prevent their being discovered by probation officers); Varkonyi, 645 F.2d at 453 (instructing immigrant employees to avoid detection, interfering with federal agents, and helping one non-citizen escape from custody); Cantu, 557 F.2d at 1180 (instructing employees to act like customers so they could evade arrest). 6 .Of course, not every case will end in removal. Discretion is built into our immigration system. Arizona, 132 S.Ct. at 2499 ("Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns.... Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or ov. 27, 2012); United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir.2012), cert. denied 569 U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2022, 185 L.Ed.2d 905 (2013) (No. 12-884) (<HOLDING>); Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170, 223
recognizing burden is on alien when alien is removable holding that  1324 preempted alabama law criminalizing concealing or harboring an unlawfully present alien and entering into a rental agreement with an unlawfully present alien holding that the phrase resident alien means an alien lawfully residing in the united states holding that alien demonstrated deportation proceedings were fundamentally unfair when alien was deprived effective assistance of counsel holding that notice to an alien at the most recent address provided by the alien is legally sufficient