Posted on 05/28/2006 3:10:07 PM PDT by garbageseeker
This caught my eye several months ago and its a good way of enforcing immigration law.This may give you the added tool to enforce immigration law.
From the Backrounder
In 1996, Congress expanded the Racketeer influenced and Corrupt Organization(RICO) to include violations of federal immigration law. While this expansion may not recieved publicity, it could potentially change the face of U.S. immigration law eforcement. Under the new RICO provisions, a violation of certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act(INA) meets the definition of racketeering activity, also know an "predicate offenses" and an entity that engages in a pattern of activity for financial gain can be both ciminally and civilally liable. Among other things, the INA makes it unlawful to encourage illegal immigration or employ illegal aliens,which are violations were included as predicate offenses under RICO. The Reason-The inclusion of INA violations as RICO predicate acts in the 1996 immigration reform act was an attempt by Congress to provide private citizens with recorse in the face of the recourse in the face of widespread disregard for immigration laws. Now, citizens and businesses are the beginning to avail themselves of this powerful new tool, and, if the intent of Congress bears fruit, the results can drastically change law enforcement, based on private interest as opposed to government interest. By providing employers strong incentives for employers and businesses to stop engaging the encouragement of buisnesses for financial gain, this would reduce illegal immigration in the United States simply by working through the U.S. courts.
You're welcome. Now we know why the 'Rats and RINOs are in such an all-fired rush...
Good. It's nice to hear someone is getting this ball rolling.
This is a great move. Someone was thinking!
I know what LA is doing, but according to SCOTUS, law enforcement can disobey those "sanctuary laws" when they follow "the law" (i.e., the Supreme Court's decision).
I certainly would say that LA is aiding and abetting criminals and criminal behavior; as such, I would think the city is liable for suit as they are putting citizens at risk for injury, assault, and death by illegals, which in itself is criminal.
I know, it's going on all around the country. Wouldn't it be nice if elected officials and law enforcement actually were concerned about the legal taxpayers who pay their salaries, rather than the nonrights of illegals?
To the pandering politicians, the tax payers are nothing but dollar signs. We're their tax slaves. If we can't support our own families as well as the incoming 90 million new immigrants, we'll just have to take on two jobs if we want to eat. As long as they get our money, why would they care what happens to us?
It's the votes that count, silly, and the grasshoppers are about to outnumber the ants.
I know and they sicken me.
The problem is the Amnesty bill as passed by the Senate.
It not only provides Amnesty for the Invaders, it provides for Amnesty for the companies that hired them also, and shields them from RICO prosecution.
That part is likely to pass, in some form.
While I am sympathetic to those bringing the lawsuits, they cause a dilemma for me.
These suits, if successful, will bankrupt many a company for following standard operating practices as implicitly approved by the US government.
Who will benefit from a rash of major companies being forced into bankruptcy?
Certainly no US citizen, except for those who receive the proceeds of the lawsuits.
"These suits, if successful, will bankrupt many a company for following standard operating practices as implicitly approved by the US government. "
How do you figure?
Which part?
They will bankrupt the company's because many have hired so many illegals over the years. The triple damages, and legal fees for both parties that the companies will be forced to pay if they lose will more than likely far exceed any possibility of the company paying them, and the only sensible thing for them to do would be to declare bankruptcy.
As far a 'standard operating practice', I think that speaks for itself. The government (wrongly) looked the other way for so long, that hiring illegals became the only way to do business.
I said this was a dilemma for me, I'm a law and order type. But, wrecking the company's, and thus the lives of hundreds of thousands of LEGAL employees would be a worse cure than granting the company's some leniency.
yes but there is a conflict. Democrats love illegal immigration the lawyers love the Democrats. So which special interest will win? hint it's not the middle class
Take a peek at some of the LIBERAL blogs... this is really an AMERICAN issue... both sides of the aisle ARE united in favor of the HOUSE bill not the SHAMNESTY that the Senate produced
David
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.