[Poohbah]

Then I'm sorry, those were some piss poor prosecutions. It's not just the facts but the presentation (i.e. OJ)

A couple of jurors interviewed after the cases closed made it clear that they didn't consider giving someone a job to be a criminal matter, and that the law of the land was contrary to the custom of the land in that respect.

The modern illegal immigration problem started in 1965. That also happens to be when the guest worker program ended. I submit that the two events are related.

When laws diverge significantly from what the people at large think the law should be, those laws are going to get ignored by a lot of folks. Note the abject lack of prosecutions for violations of the Roberti-Roos Act in California.

[radicalamericannationalist]

Again, that speaks more to poor prosecution than evidence of lack to enforce the law. Tell the jurors this story and you'll have a different outcome.

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the defense claims they were just offering people jobs. They were doing more than that. In their haste to bring workers in illegally and undercut the wages of those who obey our laws, they were also financing a dangerous criminal cartel. Ask yourselves whether the same groups that smuggle in workers could not also be smuggling in individuals with a more sinister motive. Ask yourself whether the defendant cared that he along with his workers, he might also be paying to import agents of al Queda who were seeking a far different form of employment. Ladies and gentlemen, the defense is attempting to wrap itself in the flag while its actions endangered everyone living under that flag."

I'm sure a professional prosecutor with more time and a jury consultant would have a better closing but you get the idea. I think people understand that we can;t leave the border open.