Do you know anyone that is in the country illegally? If you do, you had better watch your step. Millions of Americans may have violated federal immigration law and are probably unaware of it. That's because federal prosecutors are taking an expansive reading of a law against "concealing or shielding illegal immigrants."
There is a federal statute that says, "Any person who knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, [and] attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place" is in violation of federal criminal law.
What does "shield from detection" mean? According to federal prosecutors, it means "to protect from or to ward off from discovery." The implications of that interpretation are enormous.
Last year, in a criminal prosecution, the trial judge instructed the jury that "shielding from detection" meant "the use of any means to prevent the detection of illegal aliens in the United States by the Government." In the past, the federal laws were used most frequently against smugglers who help individuals sneak into country, but the laws can also apply to persons who help aliens remain in the country long after a border crossing.
Some courts have interpreted the federal statute narrowly--as applying only to persons who engage in conduct that "substantially" conceals, harbors, or shields aliens from detection--like those who supply false papers or those who operate "safe houses." Other courts, however, have ruled that even mild actions violate the law (pdf). Advising an alien to go to and from work without talking to strangers, to abstain from joining sports and other community activities, and to avoid certain parts of town, can be considered illegal acts, which means fines and jail time for the "friendly tip."
It has been estimated that there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. If so, there must be millions of other people (citizens and legal immigrants) around them, such as neighbors, friends, and co-workers, who may have unknowingly violated federal criminal law by simply wishing them well and urging them to remain "low key" so as to avoid detection.
No one should expect a wide-ranging "crackdown" by federal prosecutors. We all saw how the feds backed away from taking any action against the cute girl who revealed the vulnerability of her family to Michelle Obama. The enforcement of this law will be infrequent and arbitrary. States like Arizona, however, could raise the stakes by replicating the federal statute (How could President Obama and the Attorney General object to that?) Still, as bad as that might be, we have a much bigger problem. Even if this particular immigration law does not affect your life, chances are there is another criminal law that does. Legal experts are coming to the frightening realization that most of us are on the wrong side of the law! That should disturb people from all across the political spectrum.
Tim Lynch directs the Project on Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute and is the editor of In the Name of Justice.
One woman is dead and two others were raped recently and police say each crime was committed by a different illegal immigrant. One of the sexual assaults happened just hours before the Seattle city council passed an ordinance boycotting Arizona over its new immigration law.
A RICO claim can be predicated upon the violation of many federal criminal statutes including illegal immigration.
In H.J. Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that the factors of "continuity" plus "relationship" combine to form a pattern. A series of criminal acts satisfy the "continuity" requirement if they last for a substantial period of time or if they threaten to continue indefinitely. An example of the last type of continuity occurs when a mobster threatens: "pay me two thousand dollars a month or I'll break your legs" and is arrested after the victim makes two payments. The pattern lasted only two months, but it threatened to continue indefinitely, i.e., but for the mobster's arrest, he would have continued to collect two thousand dollars per month forever and ever.
In addition to continuity, the criminal acts must pass the "relationship" test, i.e., have "the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise [be] interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." If the defendant's racketeering activities satisfy the factors of "continuity" and "relatedness," then the defendant will be found to have engaged in a "pattern of racketeering."
"If conspirators have a plan which calls for conspirators to perpetrate the crime and others to provide support, the supporters are as guilty as the perpetrators." (This is an actual court ruling under RICO)
expecting different results." Benjamin Franklin.
Does Benjamin Franklin’s advice not apply to Washington’s “been there done that†default approach to immigration reform and the “war on drugs�
I support the Amiable Annexation of Mexico as one or several states.
Relieve the American taxpayer of the medical, educational, and loss of jobs costs from Mexico’s poor. AND, give the hardworking people of Mexico a chance to prosper in their own state!
I support the legalization of all drugs. Just say no to the war on drugs. Regulate, tax, and rehabilitate. Gain beneficial controls an uncontrollable situation.
I as a retired US Border Patrol/ICE Agent, will not vote for another politician who does not endorse (or at least seriously discuss) these ideas.
This quote was made by Albert Einstein. For centuries the people of Mexico have been trying to wrest power and wealth from the hands of the Elite, including a couple of revolutions, and so far have failed to do so. Thinking that the USA Government and the USA Taxpayer can do what the people of Mexico have been unable to do for so long seems to me to fit Einstein's quote quite well. Instead we should be encouraging social change in Mexico by the Mexican people, instead of letting the Mexican Government solve their problem by encouraging disaffected people to illegally immigrate to the USA. Now that is trying something new.
If you witness a robbery should you not report what you witnessed?
If you witness an assault should you not report what you witnessed?
If you witness a drug lab on your block should you not report what you witnessed?
If you witness the dumping of pollutants should you not report what you witnessed?
If you witness a car accident should you not report what you witnessed?
Our law says that if you knowingly witness a crime and do not report it you can be considered an accessory to that crime. In the case of the car accident it is just good citizenship to report what you have seen. Why should Illegal Immigration be any different?
Construction and extraction occupations = 21.4% Unemployment
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations = 16.7% Unemployment
Production occupations = 13.8% Unemployment
Transportation, material moving occupations = 13.2% Unemployment
Service occupations = 10.0% Unemployment
Total US Unemployed Citizens and Legal Residents = 15,260,000
This figure excludes 5,951,000 Persons who want a job but are left out of the above statistics for various reasons.
Total Number of Americans Looking for Work = 21,211,000
Pew Center estimates indicate 7.5 million Illegal Immigrants work in the USA with the majority employed in agriculture, office and house cleaning, construction, and food preparation. These professions are where the worst unemployment is for us Americans.
Additionally, for Men and Women less than 20 years old the unemployment rate is 25.4%.
Meanwhile Management, professional, and related occupations = 4.5% Unemployment
Illegal Immigrants compete directly with Americans for jobs. Illegal Immigration has had a devastating effect on our Citizen and Legal Resident workforce, especially for young Americans. In fact, illegal immigration is hurting millions of Americans.
This not an issue of existence. It is an issue of Illegal versus Legal. And did you miss the subject of this article and how it complains about the laws that clearly state that shielding Illegal Immigrants from discovery is a crime?
Do you NOT see the connection? You hire an illegal plumber, or anyone else here illegally, and then turn around and wondering why you don't have a job.
By the way there is no place where union plumbers make $90 but even if, you can still hire a non-union CITIZEN to do the job. Then he isn't unemployed like you, he isn't sending his money to another country but spending it HERE, maybe with someone who can hire YOU.
We let thousands of people in LEGALLY - and we have laws that must be ENFORCED. ILLEGAL ALIENS and those who hire them are the ones that need to change!
...' Surely your forefathers came from somewhere? We could send you there...'
that is really moronic
The real objection to these laws it that they can be used against businesses which hire illegal immigrants. Those businesses should be fined or shut down, their owners should be thrown in jail. But of course we never enforce laws against the business owners. Just watch what happens with BP.