This really belongs in the Law & Justice section, I feel like, but I'm going to post it here, since no one ever goes there, it seems. 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. https://www.wnd.com/2020/05/encouraging-illegals-remain-u-s-crime-supreme-court-rules/ In my opinion, when she charged a fee for her services is where she overstepped her free speech grounds. Even as an ardent Libertarian, one could see this. Furthermore, one wonders whether giving advice to specific people on how to commit an illegal activity should be illegal, or falls under free speech protections. I personally am on the side of free speech protections, due to it being a slippery slope, but current precedent fairly clearly establishes it is not. Attorneys at least can lose their license to practice if they help clients set up illegal schemes. There's also the question about whether she may have misled them about their prospects after applying to get that certification, which if it is the case is borderline fraud. I'm still very very concerned about First Amendment protections (as these type of cases can set a precedent) but am not so concerned about the outcome of this specific case here.
Sadly, it will be just another law re illegal aliens that won't be enforced by either Party; the U.S. Chamber Of Commerce and by extension the GOP establishment loves illegal aliens and their cheap labor, and then out of the other sides of their mouths whine about their voting Democrat and their welfare costs. The cognitive dissonance on the right wing is just as harmful as the left wing's ethnic cleansing agenda, and self-defeating. Only token efforts are made at prosecuting employers, even under Trump.
Free speech would be holding a sign up or voicing an opinion. Engaging in activities to enable others to break the law, and profiting from it, is illegal. For example, I could voice an opinion that convicted felons should be able to own firearms. I could write books and profit from the advancement of that opinion. As soon as I start providing them firearms or assist them in illegally acquiring firearms, I'm no longer engaging in free speech, even if I don't charge them for it. She was providing fraudulent documents to circumvent federal immigration laws. That's not an action of free speech.
