Thinking like Judge Tashima has would allow the girl who encouraged suicide to her boyfriend to not be responsible for her actions.
Encouraging illegal behavior is encouraging illegal behavior.
2
Thinking like Judge Tashima has would allow the girl who encouraged suicide to her boyfriend to not be responsible for her actions.
Encouraging illegal behavior is encouraging illegal behavior.
2
SOME of the examples this article cites to make its case are quite innocuous (e.g., grandmother advising her grandson to violate immigration law.) Not all infractions are so innocuous. Prof. Thomas Sowell (the Hoover Institution/ Stanford U.) said: Immigration laws are the only ones that are routinely talked about in terms of how to break them.
There's also a larger issue, if informal, that this article epitomizes. Fraudulent euphemisms are routinely deployed to trivialize law-breaking. For instance, "sanctuary cities" are invoked quite perfunctorily and approvingly, as if they were legal. They in fact reject the federal law, i.e., they are a kind of modern-day Confederacy, no matter how the open-borders fanatics choose to rationalize them.
Also, here and elsewhere, the noun "immigrant" sometimes is used where it's obvious that it's illegal alien that the author has in mind. (Don't give me that "no person is illegal" drivel -- 40 years ago I was a LEGAL immigrant and became US citizen.) "Illegal alien" is a category that's legally defined. That's more linguistic fraud. And illegal immigration is no more "unauthorized immigration" than a bank robbery is an "unauthorized withdrawal" and a rapist is presumably "unauthorized lover."
Let's dispense with that drivel already so reasonable compromises can be made in good faith, not on a basis of linguistic sleight-of-hand.
6
In 1952, Congress approved a bill making the "illegally harboring or concealing an illegal entrant" a felony, but the Texas Proviso, named for the delegation demanding its inclusion, specifically said that employing undocumented migrants would not constitute "harboring or concealing" them.
Although that no longer stands in law, it is still the de facto law - employers can de facto employ with impunity with a few exceptions (e.g., tax evading sticker-outers and employers who are themselves immigrants).
We know that Trump's businesses did so. The hypocrisy is unbearable.
I believe the right wayforward is the Canda approach where employers hiring illegally are sanctioned, where seasonal migrant workers all have health care (paid for by employers) and legal protection, and immigrants are not encouraged to enter illegally because of a huge illegal job market - the end result being that immigrants have legal rights from day zero.
@Craig H.
Republican (and most independents) in the US want laws like Canada's (the EU, Australia and tutti quanti). Canada and the other countries have tried and tested and adapted their immigration laws to a high level. We are the only nation with the antiquated, failed laws we have!
Canada has work permits, needed skills/merit based immigration and strict requirements for family sponsorships. Well written and complete laws.
Would that Democrats finally accept that our 60 year old family based immigration system has completely failed the country, citizens, legal immigrants (and those millions of illegal aliens).
Would that they stop attempts at imposing a sweeping and uncontrolled amnesty rather than implement a legal process to allow residency but not automatic citizenship!
3
From the comments on this piece, it's clear Americans have a very poor grasp regarding what immigration actions are criminal. Overstaying a visa is not a crime, and neither is (first time) entry without inspection into the United States. Staying in the United States during immigration removal proceedings is not a crime, but this poorly-written law criminalizes speech encouraging others to do so.
I think people are confused about this article, because the petitioner's speech was not protected due to her own criminal fraud - not because of her clients' supposed criminal actions.
Many immigration attorneys, including myself, encourage our clients without legal status to stay and fight deportation when they could be eligible for legal immigration status. This can include petitions filed by their citizen family members or spouses, VAWA applications, trafficking visas, asylum applications, and even cancellation of removal for certain folks who have been in the US for a long time and can show it would cause unusual hardship to a citizen family member if they were deported.
I hesitate to write this comment knowing this law is on the books. Others might have decided not to speak out entirely. That's a chilling of speech.
1
There seems to be a lot we can’t say anymore. Abortion. Doctors can’t talk about guns. Israel. Now immigration.
2
Repeal birthright citizenship and curtail chain migration. That'll serve to take the incentive out of a sizable percentage of illegal immigration, which is nearly all 100% based in economics - not the deep desire to wave the American flag and sing the national anthem.
7
@Maggie
Legal migration has always been 100% about economic opportunity too. It’s called “the American dream.”
2
@bob
You rightfully used the words "legal immigration". Every country has immigration laws.
Why should the US laws not be respected when others are, please?
4
@Si Seulement Voltaire
Maggie is making a false distinction between illegal and legal immigrants. She says “illegal immigration... is nearly all 100% based in economics,” as if that’s a bad thing. My comment is a direct response to that sentence.
I believe in rational, effective, humane immigration laws. I believe demagoguery is evil and destructive.
1
Here is a case where it pays to own the Supreme Court. Of the many reasons why the US runs dead last in judicial transparency in the industrialized world is the fact that the Supreme Court doubles as the President's personal team of lawyers. This is a luxury no other leader can afford.
5
I don’t understand the hate toward immigrants. They aren’t the ones shooting up schools, churches, concert halls, shopping malls.
The immigrants I know work hard and want the same things I want.
6
@Zejee
There are approximately 6 Billion people living in impoverished, overpopulated third world countries who “want the same things” that you want. And?
The American citizenry is under NO obligation to offer up our country as a pressure release valve for these billions. We can barely take care of our own...
11
...but we sure like robbing those six billion people. Hey, six billion, six billion...ain’t I seen that “six plus a big number,” thing someplace else?
1
@Zejee
Americans do not "hate" immigrants. All Americans were immigrants at some point, even native American. Immigration is part of being American. For over a century there has been a process and immigration laws to be respected.
Immigrant are people who have respected the laws, gone through the legal process and been given the right to live and work and possibly become citizens.
Illegal aliens are the 10 to 20 million who have not followed the process, who have cheated or were unwilling to make the effort to legalise their situation, even when they could have!
Therein lies the difference.
5
So, if I were to tell a friend that "Bank XXX has poor security. Wouldn't it be nice if some robbed it?", that would be protected speech.
And what if I gathered all the publicly available information on the bank's security and gave it to my friend?
8
@Larry Israel
The suggestion of robbing a bank bears no similarity to a organized illegal immigrant consulting firm, a dicey one.
According to SCOTUS, speech integral to criminal conduct is not protected.
2
Of course this law has never been applied to the thousands of employers who knowingly hire undocumented aliens, you know, including people like Trump.
4
@DSD
Bingo. And that's how you know the whole immigration thing is far more divisive wedge issue for Trump/Republicans than it is true concern with managing the problem. When discussing the "illegals invasion" we NEVER hear about those thousands of employers who are only too happy to employ undocumented workers at dirt cheap wages. Wonder why that is?
@DSD
One must be careful when attributing partisan responsibilities around hiring illegal aliens in the US.
California (a most "blue" State) harbours around 25% of all illegal aliens, and has even passed laws restricting the use of E-Verify, for instance. No "blue" State has made E-Verify mandatory.
Around 60%-70% of all illegal aliens live in 20 urban areas, most of which are very "blue".
So when talking about who wants to exploit and profit from illegal aliens ... those who keep many low skill salaries down for all because they accept exploitation wages, competing for jobs with legal immigrants and citizens....
... Look mostly to Democrat urban areas for the largest portion of exploiters.
5
Democratic urban areas also pay workers significantly more than the less-than-subsistence wages red states do. If wager were reasonable across the board the illegal immigrant population would likely be more evenly distributed.
C'mon. Put aside your anti-Trump biases and look at this from the viewpoint of simple common sense. ENCOURAGING and assisting someone who is breaking the law is simply not something society can, should, or does accept. It makes a mockery of the law. That the most liberal court in the USA has said otherwise means almost nothing, considering that it has 79% of its cases overruled by the Supreme Court (and that was before Kavenaugh/Gorsuch). We need to get a handle on illegal immigration (which is not support or condoned by ANY nation) and this is a good place in which to start.
21
@Paul
How about “second amendment solutions”?
3
@ Paul Virginia Beach. The hypocrisy of a Trump supporter lecturing other people on “making a mockery of the law” in a normal world would be beyond belief. But the Trump world is anything but normal. This law, like a wall, will not do anything to prevent illegal immigration. It’s pie in the sky fantasy.
3
This is nothing less or more than due process. Although free speech gives life to any claim, yours or mine, neither you or I decide the right or wrong of the law in a case.
"Unauthorized immigrants"? Meaning illegal aliens.
When I see a sign on a government building that warns me to "Keep Out" or "Unauthorized Personnel Not Allowed", I follow the rules or risk arrest. The same rules should apply to unauthorized people entering another person's nation.
Follow the rules or keep out.
18
@ Copernicus. So you would obey a government sign that said “Keep Out” or “Unauthorized Personnel Not Allowed” if you knew Jews were being gassed to death or black men were being used as experiments to see how syphillis affecrted and killed black people or Republican House Leader Dennis Hastert was molesting children? All real world examples.
2
@DSD
Equating illegal immigrants and border jumpers with Jews escaping Nazi gas chambers is offensive in the extreme. Disgraceful!
9
@Susanna
And yet, many of these “illegal immigrants and border jumpers” are, like the “Jews escaping Nazi gas chambers” , running for their lives. This has been well documented.
Sadly, in both cases, the cause of compassion has been rejected by many citizens of this country.
2
Supreme Court Judges are appointed for life so they can rule independently after being appointed.
We need to adjust to the reality that this doesn’t happen (anymore). Limit their term to 10 years, so at least their rulings represent some rolling average of our country’s evolving views.
Who has any faith in this activist Court’s handling of DACA? Should we be punished 20 years after Trump is long gone because of the hardliners he installed on the Court?
4
Of course it is a crime to encourage others to commit criminal acts, whether that encouragement is implicit or explicit.
11
Overstaying a visa permit or encouraging someone to do so is a crime. If people are encouraged to stay illegally in the US, they will never leave. And more people will come here illegally and never leave in addition to people staying past their visa date. Why would they leave when they know nothing will ever happen and there will be no consequences? This is setting up a green light for people to break our laws. It must not happen.
12
@KMW Most of your argument is irrelevant to the idea of Free Speech. It is not illegal to promote civil disobedience. This law is too broadly applicable. The case is not about immigration, but about a poorly written piece of legislation.
2
@Friend of a friend
"Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws, demands, orders or commands of a government."
It means you break the laws ... criminal or otherwise. That is a free choice, but will remain subject to all laws. Accepting the consequences is a part of the whole.
4
After due deliberation, i must agree with those who rightly state that advocating, encouraging or advising others to break the law is indeed illegal in and of itself, no matter what the motive. Illegal entry or employment into the USA should not be treated differently than other crimes. However, i think the punishment for breaking the law in this fashion, should be HIGHLY dependent upon the motivations involved. If someone wishes to profit from and exploit illegal immigrants, and advises them to remain in the country illegally so that they can continue to exploit them... well the person or persons involved should be punished to the FULLEST extent of the applicable laws, since their motivation is evil. If someone encourages their sister or mother to remain in the country illegally, because they love them and wish a better life for them, or wish to take care of them... well yes this IS illegal but the punishment should be FAR less severe than in the case where the motiviation (as in the case in question) is exploitation or worse.
4
@Joseph Ross Mayhew Is it illegal to sell or teach about Henry David Thoreau's book on Civil Disobedience?
2
Overstaying a visa is not a crime.
3
Mere encouragement to violate a law is not actionable, but taking action knowingly to assist a person to breach immigration laws (or any other law for that matter) could arguably make the person taking the action part of a criminal conspiracy.
14
@Snowball So Trump, who knowingly employed undocumented immigrants, should be prosecuted?
4
Well, yeah, but when?
2
I imagine this could have a wide impact if the SC upholds the law. While the law is specific to immigration, a broader interpretation would mean that any verbal encouragement to commit a crime could be subject. I guess that means Trumps calls to unmask the Whistleblower........
3
@glp5
Anyone who encourages someone to commit a crime is lawfully deemed an ‘accessory’ before or after the fact. Last I heard, ‘illegal’ immigration is....illegal.
10
So’s extortion and using government funds for one’s personal benefit, but oddly, this does not seem to fuss you much.
@glp5
Not to be argumentative, but I read in CNN that the President actually has the power/right according to the wording of the whistleblower law.
"The law puts Trump in charge of enforcing whistleblower protections
Zach Wolf
CNN
November 5, 2019
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/05/politics/whistleblower-identity-trump-legal-obligations/index.html
1
Is it a crime if your elected official chooses not to read an indictment and chooses to vote without weighing the facts? Elected officials don’t work for the president - they work for the people and take an oath to the constitution not party. It should be a crime to protect party over country.
6
There’s nothing more American than encouraging or engaging in civil disobedience.
“If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." Martin Luther King, Jr.
3
@Bronx Jon
And this is why my family can no longer align ourselves with the Democratic Party...cheerleading, ad nauseam, on behalf of illegal aliens and de facto open borders.
I doubt that MLK Jr. would condone your misappropriation of his statement.
12
@Susanna
Many employers do not want to hire US workers which they often call 'domestics' because they want to be paid and they demand their rights, and they talk back and they sometimes take Monday or Friday off and they file a lot of workers comp claims. The employers would rather hire migrants who accept whatever the employer gives them gratefully. Who would do these low paying jobs otherwise. Americans don't want to work. And Americans don't want to pay 2 dollars for a head of lettuce or 250 per day for child care. So there is not solution here. The rent seeking classes don't do much physical work and are generally protected by licenses. You can't practice law or nursing or medicine without a license.
4
@Susanna
And that’s the lovely thing about free speech Susanna.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I’m pretty certain that MLK, Jr. would empathize with their plight if he were alive today.
3
Court to decide if telling someone they should migrate is a crime and not protected by the first amendment, even though such a "crime" could literally be nothing more than speech, while a previous court legalized bribery of our politicians through unlimited super pac money and called it "speech". We have some corrupt, lying judges I'd say. It will be no shocker if they rule against normal citizens who speak, while protecting the rich and powerful who bribe politicians even while the emoluments clause explicitly forbids it.
3
If this is a crime then anyone who has ever encouraged ‘2nd Amendment solutions’ to anything should also be arrested and prosecuted
5
The Founding Fathers and the Constitution take citizenship and immigration far more seriously than federal judges do. James Madison would spin in his grave if he could hear this junk.
9
1) If you would like to rob a bank, get some guns, some masks to disguise your identity and act accordingly. 2) If you would like to live in the USA illegally, book a flight to Disney World and overstay your visa. Which sentence is a crime?
3
this sorta reads like: " big brother in peoples' bedrooms again & or an uninvited dinner guest " ..
2
It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court sides with the law or with trump.
11
@RickyDick
If they side with Trump, they will lose what little respect they have left.
1
@Wally Wolf
They will also have confused the law with Donald Trump, as he wished. To him, there is no difference between law and whim, and you will respect that. So says he. What say you?
1
" A 1986 federal law makes it a crime to “encourage” unauthorized immigrants to come to or stay in the United States.
It may cover public officials helping immigrants in sanctuary cities”
California encourages people to migrate here illegally in that it forbids its employees from asking about a person’s immigration status, it will not let municipalities require that businesses within their jurisdictions use e-verify, it refuses to inform ICE when an illegal immigrant is about to be released from prison unless he has committed an especially heinous crime, and so on. California encourages illegal immigration.
This is already illegal under Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution which says, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”
After 1808, only the federal government would determine who could be admitted.
Article 1, section 9 is thought to have applied to slavery, but the 14th Amendment is also thought to have applied to slavery. If we dismiss Article 1, section 9 as only covering slaves, but not illegal immigrants, why don’t we do the same with the 14th Amendment?
If Ca. can ignore Article 1. section 9 to welcome illegal immigrants, why should their children get birthright citizenship?
10
In your overly broad interpretation, merely barring state government workers from being forced to police a federal issue (which the state is not obligated to police or pay for) equates to setting immigration policy. Under that wide of an umbrella, merely posting an opinion on who is allowed (or not) to enter is usurping Congressional authority. California is not admitting people into the US. They are not issuing federal documents. They are not opening their own border entry points. They are simply saying that they don’t want to deal with the financial burden of immigration at all.
I'm not sure why this has to be a First Amendment question. There is well-established doctrine in constitutional law called "void for vagueness." A statuette may be found unconstitutional v when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed. The word "encourage" seems to be unconstitutionally vague.
2
Hillary Clinton was not convicted of any crime and yet Trump calls to "Lock Her Up". How is that not the same thing? Imprisoning someone without being charged and convicted of a crime is itself a criminal act. Speech integral to criminal conduct,” the Supreme Court has said, is not protected by the First Amendment.
4
Oh the ironies of the Trump administration defending a law that prohibits Americans from verbally suggesting that people maybe break a rule here or there.
7
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court court ruled that the incitement of illegal acts in the indefinite future was protected, but encouragement of "imminent" illegal acts was not protected.
Under this ruling, the Sineneng-Smith is guilty of inciting imminent illegal acts if she encouraged her clients to continue working after their authorization to work expired. A grandmother would violate the 1986 law “merely by saying to her grandson whose visa has expired, ‘I encourage you to stay.’” However, it's highly unlikely she would be charged. Sineneng-Smith was prosecuted because she profited from inciting illegal acts.
The Supreme Court would have to reverse its 1969 ruling to let the Ninth Circuit finding stand.
3
The doctrine you are discussing involves criminal acts. Overstaying a visa or (first time) entry without inspection is not a crime.
1
@Michael
The alleged crimes encouraging her clients to stay and continue to work after their authorization to work expired.
Make NO LAW regarding freedom of speech. If the speech itself is not a crime, then it should be free to be said.
11
@David
How do we then address issues of Trump style fake news like QAnon on Facebook, which is demonstrably false?
2
@David, people should be free to say whatever they want, not necessarily from what they just said however. The act is a sacred rite but not necessarily the choice of words. Kind of like telling the bank teller to stick their hands up. Totally protected.
@John Doe
Doesn’t follow, sorry.
If unauthorized immigration is not a crime, then why do most people in the world have to go to the American Consulate in their home country to apply for visas and be vetted just to enter this country? Why is it so difficult to be eligible for a green card/US permanent residence? What about legal immigrants who wait in line for so many years and follow all the US immigration rules and regulations? They don't take advantage like unauthorized immigrants and their families. Why the double standard?
91
@Petunia
I agree with your one hundred percent; however, these children were brought here by their elders and they had no choice at all in their fate. They know no other country or life and it would be a travesty to make them go to a country they do not know or even speak the language. There is a specific amount of children under DACA and it should stop there. We can afford to be compassionate but not fools.
2
@Petunia This is why it's hard to have sympathy for illegal immigration advocates. I think they are hypocrites. Thousands of people every year DO wait in line, they spend a small fortune hiring immigration lawyers, they fill out all the correct paperwork, and sometimes they STILL DON't get their green card. I know this to be true because my kids went to an International School. The parents there were hard-working people who had often been transferred to the U.S. by their native country. They did everything right , played by the rules yet had the door slammed in their face. They were extremely frustrated. Some would occasionally half-jokingly say "I wonder if this whole process would be faster if we just walked across the border'? I can't blame them. Many state Democrats are now offering illegals free healthcare, welfare, drivers licenses, schooling, & sanctuary. This is unsustainable. You can't have a dual system were the illegals have all the rights and the legal always have to fight for their rights. The strategy seems to be: Step 1: ignore laws and rules of said nation, 2: complain that you do not have the same access to services since you decided to do step one 3: call anyone who disagrees a racist Trump lover. If you tried this in Europe you would be detained and deported. Lastly, Undocumented Immigrant= Illegal Immigrant. Can I tell a cop that I am an Undocumented Driver and not Driving without a license or are we picking and choosing what laws are worth upholding?
10
Petunia - criminal statutes are different from immigration statutes. Something can be unauthorized, but not criminal. Regarding people who "skip the line" - the line between authorized status and falling out of status can be complicated. And I think you would be extremely hard-pressed to understand what makes one person visa-eligible, and another not.
Also, irregular migration from countries facing famine due to climate change, those facing religious, political and gang persecution demand our empathy. One of my ancestors came over from Ireland in the potato famine, and my father was a political asylee from Eastern Europe in the '70's. Neither would have made it to the US under our current immigration regime. There is discussion to be had about legal immigration, but it's disingenuous to pretend everyone who is legally here. now faced the same challenges as those trying to immigrate today.
1
When our president says there is a second amendment solution to address elected officials you don’t like - is that a crime? If it’s not, it should be.
7
Border between the U.S. and Canada is OK. But why is the border between the U.S. and Mexico not OK?
These immigrants come to the U.S. primarily to escape problems in their native countries (Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama) which includes a stagnant economy, high levels of crime, political corruption and widespread drug use. There is a legal way to request a green card to enter the U.S., however unlawful mobs entry is not allowed. Shame and disgrace of all these central American countries and their governments who fail to feed their people, to give them medical care, good housing, and jobs. These central American countries and their governments are the ones at fault.
Sorry that your country does not love you anymore. To find true love you need to find and walk on God’s Holy road which will one day open the gate to His Kingdom in Heaven. The road you are currently walking is man made and will only bring you tears and despair, darkness and regrets.
3
@manoflamancha
You are evidently unaware of the comment made by Marine Corps Smedley Butler (one of the few Americans to have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor... twice). He said following his retirement, "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer; a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
If you want to understand why people flee Latin America you won't find the answers in the Bible but in the history of American military (and CIA) operations in those countries supporting dictators like Batista, Somoza, Trujillo, Pinochet, Papa Doc Duvalier, etc.
15
@manoflamancha
They’re called banana republics (other than Mexico) because of the United Fruit Co. and Chiquita Banana. More recently, aside from bananas, the US’s insatiable demand for illegal drugs has fueled the violence and chaos in this region. The US bears a heavy historical and current burden of responsibility for the instability and misery of Central America. Telling the poor people trying to save their lives to find God is pathetic and contemptible.
5
@manoflamancha
They’re called banana republics (other than Mexico) because of the United Fruit Co. and Chiquita Banana. More recently, in addition to subordinating the independence of these countries to profits from bananas, the US’s insatiable demand for illegal drugs has fueled the violence and chaos in this region. The US bears a heavy historical and current burden of responsibility for the instability and misery of Central America. Telling the poor people trying to save their children’s lives to find God is pathetic and contemptible.
I would love to hear the Justice Department’s argument to the SCOTUS to uphold this law.
Then I would urge Democrats to use those arguments and ask Republican Senators why Trump’s statement of desire to Ukrainian President Zelensky is NOT criminal.
Am I the only one who does not get this hypocrisy?
3
Anything "illegal" cannot be correct ..
Immoral is a different and difficult question.
So all those people from "Syria" etc if they manage to sneak in will be perfectly "ok" begs the answer from the "Liberal Heads or Morality"
Its as despicable as holding kids and family in cages or cutting off financial support for the NGOs helping the people in S America!
How can this be a crime, but vocally advocating for criminal violence against citizens is not?
52
@Jason P I do believe that openly advocating for "criminal violence" (lol redundant much?) is indeed against the law: If i say to someone: You know, so and so is not someone we want around here. Why don't you go and rough him up a bit so he leaves town?".. that is a crime for certain!! When Herr Trump suggests that people should use their second ammendment rights if his political opponent wins an election - well, if that went to court (which for some reason it didn't...), i think most judges and juries would call that a crime also. If it ISN'T a crime, then it most certainly should be.
3
Overstaying a visa is not a crime, it is a violation like a speeding ticket is a violation. Illegal entry is a crime.
25
@Rockaway Pete And talking about any of it is free speech. We don't need thought crimes.
8
Violation of a speeding ticket is a crime, just like illegal immigration is a crime. Do you know what the word “crime” means?
7
@Rockaway Pete People with speeding tickets aren't deported and charged for their flight home.
4
If the crux of the question is whether it should be crime to encourage someone to come into or stay in the country illegally, I think it certainly ought to be. As a legal immigrant I have absolutely zero sympathy for law breakers and absolutely believe they ought to be deported.
103
@Jeremy Coney
Read the article. Encouraging someone to come in or stay illegally is speech. Criminalizing speech obviously violates the First Amendment. Coming or staying illegally is a separate question.
21
@Jeremy Coney Never jaywalked, I guess. Or crossed against the light. Or exceeded the posted speed limit.
I suspect you have zero sympathy for a specific subset of lawbreakers.
18
@bob Criminalizing speech does not always violate the First Amendment. If you tell your friend, "Hey let's beat that guy up," and your friend hits him, you are guilty as an accomplice. Or if you and your friend make a plan to embezzle, and then your friend goes through with it, you are guilty of conspiracy.
On the other hand, standing on the streetcorner shouting "steal from the bosses" is legal. Be interesting to see how this case comes out, doesn't seem obvious either way. But pat oversimplifications won't help.
8
Trump has encouraged people to commit violent acts at his rallies, and even offered to pay for their defense. He has done this numerous times, as have many of his supporters. Apparently, encouraging people to commit assault is not against the law. We've even heard threats of overthrowing the government from our own politicians if Trump is ousted, which is treasonous. Overstaying your visa is a misdemeanor. How can encouraging someone to do that be against the law, when encouraging people to commit felonies isn't?
24
Aiding and abetting a criminal illegal immigrant is breaking the law. You cannot hide behind a freedom of speech clause when your behavior is inciting criminal activity. Just the same as yelling fire in a theater or bomb on an airplane. Words and actions have consequences.
17
But not all consequences have the same gravity.
2
@Nature Read JFiddle's comment. By your logic Trump and his MAGA supporters should all be in prison.
5
@Nature Trump has encouraged people to commit violent acts at his rallies, and even offered to pay for their defense. He has done this numerous times, as have many of his supporters. Apparently, encouraging people to commit assault is not against the law. We've even heard threats of overthrowing the government from our own politicians if Trump is ousted, which is treasonous. Please provide your take on that.
1
I think a lot of folks in border states have grown frustrated by the endless citations of edge case scenarios by politicians, activists and judges. The “If a nine year old jumps in the family car to get help for his ailing granny is he really deserving of a ticket?” defense. There is data and the data shows a virtual racketeering enterprise - operating at scale - of shady facilitation of illegal immigration. That data, not extreme and rare examples, should drive the outcome.
28
It's really much simpler than that. The comment above yours says it all.
3
If a mobster ‘advises’ someone in their family on best practices on sacking rivals, with specificity concerning said targets, it would be considered conspiracy, not free speech. Why it would be any different in this case escapes me, other than the current political atmosphere in some quarters.
25
@VKG
But what if the person isnt a mobster? Can I tell you how to get away with murder right here in this comment? Should I go to jail if you decide to take my advice?
2
@VKG Trump has encouraged people to commit violent acts at his rallies, and even offered to pay for their defense. He has done this numerous times, as have many of his supporters. Apparently, encouraging people to commit assault is not against the law. We've even heard threats of overthrowing the government from our own politicians if Trump is ousted, which is treasonous. Please apply your logic to that.
This question--Is It a Crime to Encourage Unauthorized Immigration?--begs for and answer, so I would surmise Mr. Liptak is asking the/a wrong question.
1
I'm surprised this is presented as a 1st amendment question. Not a jurist so maybe someone can help me understand here.
I understood that aiding and supporting a crime is against the law according to this text:
"The legal term aiding and abetting refers to a person's action to help, support, or approve of someone else's illegal act. Aiding and abetting is a crime in itself, held against those who would somehow assist a criminal – short of physically contributing to the illegal act. It is derived from the United States Code (U.S.C.), section two of title 18: (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal."
14
@Si Seulement Voltaire
Read that to Trump and his supporters who loudly advocate violence against their opposition.
@Si Seulement Voltaire
Answer: the speech the appeal is about is not aiding and abetting.
Shall this law apply to those who illegally recruit and hire? How about the corporations and Indian cartels that exploit the H1 Program?
11
@j24
The fundamental problem is the lack of any reliable means of identifying people. There are no vetted, mandatory identification cards as exist in most modern countries.
E-Verify is not mandatory and there is no truly reliable way of checking identities of foreign or citizens in the US.
To my knowledge the only vetted people whose papers can be trusted are those when valid green cards .... and I have read that fake green cards are close to a dime a dozen in the US these days.
6
The “as a legal immigrant” argument is always weak, and is the same as saying “I have an ethnic friend. Therefore, the following racist statement I’m about to make is not racist.” Many of us are legal immigrants, and many of us do not believe any human is illegal. There was a recent story about American Mormons being slaughtered in northern Mexico. This is well known, but what about the countless other stories we don’t report on because the ones killed are brown and undocumented? It’s a no brainer people are migrating here, and any student of history knows the direct influence of violence and instability the United States has had in Latin America.
TLDR: Migration is beautiful. Bigotry is ugly.
7
@Gustavo
A legal immigrant is someone who followed a legal process and has been given the right to live in a country.
Every country I know of has immigration laws, a process and requirements for immigration that are (in most) actually enforced. There are no countries with open borders even during wars, anywhere.
What is so difficult to understand?
8
We get mad when peoe let themselves in. You must ask and we get to say yes or no.
2
@Si Seulement Voltaire The argument I'm making is specific to the United States and not other nations. The history of immigration quotas in this country has its roots in pure racism (ie. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882).
How is racism is so difficult to understand?
In 2013, the US Senate passed the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 in a bipartisan vote of 68-32. Then-House Speaker John Boehner blocked consideration of the bill in the House of Representatives, invoking the House GOP rule named after the former Speaker who turned out to be a pedophile high school wrestling coach.
The extremists have controlled the microphones on immigration, especially the xenophobic "no amnesty" crowd. These folks are apparently lined up looking for work at chicken processing plants in Mississippi, hotel and motel room cleaning gigs all across America, and to travel around as migrant workers following crop harvesting and other agricultural jobs.
When every perceived crime deserves the electric chair, there's no humanity left in what we call a Christian nation.
4
@Kevin Brock
In 1986, Charles Schumer was in Congress. He wrote a bill to legalize the 3 million people who were living here illegally in exchange for ending all further illegal immigration. Neither he nor others in Congress realized that the act of legalizing those who were here illegally would encourage more illegal immigration.
The PEW Trust estimated that between 11 and 12 million people have come here since then (not counting all of the asylum seekers who have remained here after having been issued deportation orders). Researchers at Yale and MIT thought the PEW figures were too high so they conducted their own research only to come up with considerably higher numbers. They said there was a 95% probability that there were between 16.2 and 29.5 million (with a mean of 22.1 million) illegal immigrants here in 2016.
In 1986, we rewarded people for moving here illegally. Many decided to come here, on the bet that we would do so again
In 2013, Senator Schumer helped write another bill to legalize illegal immigrants. He did not seem to learn from the first time that an offer of “amnesty” sends the message to potential migrants around the world that they will eventually be offered citizenship, if they come here illegally.
(Chicken processing plants and hotels paid their employees a living wage before illegal immigrants arrived and were willing to work for low wages. Robots can already do a lot of the farm work, and research on more advanced robots is proceeding.)
12
@ann
People trying to immigrate to the US from Mexico and Central America are not thinking about Chuck Schumer. They’re thinking about their own and their families’ survival as their countries fall into chaos and violence largely due to the US’s demand for illegal drugs and corrupt interference with their governments.
1
First question: What the heck is an "unauthorized immigrant"? These issues might be a whole lot more accessible to the public and understandable as court matters if the press was not making up immigration status names as mots du jour.
My guess is that it is an undocumented person. To give such a person immigrant status, a status not held, for example, by workers in the tech industry who may have lived and worked here for years, and have pending applications for LPR (green card) status, is to effectively leapfrog documented persons in your misbegotten drive to legitimize undocumented entry to the U.S.
That, in turn, plays to the xenophobic, racist, and populist political arguments of people on the right, because it makes it seem as if liberals believe in open borders.
Please cut it out. You have skiddy-eight million journalists covering immigration, including law experts like Mr. Liptak apparently, and it really seems as if none has ever read any immigration law.
When someone who entered the country without documentation or overstayed their visa is an "immigrant" and someone who entered with valid H1B documentation and has overstayed nothing is not, we have a problem.
The NYT should stop muddying the waters.
18
@ondelette an unauthorized immigrant can be documented, so the Times is using specific, correct, legal language, because this is an article on a legal case. For example, overstaying a visa would make you an unauthorized immigrant but you would also be documented as being currently in the US.
@Jason P, somehow I doubt that you are offering a legal opinion. The term undocumented means without lawful visa (without papers --"documents").
Constantly moving the terminology around is not a domain-neutral thing to do, and the Times really has an obligation not to be an advocate when it is pretending to be a paper of record.
The term "immigrant" is actually a term of art in the INA, and therefore is totally inappropriate here.
Taken together, I'm pretty sure what you are saying has no real place in legal jargon, except in advocacy.
I am on the side of the advocates in question, but do not believe that we will ever have a cogent, sensible debate about immigration until all the propaganda and efforts at relabeling, branding, and advocating is pulled out of the news reporting, and the public is informed of both the law and the acts and can make the informed decisions it is their right to make in a democracy.
2
If a law doesn't allow a lawyer to advise his client of what the law is, how it came to be, how it is enforced,what the meaning of the law is, and how it effects them, and how it has been interpreted in the case law, that law prevents lawyers and their clients to work within our legal system. Such laws are unlawful on their face and a violation of due process under the constitution. They must be voided. This is such a law.
1
@Joel Friedlander, could you please expound on how your theory applies to the Supreme Court decision Holder v. HLP? It would seem that the Court disagrees with you.
3
@Joel Friedlander
Lawyer client privilege has nothing to do with free speech. It is a given.
Now what advice (IF counsels the commission of a criminal act) the lawyer gives is a different story, no?
"United States Code (U.S.C.), section two of title 18: (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal."
3
Puzzling how the act of encouraging illegal behavior could be construed as legal or free speech. Right now we have a President openly advocating illegal behavior, which has resulted in an impeachment inquiry. As it should have. Which makes the Trump administration’s defense of this 1986 law wildly inconsistent.
1
@Mrs Ming
The president didnt "advocate" illegal behavior. He committed a crime. Soliciting help in an election is illegal, full stop.
Encouraging illegal behavior would be President Trump telling people not an appear for a subpoena. He is telling others to break the law. That is the comparison.
4
@Joe
And, ultimately it will be the courts who decide the interpretation of the "law", when lawmakers cannot agree.
2
@Joe
Completely agree - he both committed a crime and encouraged others to do so as well. Thus, we can add hypocrisy to the rest of his character traits
Can you encourage some one to break the law?
I would say no.
But Democrats and Liberals pick and choose which laws are ok to be broken, if it will get them votes that is.
Hate speech is also just words, but is discouraged and disavowed. Yet encouraging people to break a law the Democrats disagree with is ok.
You should not be able to pick and choose what laws are ok to follow and which are not, just because it gets you votes.
35
@AutumnLeaf I would vehemently disagree with your assertion that "Hate speech is just words." In the narrow sense, ALL speech is made of "just words", but when someone deliberately says something that is designed to hurt or implicitly or explicitly threaten another person in a substantial manner... then this is going beyond the bounds of free speech as most countries understand the concept. This is especially true if it involves something that is beyond the other person's control, such as skin pigmentation, ethnic background or sexual orientation. If you walk up to someone on the street who looks Jewish, for example, and start calling them names and advising them to leave the country because they don't belong here, well this is just plain hateful and should most definitely be illegal!!!
4
@AutumnLeaf Every protest against an unjust law is speech in violation of the law. It's how we get bad laws to be fixed.
Make NO LAW against freedom of speech. It's simple, clear and the best way to run a country.
2
@David, there are Court cases which define the boundaries, speaking out in favor of a behavior, even advocating violence, is protected -- but only so long as the advocacy is not to "imminent" violence by Brandenburg v. Ohio.
And as for lawyers advocating behavior of clients, mentioned by another commenter, that also has boundary lines, for instance Holder v. HLP makes it illegal to give any legal advice or any other kind of advice to terrorist groups.
There wouldn't need to be a Court decision if it were as cut and dried as many are arguing (on both sides) in these comments.
3
of course one supports free speech. but there must be a distinction between saying, I wish you would stay here and charging money for immigration support to the people to whom you are encouraging to stay illegally.
I have supported the ACLU almost all my life, but it seems their work at the US Mexico border now borders on suborning perjury: prepping how to word requests for asylum, often not based on reality. Read the WaPo article today about how in Guatemala the use of loans meant for local economic development are being used to pay people to transport them to the US-to make better wages. These are generally good people, just trying to make it, but not true asylum seekers. We do not currently have laws to encourage economic migration. Guest worker program, legal would be fine. These folks really do not want to emigrate from Guatemala, ultimately they want to go back-they just need-to make money
31
@Honeybluestar
I was an ACLU supporter until about 5-7 years ago, when the organization started sending out "action alerts" that had nothing to do with American Civil Liberties, but rather an increasingly racialized agenda that in many ways worked against the very Americans whose interests the organization was founded to protect.
29
Beto, Castro and the DNC don’t think so! Nancy appears to be encouraging The Reconquistas to “ come on up” to her state as well as the rest of the country despite the recent murder of 9 American citizens South of the Border! It’s already forgotten news by the liberal media too! We spend $19 billion a year defending Syria , and yet Congress can’t agree to spend $4 billion dollars for border security....Why?
30
@Moe - Oh yes, by all means, let's identify all would be Hispanic immigrants with the drug gangs who attacked a North American family. But this is what Trump has been doing all along so you are only following suit.
2
@Moe So what are we doing about the murders of 24 American citizens at a WalMart North of the Border, or 11 American citizens at a municipal building North of the Border, or 17 in a high school North of the Border, or 12 at a bar North of the Border, or 11 in a synagogue North of the Border, or......could I keep going?
7
@Kevin Brock
My guess is that both of you choose which crimes are worse. (Or better?)
I'd say any murder is a murder and should be treated the same way. (I could accept attenuating or aggravating circumstances that a judge decides - but would be better defined for all, in the laws.)
2
An interesting question, to be sure. Giving legal advice if you aren't an attorney is the unlicensed practice of law which I believe is unlawful. Moreover, the unlawful giving of legal advice might also be seen as aiding and abetting an unlawful act if that's the thrust of the advice, and possibly might constitute conspiracy as well. Notwithstanding, there are certain relationships that are protected to some extent such as not being able to force a person to testily against a spouse. I'm not an attorney but am interested to see how SCOTUS rules.
4
But if an immediate family member is a fugitive wanted for murder, if I offer them shelter I'm an accomplice after the fact. It seems if the principle here is protected communications between family members, it should not be limited to a particular class of criminal
19
Come on now, you can't compare a murderer to someone who wants to stay and make a honest living here!!!
If you can't offer person to person advice on any topic (including immigration) except exhorting violence, then only corporations will have Freedom of Speech.
15