See-Dub sent me this last night and the boss picked it up this morning, so there must be something outrageous in there that I’m missing. Help me out — what is it? There’s a breathless quote from Dana Rohrbacher insisting that the pamphlets teach illegals “how to circumvent the law,” but WashTimes doesn’t mention anything more terrible than their being told not to run, to remain silent, and to ask for a lawyer. Indeed, “[t]he CASA book advises those facing arrest not to lie to immigration agents, warns against using false documents and urges them not to carry papers from another country because they could be used in a deportation proceeding.” MM also cites 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), which provides criminal penalties for anyone who:
encourages or induces an alien to … 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…
If advising them of their rights so they can avoid deportation is tantamount to encouraging them to reside here, why let them retain lawyers in the first place? It seems like the real objection is to illegals enjoying the same (or substantially the same) criminal rights as U.S. citizens, in which case, fair enough. But so long as they have them, it’s strange to object to Casa of Maryland for informing them of that fact.
The other objection is that CoM receives “government fees and contracts,” according to WashTimes, and enjoys tax-deductible status. Public defenders’ offices get government money, too, though, as does legal aid, and they’re responsible for representing/advising a great many characters less savory than illegal aliens.
I think ultimately the complaint here, if there is one, is with the Supreme Court’s criminal jurisprudence, not Casa of Maryland. How am I wrong?