It is obvious that Democrats — whose fondest dream is to saturate the country with warm bodies who will vote them into permanent control of all three branches of government — wish it were otherwise, but it is not. The law is very clear. The U.S. Code § 1324 specifies:
Any person who encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
Depending on the reason the crime was committed, the guilty party will be fined or imprisoned, in some cases for life, or both.
That’s the law. So why is the U.S. Supreme Court planning to render a verdict on whether it is a crime to encourage unauthorized immigration? Yet that, according to the New York Times, is on the court’s docket.
According to the article, the ultra-liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously voted to overturn the law last year, arguing that it violates the First Amendment. Judge A. Wallace Tashima wrote on behalf of the opinion that “the statute potentially criminalizes the simple words — spoken to a son, a wife, a parent, a friend, a neighbor, a co-worker, a student, a client — ‘I encourage you to stay here.’”
That’s true, but what of it? How many judges — including Tashima — are going to throw the book at a mother accused by her illegal alien son of saying the “simple words” appearing above?
The Times article notes that immigration consulting firms do encourage law-breaking, but should the law be changed to give such firms carte blanche because a panel of liberal judges prefer to see the law broken?
The biggest question is why the high court has agreed to hear these cases.
