Thread: The RICO Laws & Illegal Immigration

I've been thinking about this all morning and am hoping some of you out there may actually be in law enforcement to answer this question. Or at the very least explore this option.

If I'm correct the law is allowed to confiscate a criminals possessions if they were involved in breaking the law. I've seen this law more commonly used against drug dealers, but also against those involved in computer hacking crimes.

Can this law also be applied to Illegals who have purchased homes in the US? The homes they live in are an accessory to the crime of allowing them to continue their stay in the country Illegally.

These confiscated homes can be sold off in auction to help fund our law enforcement on the border and towards building the wall.

Please discuss

I'm not law enforcement or a lawyer, but what I don't like about those confiscations is that they are done before a judgement. Therefore you are considered guilty and must prove your innocence in order to get your property back (if ever). There's a lot of abuse of this practice in order to pad a departments funding.
If the illegal has title to the property then you could make a case that they are committing a felony and should forfeit the property. But as far as I know, it is not illegal for a non-citizen to own property in the US. Perhaps, get them on harboring or conspiracy. But what about a landlord who believes that they are renting in good faith to a legal resident (false docs)? Or someone who has squatters without their knowledge?
Property rights are the keystone of our freedoms and I'd be very careful in what I'd want to do

You are correct about our property rights. They should be protected and we do need to be careful

However, as I said in another thread it should take no longer then 24 hours to determine if someone is in this country illegally. Once that is determined deportation should commence. It really should not be that hard to determine whether the title to property they own is in their name. If for instance a home is in the illegals name then I have no problem with it being seized as it was obtained illegally, since every action taken by an illegal from the moment they step over the border is illegal. It would be a great way to make them responsible to pay their debt to the victim in this situation which is the United States taxpayer.

Drug forfeiture laws and the newer laws stemming from the Patriot Act that allow for forfeiture of property connected with terrorist activities are "in rem" forfeitures. The claim is that there is no need for adjudication because these are not criminal forfeitures, but rather are civil matters pertaining to international commerce. Specifically, under these forfeiture laws, the Admiralty (the lex mercatorum of the high seas) has been brought ashore, and with it the notion that the items themselves can be held guilty of crimes committed by their use. This was the principle used to seize ships used for smuggling or caught with contraband. Cargo could also be seized, whether or not the third party owners of the cargo had any idea that the shipper they contracted to deliver their goods was engaged in smuggling or carrying contraband.

The problem with all this is that the Constitution promises that disputes over property in this republic would be guaranteed jury trial at Common Law (Amendment VII). That the government has been allowed to use an international maritime jurisdiction on the soil of the republic states for the prosecution of civil matters to which it is party is evidence that it is no longer being bound by the Constitution, but is rather operating as an international entity, most probably as part of the Holy Roman Empire and under Roman Civil Law.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

The problem with all this is that the Constitution promises that disputes over property in this republic would be guaranteed jury trial at Common Law (Amendment VII). That the government has been allowed to use an international maritime jurisdiction on the soil of the republic states for the prosecution of civil matters to which it is party is evidence that it is no longer being bound by the Constitution, but is rather operating as an international entity, most probably as part of the Holy Roman Empire and under Roman Civil Law.

ok, but what about if the owner of said property is proven to be an illegal and said owners house participated in the crime of aiding and abetting a criminal under our immigration laws to continue perpetrating their crime.

the property would be forfeit under those circumstances then.

Originally Posted by kneemow

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

The problem with all this is that the Constitution promises that disputes over property in this republic would be guaranteed jury trial at Common Law (Amendment VII). That the government has been allowed to use an international maritime jurisdiction on the soil of the republic states for the prosecution of civil matters to which it is party is evidence that it is no longer being bound by the Constitution, but is rather operating as an international entity, most probably as part of the Holy Roman Empire and under Roman Civil Law.

ok, but what about if the owner of said property is proven to be an illegal and said owners house participated in the crime of aiding and abetting a criminal under our immigration laws to continue perpetrating their crime.

the property would be forfeit under those circumstances then.

Well, under Common Law it would not matter. The property could be criminally confiscated upon conviction of any of the various federal crimes associated with illegal entry to this country, but it could not (under the Constitutional government and law) be summarily seized.

Under the de facto system, however, such seizures could as easily be allowed for as they are under RICO statutes and drugs laws.

We already knew that

Also, if they are deported and they can loose property by defaulting on loans or forclosure for tax liens. They could be seized and re-sold. Also, cities can petition courts to take properties that are considered abandoned.

Dixie

I think the banks would get first dibs at the property that was financed by their banks. However, on that idea, I firmly believe they should NEVER give any loans to illegals, let alone mortgages, so I think the banks should lose all rights to the house they mortgaged to the illegal, and we all know it is knowingly.

I think that the funds of a sale should go to local law enforcement, a special fund to catch illegal aliens, good or bad.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Under the de facto system, however, such seizures could as easily be allowed for as they are under RICO statutes and drugs laws.

then I would think that it can be used after all .. here's an excerpt from the RICO and a link to the Immigration and Nationality Act

Originally Posted by RICO Law

Any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) if the act indictable under such section of such Act was committed for the purpose of financial gain

Immigration & Nationality Act