# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/12/us/el-paso-texas-migrant-surge/index.html
CNN reported the event that occurred on Sunday, March 12th, 2023 with fairly factual voice, but without describing any violence further than  "implemented port hardening measures" that were taken by border security patrol. No breach occurred, so how were these hundreds of people stopped from crossing?
The news media stopped short of any description of methods used, including no description of the barricades used.

https://www.breitbart.com/border/2023/03/12/1000-migrants-storm-el-paso-international-bridge-in-attempt-to-enter-u-s/
The Breightbart article uses the number 1,000 even while their first sentence clarifies there were less than 1,000 migrants seeking to cross the border.
It described the crowd with more detail, saying they were mostly single males and "frustrated". They also describe that they tried to get more information about what may have happened to the migrants after they were stopped but had not heard from border security yet. They note that 56,000 migrants have been turned away so far just in December before Joe Biden visited an area of the border in January. It also notes that a more strict detention and expulsion process of migrant who seek to enter without the required paperwork will begin in May.

In my opinion, the right sought to sensationalize the severity in one way, but actually did a better job of reporting facts and figures related to the event. CNN was more of a lean descriptor and did not connect the border issue to the current administration even though this is occurring under a democratic president, which I find disingenuous and misleading as to what leaders are responsible for this issue and the lives affected. CNN is perhaps left of center but it is still conservative in my opinion as it does not criticize the democratic leadership that this is happening under.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A large group of people in Mexico approached a US border entry point in El Paso, Texas, Sunday in an attempt at mass entry into the country, causing disruptions along the border and authorities to erect barricades, US Customs and Border Protection said.

The group made a formation and approached the international boundary at El Paso, "posing a potential threat to make a mass entry," CBP said in a statement.

Customs and Border Protection officers "implemented port hardening measures" at the Paso del Norte International Bridge Sunday afternoon, temporarily halting northbound traffic, CBP said.

"CBP is working to maintain the legal and orderly flow of entry to the U.S. while protecting the safety and security of legitimate trade and travel, CBP facilities and the CBP workforce," the agency said.

The agency said it also used physical barriers to restrict entry, and traffic was temporarily halted at the bridge but reopened Sunday evening, CBP said.

Large migrant groups also disrupted two other border crossings Sunday, CBP said. Barricades were used for less than an hour earlier in the day at both the nearby Stanton border crossing and at the Bridge of the Americas crossing, the agency said.

Crowds at the bridge were subsiding Sunday evening, El Paso Deputy City Manager Mario D'Agostino told CNN.

"At this time EOC (Emergency Operations Center) has shut down. Crowds [have] subsided and it's just being monitored," D'Agostino said.

While large groups were seen gathered on the Mexican side of the port of entry, D'Agostino said, "no breach has occurred."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Large group in Mexico attempted mass entry into US at El Paso, Texas, border crossing, officials say | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A large group of people in Mexico approached a US border entry point in El Paso, Texas, Sunday in an attempt at mass entry into the country, causing disruptions along the border and authorities to erect barricades, US Customs and Border Protection said.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ambrose - Illegal Immigration and the first amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
Ambrose - Illegal Immigration and the first amendment

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-03-27/supreme-court-free-speech-encourage-illegal-immigration

The more leftist leaning paper used rhetoric that focused more on logical devices. Reasoning their way through things with a lack of emotion and emphasis on facts and consequences.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/mar/27/biden-administration-urges-supreme-court-uphold-la/

While the more right leaning paper used much of emotional devices to cause more emotional involvement with the facts they were presenting.

Both seemed to cherry-pick their facts used in their paper to some extent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)

Is it a crime or free speech for someone to "encourage" immigrants to come to this country illegally, or remain here after their visas have expired?

The Supreme Court grappled with that question Monday in a clash between immigration law and the 1st Amendment.

It arose in the case of Sacramento man who charged immigrants $500 to $10,000 and falsely promised he could help them obtain U.S. citizenship. More than 470 immigrants paid for the bad advice from Helaman Hansen, and he was convicted of 15 counts of fraud as well as two counts of encouraging two immigrants to overstay their visas.

That latter charge won him a partial acquittal before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and sent his case to the high court.

Since 1952, federal law has made it a crime to "encourage or induce an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact" that doing so would be illegal.

Pointing to those broad words, the 9th Circuit ruled that the provision violated the 1st Amendment because it could be read to make it a crime for family members or friends to encourage a person to come to this country or to remain here illegally.

"We apply the overbreadth doctrine so that legitimate speech relating to immigration law shall not be chilled and foreclosed," the San Francisco-based appeals court said. The 15 fraud counts against the defendant were upheld along with a 20-year prison term.

The justices agreed to hear the government's defense of the "encourage" provision of the law, and most of them sounded skeptical of the free-speech claim, at least in this case.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said it was odd to argue that Hansen's right to free speech was violated.

"I don't think anybody could say he's been chilled from speaking. He's had no problem soliciting people here in this country and defrauding them to the tune of lots and lots of money," Gorsuch said, adding "this law has been on the books for 50 years."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed, noting there is no record of the law being used to prosecute otherwise innocent people for encouraging immigrants to stay in this country.

"The statute's been on the books for a long time. There's an absence of prosecutions. There is also an absence of demonstrated chilling effect," she said.

But the court's liberals said they saw a potential free-speech problem.

"We're criminalizing words related to immigration," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "So why should we uphold a statute that criminalizes words and makes the punishment five years, which is rather significant?"

Justice Elena Kagan said the law's wording is so broad that it could threaten everyday conversations. What if a lawyer, doctor or neighbor advises someone they should stay in this country even if they are undocumented, she asked.

"A huge number of such communications are taking place every day, because for every person who's in this country unlawfully, there are probably some number of people who want that person to stay, family members, you know, whatever," she told Deputy Solicitor Gen. Brian Fletcher. "They say, 'I really think you should stay.' What happens?"

He replied the government has not and will not prosecute people for such family or friendly conversations. He argued the government takes a narrow view of the words "encourage or induce."

"Everyone agrees that in criminal law, the terms 'encourage' and 'induce' are terms of art that can refer narrowly to soliciting or aiding and abetting unlawful activity," he said. They do not extend to "abstract" or general comments about immigration, he said. In prosecutions, the government must show the defendant intended to violate the law.

If someone is prosecuted for giving friendly advice about immigration, the defendant should invoke the 1st Amendment as a defense, he said.

He urged the court not to strike down the "encourage or induce" provision based on "absurd hypotheticals" or because of the fear it could be potentially misused in future cases.

Several of the justices also noted that Hansen may be entitled to win a retrial for part of his case because the jury instructions were flawed.

The case was United States vs. Hansen, and a written opinion is expected by late June.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court to decide if government can prosecute someone for 'encouraging' illegal immigration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is it a crime or free speech for someone to "encourage" immigrants to come to this country illegally, or remain here after their visas have expired? The Supreme Court grappled with that question Monday in a clash between immigration law and the 1st Amendment.