ICE uses church hypothermia shelter as a suspect trap

[marplots]

If you want to catch fish, you have to go where the fish are. We pay these people to catch fish.

 

[3point14]

Yes, it is proof. You're jumping to conclusions without justification.

You'd be happy for any LEO to demand your ID at any point?

 

[Reheat]

"I had to show ID to buy beer, so other people should have to show ID to not freeze to death!" is one of the most sickeningly heartless arguments I've ever seen.

Yes, if you jump to poor widdle snowflake conclusions it is...

 

[A'isha]

Yes, if you jump to poor widdle snowflake conclusions it is...

Oh, I'm sorry. It must have been some other Reheat that came into a thread about ICE using a hypothermia shelter as a trap and posted this:

I'd had to show my Photo ID the other day to purchase a six pack of beer. Yea, it was a terrible inconvenience to me, but I got over it rather quickly realizing that I needed to prove I was old enough to purchase alcohol.

 

[Babbylonian]

If you want to catch fish, you have to go where the fish are. We pay these people to catch fish.

You got a mouse in your pocket? *I* don't pay anyone to harass people based on their skin color or other perceived physical features of race.

 

[Reheat]

So you are good with locking up US Citizens and Residents who don't carry ID on them but look foreign? Good to know that.

Your critical thinking skills have disappeared? It's best if you don't assume things not in evidence.

 

[phiwum]

Yes, it is if from a Real ID state. I don't know about NZ, but in the US it is. Of course, there's always the possibility of a counterfeit one. ICE agents are trained to spot the counterfeit ones.

How many states have those?

Does Virginia?

And, again, aren't the homeless more likely to not have ID?

 

[Reheat]

You got a mouse in your pocket? *I* don't pay anyone to harass people based on their skin color or other perceived physical features of race.

How in the hell do you know they just didn't say hello and waited for a response in English?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Your impression is wrong. You have to show proof of birth to obtain a Driver's License. There's more than one way to do that.

Most states currently require this. Many people from my state (including me) currently have driver's license that did not require any sort of proof of residency or citizenship.

 

[marplots]

You got a mouse in your pocket? *I* don't pay anyone to harass people based on their skin color or other perceived physical features of race.

No, no mouse in my pocket. But I take your point - it isn't the results of the raid that are a problem, just the methodology of selecting out "foreign-looking" as probable cause.

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

 

[marplots]

Your impression is wrong. You have to show proof of birth to obtain a Driver's License. There's more than one way to do that.

I'm pretty sure just being alive is "proof of birth."

 

[Babbylonian]

How in the hell do you know they just didn't say hello and waited for a response in English?

Because I read the *********** article.

Oscar Ramirez said he had just left the hypothermia shelter at Rising Hope Mission Church on Russell Road in the Alexandria section of Fairfax County, Virginia, when about a dozen ICE agents surround him and other Latino men.

"'Stop right there. Stop right there. Stop right there. Stay by the wall, where we can see your hands,'" the agents said, according to Ramirez.

They were harassed either for appearing Latino or for walking out of a church. Which option do you want to defend?

 

[Reheat]

Most states currently require this. Many people from my state (including me) currently have driver's license that did not require any sort of proof of residency or citizenship.

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?

 

[Babbylonian]

No, no mouse in my pocket. But I take your point - it isn't the results of the raid that are a problem, just the methodology of selecting out "foreign-looking" as probable cause.

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

Perhaps we could start with "was caught crossing a border illegally or without proper documentation." Then, maybe, just maybe, "was reported to be staying in the country illegally."

 

[Reheat]

Because I read the *********** article.

They were harassed either for appearing Latino or for walking out of a church. Which option do you want to defend?

I'll defend getting people out who are in the US illegally. BTW, you only have one side of the story.

ETA: Serious criminals go first.

 

[Babbylonian]

I'll defend getting people out who are in the US illegally.

"By any means necessary," apparently.

BTW, you only have one side of the story.

ICE commentary was included, as noted in the article and above.

 

[marplots]

They were harassed either for appearing Latino or for walking out of a church. Which option do you want to defend?

You can't have it both ways. If they were stopped for appearing Latino, then they appeared Latino, which is the target group ICE was looking for. If their appearance shouldn't matter and doesn't identify them as Latino, then we can't say ICE is harassing them for being Latino.

If we wanted to be scientific about it to cut through the nonsense, we could ask how many undocumented folks were rounded up with the method and compare that to other methods.

If, on the other hand, we simply don't want these people to be "rounded up" at all, then no method will do - ICE can retire and enjoy their collective pensions, sunning themselves in Miami.

 

[Babbylonian]

You can't have it both ways. If they were stopped for appearing Latino, then they appeared Latino, which is the target group ICE was looking for. If their appearance shouldn't matter and doesn't identify them as Latino, then we can't say ICE is harassing them for being Latino.

I don't want it either way. ICE agents should be required to have at least "reasonable suspicion" before harassing people on the street, just like any other law enforcement agency; skin color does not qualify. If they're not required to have such, that's a serious problem with the law.

ETA: As for the rest of your post, I've got no problem with the idea of downsizing ICE.

 

[marplots]

Perhaps we could start with "was caught crossing a border illegally or without proper documentation." Then, maybe, just maybe, "was reported to be staying in the country illegally."

Sounds reasonable. So ICE gets a call...
"Hello, ICE?"
"We prefer Customs and Immigration, thank you."
"Well, I thought you should know there's a bunch of illegals hanging out at the warming shelter."
"Oh, really. How do you know this?"
"I know. They keep asking for us to turn up the temperature because they come from South America."
"That's pretty thin."
"Yeah, well they all look Latino too."
"Oh, OK. We'll be right over."

 

[marplots]

I don't want it either way. ICE agents should be required to have at least "reasonable suspicion" before harassing people on the street, just like any other law enforcement agency; skin color does not qualify. If they're not required to have such, that's a serious problem with the law.

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.