Attention Spider Clown

Rightguide

Prof Triggernometry
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Posts
67,106
Remember that law I posted the other day that makes it a crime to encourage or harbor an illegal alien? It was just upheld by the SCOTUS in a unanimous decision. The case involves a woman named Evelyn Sineneng-Smith who operated an immigration consulting firm in San Jose, California. "She assisted clients working without au-thorization in the United States to file applications for a labor certifi-cation program that once provided a path for aliens to adjust to lawfulpermanent resident status. Sineneng-Smith was indicted for multiple violations of 8 U. S. C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i). Those provisions make it a federal felony to “encourag[e] or induc[e] 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,” §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), and impose an enhanced penalty if the crime is “done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain,” §1324(a)(1)(B)(i)"
http://immigrationreformlawinstitute.org/Docs/1260000_1260943_19-67_n6io.pdf:



Encouraging Illegal Aliens To Remain In The US Is A Crime, Supreme Court Rules

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld a federal statute that forbids encouraging illegal aliens to remain in the U.S. unlawfully in a decision Thursday.

The Supreme Court justices voided an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled that a federal anti-harboring statute was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment by restricting free speech. The ruling by the nation’s highest court Thursday upholds the law.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal stalwart of the bench, wrote the high court’s opinion.

“[T]he appeals panel departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion,” Ginsburg wrote, and later stated that “a court is not hidebound by the precise arguments of counsel, but the Ninth Circuit’s radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale.”

https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/08/supreme-court-ruth-bader-ginsburg-encouraging-immigration/
 
But you just don't understand. The law is illegal because they don't want it to be the law. Therefore it's perfectly legal to break a law that you don't agree with.

So there ya big meanie. :mad:
 
Remember that law I posted the other day that makes it a crime to encourage or harbor an illegal alien? It was just upheld by the SCOTUS in a unanimous decision. The case involves a woman named Evelyn Sineneng-Smith who operated an immigration consulting firm in San Jose, California. "She assisted clients working without au-thorization in the United States to file applications for a labor certifi-cation program that once provided a path for aliens to adjust to lawfulpermanent resident status. Sineneng-Smith was indicted for multiple violations of 8 U. S. C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i). Those provisions make it a federal felony to “encourag[e] or induc[e] 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,” §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), and impose an enhanced penalty if the crime is “done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain,” §1324(a)(1)(B)(i)"
http://immigrationreformlawinstitute.org/Docs/1260000_1260943_19-67_n6io.pdf:



Encouraging Illegal Aliens To Remain In The US Is A Crime, Supreme Court Rules

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld a federal statute that forbids encouraging illegal aliens to remain in the U.S. unlawfully in a decision Thursday.

The Supreme Court justices voided an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled that a federal anti-harboring statute was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment by restricting free speech. The ruling by the nation’s highest court Thursday upholds the law.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal stalwart of the bench, wrote the high court’s opinion.

“[T]he appeals panel departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion,” Ginsburg wrote, and later stated that “a court is not hidebound by the precise arguments of counsel, but the Ninth Circuit’s radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale.”

https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/08/supreme-court-ruth-bader-ginsburg-encouraging-immigration/
This has nothing to do with sanctuary cities.
 
But you just don't understand. The law is illegal because they don't want it to be the law. Therefore it's perfectly legal to break a law that you don't agree with.

So there ya big meanie. :mad:

In truth the SCOTUS did not actually rule on the constitutionality of the law. it sent the case which is ten years old back to the Ninth Circuit stripped of their "abuse of discretion" in advancing arguments not presented by the plaintiff. The effect of all of this is the law stands as is and her indictment remains intact.
 
RBG is alive?

I am amazed that RBG is still functioning. So does this mean: "E.T. go home!"?
 
You're hopeless if you don't understand they encourage illegal aliens to remain and to enter the United States, which is forbidden by this law.

They don't, which is why you have no examples of them doing that & can find no support at all to back up your refuted claim.
 
It is absolutely hysterical to watch Spidey ruin the Conservatives. :D He frustrates them with basics and makes them meltdown constantly.
 
Privatebugfucker is an idiot.....and wrong wrong wrong.

https://joemiller.us/2019/08/sanctu...-rapist-go-free-despite-immigration-detainer/

https://www.independentsentinel.com/ms-13-suspected-killers-freed-by-sanctuary-city-to-kill-again/

https://www.foxnews.com/us/undocumented-immigrant-released-from-jail-charged-in-triple-murder

Not hard to find these, unless you're an idjut.
Lots more too, but you don't give a shit, cause your just a contrary asshole.

Your ignorance, bugfucker, is amazing.
 
It is absolutely hysterical to watch Spidey ruin the Conservatives. :D He frustrates them with basics and makes them meltdown constantly.

Really?

I didn't see that bugfucker doing anything but spout off about shit he simply ignores.

Like you......dipshit.
 
Privatebugfucker is an idiot.....and wrong wrong wrong.

https://joemiller.us/2019/08/sanctu...-rapist-go-free-despite-immigration-detainer/

https://www.independentsentinel.com/ms-13-suspected-killers-freed-by-sanctuary-city-to-kill-again/

https://www.foxnews.com/us/undocumented-immigrant-released-from-jail-charged-in-triple-murder

Not hard to find these, unless you're an idjut.
Lots more too, but you don't give a shit, cause your just a contrary asshole.

Your ignorance, bugfucker, is amazing.

Which one of those show that Sanctuary Cities violate any law in creation?
 
It is absolutely hysterical to watch Spidey ruin the Conservatives. :D He frustrates them with basics and makes them meltdown constantly.

You're just as incapacitated as he is. If we're frustrated it's because of his mental incoherence and learning disability, not because he advances anything that could be defined as a cogent argument. For instance a debate on whether 2+2=4 generates a response like, "well then, what about dog biscuits?" :rolleyes:
 
Which one of those show that Sanctuary Cities violate any law in creation?

Sorry you are too stupid to even know what this thread is about.

And, you are perfectly willing to lie about it.

You are not worth the type.

Goodbye.....stupid liar.
 
This has nothing to do with sanctuary cities.

They don't, which is why you have no examples of them doing that & can find no support at all to back up your refuted claim.

I can't imagine how demoralizing it is for you to get proven wrong by an idiot.

Which one of those show that Sanctuary Cities violate any law in creation?

You're just as incapacitated as he is. If we're frustrated it's because of his mental incoherence and learning disability, not because he advances anything that could be defined as a cogent argument. For instance a debate on whether 2+2=4 generates a response like, "well then, what about dog biscuits?" :rolleyes:

But that's not what happened as illustrated above. You had no rebuttal and then you followed it up with a non-answer to his question.
 
But that's not what happened as illustrated above. You had no rebuttal and then you followed it up with a non-answer to his question.

Aiding and abetting is aiding and abetting.......shithead.

It's too bad you are too stupid to know what that means, and understand that is what sanctuary cities do.

You have offered nothing but bullshit, and non-answers, and your typical bullshit.
You have NEVER coughed up anything but a non-answer. EVER.

But, no one here would expect anything more from you......trolltwat.
 
You're just as incapacitated as he is. If we're frustrated it's because of his mental incoherence and learning disability, not because he advances anything that could be defined as a cogent argument. For instance a debate on whether 2+2=4 generates a response like, "well then, what about dog biscuits?" :rolleyes:

You & Klink are frustrated because there's nothing illegal about a sanctuary city.
 
Back
Top