Posted on 10/19/2006 11:03:05 AM PDT by Res Nullius
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
"Any person who . . . encourages or induces an illegal alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each illegal alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):
A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:
* assists an illegal alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
* encourages that illegal alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.
Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.
Therefore, anyone protesting a group to enforce laws stated above are also breaking the law. The Congress and state legislatures are responsible for changing the law and the voters respective representatives must be called and written to.
With the highlighted segment of law in mind, all persons in government and the public sector are guilty of a felony. The felony of conspiracy to commit crime. All those people in government that have refused to secure our southern borders, enforce current federal law with respect to persons guilty of illegal entry, and demanded that the taxpayer foot the bill for medical care, housing, penal incarceration, and food (like WIC checks) for illegals and their families who have entered illegally are guilty of conspiracy. Hands down guilty of felonious conspiracy and no argument can be given otherwise.
A comment and a published quote by Robert Gaffney, Attorney and County Executive of Suffolk County, LI, NY: The statutory foundation of United States immigration law has always been the jurisdiction of the federal government, Congress and the federal courts. The preeminent laws concerning the employment of illegal aliens are found in the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §~ 1101-1503), as amended by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 CIRCA).
The law states it is a crime to assist an illegal alien who lacks employment authorization by referring him to an employer, or by acting as his or her employer, or as an agent for an employer. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1324a(a)(1)(A) (Lexis 1997). Furthermore, it is unlawful to hire an individual for employment without complying with the employment eligibility requirements for every person hired. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1324a(a)(l)(B) (Lexis 1997). Moreover, conduct tending substantially to facilitate illegal aliens remaining in the United States illegally, where there is knowledge or a reckless disregard of an illegal alien s unlawful status, is a crime, with escalating penalties, encompassed within the provisions of 1324. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(iii) (Lexis 1997); United States v. Kim. 193 F-3d 567 (2d Cir. 1999), are considered employees for purposes of immigration law.
Hey, where you cop? You didn't answer on the last thread.
And what force would that be, Hmmm?
Bzzzt. Wrong answer. It is precisely the right to peaceably gather in public that is at issue.
Sue the bastards!
Tough. Take it out of the street paving budget. One is a declared and protected right of citizens, the other is not. If the government can justify denying rights due to budgetary costs, what use are they?
Maybe if the State of Washington clamped down on the presence of illegal aliens in their jurisdiction, they wouldn't have to worry about a mob of illegal non-citizens infringing on the peaceful assembly of citizens. Guess they are finding out that kicking the problem down the road so that local orchard growers can benefit from breaking the law is costing more than they thought.
""Gutierrez said."
What a stupid, stupid girl!
Never forget which side of this issue our government is on and the extent to which they have gone to support the illegals.
Moorpark California city council did a similar thing. Friends of the Borber patrol was going to meet in the city's public meeting room. Money was paid, date & time set for the group to meet and have the public invited. At the last minute, the city council put on an aditional $400 charge to use the meeting room on the BP group. That effectively would not allow the group to use the city facilites. Once the Moorpark city was contacted by lawyers and threatened with a lawsuit, the additon $400 'security fee' was removed and the meeting went on without any problems.
"If 20 protesters and 20 Minutemen get into it, the four officers I have on day shift won't be able to handle that," Gutierrez said. "I'd have to call in officers on overtime, Sheriff's Office, State Patrol, Yakima (police). We just don't have the resources to handle something like that."
Denying people their civil rights because you fear that they'll provoke an attack by somebody is a prohibited heckler's veto. This has come up numerous times in court cases, and has gotten knocked down again and again. If the Minutemen decide to contest this, they'll win.
Near Yakima Washington.
So if the Automobile Dealers of blahblahblah, had a meeting in a convention center. They would be responsible for an illegal protest outside, and have to pay for the costs incurred in police and porta potties outside? It seems to me, that any rental of an indoor facility, would be structured to make enough money to pay for security and bathroom/cooking facilities. Anything else that sprung up, like a counter meeting, would be prone to being broken up, because THEY have no permit or meeting place.
She instead is counting on the stupidity of enough Americans to back legalization of illegal aliens.
And given that 25 percent of Americans are retarded enough to believe 9-11 conspiracies, she's already halfway there.
A city of 73,000 residents has only 4 on duty police officers during the day? No wonder they are the crank capital of the state. Probably most of the residents are illegals, so they take more of the money for services, than they pay in taxes.
"Minutemen have also been being arrested ..."
Great grammar, yeah.
Never made a mistake posting? Thank you Mr. God.
How's that again? My copy of the Constitution does not say that law-breaking illegals are somehow protected and that Minutemen are not. The Republic has been invaded by so many illegals that they now dictate how and where we can assemble in peaceful meetings that the illegals can and do convert into riots, thus breaking US and local laws again. If this situation is not corrected and soon, the Republic is toast.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that states can't restrict constitutional freedoms. They can have more lax interpretations, but not more stringent. State constitutions and local charters can't restrict fundamental rights. What's not specifically addressed in the Constitution is left to the several states to interpret. That's why the libs always try to work from the top down. Conservatives tend towards ground-roots movements working from the bottom up.
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.