Source: https://www.alipac.us/f12/judge-whose-sister-heads-la-raza-rules-130-year-law-against-encouraging-illegal-immig-375146/
Timestamp: 2019-11-18 22:05:29
Document Index: 28795878

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1324', '§ 1324', '§1324', '§1324', '§1324', '§ 1324', '§1324']

Judge whose sister heads La Raza rules 130-year law against encouraging illegal immig
Thread: Judge whose sister heads La Raza rules 130-year law against encouraging illegal immig
This law has been on the books in some form for over 130 years, and numerous federal courts have upheld convictions based on §1324. Yet one judge, who worked for an open-borders group named El Centro Inc. and whose sister Janet Murguia is president of La Raza (now called UnidosUS), suddenly thinks conspiring to harbor and encourage illegal immigration violates the First Amendment. Carlos’ sister Mary (who is an identical twin to Janet) is a federal judge on the very Ninth Circuit Court from which he drew this opinion. Judge Mary Murguia once recused herself from a trial involving pro-enforcement Sheriff Joe Arpaio because of her sister’s leadership of La Raza. Carlos should have done the same thing this week in this case, which involves a law that directly conflicts with the work with the open-borders groups his family is associated with.
The 1952 INA (8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)) calls for felony prosecution for anyone 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.” Subsection (V)(I) prohibits “any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts.” The two defendants in this case were convicted on both counts. This law passed the Senate unanimously!
The forerunners to this law were the Contract Labor Law of 1885 and the 1891 Immigration Act. The 1885 law made it unlawful to “in any way assist or encourage the importation or migration of any alien” for the purpose of contract labor. Section 3 of the 1891 Immigration Act made it a felony to “assist or encourage the importation or migration of any alien by promise of employment” through advertisements.
Other circuits have long recognized this law as completely legitimate. “Harboring, within the meaning of §1324, encompasses conduct tending substantially to facilitate an alien’s remaining in the United States illegally and to prevent government authorities from detecting his unlawful presence,” wrote the Second Circuit in 1999. “Such facilitation may be attempted through a wide range of conduct.” (United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 574 (2d Cir. 1999).) The Fifth Circuit has ruled that Congress intended for §1324 to “broadly proscribe any knowing or willful conduct fairly within any of these terms that tends to substantially facilitate an alien’s remaining in the U.S. illegally.”
So how could a single judge who has a family history of open-borders activism be allowed to veto such long-standing and universal laws? The answer is that he has no such power other than what the other branches are willing to cede him.
The concern here is that this will not only protect employers who knowingly help illegal aliens get around our immigration laws, but it will also essentially legalize sanctuary cities. Throughout the county, sanctuary cities are taking active steps to thwart immigration law. We would never tolerate this for other federal laws concerning American criminals. Why should illegal aliens have special privileges?
Rather than shirking from §1324 prosecutions, Trump’s DOJ should aggressively go after sanctuary cities, especially in areas where there are saner federal judges. A judge has no power to “strike down” or veto statutes he or she believes are overly broad. If there is a case that concerns pure speech or advocacy without any conspiracy or action taken to encourage illegal immigration, then it is within the prerogative of a judge not to convict the person. That is judicial power. But judges have no ability to say that the statute can’t be applied even when an action is involved because, in their view, the text of the law might rope in speech in other cases. To believe otherwise is to concoct an entirely new level of judicial veto that our Founders explicitly rejected. This is the difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy.
Finally, it’s important to remember that this is yet another example of judges attempting to fully nullify long-standing immigration law. Some on the Right believe that Congress needs to pass new laws in order to end illegal immigration. It’s simply not true. We don’t have a law problem; we have a judicial supremacy problem. The only question is whether the other branches will give this fake power full effect.
https://www.conservativereview.com/n...onstitutional/
https://www.alipac.us/f12/federal-ju...tional-375132/
Last Post: 03-11-2016, 07:56 PM
Last Post: 07-21-2014, 03:26 PM
Judge In Racial Profiling Suit Twin Sister Of La Raza Group
Sister of L.A. City Councilman Alarcon Heads Communist Party
Last Post: 06-22-2008, 11:03 PM
1891 immigration act, 1952, 1952 ina (8 u.s.c. § 1324(a)(1)(a)(iv)), 8 u.s.c. §1324, contract labor law of 1885, illegal immigration, immigration law, judge, kansas, la raza, mauro papalotzi, murguia, ninth circuit court, sanctuary cities, united states vs. kim