Immigrant Rights Advocacy for Brown People Criminalized. White Afrikaners Gain U.S. Asylum.

Not a SNL Skit

In my attempt to connect with the younger crowd—who may have accidentally left the U.S. Constitution on read—I’ll be rizzing in some Gen Z lingo here and there. Stay tuned, it’s about to get “constitutional…”¹

8 U.S. Code § 1324 has been gaining a lot of Rizz lately. The statute, in its relevant part, states:

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”

8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii)²

You already know the vibes.³ U.S. Border Czar Tom Homan has publicly accused Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of possibly “impeding” law enforcement efforts for her office's involvement in a webinar to educate immigrants on their rights against ICE agents. Tom has sought guidance from the Department of Justice regarding the legality of these actions.

Is advising my immigration clients on their rights against ICE agents a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324? The answer is Nah Fam.⁴ And a myriad of case law supports this if you don’t want to read beyond this.⁵

But that’s not the issue. The issue is do we want the smoke from the DOJ every time we advise a client that an ICE warrant is not a real warrant, to enter a private home, that a violation of immigration law is not criminal law, or, that the term Immigration Fugitive is something completely different from a Criminal Fugitive?⁶

Is the First Amendment even worth the fight when bad-faith government investigations are backed by Tech Oligarchy Overlords (TOO) tracking our every digital breadcrumb? This is not a new question.

In 1965, Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. held that statutes are facially unconstitutional and are employed in bad faith to suppress protected activities. The Court opined that such misuse creates a "chilling effect" on free expression, deterring individuals from exercising their constitutional rights due to fear of prosecution.⁷

Indeed the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are not rights conferred to persons in the United States, but rather, it is a limitation of what the government can do to persons in the United States.⁸

So keep advocating, and keep fighting. Because the fight for Immigration Advocacy is the fight for the Constitution. Obviously, don’t say this verbatim unless you wanna hit mad-level cringe and make everyone internally scream.

---

Come Ye Weary White Afrikaners

On February 7, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled "Addressing Egregious Actions of The Republic of South Africa," which directs the U.S. government to prioritize the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees to the United States, facing alleged racial discrimination and property confiscation in South Africa.⁹

Note: as of 2017, white South Africans, who constitute approximately 8% of the population, owned about 72% of the nation's private farmland.

Still, I don’t want to diminish the White Afrikaners, but I will anyway.

First, Asylum is meant for those facing persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group (as per 8 U.S.C. § 1158). Afrikaners may face economic and political challenges. But, widespread, government-sanctioned ethnic persecution has not been officially documented at a level justifying mass asylum. White Afrikaners own the majority of land and businesses in South Africa. They are hardly considered stateless or without resources.

Also, Afrikaners are not the only group in South Africa facing economic hardships—why not extend this to Black and Brown South Africans suffering under the same policies?

Second, The U.S. has denied asylum to many other racial/ethnic groups, such as Rohingya Muslims, Palestinians, Uighurs in China facing arguably worse conditions.

Finally, the U.S. already struggles with immigration backlogs—adding a privileged group based on racial preference would be comical.

On the other hand, I love Chakalaka and Bab. And I love Bunny Chow even more. And arguably there would be more restaurants that would be serving them if the Afrikaners arrived here. So there’s that.

1. You liked it.

2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

3. (You know where this is going…)

4. (Of course not…)

5. United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. 762 (2023); United States v. Sineneng-Smith: 590 U.S. 371,375 (2020); United States v. Thum: 749 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2014)

6. However, if a noncitizen commits a criminal offense (e.g., illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326), they could become both an immigration fugitive and a criminal fugitive.

7. Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965)

8. Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803) and Justice Antonin Scalia in modern legal doctrine. Scalia noted: "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

9. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/addressing-egregious-actions-of-the-republic-of-south-africa/