Posted on 02/25/2020 7:29:46 AM PST by yesthatjallen
Today the Supreme Court will hear oral argument on whether a federal statute that criminalizes any person who encourages a non-citizen to come to, or reside in, the United States, should be struck down. If the court holds that the law can stand, the impact could be devastating and far-reaching — potentially criminalizing legal advice by immigration attorneys and the written and spoken words of immigrant advocates and activists.
The chilling effect it would have on non-citizens and their allies would be profound and especially insidious in this political moment of increasing, and increasingly nefarious, anti-immigrant sentiment.
This case centers around the activities of Evelyn Sineneng-Smith, who ran an immigration consulting business in California serving mostly Filipino immigrants in the health care industry. Sineneng-Smith promised she could provide a pathway to lawful status for these non-citizens through eligibility in a labor certification program. Though Sineneng-Smith knew that they weren’t statutorily eligible for this program, she took their money anyway, and over the course of seven years accumulated millions of dollars in legal fees. In 2010, Sineneng-Smith was prosecuted, and later convicted, of mail fraud, among other charges.
Among these additional charges, she was convicted under 8 USC Section 1324, a 1986 law, added through the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), that makes it a federal crime to “encourage” unauthorized immigration. The statute reads:
“Any person who ... encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law ... shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).”
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
More Democrat mourning. Can’t wait.
First paragraph leaves out important information.
There is no "anti-immigrant sentiment" It is ant-illegal invader sentiment.
If you tell someone to rob a bank and then that person does can you be held complicit?
What’s so SCARY about the Law currently in place?
Complicity is the act of helping or encouraging another individual to commit a crime. It is also commonly referred to as aiding and abetting. One who is complicit is said to be an accomplice.
But, even though an accomplice does not actually commit the crime, his
or her actions helped someone in the commission of the crime.
The concept of accomplice liability means an accomplice faces the
same degree of guilt and punishment as the individual who committed the
crime.
My thought exactly
and perhaps accessory both before and after the fact.
Well, here’s a tougher immigration policy.
Lest we forget ...
This should be part of a Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement bill, missing since 1986 ONE TIME amnesty. The List of Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement, missing since 1986 goes like this -
1) southern barrier;
2) require eVerify to hire;
3) end all chain migration;
4) birthright per Minor v. Happersett (plural parents);
5) end work visas;
6) 10-year moratorium on all new applications for citizenship (40 years to allow workplace automation effects on downsizing population);
7) Set up an illegal aliens’ victim restitution fund.
Enactment of these provisions will motivate illegal aliens to SELF-deport, and remove colonizadors from our welfare rolls.
How did this even reach the SC? The law is not confusing or complicated..it’s all because of this baffoon.
Typical liberal legislating from the bench and letting his “feelings” get in way of reading the law as written.
The Ninth Circuit, in a ruling by Judge A. Wallace Tashima, struck down the law, saying that it was too broad — chilling free speech in violation of the First Amendment. Tashima wrote that this law would criminalize “real and constitutionally protected conversations and advice that happen daily.” Indeed, he laid out several examples of conduct that might be prosecuted under this statute: a loving grandmother who urges her grandson to overstay his visa; words on social media encouraging undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States; or an attorney who tells her client she should remain in the United States while contesting her removal.
The USA needs a twenty year moratorium on all immigration, From everywhere.
Nothing nefarious about it. There has to be cultural assimilation of existing immigrants before we take on more.
I am of the opinion that the law needs to be better written. It should allow for advice in legal immigration and not allow advice for illegal immigration.
That's pretty much what I was going to write as well.
Use the power of applying the principle to a cause you love or promote.
The Left could create a law such as this corrolary:
“Any person who ... encourages or induces an person to access, possess, or make any firearm, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such access, possession or making will be in violation of law ... shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).”
Wonder what she would say if folks started exhorting folks to invade her home and then coming home to find them watching her TV and eating her potato chips...
“Any person who ... encourages or induces an person to access, possess, or make any firearm, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such access, possession or making will be in violation of law ... shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).”
The problem is the underlying anti-2A law, not the law you posted. Encouraging crime may justly be a crime.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Sanctuary cities and driver’s licenses for illegals are both violations of the statutes.
We need a clear win for the law in this case, and then start prosecuting elected officials for their treasonous acts.
Ditto what you said. When I was 15-16 years old back in the 60’s, I worked in orchards and packing sheds and I’m not a Latino. Kids today could do the same.
The would only be upholding the powers on Congress.
This is the first time I have even heard of the section 8 law being used against these traitors. It is way past time to put it to good use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.