Thread: Jamiel’s Law: The revolt against L.A.’s illegal alien sanctuary policy

Jamiel’s Law: The revolt against L.A.’s illegal alien sanctuary policy
April 9, 2008 09:51 AM

Law-abiding citizens of all colors are uniting against the targeting of innocent black residents of Los Angeles by illegal alien gangs. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,5451309.story

An alleged gang member accused of killing a 17-year-old high school student just one day after being released from jail has been living in the country illegally, possibly for more than a decade, federal immigration authorities said Saturday.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has filed paperwork naming 19-year-old Pedro Espinoza, the suspect in the March 2 killing of Los Angeles High School football star Jamiel Shaw Jr., as a potential candidate for deportation.

Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for the immigration agency, said an immigration hold was issued for Espinoza on March 13, nearly a week after he was arrested in connection with Shaw’s death.

No such hold was placed on Espinoza on March 1, the day he was released from a Los Angeles County jail after serving roughly four months for exhibiting a firearm and resisting arrest, said Sheriff’s Department spokesman Steve Whitmore. “We are going to follow up to determine whether or not we have had prior interactions with this individual,” Kice said.

The federal immigration agency confirmed the deportation filing on the same day that Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa participated in a ceremony dedicating a memorial in Arlington Heights where Shaw was killed.

A highly regarded running back for his school’s football team, Shaw was named the Southern League’s most valuable player in 2007. He had drawn the interest of recruiters from Stanford and Rutgers universities, his family said.

The killing outraged civic leaders and reignited a citywide debate over the role that race has played in a recent spate of homicides.

Both the immigration agency and the Sheriff’s Department have employees who interview jail inmates about their immigration status. Those interviews can be undermined when inmates give aliases or inaccurate places of birth, authorities said.

After his most recent arrest, Espinoza was “uncooperative,” telling immigration investigators he did not know where he was born or the whereabouts of his family, Kice said.

The next day, investigators found a relative of the suspect who said Espinoza had been smuggled into the United States from Mexico when he was 4, Kice said.

Understatement of the day, via FNC:

Immigration officials told the TV station that Espinoza is an illegal immigrant, but no red flags were raised when he was released from jail March 1. “The system is not 100 percent,” Lori Haley, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told the station.

The parents of murdered high school student Jamiel Shaw met with L.A. public officials yesterday, urging them to rescind the city’s notorious Special Order 40–one of the nation’s oldest illegal alien sanctuary laws.




Enough is enough:

The parents of Jamiel Shaw Jr., a high school football star who was gunned down by a reputed gang member just blocks from his home, urged Los Angeles city leaders today to go after criminals who are in the country illegally.

Pedro Espinoza, 19, allegedly shot and killed the 17-year-old Los Angeles High School student on March 2 in the 2100 block of Fifth Avenue, not far from the Shaw family’s Arlington Heights home. According to police, the shooting occurred one day after Espinoza was released from county jail, where he was serving time for assault with a deadly weapon.

U.S. immigration officials believe Espinoza, a member of the 18th Street gang, may have been in the country illegally.

“We have a problem with the system. My son was murdered by someone that was here illegally. No matter how you look at it, that’s what happened,” Jamiel Shaw Sr. told reporters before entering the Los Angeles City Council chamber.

Authorities do not know why Espinoza was not detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement upon his release from the county jail.

Because, as I’ve reported so many times over the past several years, catch and release remains the standard operating procedure of the day. http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/20...-in-la-county/

Jamiel Shaw Sr. said checking the legal status of criminals is not an issue of racial profiling.

Exactly.

“We’re after the gang members who are here illegally, and when they’re released from jail, they’re out in the community,” he said.

“The guy who killed my son was in custody. He had a long prison record … and he was let out without any kind of hearing. He was let out into the community on a Saturday night with no supervision and within 24 hours, he had gotten another gun.”

The teen’s mother, Anita Shaw, said she plans to attend Espinoza’s arraignment hearing tomorrow. She was serving in Iraq when her son was slain, and will ship out Thursday for duty in Kuwait and Germany.

“I’m safer, somewhat, in Iraq than my son is safe on the streets of the United States. It doesn’t make sense,” she told the City Council.

Here are Jamiel’s parents confronting the council:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HVLV_FIet0

Innocent families of all races are sick and tired of the bloody consequences of open borders.

Enough is enough.

***

Donations to help the family of Jamiel Shaw can be sent to:

The Foundation for Jamiel Shaw II
USC Federal Credit Union
1025 W. 34th Street
King Hall, 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90089

ou’ve read the stories before -blacks being targeted by violent Latino gangs. The race-hustling reverends have had nothing to say about it. But at least some in the press are paying more attention. The AP takes a look at F13’s racial “cleansing” campaign:

In a murderous quest aimed at “cleansing” their turf of snitches and rival gangsters, members of one of Los Angeles County’s most vicious Latino gangs sometimes killed people just because of their race, an investigation found.

There were even instances in which Florencia 13 leaders ordered killings of black gangsters and then, when the intended victim couldn’t be located, said “Well, shoot any black you see,” Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said.

“In certain cases some murders were just purely motivated on killing a black person,” Baca said.

Authorities say there were 20 murders among more than 80 shootings documented during the gang’s rampage in the hardscrabble Florence-Firestone neighborhood, exceptional even in an area where gang violence has been commonplace for decades. They don’t specify the time frame or how many of the killings were racial.

Los Angeles has struggled with gang violence for years, especially during the wars in the late 1980s and early ’90s between the Crips and the Bloods — both black gangs. Latino gangs have gained influence since then as the Hispanic population surged.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071231/...tjpsSCYBus0NUE

Brought to you by Open Borders Inc.

The discussion over Jamiel’s Law and of the LAPD’s Special Order 40 isn’t dying down, and the LA Times is doing something useful and covering the controversy in detail. Their “full coverage” page is here. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...7.storygallery

Also of interest is their “40-on-40″ mass editorial in which they’ve asked 40 “prominent” L.A. residents for 40 words on Section 40. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...713,full.story Among them is a sharp point by advice columnist Amy Alkon:

If I want a job cleaning your company’s toilets, I’ll have to present proof of citizenship and swear under penalty of perjury I’m legal, but if I mug you, beat you, and leave you for dead, it’s no questions asked?

They’ve got a much longer interview with pseudonymous LAPD officer, NRO contributor, and Patterico-co-blogger Jack Dunphy. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,6609903.story

The debate is an interesting one because it breaks up some traditional coalitions. Among the voices on the right were two smart conservative professors, James Q. Wilson and Doug Kmiec, advocating an extension of Special Order 40 on the grounds that it helps police do their jobs. Kmiec thinks exceptions should be made in the case of “known gang members”, which I expect is how the compromise will eventually be drawn.

Meanwhile, traditional Democratic constituencies are riled by this as well. Several black activists and community leaders quoted there are pushing for Jamiel’s Law.

You know, border security just can’t get anywhere with conservatives alone. The Shamnesty bill and the DREAM act last year got smacked down again and again both because of conservative advocacy but also because some Democrats (I believe motivated by labor concerns). And now LA is considering a revision to a policy that protects illegal alien criminals because of pressure not only from conservatives but also from black activists. Progress is made through coalitions.

It’s a good reminder that politics is the art of building coalitions, and border-security advocates need to remain on the lookout for potential allies in unexpected places.

Which reminds me–one reason the open-borders lobby tries so hard to smear all border-security types as “anti-immigrant” and “know-nothing” is to make us radioactive and prevent the formation of these winning coalitions. We need to keep proving them wrong. It’s a fine line we’ll need to walk between expressing our justified outrage at the perversion of law and the threat to security that unchecked illegal immigration represents, but tempering our zeal with humility and charity where it’s appropriate.

That’s not a call for wishy-washiness or even compromise, but it is a warning about prudent politics and not walking into the traps the open-borders lobby tries to set. So please, think carefully about what you say and how you say it.

Sanctuary cities become new target in immigration debate
2 hrs 13 mins ago

Opponents of the Justice Department's lawsuit challenging the enforcement of Arizona's controversial illegal-immigration law have hit upon a strategy to highlight what they contend is a gaping inconsistency in the Justice Department's policy priorities. Why should federal attorneys be targeting the Arizona law as an alleged obstacle to coherent and centralized enforcement of federal immigration statutes, they argue, while Justice officials also have done nothing to challenge the legal status of so-called sanctuary cities, which effectively block enforcement of the same federal law?



The Justice Department has asked a federal judge in Phoenix to stop Arizona's law from going into effect this Thursday, arguing that the measure interferes with federal immigration policy. But critics, including California GOP Rep Duncan Hunter and Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, are challenging the logic of Justice's move, arguing that if U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder really cared about enforcing federal immigration law, he should be targeting sanctuary cities instead of Arizona.


More than 30 cities, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Denver, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Dallas, have local ordinances on the books that prevent police from asking about a person’s immigration status. The Arizona law would allow officers to question a person’s immigration status and report them to federal authorities if that person is believed to be in the country illegally. The crackdown could prompt illegal immigrants to seek refuge out of Arizona and into those sanctuary cities.



A Justice Department official told the Washington Times there is nothing hypocritical about the government going after Arizona while ignoring sanctuary cities and suggested it won’t step up enforcement. Administration officials say they want to seek and deport criminal immigrants. Indeed, a recent Washington Post report found that deportation of illegal immigrants has spiked significantly under the Obama administration. But federal officials insist they don’t have the capability or resources to remove the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who haven’t had run-ins with the police. "There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told the Times’ Stephen Dinan and Kara Rowland. “That’s what Arizona did in this case.”



But even if Arizona's law goes into effect on schedule on July 29, the debate over sanctuary cities - which sprouted up mainly in the 1980s to give refuge to exiles from El Salvador's deadly civil war — is hardly over. Hunter is sponsoring legislation in Congress that would force the Justice Department to crack down on cities that don't enforce immigration laws — though it's not likely to come to a vote before next year.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/201007...5jdHVhcnljaXQ-

"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told the Times’ Stephen Dinan and Kara Rowland. “That’s what Arizona did in this case.”

No there is no difference. In fact, Arizona is going to enforce the federal law while "sanctuary cities" declare they are going to overrule federal law and ignore it. The DOJ is run and staffed by fools.



---

"A Justice Department official told the Washington Times there is nothing hypocritical about the government going after Arizona while ignoring sanctuary cities and suggested it won’t step up enforcement. Administration officials say they want to seek and deport criminal immigrants."

I'm sorry but there are legal ways to enter the country that many have used. Anyone entering the country another way ARE breaking the law, so they are criminal in their deed. There is nothing stopping them from entering the country in a legal way. This makes it sound like you aren't criminal if you just break some laws and not others.

------

The Administration officials say they want to seek and deport criminal immigrants. How can they if sanctuary cities have local ordinances on the books that prevent police from asking about a person’s immigration status.

--------

We also have to put some blame on those the employee the illegal immigrants and pay them cash, they get away with cheap pay and no taxes

I know we had another thread on Sanctuary Cities

See also http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...mmigrants.html


Barletta bill would defund sanctuary cities
By Jonathan Riskind

WASHINGTON – Focusing his first solo legislative effort on an issue that gained him and Hazleton national attention, Republican Rep. Lou Barletta today said he will introduce a bill seeking to strip all federal funding from “sanctuary” cities that fail to enforce federal immigration laws. The former Hazleton mayor and freshman member of Congress also said he is forming an “Immigration Reform Caucus” that he hopes other freshmen lawmakers will join.

Barletta said at a Capitol Hill news conference that his bill, which he expects to formally introduce within a few weeks, will be designed to “crack down on cities whose elected officials have willfully chosen not to enforce immigration policy by withholding all federal funding from them as long as their sanctuary policies are in place.”

Saying that there are more than 100 “sanctuary” cities nationwide, Barletta added, “I want to know how much they get from the American taxpayer.”

Barletta noted at the news conference that next month is the fifth anniversary of the Illegal Immigration Relief Act ordinance adopted by Hazleton in 2006 while Barletta was mayor. The ordinance, which has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court and a federal appeals court, sought to fine landlords who rented to illegal immigrants and penalize employers who hired illegal immigrants. Hazleton was the first city in the country to pass such a measure, and Arizona later followed on a statewide level.

Barletta said he still hopes the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the Hazleton law and uphold its constitutionality.

Barletta said he is tentatively titling his federal legislation the Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act. He said he has asked the Congressional Research Service to compile a list of sanctuary cities and estimate how much in federal taxpayer dollars each city receives.

Sanctuary cities, to varying degrees, choose to not focus their law enforcement efforts on tracking and arresting illegal immigrants or don’t turn over illegal immigrants to federal authorities based solely on their immigration status. San Francisco, for instance, adopted a policy in 1989 that illegal immigrants arrested on non-felony charges would not be reported to federal immigration authorities.

Barletta said that he and other city and state officials who sought to more strictly enforce federal immigration laws were sued by federal officials who spent taxpayer dollars to do so – and that it’s only right to take away taxpayer dollars – for anything from federal housing grants to road and sewer repairs – from cities that choose not to enforce federal immigration laws. “Local elected officials who choose to ignore enforcement of fed immigration policies are aiding and assisting illegal aliens and it is illegal to aid and abet those who are in this country illegally,” Barletta said at the news conference. “They should not receive millions or even billions of tax dollars as a reward.”

Barletta said he has not yet identified co-sponsors for his bill or which freshmen members will join his immigration reform caucus.

http://www.timesleader.com/news/Barl...ry-cities.html


Sanctuary cities are those that fail to cooperate with federal immigration agencies. They are cities that mandate that any illegal arrested or detained for another crime not be reported to, let alone turned over to ICE.

Look at how the illegals scurried out of Hazleton when even the threat of action against them and those who harbor them was even suggested.

We don't need to have trains and busses of illegals who were rounded up and heading to the border, which is what the illegal supporters wish us to imagine.All we have o do is start enforcing the laws and the illegals will deport themselves.

Levy heavy fines and jail time on businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants - that will dry up the job markets that feed on the illegal population.

The Justice Dept. took direction from the ACLU in suing AZ for daring to defend its borders (http://bit.ly/fnDrfZ). Now ICE is taking direction from the ACLU in suspending the deportation of an illegal in CA. When exactly did We The People elect the ACLU to run U.S. immigration policy? Angry? Then REMEMBER that anger, and do everything you can to put ONLY those who support us in office in 2012, and drive the rest OUT


ICE Halts Deportation At ACLU’s Request
Thu, 05/19/2011 - 3:11pm

In the latest collusion between the Obama Administration and the leftwing American Civil Liberties Union, Homeland Security officials have suspended the scheduled deportation of an illegal immigrant at the ACLU’s request.

The move is part of a bigger plan to perhaps eliminate the federal program (Secure Communities) that identified the illegal alien in the first place. The influential open borders movement—which includes the ACLU—has aggressively pressured the administration to nix Secure Communities, which requires local authorities to check the fingerprints of arrestees against a federal database. The idea is to deport dangerous criminals, many of whom have fallen through the cracks over the years.

But immigrant rights advocates insist the program is racist, has led to the removal of hard-working immigrants who contribute to society and has tragically separated families. They want the Obama Administration to get rid of it and that could very well happen as the president panders for votes in 2012. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General announced this week that it’s planning an investigation of Secure Communities.

The probe will determine the extent to which the program is used to identify and remove dangerous criminal aliens from the United States, according to a news report of the inspector general’s plans. The IG will also examine cost and the accuracy of the data collection and determine if Secure Communities is being applied “equitably across communities.”

Those who dare to read between the lines can probably see where this is going. The illegal immigrant whose deportation was abruptly halted by the government headlined an ACLU-sponsored press conference decrying Secure Communities. She was arrested earlier this year in Los Angeles after a domestic violence dispute and was identified as an illegal alien when the county jail forwarded her fingerprints to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

At the ACLU’s behest ICE conducted a “comprehensive review” of the illegal immigrant’s case and determined to “terminate the removal proceedings against her,” according to an agency statement published in a local newspaper. Immigration advocates used the case as an opportunity to chastise Secure Communities as a “destructive program” that endangers public safety because immigrants won’t cooperate with police out of fear of being deported.

Interestingly, the elected sheriff who operates jails in Los Angeles and patrols a huge chunk of the sprawling county insists that Secure Communities works. In a piece published this week by the state’s largest newspaper, L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca writes that many serious criminals have been deported. Prior to implementing Secure Communities a “growing number of criminal illegal immigrants who were taken into custody” were eventually released back into the community, according to Baca who has been sheriff since 1998.

In the piece Baca offers several examples of violent illegal aliens who were removed from the U.S. thanks to Secure Communities. Among them is a felon who lived in the area despite three drug-trafficking convictions and six deportations and another who had been previously removed after getting convicted for killing a child in the late 1990s.

Back to the unscrupulous collaboration between the Obama Administration and the ACLU; earlier this year Judicial Watch uncovered documents from the Department of Justice that show the agency worked hand-in-hand with the ACLU in mounting their respective legal challenges to Arizona’s immigration control law. http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/20...g-documents-un

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...aclu-s-request

Sanctuary State: California Senate Passes “Anti-Arizona” Bill to Protect Illegal Aliens
By John Hill on July 6, 2012

It’s no contest. It’s not even close. California is America’s undisputed “Sanctuary State” for illegal aliens.

And now, in their hysteria over the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the central provision of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 – that requires police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop – California legislators are setting new lows in contempt for the rule of law.

The California Senate on Thursday passed a bill supporters dub the “anti-Arizona” law, which seeks to “shield illegal immigrants from status checks by local police” and which even welcomes in illegals from states such as Arizona. http://news.yahoo.com/california-sen...021741528.html

The Democrat-led state Senate voted 21 to 13 for the California Trust Act, which blocks local police from referring a detainee to immigration officials for deportation unless that person has been convicted of a violent or serious felony.

The bill had already passed the state Assembly in a 47-26 vote before the Senate passage. It will go back to the Assembly for a concurrence vote following the summer recess before heading to Governor Jerry Brown, who would no doubt sign it.

Reuters reports:

“The measure seeks to create a national model to counter what backers say is racial profiling inherent in the part of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law allowed to stand by the U.S. Supreme Court last week. It also seeks to push back against a federal program called Secure Communities, which shares the same principles as Arizona’s law, supporters say."

“Today’s vote signals to the nation that California cannot afford to be another Arizona,” Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a Democrat who sponsored the measure, said in a statement. ”The bill also limits unjust and onerous detentions for deportation in local jails of community members who do not pose a threat to public safety,” he added.

The problem is….well, ok there are several problems with this insane bill. First we have a state with by far the largest population of undocumented immigrants in the United States, with nearly 2.6 million at the start of 2010 – which is now welcoming in even more illegals. California is nearly broke, with much of it caused by that same mass of illegals – pushing hospitals, schools and social services to the breaking point or beyond. For example, 84 hospitals in California have entered bankruptcy or closed due to illegal aliens, as unpaid medical bills from illegals now cost state hospitals a staggering $1.25 BILLION annually (2010). http://www.examiner.com/article/ille...llion-annually

Secondly, we have legislators relying on radical pro-amnesty activists for actual data! For instance, they cited in the Senate record a “statistic” from Angela Chan, a senior staff attorney with the “Asian Law Caucus” that “seven of the 10 people deported under (Secure Communities) have no criminal convictions.” But an ICE spokeswoman, however, disputed that statistic, saying the actual numbers are reversed — that nearly 75 percent of people deported through Secure Communities have one or more criminal convictions – an inconvenient fact that Senate Democrats simply ignored in their mad rush to pass this sanctuary bill. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...est=latestnews

But most critically, the bill is a clear violation of Federal immigration law – which the Supreme Court ruling on S.B. 1070 makes even more stark. As the California State Sheriff’s Association, which opposes the bill, argued, state and local authorities cannot opt out of the Secure Communities program. http://www.calsheriffs.org/#

In addition, as legal scholar and national radio talk show host Mark Levin has argued, if – as the Court’s opinion striking down parts of S.B. 1070 clearly said - if states can no longer set policies dealing with someone’s immigration status in conflict with Federal immigration law, then the California Trust Act is clearly unlawful, and should lead to lawsuits challenging it, which Levin has encouraged: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/26/le...#ixzz1ywN0x3FN

“If this case stands for the point that only the federal government has power in the area of immigration, then let me suggest that sanctuary cities and sanctuary states are unconstitutional because they exist to defy federal immigration law,” Levin said. “That’s number one. So folks out there that have standing, sue your cities, sue your states if they have declared themselves to be sanctuary cities or states because they do not have the constitutional authority to declare butkus. So turn this law against them.” – Mark Levin

Sounds good to us! Bring it on California…not only will illegals flock to your state if you make this bill a law, but you will get your arses handed to you in Federal Court before you know it.

How long will the sane people left in the Sanctuary State continue to permit this Sacramento insanity to go on? Or have they left already?

http://standwitharizona.com/blog/201...llegal-aliens/

Compare and Contrast the Media Coverage in the Case of black youth Trayvon Matin and black youth Jamiel Shaw. Discuss

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...-teenager.html

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

Jamiel’s Law: The revolt against L.A.’s illegal alien sanctuary policy
April 9, 2008 09:51 AM

Law-abiding citizens of all colors are uniting against the targeting of innocent black residents of Los Angeles by illegal alien gangs. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,5451309.story



Understatement of the day, via FNC:



The parents of murdered high school student Jamiel Shaw met with L.A. public officials yesterday, urging them to rescind the city’s notorious Special Order 40–one of the nation’s oldest illegal alien sanctuary laws.




Enough is enough:




Because, as I’ve reported so many times over the past several years, catch and release remains the standard operating procedure of the day. http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/20...-in-la-county/



Exactly.




Here are Jamiel’s parents confronting the council:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HVLV_FIet0

Innocent families of all races are sick and tired of the bloody consequences of open borders.

Enough is enough.

***

Donations to help the family of Jamiel Shaw can be sent to:

The Foundation for Jamiel Shaw II
USC Federal Credit Union
1025 W. 34th Street
King Hall, 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90089

The 9th Circus Kangaroo Court of Appeals in San Fran has once again ruled in favor of illegal aliens and against American workers. This time the Court ruling that a ban on drivers soliciting day laborers "violates the constitution's free speech guarantee". The Court then - incredibly - said: The rules limit the ability of laborers and employers to negotiate and consummate a legal transaction—to hire or be hired for day labor."

A LEGAL transaction? It is AGAINST FEDERAL LAW to recruit and employee an illegal alien. http://www.fairus.org/issue/the-law-...illegal-aliens It is a further violation of Federal law to harbor and transport an illegal alien for work.

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization or local government) commits a federal felony when he:
•assists an alien whom he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him to obtain employment,
•encourages that alien to remain in the U.S., by referring him to an employer, by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
•knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

More specifically, as written in the Federal code : http://www.fairus.org/issue/the-law-...illegal-aliens

It is unlawful to hire an alien, to recruit an alien, or to refer an alien for a fee, knowing the alien is unauthorized to work in the United States. It is equally unlawful to continue to employ an alien knowing that the alien is unauthorized to work….Harboring or aiding illegal aliens is not protected by the First Amendment. It is a felony to establish a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of federal immigration law. Violators may be fined or imprisoned for up to 5 years.
(INA 274 – 275, 46 USC 8704)

Freedom of speech protections for foreign aliens engaged in an unlawful act of commerce? Felonious Federal violations as “lawful transactions”?

Yet the 9th Circus clowns ignored all this to further the perversion of the law in league with the ACLU. The inmates are truly running the asylum



http://standwitharizona.com/blog/201...onstitutional/