lot closer attention to those making the laws, and who was enforcing them. As long as the laws are selectively enforced, and the penalty for breaching them is inconsistent, it is the men making those decisions who are ruling, not the laws themselves.

Under our judicial system, even if the authorities attempt to enforce bad laws, jurors can nullify them by the simple expedient of finding the perpetrator “not guilty,” although the “facts” clearly show that he is. It is called Jury Nullification, and while it drives judges around the bend when anyone even whispers the term, it is the one way we citizens can thwart undisciplined lawmakers and enforcers. Of course, in this case it is the jurors who are “ruling;” although it might be more accurate to call it “overruling.”

I dislike intensely the mantra: “the rule of law.” It strikes me as connoting “the rule of lawyers,” and as a sovereign American, I am subservient to no man. If I ever do get feebleminded enough to desire a leader, my last choice would be a lawyer. To rant about illegal aliens being criminals is pure hypocrisy.

The lawyers (and we must never forget that most politicians are first and foremost lawyers) have enacted so many statutes, laws, infractions, torts, rules, and regulations that it is impossible to go through a normal day of life in America without violating several of them. Therefore, we are all de facto criminals; it could not be otherwise.

There is not a sentient American over the age of three who has not committed a multitude of “crimes” and at my age, it would take a good sized library to hold my rap sheet if all my unobserved and/or uncaught crimes were recorded.

As rational beings, awash in a sea of ridiculous and often contradictory laws, the fact that something is “against the law” is frankly irrelevant. To function normally in this overregulated society, we each must choose for ourselves which laws we will obey, and which we will ignore. Whether we realize it or not, when we encounter an inconvenient “law,” intended to prevent us from engaging in a desired activity, we summarily run it through rational filters to decide whether to abide or disregard it:

First, is it against our morals? If so, the law is redundant, but if not: What are the chances of getting caught? Although we often fool ourselves, Americans are pretty good at assessing the odds and looking over our shoulders. One or two traffic stops a year isn’t bad odds for speeding every day of our lives.

Next, what is the price we must pay if we do get caught? Inconvenience, insurance rates, shame, fine, jail, etc. – compared with the benefit we expect to derive at this moment for flouting it.

Finally, can we afford the price, and are we willing to pay it? It is that simple, and we each go through it subconsciously countless times every day.

Now, consider the circumstances of an impoverished Mexican family, juxtaposed with the fantastic pay we offer, all the incredible “free benefits” we provide, and the relatively insignificant probability of being caught. Then note the ridiculously low price our government exacts if they are caught, along with the years one would have to wait to get “legal” permission, and see if you could honestly say you would respect the “rule of law” were you in their shoes.

Try this: Have you ever been to Canada? Most places except French Quebec, it might as well be the USA; you can’t tell the difference. If someone offered you a job at twenty or thirty times your current salary, plus free healthcare with an amazing social safety net, and the worst consequence for getting caught would be a free trip back home, would you sneak into Canada to take it?

Entering Canada is exceedingly easy. Some of the earliest notable crimes on my “uncaught” rap sheet, were committed as an international smuggler. The summer I turned 14, a friend and I made numerous trips across the Niagara River by canoe to buy cherry bombs (firecrackers) in Canada because they were illegal in New York. We sold some of them to other friends at a tidy profit to support our own deafening consumption.

To us, it was a childhood prank, and the risk of getting caught was half of the fun; but in fact from the perspective of “the rule of law,” these were serious felonies in multiple jurisdictions. We never saw the “international border line” in the middle of the river, and the nice folks we met over there had no idea we were “foreigners,” or the slightest inclination to ask us to prove we weren’t.

If you think you would decline that splendid job offer out of respect for Canada’s “rule of law,” perhaps you should discuss it with your spouse and kids before you pass it up.

There are ample reasons to object to the manner in which our government is ignoring our border security problem, and failing to rationally address the illegal alien issue, without resorting to the lawyers’ bogus mantra. The issue is sovereignty, not the “rule of lawyers.” ◄Dave►

0