[Lurkinanloomin]

That judge needs to be impeached.

[House Atreides]

This Clinton judge’s sister is the CEO of La Raza and another sister is on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Thanks a lot ‘RATS!

[Gay State Conservative]

OK...then call it "conspiracy". Is it evil for me to hope that a tsunami wipes out Osama Obama's new beachfront mansion with him in it? It would be a fitting payback for all the damage he's done to this country.

I'm assuming that he appointed this pig fornicating Federal judge.

[Nuc 1.1]

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.

[CivilWarBrewing]

[Reno89519]

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?

[SkyDancer]

But the Constitution does have it in there you can’t be here illegally.

[butlerweave]

How long did it take them to find this 130-year old law ? LOL

[Do_Tar]

Aren’t the libs always screaming about “precedent”?

[antidemoncrat]

“Judge Carlos Murguia of the U.S. District Court of Kansas”

An amigo judge taking the side of illegal aliens..color me shocked.

[Regulator]

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.

[Amendment10]

”… that 8 U.S.C. §1324, the law prohibiting someone from “encouraging” or “inducing” illegal immigration, is an unconstitutional infringement upon the First Amendment."

The referenced law applies to “persons.”

8 U.S. Code § 1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

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!)

[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?

[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.

[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.

[hal ogen]

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

[TBP]

Impeach!

[Revel]

The DOJ better be appealing this.

[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.