Under This Law, Encouraging Undocumented Immigrants to Seek Shelter Could Be a Crime

As wildfires raged across Northern California last week, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) took to Twitter to encourage those in need to seek shelter, even if they didn’t have lawful immigration status.

Senator Harris’s desire to protect all her constituents is admirable. It also may be a crime.

A section of the federal Immigration and Naturalization Act states that any person who “encourages or induces” a non-citizen to “come to, enter, or reside” in this country in violation of the law is guilty of a felony, and may be imprisoned for up to five years. For a person to be found guilty, the prosecution must show that the person knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the non-citizen’s action was unlawful. Harris’s tweet arguably “encouraged” undocumented immigrants to “reside” in the country. That’s precisely the type of speech a zealous federal prosecutor could target for criminal sanction under this law.

Senator Harris is in good company. Other potential “criminals” include:

  • A woman who tells her undocumented housekeeper that she should not depart the U.S. or else she won’t be allowed back in. (A former U.S. Customs and Border Protection official stood trial in just such a case.)
  • A university president who publishes an op-ed arguing that DACA recipients should consider her campus to be a “sanctuary” after their deferred action expires.
  • A community organization that announces its shelters and soup kitchens are open to homeless undocumented youth in their area.

This law clearly oversteps the First Amendment, which does not allow the government to criminalize these kinds of speech. The Supreme Court has stated clearly: “The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it.” That’s why the ACLU yesterday submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit arguing that this law is unconstitutional.

The government can only prohibit “unprotected” speech, like incitement to violence or speech that itself constitutes a crime, like harassment. Speech “encouraging” immigration violations does not qualify. This makes the law we challenged “presumptively unconstitutional,” because it regulates the content of things we can say.

The ACLU filed its brief in a criminal case against Evelyn Sineneng-Smith, an immigration consultant from San Jose, California. Ms. Sineneng-Smith was convicted in 2013 for filing labor applications for clients she knew were not eligible for green cards at the time. Despite the fact that all the information Ms. Sineneng-Smith filed was accurate — including disclosure of the fact that her clients had been in the country illegally for years — she was convicted of “encouraging or inducing” her clients to remain in the U.S. She has appealed her conviction.

Our brief argues that the First Amendment protects the right of an individual — whether Evelyn Sineneng-Smith or Sen. Kamala Harris — to speak their mind on this hotly debated, sensitive subject without fear of prosecution. This includes speaking with and advocating for undocumented individuals who must navigate the complex web of U.S. immigration law. With this anti-encouragement law on the books, the only sure way to avoid prosecution for such speech is self-censorship.

Now, as ever, immigration is an issue of enormous public concern and controversy, especially given the hostile stance of the Trump administration and some state officials toward immigrant communities. For those in our communities who are undocumented immigrants, or whose loved ones are undocumented immigrants, there is nothing more important than speaking on these issues. The last several months have demonstrated precisely how movements for immigrant justice rely on robust political speech: organizing rallies against deportation, speaking to undocumented people about how to avoid being separated from their families, and more.

Freedom of speech is at the foundation of these efforts, and we must strive to keep it that way.

View comments (33)
Read the Terms of Use

gejala sinusitis

GEJALA SINUSITIS Inilah Info Gejala Sinusitis Kronis Dan Bahayanya Bagi Penderita
GEJALA SINUSITIS Gejala Sinusitis Akut Ringan Berbahaya Paling Ditakuti
GEJALA SINUSITIS Gejala Sinusitis Parah Kronis Yang Bisa Disembuhkan
GEJALA SINUSITIS 6 Gejala Sinusitis Pada Anak Remaja, Dewasa, Lelaki Dan Perempuan
GEJALA SINUSITIS Gejala Sinusitis Maksilaris Kronis Dan Bahaya Yang Mengintai Pada Kesehatan
GEJALA SINUSITIS Gejala Sinusitis Yang Biasa Muncul Pada Anak Dan Dewasa
GEJALA SINUSITIS 8 Gejala Sinusitis Polip Pada Hidung Yang Ma'ruf
GEJALA SINUSITIS Kenali 7 Gejala Sinusitis Akut Berbahaya Yang Harus Diwaspadai
GEJALA SINUSITIS Gejala Sinusitis Parah Dan Pengobatannya Secara Alami
GEJALA SINUSITIS 8 Gejala Sinusitis Dengan Bahaya Kronis Yang Wajib Kita Hindari
GEJALA SINUSITIS Kenali 7 Gejala Sinusitis Dari Sejak Dini Sebelum Terlambat!
GEJALA SINUSITIS Gejala Sinusitis Berat Menahun Yang Sering Kambuh
GEJALA SINUSITIS Waspadai 7 Gejala Sinusitis Akut Yang Membahayakan Dari Sekarang


Great entry, just something I was looking for. Thanks for the help http://linksubmit.org/

Crime is Crime

Sad how we live in a world where liberal misdirection takes holed to common place terminology and apply in the form euphemisms intended to minimize the seriousness of something that doesn’t quite meet up with their propaganda.

Someone who commits a crime is a criminal, not a victim of the law. Trying to change the language around it does not negate this fact.
Someone who murders is not an ‘unauthorized existence remover’. Someone who steals is not a ‘unapproved possession redistributer’ or a rapist a ‘unsanctioned intercourse enforcer’.

See how ridiculous that makes those crimes sound when you attempt to diminish the severity of what the crime is by shifting the onus from the individual to no one at all.

Face that no one is being directly hurt does not negate the existence of a crime. Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime, it just may not be readily apparent. These people know what they are doing is wrong so the can’t feign ignorance. Most of them go to great lengths to circumvent the system.

Millions upon millions of people have paid their dues and gone through the system the right way. Paid their fees, waited their turn and made sacrifices to immigrate. How should they feel when some person takes illegal advantage of a land border and crosses to take us residence without doing any of that? These people are not ‘undocumented’ they are criminals! They have committed a crime. The reason is irrelevant. A poor man still can’t steal bread to feed his starving family no matter how sad that situation is.

Further to that the offspring of these illegal immigrants should not benefit from the proceeds of crime. These ‘Dreamers’ are the equivalent of a father stealing a car and being allowed to give that stolen car to his son to keep because the son didn’t directly steal it. See how flawed that logic is.

While there are many horrible things going on in the world, solving them by way of crime is not and never will be the answer.


Stay Informed