Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review reports on this latest abuse of judicial power. It involves legislation that’s been around in one form or another for 130 years, which was intended to prevent anyone from inciting or helping to facilitate illegal immigration. Of course we could probably prosecute half the Democrat party (along with all their sanctuary cities) under under such a law – which is exactly why the Left wants it nullified.
 
Judge whose sister heads La Raza rules 130-year law against encouraging illegal immigrants is unconstitutional ~

(Last) 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.
 

(N)umerous federal courts have upheld convictions based on §1324. Yet one judge, who worked for an open-borders group named El Centro Inc. and whose sister Janet Murguia is president of UnidosUS, suddenly thinks conspiring to harbor and encourage illegal immigration violates the First Amendment.

 
Is there any doubt this guy is incredibly biased?

The judge’s online biography acknowledges he previously worked as “the immigration coordinator for El Centro Inc.” El Centro Inc. is a left-wing activist nonprofit based in Kansas City, Kansas, that identifies UnidosUS as an affiliate on its website. UnidosUS is the new name for the National Council of La Raza (“La Raza” is Spanish for “the race”), a large organization headed by the judge’s sister, Janet Murguia.

 
Horowitz provides the background behind this legal precept ~

The 1952 INA (8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)) calls for felony prosecution for anyone who “encourages or induces 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.” Subsection (V)(I) prohibits “any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts.” The two defendants in this case were convicted on both counts. This law passed the Senate unanimously!
 
The forerunners to this law were the Contract Labor Law of 1885 and the 1891 Immigration Act. The 1885 law made it unlawful to “in any way assist or encourage the importation or migration of any alien” for the purpose of contract labor. Section 3 of the 1891 Immigration Act made it a felony to “assist or encourage the importation or migration of any alien by promise of employment” through advertisements.
 
Other circuits have long recognized this law as completely legitimate. “Harboring, within the meaning of §1324, encompasses conduct tending substantially to facilitate an alien’s remaining in the United States illegally and to prevent government authorities from detecting his unlawful presence,” wrote the Second Circuit in 1999. “Such facilitation may be attempted through a wide range of conduct.” (United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 574 (2d Cir. 1999).) The Fifth Circuit has ruled that Congress intended for §1324 to “broadly proscribe any knowing or willful conduct fairly within any of these terms that tends to substantially facilitate an alien’s remaining in the U.S. illegally.”

Sounds like common sense immigration legislation for a nation concerned about secure borders and national sovereignty doesn’t it? No wonder the authoritarian La Raza judge wants it voided.