ICE uses church hypothermia shelter as a suspect trap

[marplots]

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

Budget.

 

[theprestige]

How about we all agree that respecting individual civil rights is of fundamental importance and go from there?

How about you answer my question and go from there?

 

[Babbylonian]

How about you answer my question and go from there?

No. If you couldn't understand what I was talking about with regards to reasonable suspicion, then there's no help to be found.

ETA: What the heck, I'll be nice and amend: ***Just ends don't justify unjust means.***

 

[Jodie]

Simple, send the people staying at the shelter out the back door in a small groups.

 

[marplots]

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.

I can certainly agree with the first part without committing to the second.

I am also willing to submit to harassment if I think it has some purpose. For example, if I have to show proof of age to buy booze, and I think that helps prevent underage drinking, I will submit to it. Maybe I'll bitch just a little, but I get the point.

This is the normal balance we strike between inconvenience and our duties to civil society. Where that point exists for checking citizenship status remains in play.

 

[Giz]

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"

I know - it was a joke. I'm from England, living in the USA.

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.

Hmmm. I think that (as with most illegal activity) it is important to both:
- make the activity less attractive in the first place
- when you find someone doing the activity, you stop them

i.e. "chasing illegal immigrants and deporting them" is a valid and necessary part of any immigration policy short of 'open borders', but it shouldn't be the the only mechanism. You need to remove the carrot as well as applying the stick.

 

[Reheat]

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.

I partially agree with you, but on the other hand they frequently have Official looking Social Security Cards that are difficult to detect as fake. I can assure that most legitimate companies will not hire them, but some in obscure smaller companies will. We just recently had two not so small landscape companies near where I live that were put out of business for hiring illegals. However, if you've read the thread you'll notice a predominate support on supposedly humanitarian grounds. I hope they keep it up as they'll continue to lose elections, just like they have in the past. They are near totally out of any political power and are now lashing out without realizing why they have no political power either in Congress, the Presidency, or in States.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

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.

So because they were brown and on food stamps and weren't speaking English, you assume they didn't know English and were illegal immigrants?

You realize that speaking English is not a requirement for being an American citizen, right?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A certain core of right wingers prefer there are no services for the homeless believing that will cause them to seek survival in someone else's backyard.

A better argument for them is to consider what a waste of federal tax dollars this plan is given the vast majority of these guys are not going to have ID despite being citizens. Besides wasting money trying to identify them, deport US citizens and think of the ambulance chasing trial lawyers that the right hates making millions more of those tax dollars suing ICE for wrongful deportation. And then there are the increased emergency department costs for all the hypothermia that will ensue as people fear the shelters. Those costs are absorbed by tax dollars and everyone else's medical costs be they insurance payments or direct costs.

 

[popoi]

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.

That's not how government works, but I'd say you have a deal if you also have to pay taxes to cover the costs that would result from that support not existing.

 

[Reheat]

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.

Illegal immigrants have no civil rights at all. The crime is not being committed it was committed in the past. What's harassment? Is it harassment when police wait outside of a business that serves alcohol to catch Drunk Drivers? Did they seek out only the brown ones outside of this shelter? There's no evidence of that.

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?

Well, apparently you consider only those who agree with you as intelligent. I don't agree at all and challenge you to substantiate that ridiculous statement.

 

[Newtons Bit]

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.

If you saw them using EBT cards, then they're here legally. It's virtually impossible to get on a welfare program as a non US citizen (and I'm including identify theft and fraud).

A family that mostly speaks Spanish, and not English, is absolutely not a sign that they're here illegally. I know multiple people who can trace their families arrival in North American to the 1500s. They stayed put, and the USA enveloped their land. Their rural cousins speak Spanish and not English.

It's no freaking wonder we are going broke.

Food assistance is less than 1% of all government spending.

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.

Paying extra taxes won't support hungry people. Instead I signed up for a $100 monthly donation to the Road Runner Food Bank. My wife and I have talked about giving money to them, so thanks for giving me the push necessary to help them out.

 

[Reheat]

Simple, send the people staying at the shelter out the back door in a small groups.

Yea, just ignore the laws you don't like. Thanks Obama.

 

[marplots]

A certain core of right wingers prefer there are no services for the homeless believing that will cause them to seek survival in someone else's backyard.

A better argument for them is to consider what a waste of federal tax dollars this plan is given the vast majority of these guys are not going to have ID despite being citizens. Besides wasting money trying to identify them, deport US citizens and think of the ambulance chasing trial lawyers that the right hates making millions more of those tax dollars suing ICE for wrongful deportation. And then there are the increased emergency department costs for all the hypothermia that will ensue as people fear the shelters. Those costs are absorbed by tax dollars and everyone else's medical costs be they insurance payments or direct costs.

From the story it sounds like ICE ran fingerprints at the scene and kept those who showed up as wanted in their database. No ID involved, just biometrics and positive hits. Arguably, someone who was here illegally, but who wasn't in the ICE database, would be sent on their way. That's not in the story, but my extrapolation.

IF that's what happened, it's less outrageous than I thought because my usual complaint is that you can't tell if someone is a citizen or not if they simply remain silent. There is nothing particularly "citizeny" to make the determination. But if someone is already in ICE's database as an offender, then all bets are off. This sounds like what I want - putting the onus on ICE to prove status instead of on whomever they are questioning.

The situation is different at the actual border, where ICE can make me prove my status. If I can't, they can deny me entry. Once I'm in the US however, I gain the same default status as everyone else in the US and the burden of proof shifts.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

From the story it sounds like ICE ran fingerprints at the scene and kept those who showed up as wanted in their database. No ID involved, just biometrics and positive hits. Arguably, someone who was here illegally, but who wasn't in the ICE database, would be sent on their way. That's not in the story, but my extrapolation.

IF that's what happened, it's less outrageous than I thought because my usual complaint is that you can't tell if someone is a citizen or not if they simply remain silent. There is nothing particularly "citizeny" to make the determination. But if someone is already in ICE's database as an offender, then all bets are off. This sounds like what I want - putting the onus on ICE to prove status instead of on whomever they are questioning.

The situation is different at the actual border, where ICE can make me prove my status. If I can't, they can deny me entry. Once I'm in the US however, I gain the same default status as everyone else in the US and the burden of proof shifts.

The outrage is about where they showed up - at a facility meant to save lives - and the chilling effect it will have on people who in the future will risk freezing to death instead.

 

[Babbylonian]

Illegal immigrants have no civil rights at all. The crime is not being committed it was committed in the past. What's harassment? Is it harassment when police wait outside of a business that serves alcohol to catch Drunk Drivers? Did they seek out only the brown ones outside of this shelter? There's no evidence of that.

I refer you back to reasonable suspicion. Depending on the methodology employed, police who harass drivers leaving a business that serves alcohol could very well be engaging in an illegal activity. It's also not generally how police officers go about identifying drunk drivers. I don't like drunk-driving checkpoints but one of the reasons they passed constitutional muster when challenged is that they tend to be equally enforced - everyone gets stopped and checked in a cursory fashion before they're subjected to more extensive testing once a reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a crime has been established.

In the case described in the linked article, the only reasonable suspicion for harassing and taking away the individuals was some combination of their appearance and where they were, neither of which would pass a court smell test for reasonable suspicion. The fact that they snagged at least one legal resident is proof enough of that.

Further, it's questionable whether you understand the issues at play beyond your casually applied racism given that being in the United States illegally isn't a past crime; it's a current/ongoing one until the person committing it is taken into custody and/or deported.

Well, apparently you consider only those who agree with you as intelligent. I don't agree at all and challenge you to substantiate that ridiculous statement.

You may want to read what I actually said again. There's no way a reasonable person could interpret my comment in the way you describe.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I refer you back to reasonable suspicion. Depending on the methodology employed, police who harass drivers leaving a business that serves alcohol could very well be engaging in an illegal activity. It's also not generally how police officers go about identifying drunk drivers. I don't like drunk-driving checkpoints but one of the reasons they passed constitutional muster when challenged is that they tend to be equally enforced - everyone gets stopped and checked in a cursory fashion before they're subjected to more extensive testing once a reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a crime has been established.

In the case described in the linked article, the only reasonable suspicion for harassing and taking away the individuals was some combination of their appearance and where they were, neither of which would pass a court smell test for reasonable suspicion. The fact that they snagged at least one legal resident is proof enough of that.

Further, it's questionable whether you understand the issues at play beyond your casually applied racism given that being in the United States illegally isn't a past crime; it's a current/ongoing one until the person committing it is taken into custody and/or deported.
You may want to read what I actually said again. There's no way a reasonable person could interpret my comment in the way you describe.

Thanks to our delightful Supreme Court, immigration enforcement officers automatically have reasonable suspicion against everyone within 100 miles of an international border.

 

[Minoosh]

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

I would think one's existence would be proof of birth.

Reheat, the DL issue varies from state to state. Sometimes it is reasonable proof of citizenship; in others states, illegal immigrants can get driver's licenses so in those states the DL litmus test might fail.

As I said below, they'll have a warm place to stay while they're being questioned.

Some jails have very good services for the mentally ill. But I assume these people would be taken to federal detention centers which in my experience make it seriously difficult to tell where an arrestee has been taken. The federal government literally wanted my credit card number before it would allow me access to who is being held where. For all I know detainees could be taken to Guantanamo.

It's a valid point to say their physical needs will (probably) be met in detention. I prefer to believe you said that with a kind heart and not a snootful of snark.

 

[The_Animus]

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.

That's quite the dodge there. Care to answer the question? You say you support this. The article makes it clear they were targeted based on physical appearance or from leaving the church. Which do you support? Or is it both?

ETA: Or maybe you don't believe in rights for anyone and them stopping anyone leaving, including US citizens, with no actual cause is totally cool? Or if it's not, how do they decide who it's okay to stop without running afoul of any of the above situations?

 

[Minoosh]

Thanks to our delightful Supreme Court, immigration enforcement officers automatically have reasonable suspicion against everyone within 100 miles of an international border.

Actually the Patriot Act probably means feds can do anything they damn well please. With complete lack of transparency.