U.S. District Court Judge Carlos Murguia ruled today that a 1952 immigration law was unconstitutional, before tossing out the convictions of Jose Felipe and Henandez-Cavallo and Mauro Papalotzi, all three managed crews of illegal immigrants working for a drywall company working for the city of Lawrence, Kansas. Murguia cited a similar case in the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, protecting the First Amendment speech of individuals offering illegal immigrants jobs in the United States. “The statue requires that when you ‘encourage’ or ‘induce’ you know the person was here illegally. But the government played loose with that,” placing the persuasive speech under the First Amendment umbrella. Murguria found the 1952 law “overbroad,” tossing out the 2016 misdemeanor convictions of the drywall company’s owner and three other defendants.
With all the talk of illegal immigration, Murguia found a 1952 statute unconstitutional for violating the Free Speech rights of business owners persuading employees to come work illegally in the U.S., regardless of it brought them financial gain. Business owners looking for migrant workers can no longer be prosecuted for encouraging illegal immigration to fill the jobs. With all the rulings against illegal immigrants recently, today’s Kansas U.S. District Court ruling is a victory for the First Amendment, protecting the free speech rights to business owners. Charging someone who did nothing wrong other than post a job offer to illegal aliens has been tossed out. Whatever an employer advertises, for personal gain or not, it is now protected under Free Speech by the First Amendment. Whether they “encouraged” or “induced” the illegal aliens to work is not relevant.
When the 1952 law was passed by Congress, it was aimed to stop day-laborers from crossing the border illegally for the purpose of working in largely agricultural jobs. Whether or not a business took “commercial advantage or private financial gain” was no longer relevant because the free speech was deemed protected by the First Amendment. “The important thing other that the First Amendment issues is that the government was using this [law] to charge people who did nothing more than make a job available to an undocumented person, whether or not they had direct knowledge that the person was documented,” said Hernandez-Calvallo’s attorney, Tom Bradshaw. So much of the illegal alien discussion has focused on U.S. companies recruiting undocumented workers from across the border, knowing they’ve got plenty of work regardless of the legality.
President Donald Trump has tried to get as many rulings in his favor as possible when dealing with illegal immigration. He’s been talking about illegal immigration and building a border wall since he announced for president June 16, 2015. When he had a run-in over the Trump University case with U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Paul Curiel during the campaign, Democrats and the media used it to show Trump’s a racist. Getting court rulings against Trump has been a victory for his detractors since swearing in for president Jan. 20, 2017. When Trump issued his executive order Jan. 27, 2017 banning immigrants from Muslim countries, Democrats and the media jumped-for-joy when a Seattle-based U.S. District Court Judge James L. Robart issued an injunction Feb. 4, 2017 against Trump’s travel ban. Trump’s Justice Department eventually prevailed June 26, 2018 in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Justice Department lawyers will no doubt examine today’s ruling, declaring unconstitutional a 1952 statute about offering illegal aliens jobs in the U.S. Whether the ruling’s appealed or not is anyone’s guess. U.S. Attorney in the District of Kansas spokesman Jim Cross said his office “is evaluating the judge’s ruling at this time” but made no statement what he plans to do next. Like most rulings, it’s usually challenged in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals before making it, if at all, to the Supreme Court. All the court proceedings regarding illegal immigration usually boils down to the First Amendment or Due Process. It’s easier to battle the issues out in the press than go through the grueling court process to determine the constitutionality of rulings in the federal courts. Trump’s Justice Department has pursued cases where the government is compromised enforcing immigration laws.
Battling immigration laws in the courts is far more difficult that fighting it out in the press. U.S. District Court Judge Carlos Murguia found the 1952 immigration statute unconstitutional because it blocked access to Free Speech. When it comes to immigration, Trump wins some and loses some in the courts. With all the bad publicity from Trump’s past critiques of a Mexican judge, the public and media take the opposite position than Trump when it comes to immigration. Whether it’s building out the wall or dealing with overcrowded conditions on the Mexican border, Trump has a hard time dealing with press, accusing him of running concentration camps, when the illegal population has brought this on itself. Overturning convictions in Kansas shows that the law doesn’t always go in the media’s way. Battling immigration laws out in the federal courts is the only way to settle the score.
