ICE uses church hypothermia shelter as a suspect trap

[Babbylonian]

Good enough. As I mentioned, we should look at the results. If they are catching the people we ask them to catch, then their suspicions are reasonable. At least reasonable in the sense those suspicions accomplish the task at hand. If not, not.

Bull. Ends don't justify means.

From Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute:

Reasonable suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure. It is looser than probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is sufficient to justify brief stops and detentions, but not enough to justify a full search. When determining reasonable suspicion, courts consider the events leading up to the brief stop and a decide whether these facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to reasonable suspicion.

Courts look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.

To put it succinctly, it's what is known or suspected before the harassment, not what one can justify after the harassment.

 

[Dumb All Over]

Running to a hypothermia shelter to escape ICE; makes sense to me.

 

[Newtons Bit]

So, they just took your word for your birth date? Surely, you must be from California. I guess that's why even TSA won't accept a driver license from the States without Real ID. Are you sure the law hasn't changed since you got yours?

I live in New Mexico. The state has since changed the rules and now requires all sorts of a legal documents to get a new license (which my wife found out when she finally got around to getting a New Mexico license).

My ID, on the other hand, just required a piece of mail to verify my address IIRC.

 

[3point14]

So, they just took your word for your birth date? Surely, you must be from California. I guess that's why even TSA won't accept a driver license from the States without Real ID. Are you sure the law hasn't changed since you got yours?

Would you be happy to present your ID at any time when instructed to do so by a LEO?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Good enough. As I mentioned, we should look at the results. If they are catching the people we ask them to catch, then their suspicions are reasonable. At least reasonable in the sense those suspicions accomplish the task at hand. If not, not.

You realise that this argument is exactly the same for police swooping in on a basketball court where young blacks are playing and then running warrant checks on them all? That if they are catching the people we ask them to catch, then their suspicions are reasonable. At least reasonable in the sense those suspicions accomplish the task at hand. If not, not.

How do you think that would fly in court?

 

[Reheat]

For all of those opposing me on this issue, YOU pay the freaking taxes to support these illegal free loaders.

I have a Walmart near me, which I occasionally use because it's convenient. Recently, I followed a Latino family thru the Checkout line. The kids spoke some English because i spoke with them. The parents (I presume) obviously spoke very little. They had a ton of groceries, which were paid for with a fist full of food stamp type cards.

Now, in order to legally immigrate into the US, one has to prove they are financially able to support themselves. That is a requirement for legal immigration.

It's no freaking wonder we are going broke. So, if you want to support these freeloaders be my guest. But, you pay the freaking taxes to support them. I suggest you voluntarily pay an addition several hundred $$ more tax this year.

In addition, I would support a national referendum that those who support this crap be taxed at a different rate than those who don't.

One of the reasons Hillary lost is that she supported open borders. Illegal immigration was a major campaign issue and the opinions expressed here are one of the reason you suckers lost. So, continue to support this and you'll continue to lose. Be my guest.

 

[marplots]

Bull. Ends don't justify means.

Um, platitude aside, they do. The very reason I do something is to accomplish some end I have in mind. What is probably meant is more of a moral caution so that unjust means taint ends, thereby making them unjust as well. However, if we wish to capture undocumented visitors and deport them, we are entitled to examine the methods at hand and reject those which do not accomplish the objective. If they do give us the correct results, only then should we ask if those means are themselves warranted. But the first step is to see if they work at all. If ICE's method isn't catching who they want, the means aren't justified on that basis - no need to get all moral about it.

From Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute:

To put it succinctly, it's what is known or suspected before the harassment, not what one can justify after the harassment.

Yes, of course. So the question is whether or not the information available to ICE before the stop ("harassment" being an unduly loaded term) was reasonable or not. Part of that would be visual identification of characteristics they felt identified the proper targets. So again, we come round to: does it work? Do visual criteria give them reliable information?

This isn't new territory. Gang colors/tats are more likely found on gang members. Prostitutes dress in sexually suggestive clothing. Drug dealers walk around asking people if they want to buy drugs. None of these characteristics constitute final proof, but I'd say they were on the scale of "reasonable" somewhere.

 

[3point14]

For all of those opposing me on this issue, YOU pay the freaking taxes to support these illegal free loaders.

I have a Walmart near me, which I occasionally use because it's convenient. Recently, I followed a Latino family thru the Checkout line. The kids spoke some English because i spoke with them. The parents (I presume) obviously spoke very little. They had a ton of groceries, which were paid for with a fist full of food stamp type cards.

Now, in order to legally immigrate into the US, one has to prove they are financially able to support themselves. That is a requirement for legal immigration.

It's no freaking wonder we are going broke. So, if you want to support these freeloaders be my guest. But, you pay the freaking taxes to support them. I suggest you voluntarily pay an addition several hundred $$ more tax this year.

In addition, I would support a national referendum that those who support this crap be taxed at a different rate than those who don't.

One of the reasons Hillary lost is that she supported open borders. Illegal immigration was a major campaign issue and the opinions expressed here are one of the reason you suckers lost. So, continue to support this and you'll continue to lose. Be my guest.

A massive victory in misdirection for the 1%

 

[marplots]

I live in New Mexico. The state has since changed the rules and now requires all sorts of a legal documents to get a new license (which my wife found out when she finally got around to getting a New Mexico license).

My ID, on the other hand, just required a piece of mail to verify my address IIRC.

I just got licensed in Michigan. I went for the "enhanced" driver's license which does require proof of citizenship, mainly because it allows me to travel into Canada and back.

 

[Babbylonian]

Yes, of course. So the question is whether or not the information available to ICE before the stop ("harassment" being an unduly loaded term) was reasonable or not. Part of that would be visual identification of characteristics they felt identified the proper targets. So again, we come round to: does it work? Do visual criteria give them reliable information?

Let's just say that I'm glad you're not on the Supreme Court.

What's unfortunate is that people like Oscar Martinez (the man with a green card quoted in the article) won't sue ICE for the patently illegal harassment. These scumbag agents won't stop until they're told to do so, and they won't be told to do so until someone who respects the law is running the show or until those in charge are forced to do so by court order.

 

[Reheat]

I live in New Mexico. The state has since changed the rules and now requires all sorts of a legal documents to get a new license (which my wife found out when she finally got around to getting a New Mexico license).

My ID, on the other hand, just required a piece of mail to verify my address IIRC.

Understand. My father had no birth certificate so he got both a drivers license and a Passport with a written notarized statement from his oldest relative verifying his birth date and legal residency. (All of his ancestors had been in the US for over 200 years). I thought the laws had changed in all states, but I guess that's only for the States that comply with the Real ID laws...

 

[marplots]

You realise that this argument is exactly the same for police swooping in on a basketball court where young blacks are playing and then running warrant checks on them all? That if they are catching the people we ask them to catch, then their suspicions are reasonable. At least reasonable in the sense those suspicions accomplish the task at hand. If not, not.

How do you think that would fly in court?

It would fail. It would fail because swooping in on a basketball court would not accomplish the objective based solely on the basketball court part. Playing basketball would not be enough of a discriminator.

If, however, it happened to be that basketball were such a thing - I don't know, maybe the Hell's Angels have a game they play preferentially? - then basketball would be.

Case in point. Some dude drives around and buys pseudoephedrine (Sudafed), a dozen at a time, store after store. Sudafed is legal to buy. But I also know it's used to make meth. If I start searching people who have lots of Sudafed AND I find a lot of meth, then I would say the legal activity tips me off to the illegal one. The results tell me my method works or doesn't work.

This is science, deal with it.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

For all of those opposing me on this issue, YOU pay the freaking taxes to support these illegal free loaders.

I have a Walmart near me, which I occasionally use because it's convenient. Recently, I followed a Latino family thru the Checkout line. The kids spoke some English because i spoke with them. The parents (I presume) obviously spoke very little. They had a ton of groceries, which were paid for with a fist full of food stamp type cards.

Now, in order to legally immigrate into the US, one has to prove they are financially able to support themselves. That is a requirement for legal immigration.

It's no freaking wonder we are going broke. So, if you want to support these freeloaders be my guest. But, you pay the freaking taxes to support them. I suggest you voluntarily pay an addition several hundred $$ more tax this year.

In addition, I would support a national referendum that those who support this crap be taxed at a different rate than those who don't.

One of the reasons Hillary lost is that she supported open borders. Illegal immigration was a major campaign issue and the opinions expressed here are one of the reason you suckers lost. So, continue to support this and you'll continue to lose. Be my guest.

You didn't actually speak with them, but because they are brown and on food stamps you assume they must be illegal immigrants. Do I have that right?

It would fail. It would fail because swooping in on a basketball court would not accomplish the objective based solely on the basketball court part. Playing basketball would not be enough of a discriminator.

If, however, it happened to be that basketball were such a thing - I don't know, maybe the Hell's Angels have a game they play preferentially? - then basketball would be.

Case in point. Some dude drives around and buys pseudoephedrine (Sudafed), a dozen at a time, store after store. Sudafed is legal to buy. But I also know it's used to make meth. If I start searching people who have lots of Sudafed AND I find a lot of meth, then I would say the legal activity tips me off to the illegal one. The results tell me my method works or doesn't work.

This is science, deal with it.

It has been dealt with. "Reasonable suspicion" has a higher burden of evidence than post-hoc results can allow, especially where race is involved. To use your Sudafed analogy, stopping someone loading armfuls of Sudafed into the trunk of a car would fall under reasonable suspicion. Following black guys who buy a single box of sudafed and searching their homes for meth is not reasonable suspicion, it's racial profiling and it's illegal, even if it gets results.

 

[Giz]

What criteria should they use? (I'd go with, "seems to like soccer" for a start.)

And they call it "football" (probably due to their poor english skills).

 

[Babbylonian]

You didn't actually speak with them, but because they are brown and on food stamps you assume they must be illegal immigrants. Do I have that right?

Of course. No real American would speak in a language that's not English and need public assistance. That was certainly true of my dirty wop of a great-grandfather who never learned English...whose word would have I guess been enough to get me an ID because his last name wasn't Martinez, Garcia, or Rivera.

 

[theprestige]

Bull. Ends don't justify means.

If ends don't justify means, then what does?

 

[Ambrosia]

And they call it "football" (probably due to their poor english skills).

Football here in the UK is called football because it is a game played with a ball that is controlled mostly by using ones foot.

What is known as football in the US should really be called something else instead, if we are basing the nomenclature on "english skills"

At the risk of beating a dead horse, you don't solve illegal immigration by chasing illegal immigrants and deporting them.

You solve illegal immigration by making it a "putting you out of business" violation for employers who employ them.

If they can't get work, they won't come.

 

[Babbylonian]

If ends don't justify means, then what does?

How about we all agree that respecting individual civil rights is of fundamental importance and go from there? Part of respecting individual civil rights is that government agents can't harass people without reasonable suspicion and neither one's skin color nor the lack of a warm place to sleep at night constitutes reasonable suspicion of committing a crime.

ETA: Seriously, have we really slipped back so far so fast that this has to be learned again by people who consider themselves at least reasonably intelligent?

 

[marplots]

And they call it "football" (probably due to their poor english skills).

I remember a story about Canadian Immigration Enforcement from back in the Vietnam War era. They were concerned about American draft dodgers who claimed to be Canadian when questioned. So Officers would ask them to say the alphabet and listen for the last letter. Americans say "zee" instead of "zed."

 

[Reheat]

You didn't actually speak with them, but because they are brown and on food stamps you assume they must be illegal immigrants. Do I have that right?

What a stupid moronic statement and question. Promote racial accusations somewhere else. I observed and listened to their interactions with the cashier. That was enough to know they didn't speak English. Any adult who has been in the US for more than a few months should at least speak some English unless they only patronize ethic businesses. Why would I try to engage them in English when it was patently obvious they didn't speak enough to converse. I have a right to think what I want and in this case it was more than obvious. Next time, I'll call ICE and report back on what was discovered.