Skip to comments.Judge rules 130-year law against encouraging illegal immigrants is unconstitutional
Posted on 08/23/2019 4:32:21 PM PDT by DFG
Imagine if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Rashida Tlaib got to single-handedly veto sovereignty legislation dating back to the 1880s just like a president could veto a new bill passed by Congress this session. Imagine if they could unilaterally abolish ICE and declare open borders, except, unlike a president, they wouldnt have to stand for re-election. Well, that is exactly the situation this week with a single federal judge. Thanks to Republicans agreeing to the notion that judges even lower court judges have direct veto power over legislation, a foundational immigration law has just been vetoed.
KCUR-FM reports that on Wednesday, Judge Carlos Murguia of the U.S. District Court of Kansas ruled, based on a Ninth Circuit opinion, that 8 U.S.C. §1324, the law prohibiting someone from encouraging or inducing illegal immigration, is an unconstitutional infringement upon the First Amendment. In doing so, Murguia vacated the convictions of two illegal aliens, Jose Felipe Hernandez-Calvillo and Mauro Papalotzi, who were convicted in August 2018 by a jury for conspiring to encourage illegal aliens to remain here through employment at a drywall company in Lawrence, Kansas. Four others were originally indicted by a grand jury in 2015.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
That judge needs to be impeached.
This Clinton judges sister is the CEO of La Raza and another sister is on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Thanks a lot RATS!
I'm assuming that he appointed this pig fornicating Federal judge.
Ignore this ruling. It is anti-American nonsense. Judges say we cannot enforce our laws or our borders. What BS. Some federal judges like this one are in open rebellion. Past time to hold them accountable.
So, by extension, I could encourage anyone to commit a crime, then claim first amendment protection? Or, the young woman that encouraged her boyfriend to kill himself, now she should be freed and conviction reversed?
But the Constitution does have it in there you can’t be here illegally.
I’d say that judge has a conflict of interest.
Mexicans ruling for Mexicans and Mexico in American courts, just disgusting.
I was indeed there, I told him to do it, But the 1st says I am not an accessory.
Very good point.
How long did it take them to find this 130-year old law ? LOL
There you go.
Judge Carlos Murguia of the U.S. District Court
How did this happen?
Aren’t the libs always screaming about “precedent”?
“Judge Carlos Murguia of the U.S. District Court of Kansas”
An amigo judge taking the side of illegal aliens..color me shocked.
I see what you did there ... and I approve.
Next up, La Raza rules that the United Estates has no right to a border...with Mexico.
This is all predictable. Once the Mexican gangsters got a critical mass of people here, they would set out to tear down the laws of the country.
Any honest judge would have recused himself, but clearly this was a set up - they brought the case in his Circuit and the insiders scheduled him.
The referenced law applies to persons.
It is important to note persons, opposed to citizens, because constitutionally enumerated protections do not protect non-citizens imo.
So if an illegal alien encourages other illegal aliens, then they are not protected by 1st Amendment-protected free speech imo, and are therefore breaking the law.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)
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.