What Part of Illegal Don't You Understand?

There has been a lot of discussion lately about House bill 4437, titled "The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005."  Roger Cardinal Mahoney (Archbishop of Los Angeles) and Senator Clinton have both criticized provisions of the House bill regarding aiding illegal immigrants.

I am sure that Senator Clinton and Cardinal Mahoney are astute politicians, but in this case their invoking of "what would Jesus do" and the claim that this bill would criminalize the Good Samaritan are non sequiturs.  Of course, when you're playing politics, it's sometimes best not to stick to the facts.

To find out what was up, I read both the offending portion of the House bill (4437sec202) and the existing US law (8 U.S.C 1324).  I am not a lawyer, but it looks to me that it is already against the law to provide the type of aid specified in HR4437.  The new bill is semantically different, but does not appear to materially change the existing law. 

Here is my comparison of the existing law with the House bill. The House bill is first, the existing law is indented and in italics, and my comments follow each section in this color.

SEC. 202. ALIEN SMUGGLING AND RELATED OFFENSES.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324) is amended to read as follows:
`ALIEN SMUGGLING AND RELATED OFFENSES
`SEC. 274. (a) Criminal Offenses and Penalties-
`(1) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES- Whoever--
`(A) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to come to or enter the United States, or to attempt to come to or enter the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to come to or enter the United States;

(iv) 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;

Semantic change only.  It's illegal to help someone commit a crime.  Is this any different than helping someone commit any other crime?

(B) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to come to or enter the United States at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, regardless of whether such person has official permission or lawful authority to be in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien;

(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;   

It's illegal to help someone jump the fence or swim the river.  Semantic change only.

(C) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to reside in or remain in the United States, or to attempt to reside in or remain in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to reside in or remain in the United States;

See section (iv) above.  The only change is the addition of "remain in."  Could these two words be what the big deal is all about?

(D) transports or moves a person in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to enter or be in the United States, where the transportation or movement will aid or further in any manner the person's illegal entry into or illegal presence in the United States;

(ii) 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, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

No change.  You can't transport illegal aliens around to hide the fact that they are illegal.

(E) harbors, conceals, or shields from detection a person in the United States knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to be in the United States;

(iii) 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;

Don't see a change here either.

(F) transports, moves, harbors, conceals, or shields from detection a person outside of the United States knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien in unlawful transit from one country to another or on the high seas, under circumstances in which the person is in fact seeking to enter the United States without official permission or lawful authority;

Don't see this in the existing law.  So outside of the US, the House wants it to be against US law to help someone who is attempting to enter the US illegally.  Makes sense.

(G) conspires or attempts to commit any of the preceding acts,

(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts,

Almost identical.

News reports say that the House bill "includes a provision requiring churches and other social organizations to ask immigrants for legal documentation before providing them assistance. Institutions that fail to comply could be penalized."  I don't think that is a true statement, and I fail to see how this would be any more true if the House bill becomes law.  As Cardinal Mahoney has made clear, the Church can do what it wants to do.  The Church's activities will be no more illegal under HR4437 then they are today.

Under today's law, it is illegal to assist the illegal activities of an illegal immigrant.  I don't think either the existing law, or HR4437, makes it illegal to give someone a hot meal or a place to sleep.

What part of illegal don't these people understand?

And wouldn't it be nice to hear a reporter who actually knows what they are speaking about ask Senator Clinton or Cardinal Mahoney why it's such a big deal when this part of HR4437 actually changes nothing from the existing law?

I also wonder what part of this bill Democrats like Senator Clinton are really opposed to.

LATER (March 26, 2006 9:19p ET):  Michelle Malkin posted yesterday on the HR4437 protest marches that occurred around the country.  She also notes (with a correction) that HR4437 does make it a felony to be in the US illegally.  I can hardly believe that it is not a felony under existing law.  Apparently Congressman Sensenbrenner proposed an amendment to remove the felony law from HR4437 in December, but it failed.  I still don't see HR4437 changing the law regarding aiding illegal immigrants.  As many commenters have said, I think the marches with Mexican flags are just going to tick off already angry Americans.  If you want to come here and work, there is a process (ok it's cumbersome, but what government process isn't?)to do it legally.