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.
Here are some links:
http://www.vdare.com/fulford/ricol.htm
http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back1103.html
http://www.vdare.com/fulford/lawsuit.htm
Sheriff Joe Aripaio is doing his part in Maricopa County Arizona by rounding up illegals in Maricopa County and charging them with committing Conspiracy to Smuggle because they hired the Smuggler to bring them in illegally.
Remember Sheriff Joe? He's the one with a tent city jail in the middle of the Arizona desert.
And just WHO is going to bring a successful lawsuit here? And Who is going to enforce the outcome? Nobody is doing it with any of the existing laws now. The congress is looking to create more dependants on BIG GOVERNMENT and state sponsored Socialism. Taxpayers and honest citizens be damned!
How about suing government agencies (Border Patrol, ICE,IRS) for not enforcing the existing laws?
There was a thread here on it just a few days ago. I'll see if I can find it and ping you to it.
Believe it or not, the Bush Admin actually argued that RICO should cover this activity.
Even a blind pig...
L
http://www.johnsonandbell.com/attorney/biographies/foster.html
Regards,
Allan J. Favish
http://www.allanfavish.com
Good.
Tort lawyers love to find/start "cottage industries", e.g. tobacco lawsuits, asbestos lawsuits, etc. If the initial suits are successful, suing employers of illegals could keep them in the chips for decades and put this problem to rest.
bump
Ironically, the Bush administration argued in favor of it. Thanks to a previous post mentioning it.
Someone must've goofed.
L
Local Law Enforcement may cooperate with Immigration Enforcement
In a March 22, 2005 ruling, in Muehler v Mena, in unanimous decision from a Court known for its 5-4 splits, the United States Supreme Court essentially said that asking about immigration status during a lawful police contact (or, by implication, any lawful contact) was as fundamental a question as asking for name, address and date of birth. Indeed, the Court made clear that no predicate "independent reasonable cause' need exist to inquire into immigration status. It is the Law of the Land.
Calling a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “faulty,” the Supreme Court held that “mere police questioning [regarding one’s immigration status] does not constitute a seizure.” The Court continued its landmark ruling on this issue by stating that “the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date of birth, or immigration status.”...
If there were even a hint that merely asking about immigration status is discriminatory (as claimed by proponents of the proposed Ordinance), then you might expect to have had at least one dissenter in that decision: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Justice Ginsberg was general counsel of the ACLU from 1973 to 1980 and sat on its National Board of Directors from 1974 to 1980. Justice Ginsberg's joining the entire court in this decision speaks volumes about its judicial wisdom and legal common sense.
Congress expressly intended for local law enforcement to act in cases in which officers have reason to believe that an individual is in the country illegally, even though immigration law enforcement is not their primary responsibility. In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed legislation that protects individual officers who act to enforce federal immigration laws, even if their departments have non-cooperation policies.
Now to get them to use RICCO against the ACLU.
It's amazing that the IRS won't do anything about employers hiring hundreds of illegals
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.