Many churches across the country are actively sheltering illegal aliens as of late, and now one in Raleigh is joining in on this criminal behavior
(Raleigh N&O) A Raleigh church is sheltering an undocumented immigrant fighting deportation to Mexico, adding to the small but growing sanctuary movement in North Carolina.
Umstead Park United Church of Christ will serve as Eliseo Jimenez’s home while lawyers try again to reverse a deportation order that told Jimenez to leave the country by July 31.
“I can’t give up. I have to fight. My family needs me,†Jimenez said during a press conference at the church on Tuesday. “I believe that any loving, responsible father would do what I’m doing.â€
Jimenez, 39, is married and has a son, 4, and daughter, 5. The family has been living in Greensboro, and Jimenez’s wife and children stay there during the week and visit Jimenez in Raleigh on weekends.
Here’s the problem (besides him simply being an illegal alien): he came to the U.S. illegally when he was 17. He was caught by the Alamance Sheriff’s Office in 2007, and ordered deported. He was subsequently deported in 2007.
One month later he recrossed the border illegally, so, per federal law, that’s a felony. Then
In 2013, he was stopped and charged with driving without a license, and says he was served with an order of removal, requiring him to leave the country. He later was granted a stay on the order, which he applied for again each year and was granted until this year, he said.
In July, the stay was denied and Jimenez was told he would have to leave the country by July 31.
Re-entering the U.S. after being deported is a federal felony. The church, by sheltering him, is in violation of the multiple state and federal laws regarding sheltering wanted criminals.
Furthermore, the church is also in violation of 8 US Code 1324 (a)(1)(a)(iii), sheltering an illegal alien, which can carry heavy fines and jail up 5 years for whomever is sheltering.
I’m all for respecting churches, when they deserve it. If an individual church wants to break the law, then there should be penalties for it. They know that ICE has put churches on the “don’t arrest here” list, but, as more attempt to shelter known illegal aliens, there will have to be consequences. These individual churches are attempting to put law enforcement in a bad position, when the churches themselves are violating the law. Start with taking away the tax exempt status of any church that shelters an illegal.
William Teach: Furthermore, the church is also in violation of 8 US Code 1324 (a)(1)(a)(iii), sheltering an illegal alien, which can carry heavy fines and jail up 5 years for whomever is sheltering.
Offices of the United States Attorneys: “Harboring — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.”
https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1907-title-8-usc-1324a-offenses
The courts have generally held that concealment is an essential of the crime of harboring, which doesn’t seem to apply in this case.
Cite your source.
There are cases from the 2nd and 6th Circuit which have interpreted “harboring” to mean that the concealment is an element of the crime.
The 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th and 11th have held that harboring has nothing to do with “concealment.”
In Texas, the 5th Circuit held that a state statute defining “harboring” to not include concealment was legal and enforceable.
The 9th Circuit has jury instructions on these types of cases and the instructions are explicit in that concealment is not a required element of the crime.
In other words, Zach is wrong (again) on his interpretation of immigration laws and cases.
Imagine that.
gitarcarver: There are cases from the 2nd and 6th Circuit which have interpreted “harboring†to mean that the concealment is an element of the crime.
That’s right, though the 4th Circuit has not ruled as yet. Let us know when the government convicts the church for providing a bed to a family.
gitarcarver: The 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th and 11th have held that harboring has nothing to do with “concealment.â€
However, none of the cases concerning merely providing shelter, except the 7th Circuit, which, contrary to your claim, found in U.S. v. Costello that concealment is an essential element of harboring. Keep in mind that if merely providing shelter to someone who is an illegal alien is criminal, it means a hospital providing emergency aid could be held criminally liable.
That statement is incorrect whether you kidz admit it or not.
gitarcarver: The 9th Circuit has jury instructions on these types of cases and the instructions are explicit in that concealment is not a required element of the crime.
Did you miss the part about attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield? Regardless, knowingly bringing a fugitive into your place is against the law.
St Thomas a’Becket, of blessed memory, had the same disagreement with his sovereign, King Henry II, and it ended badly for him.
Now is the time for the administration to show the balls for which President Trump was elected: they know that Mr Jimenez is here illegally, they know that he has committed felonies, and they know where he is, so it’s time to send in law enforcement and arrest him. Since he has already defied a lawful self-deportation order, it is reasonable to deny him bail.
Then, charge him with the felony of crossing the border illegally following a previous deportation. Bring him to trial, convict him, and send him to the penitentiary. Deport him after half of his sentence has been served, with the notice being made that if he is caught in the United States again, he goes straight back to prison to complete his sentence, and gets charged with another felony for having crossed the border again. Throw the f(ornicating) book at the illegals!
You do not stop illegal immigration by making it a softly punished crime: the illegals must be saddled with felonies, with jail time, and as much in the way of fines and asset forfeiture as can legally be done. If that impoverishes their families, even those who are American citizens, so much the better, because that will provide the illegals with even more incentive to stay in Mexico, rather than hurting their families here.
Mr Jimenez was treated with sympathy the first time, and look what our good hearts got us: a near immediate violation of the law.
Further, Umstead Park United Church of Christ as a corporation, and the pastor as an individual, should be criminally charged with whatever violations can be justified, hopefully resulting in the pastor spending some time in the hoosegow, and the church being heavily fined. The government needs to let churches across the nation know, in no uncertain terms, that sanctuary policies have no legal basis, and just might result in the churches trying it being ruined and their pastors being jailed. That will put an end to this s(tuff).
United CoC churches are very liberal, so this is not a shocker. And, this points to the problem with US immigration laws.. that guy should have been arrested when pulled over and found to have been driving illegally and then held and deported right then.
Giving illegals a “letter” telling them to please leave is ludicrous. Esp since he was a felon when he crossed back over.
It’s high time we ramp up the holding and deportations. Focus on the sanctuary cities.
Unfortunately for conservatives, the Supreme Court has ruled that all US residents are to be afforded due process, even those here illegally.
And of course, Jimenez was afforded that due process.
Did you miss the second excerpt? Read it again.
That’s right, though the 4th Circuit has not ruled as yet. Let us know when the government convicts the church for providing a bed to a family.
As usual, you are trying to shift the goalposts.
Your initial statement was “The courts have generally held that concealment is an essential of the crime of harboring, which doesn’t seem to apply in this case.”
When that was shown to be incorrect, now you are trying to talk about the 4th Circuit.
As to the jury instructions of the 9th Circuit, congratulations on finding the instructions and how they show that I was correct and you were wrong.
BTW Zach, how can the government prosecute people or institutions that are “harboring” a person that has not committed a crime and therefore acting in a legal manner?
Once again, being in the country illegally is a crime (contrary to the law) but does not carry criminal penalties.
gitarcarver: As to the jury instructions of the 9th Circuit, congratulations on finding the instructions and how they show that I was correct and you were wrong.
The model jury instructions clearly state that concealment is a requirement for conviction under the statute: “for the purpose of avoiding [his] [her] detection by immigration authorities”.
This has nothing to do with your erroneous statement,
And you still haven’t cited a source for that statement.
dp,
I don’t know if you have noticed, but there are several Z’s. They seem to be a little school club that changes members. The latest bunch are not near as good as the older ones. I want to say they are college level, but they seem to think and act like high school. Best not to waste time, they just make their stupid statements and move on. I have seen them on other conservative sites, trolling and really not saying a thing that is beneficial. Some of their statements are humorous, such as the little run down on statistics a few months ago.
I just enjoy watching them tap dancing around their misleading statements, errors of omission and outright fabrications when they are proven wrong and then continuing to dig a bigger hole for themselvezzz…
We cited the Justice Department.
Uh, no you did not.
Stop lying.
drowningpuppies: Stop lying.
“Stop lying.”
Thanks again for proving me right.
Now, are you willing to address your initial statement that “generally courts have held that concealment is a requirement?”
That is clearly wrong.
Also, once again, this incident shows that contrary to your previous statements, staying in the country illegally is a crime as it is against a law, code, statute or ordinance.
gitarcarver: Thanks again for proving me right.
Are you trolling? The model jury instructions clearly state that concealment is a requirement for conviction under the statute: “for the purpose of avoiding [his] [her] detection by immigration authoritiesâ€. This contradicts your claim above.