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 immigrations 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.
Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.
I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.