Eliminating the Illegal Alien Magnet
| More news stories on Immigration Law Enforcement |
|---|
Tom Fitton, Front Page Magazine, August 6, 2008
My organization, Judicial Watch, has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit filed by Canyon County, Idaho, against four large employers of illegal aliens (Canyon County v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., et al.). Canyon County alleges that during their employment, some of these illegal aliens committed crimes, thereby costing the county millions of dollars for criminal justice services as well as health and welfare services.
The district court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Canyon County’s lawsuit, prompting Judicial Watch’s Supreme Court petition. Judicial Watch filed the petition for Canyon County with co-counsel Howard W. Foster, a renowned RICO expert with the Chicago law firm, Johnson & Bell, LTD.
For those of you unfamiliar with RICO, it is a federal law passed in 1970 that was originally used to destroy organized crime in America, specifically the Mafia. Since that time, however, the use of RICO has expanded to include a variety of circumstances. In fact, in 1996, Congress amended RICO to include certain immigration offenses.
With respect to this specific lawsuit, there are two central questions that arise from the appellate court ruling. First, does the term “business or property” as described in the RICO statute apply to the cost of services provided by a government entity or just to commercial activity? And, secondly, can a court simply dismiss a lawsuit based on a lack of injury directly resulting from the RICO activity, without first determining if any direct injury had been caused?
{snip}
RICO is a tool that can be used to fight illegal immigration, and businesses that hire illegal aliens could therefore be subject to RICO lawsuits. The lower courts in this case have ignored the plain language of the RICO statute, but we hope the Supreme Court will take this opportunity to affirm the rule of law.
(Posted on August 6, 2008)
Comments
During the last ‘one-time-only’ amnesty of the Reagan administration, a key element of the plan was that new employees would have to present documents proving they were legal citizens.
I’ve changed jobs a few times since then and every time, I was required to present documentation.
If our government had actually enforced this provision, we wouldn’t be at this point. All the illegals in this country after the amnesty wouldn’t have jobs if this ONE rule was enforced. Any employer who is found to be skipping this screening should be fined or in jail.
Start enforcing the proof of citizenship law, hold employers accountable, and our condition would improve.
Posted by sbuffalonative at 6:31 PM on August 6
Funny that we may end up using RICO against Rico the illegal immigrant.
Posted by ilovemyfirstamendment at 7:27 PM on August 6
I doubt RICO is going to be able to apply in these cases, but I’m glad someone is at least trying.
If the high court does take the case, and ruled to be allowed, it will be the single greatest tool against illegal immigration ever, and the entire illegal situation could change dramatically.
Posted by ice at 7:54 PM on August 6
It is exactly the Supreme Court that should have ruled on and upheld existing immigration laws,a long time ago. What the h-ll else are they good for to most Americans? This topic would have actually been one where the S.C. could have done some good to the nation.
Posted by Bobby at 9:30 PM on August 6
If anyone believes the Supreme court’s interests and the interests of the American people are the same!! FOOLS I say FOOLS!! Why have elected officials, to include the President and Speaker of the house if the Supreme court justices can over rule any decision made by those offices!! I may be wrong and likely some other reader knows more of the judicial branch of our government but I believe the Supreme Court Justices have the last say in anything they choose to get involved in.
Posted by Skip at 1:16 AM on August 7
I have been an admirer of mr. Fitton ever since I first saw him on a show called the young bloods. He is a staunch conservative, with a mind like a steel trap. Let’s all pray he can achieve this goal.
Posted by THE OLD SAGE at 1:58 AM on August 7
Actually there are provisions for Congress to overturn Supreme Court decisions. That’s one reason why the Supreme Court usually picks on the states and the executive branch and won’t touch stuff that has to do with the legislative branch, because they know they can get their heads handed to them.
The only problem with that is that as bad as the Supremes are, Congress is worse.
Posted by at 10:16 AM on August 7
Most of the time our Supreme Court only upholds the laws that seperate American citizens from their rights or property. The one notable esception as of late was the Washington DC gun control decision. Now we all know that out nations capital city is pretty much the biggest ghetto in the world. At least the court has allowed the citizens there the means to protect themselves now.
Posted by at 12:24 PM on August 7
If they can get away with using RICO in civil divorce cases nowadays, then using it in this instance should be no problem.
Posted by idareya at 12:51 PM on August 7
I think American citizens who are victims of crime due to illegal aliens should be suing the government in a class action law suit.
Posted by at 1:44 PM on August 7
This entire government is guilty of violating RICO and treason
for failing to defend our national borders. Jorge Arbusto
a.k.a George Bush and his colleagues are guilty of wanting
the illegals for cheap labor. The Demorats want the illegals
for votes. Both parties could careless about the harm they due
to White Americans.
Posted by Dr. Caligari at 7:00 PM on August 7
I have long wanted to see the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act applied to the “sanctuary” movement, especially the churches. Let the asset forfeiture provisions of the law seize the church buildings and hear the congregations wail. Since many clergy live in houses owned by the church, they’d be on the street, or couch surfing among their dwindling congregations. Let Big Brother work for us for a change.
Posted by Schoolteacher at 2:28 AM on August 8
I’m actually optimistic here, as the Supreme court - albeit by a 5-4 vote - recently admitted that the US Second Amendment really does mean what it says.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 4:15 AM on August 8
Howard Foster’s history with the RICO suits he’s brought against Tyson Foods and Mohawk Industries makes great legal reading. The Mohawk matter was remanded and is still pending. If RICO is ever found applicable it will kill employers with triple damages. Mr. Foster is great. Info on this pops up on VDARE.
Posted by Tony B. at 1:46 AM on August 13