US district of Kansas circuit judge rules...Constitutional right to harbor illegals WTF!!

[bb1961]

This legislating from the bench by a COMPLETELY ACTIVIST judge is outright insane.
This will be struct down and rightfully so...his conflict of interest is IN YOUR FACE blatant partisan. JUST READ HIS ILLUSTRIOUS RESUME!!

Congrats, You Now Have a Constitutional Right to Harbor Illegal Immigrants


A group of immigrants from Honduras and El Salvador who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally are loaded on to a van, Wednesday, June 25, 2014, in Granjeno, Texas. At least six local, state and federal law enforcement agencies patrol the five mile zone which is illegal immigration’s busiest corridor. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)
The judiciary is out of control.
A judge in Kansas ruled 8 U.S.C. 1324 is unconstitutional because it supposedly infringes on the first amendment. This ruling is bonkers for a variety of reasons, namely because of what the statute actually says vs. why the judge claims to be invalidating it. It also means a single, lower court judge is once again dictating their whims on the entire country, something that was never imagined to be possible at our founding. With the stroke of a pen, 130 years of duly passed law and precedent is gone. As you’ll see, the conflicts of interests present with this judge leave real questions of whether this is purely political.
Here’s the details per Conservative Review.

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.

Let’s talk about the legal aspects first.

By this judge’s logic, you can go encourage and induce anyone to commit any crime and it’s not illegal. Want your husband killed? Just ask someone else to do it and you aren’t liable because it’s just free speech, right? I’m being overly broad though. In this case, this wasn’t just about free speech. The convictions that were vacated centered around two other illegal aliens who were encouraging illegal aliens to come work for their drywall company. The judge, based on no logic or legal standing whatsoever, decided that such direct actions to harbor and assist lawbreaking are the same as simply protesting ICE or railing against high taxes.
The truth is, 8 U.S.C. 1324 in noway stops activism and this judge projected his own ridiculous interpretation onto a law that clearly says otherwise.

Rather than rule based on the law, he decided to adopt the ruling of the Ninth Circuit (which doesn’t have jurisdiction in Kansas), which ruled last December that §1324 is “unconstitutionally overbroad” because it “criminalizes a substantial amount of protected expression.” “The court adopts (the 9th Circuit’s) analysis in full and agrees that (the law) on its face is overbroad under the First Amendment,” said Murguia in a brief bench ruling first reported by KCUR-FM.
This assertion is ridiculous, because the law clearly refers to engaging in subversive and fraudulent activities to encourage or enable actual individual aliens to remain in the country, not mere political advocacy for liberal immigration policies in the abstract. It’s like saying that someone who hates high taxes or gun control laws and advocates against them is the same as a person who actively assists tax cheats and gun felons in achieving the end goal of the criminalized behavior.

If I sell a gun to a felon who can’t own a gun, that’s not free speech. If I harbor an illegal immigrant by giving them a job knowing they are an illegal immigrant, that’s not free speech. It’s helping someone else perpetuate criminal behavior. In every other aspect of our criminal justice system, that’s a crime. This judge decided it’s not for the very specific case of illegal immigration. Why?
Well, we have a pretty good idea of why.

Yet one judge, who worked for an open-borders group named El Centro Inc. and whose sister Janet Murguia is president of La Raza (now called UnidosUS), suddenly thinks conspiring to harbor and encourage illegal immigration violates the First Amendment. Carlos’ sister Mary (who is an identical twin to Janet) is a federal judge on the very Ninth Circuit Court from which he drew this opinion. Judge Mary Murguia once recused herself from a trial involving pro-enforcement Sheriff Joe Arpaio because of her sister’s leadership of La Raza. Carlos should have done the same thing this week in this case, which involves a law that directly conflicts with the work with the open-borders groups his family is associated with.

It just so happens that this judge’s sister is the president of La Raza, a radical pro-illegal immigration outfit that pushes Hispanic supremacy in a variety of ways. They’ve since changed their name because being called “The Race” didn’t help them avoid criticism. This judge himself also worked for a pro-illegal immigration outfit in his past. All of this adds up to an easy decision for the judge to recuse himself, but he didn’t. Instead, he tortured the law and invented a new constitutional right to harbor and encourage illegal immigration.
No doubt, this case isn’t just about the two convictions being overturned either. This is a green light to sanctuary cities to keep doing what they are doing.
The DOJ needs to come down hard on this.
————————————————-

[Lapdog]

This article makes me hungry for Mexican food.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by Lapdog

This article makes me hungry for Mexican food.

Seriously, in Kansas. Gotta go for the BBQ there.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Lapdog

This article makes me hungry for Mexican food.

run out of Scooby Snacks, SpaceDog?

[rexdutchman]

Just more Progressivism in action

[Joey_Gleet]

Originally Posted by eccielover

Seriously, in Kansas. Gotta go for the BBQ there.

That would be Kansas City which is actually in Missouri.

Kansas has lots of agriculture . Ag = farm workers = authentic Mexican cuisine.

[bb1961]

There is two cities Kansas City MO. and Kansas City KS.

Just like St. Louis MO. and East St. Louis IL.
That is the strange thing about MO...on the west state border it's Kansas City and on the East border it's St. Louis also divided by the state of IL.

[oeb11]

It will be appealed - and if necessary - to the SC where a proper Constitutional interpretation will strike down this DPST judge's decision.
The Axis of Socialism is welcome to invite all the illegal immigrants (particularly the MS13's) into their homes and care for them at their own expense.

Which - won't happen - Hypocrites!

[themystic]

Originally Posted by oeb11

It will be appealed - and if necessary - to the SC where a proper Constitutional interpretation will strike down this DPST judge's decision.
The Axis of Socialism is welcome to invite all the illegal immigrants (particularly the MS13's) into their homes and care for them at their own expense.

Which - won't happen - Hypocrites!

OoooooooHH. Little man is a Scardy Cat. Scared of a bunch of Mexican farm workers. Booooooooo Little man

[Last Ride]

Originally Posted by oeb11

It will be appealed - and if necessary - to the SC where a proper Constitutional interpretation will strike down this DPST judge's decision.
The Axis of Socialism is welcome to invite all the illegal immigrants (particularly the MS13's) into their homes and care for them at their own expense.

Which - won't happen - Hypocrites!

Who mows your yard? Who cleans your house?

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by bb1961

This assertion is ridiculous, because the law clearly refers to engaging in subversive and fraudulent activities to encourage or enable actual individual aliens to remain in the country, not mere political advocacy for liberal immigration policies in the abstract.

The DOJ needs to come down on those businesses who hire criminals. Right?





















Don't hold your breath.

[oeb11]

9500 - for once - Something a sane person can agree with You .
Please breathe!

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

The DOJ needs to come down on those businesses who hire criminals. Right?

Do you ballroom dance on the head of a pin often??

Executive Amnesty + Obamacare = Businesses Getting $3000 to Hire Illegals over Citizens

Posted at 7:00 pm on November 26, 2014 by Jake

Much has already been said about the problems with President Obama’s amnesty decree, but thanks to a quirk in Obamacare, we can add another to the list. Now, businesses with more than 50 employees will, in essence, be getting $3000 for hiring illegal aliens granted amnesty over lawful citizens of this country. Here’s how the Washington Times describes it:

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.
President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.
Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

This means that we can add this to the long list of problems with Obamacare, as well, alongside “Typo-gate“. However, one of the most important parts of the article is buried deep into the second page. It appears that the creation of this loophole was a deliberate action on Obama’s part. Here’s what the article says:

Mr. Obama created the Obamacare loophole incentive in a 2012 Homeland Security decision.
Until August of that year, those granted “deferred action” — the power Mr. Obama also used in his new temporary amnesty — were eligible for public benefits, including Obamacare. But just two months earlier, Mr. Obama had announced a massive expansion of deferred action for hundreds of thousands of “dreamers,” or young illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, and in order to prevent them from getting public benefits, Homeland Security officials issued a new policy giving the dreamers a new category of legal status that left them outside of Obamacare.

An action like this makes it seem like the loophole is a feature, not a bug, of both Obamacare and the President’s amnesty order. The President’s actions, whether they were intentional or not, are now incentivizing bad behavior. We cannot allow this to stand. The incoming Congress must push back against these action. We can start by repealing Obamacare and defunding the President’s amnesty. If the Republicans in Washington had any guts, they’d follow [mc_name name=’Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’C001098′ ]’s advice and refuse to confirm any of Obama’s executive appointments, too.
Alex Parker

Even if the President was merely ignorant of this loophole, it’s all but a given that we cannot trust him to fix it, meaning it is up to Congress to act. Let’s make sure [mc_name name=’Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’M000355′ ] and [mc_name name=’Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)’ chamber=’house’ mcid=’B000589′ ] know that.
*=I reject the notion that Americans are above certain jobs, by the way. That sounds like a sentiment who have never really had to look for work.

[The_Waco_Kid]

the Kansas judge who made this ruling based it on the 9th circuit court's ruling. there are several problems here, one is that ruling could easily be overturned. the other is that the 10th circuit court oversees Kansas. so if the Supreme Court doesn't overturn, the 10th may very well and they will likely get the first shot. as they should too. if the 10th court does uphold the judge's ruling, then there is a potential Supreme Court ruling. that's two ways to lose. not good odds and even worse when you factor in the 9th court's long history of being overruled.

[Hotrod511]

Originally Posted by meatstic

OoooooooHH. Little man is a Scardy Cat. Scared of a bunch of Mexican farm workers. Booooooooo Little man