Judge rules 130-year law against encouraging illegal immigrants is unconstitutional

Conservative Review ^ | 08/23/2019 | Daniel Horowitz

[Political Junkie Too]

...the law prohibiting someone from “encouraging” or “inducing” illegal immigration, is an unconstitutional infringement upon the First Amendment.

I'd argue that the first amendment "freedom of speech" is a freedom of public speech, not private speech. "Encouraging" or "inducing" illegal activity is private speech, and therefore outside the purview of the first amendment.

The First Amendment's five rights are all linked together as different sides of the same concept:

• "abridging the freedom of speech" quite literally meant speech as far as crowds of people could hear you. It's the proverbial person standing on a soapbox in the town square shouting his opinions to others.
• "the right of the people to peaceably assemble" means literally to stand together and hear a speaker speak. During colonial British rule, a group of people seen together in public would be suspected as being conspirators against the Crown. Free speech does no good if the People aren't allowed to congregate to hear you.
• "freedom of the press" meant the right of anyone to publish. Spoken word only traveled as far as one could hear it. Printing one's thoughts and distributing them across the colonies extended the reach of thought, and therefore, its influence.
• "the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances" meant using the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly to call out when the federal government exceeded its Constitutional authority.
• "freedom of religion" meant that the people were free to assemble to worship (speak prayers, read Bibles) without government interference

Encouraging people to commit crimes doesn't fall into any of the above categories. Encouraging foreigners in their home countries to evade the laws of the land and unlawfully enter cannot be free speech.

There is no "right to plan a crime" in the Constitution.

-PJ

[sphinx]

Encouraging someone to break the law is protected by the First Amendment? How about encouraging someone to commit murder? If that person goes ahead and kills someone, wouldn’t that make the person who encouraged him an accessory?

[monkeyshine]

I don’t know. If I read it correctly it sounds like a flimsy charge. The 2nd paragraph says the “encouragement” was in giving the illegal immigrant a job. That doesn’t really sound like encouragement though I don’t know what the law actually says or what else may have been done. There were likely other laws broken by all parties here - this one seems really weak based on that paragraph. I admit I didn’t read the entire article.

[NTHockey]

Soapbox - controlled by Google and Facebook
Ballot box - destroyed by fraud
Jury box - judges rule as if by imperial edict

When, oh when will the fourth box be opened? And by whom? All I know is that it is coming.

[KittenClaws]

We The People Run this Country...not some Podunk judge.

We just need to tell hi or her to Kiss our Collective behinds.

[AndyJackson]

Here is the law found unconstitutional8 U.S. Code § 1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

The law does not prohibit speech. It prohibits acts.

[Republican Wildcat]

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.”

What? Judicial Review was around long before the Republican Party even existed. That said, this ruling is garbage.

[The Antiyuppie]

“Encouraging someone to break the law is protected by the First Amendment? How about encouraging someone to commit murder? If that person goes ahead and kills someone, wouldn’t that make the person who encouraged him an accessory?”

There are a lot of people in jail because judges and juries thought so. This will be overturned.

[hal ogen]

Dearest carlos: You are an absolute misinformed, misguided nitwit. I say that “respectfully, of course.

[hal ogen]

His sister is a la raza racist and seditionist? I’d say “conflict of interest” there, your “honor”.

[MileHi]

This Clinton judge’s sister is the CEO of La Raza...

Wouldn't that be a recusable conflict?

[TBP]

Impeach!

[Revel]

The DOJ better be appealing this.

[morphing libertarian]

now we can’t have a law that would put 95% of dems in jail. Another example of this administration’s lack of enforcement,

[Tammy8]

So what other criminals can we aid and abet and call it good?

Can we encourage, help, and hide bank robbers?

Why do we need special rules for illegals? The laws we have need to be strictly enforced.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

This stupid decision will be overturned at the Circuit level or the Supreme Court. The decision against his ruling will be scorching against him personally.

[DoughtyOne]

One more overturn at the SCOTUS on deck.

[SJackson]

If I read it correctly it sounds like a flimsy charge. The 2nd paragraph says the “encouragement” was in giving the illegal immigrant a job

Knowingly giving the illegal immigrant a job is a crime. The illegal likely committed several crimes as well in accepting the job, relating to falsifying tax forms and falsifying identification. As did the employer. IMO, the 1880 law aside, it's a simple criminal conspiracy.

[monkeyshine]

Yes. As I said elsewhere in that post there were likely other crimes. I guess they don’t prosecute those other crimes anymore. Or, they wanted to test this theory on the “encouragemnt” crime - but it seems like a hail Mary, or a pile-on charge. I am not a fan of overzealous prosecutions. Someone robs a bank, lock him up for bank-robbery. But these days they will charge him with bank-robbery, resisting arrest, unlawful brandishment/possession, terrorist threats and who knows what else. Seems silly. If we had legitimate criminal justice we wouldn’t need all this buffoonery. Sorry for the rant.

[EDINVA]

“This Clinton judge’s sister is the CEO of La Raza ....”

If that’s true, he should have recused himself. If the prosecutors didn’t ask him to recuse himself, they’re guilty of malpractice.