Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-15-2019, 05:06 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660

ICE releases letter claiming they do not need a warrant for arrests - are Gestapo comparisons valid?


So this letter from the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Agency probably won't have the intended effect.

There's a lot there, but the relevant part for this thread is this:
ICE does not need a warrant to make an arrest

ICE officers are sworn federal law enforcement officers who operate within the confines of the law. Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides ICE officers the authority to arrest aliens without a judicial warrant. In fact, no judge in this country has the authority to issue a warrant for a civil immigration violation. Congress, by statute, vested this authorization solely to supervisory immigration officers. Local police officers don’t need a warrant when they encounter someone breaking the law in a public space, and the same holds true for ICE officers. Obstructing or otherwise interfering with an ICE arrest is a crime, and anyone involved may be subject to prosecution under federal law. In addition, encouraging others to interfere or attempt to obstruct an arrest is extremely reckless and places all parties in jeopardy
This is actually news to me. I was under the impression that arresting people was one of those things you generally needed a warrant for. This is especially disturbing given stories like this one, where a US citizen was detained for almost a month by ICE (and lost 26 pounds in that time, putting the lie to another claim in the ICE letter, that "ICE officers treat detainees with dignity and respect").

I am not the first person to draw parallels between ICE and the secret police of various authoritarian regimes. Indeed, I remember a time when "Papers, Please" was basically artistic shorthand for those kinds of regimes. But hearing that no warrant is necessary, especially when getting a US citizen out of an ICE detention center was so difficult even with the relevant papers, makes this a lot scarier.

And then of course there was the recent news that ICE was running training exercises for "Urban Combat", taken from a document that they failed to censor correctly. It's intended to be hyper-realistic, which, as a reporter from the guardian explains:
"Hyper-Realistic is defined as 'such a high degree of fidelity in the replication of battlefield conditions in the training environment that participants so willingly suspend disbelief that they become totally immersed and eventually stress inoculated.'”
So - just to be clear on where we are on this.

We have a government organization that is willing and able to scoop up citizens and non-citizens alike without warrants and apparently with little to no due process (one citizen was held for upwards of 3 years), throw them in concentration camps in squalid, horrific conditions where the administration actively lobbies to deny children things like soap and toothpaste and will not vaccinate them against infectious diseases. Oh, and they're super racist.

In fact, there's quite a lot of really weird nazi symbology going on, and The Atlantic wrote a cover story back in 2018 about how Trump had radicalized the organization, which you can read here.

But ultimately, the lack of oversight and due process should disturb everyone. The way they joke about the death of migrants in their care should disturb everyone. The calls for hyperrealistic urban combat simulations should disturb everyone. The concentration camps, the state they're in, and the fact that Trump is pushing to detain people there indefinitely should disturb everyone.

Really, the thread title talks about comparisons to the Gestapo, but to the degree that they're necessary, it is only to shake people awake. What ICE is doing is horrible all on its own. The ability they have to ruin any given person's life with little to no oversight is terrifying. But, as usual, we kinda need to keep an eye on another question - how much worse can it get? I think it's no exaggeration to see ICE as a prototype for a fascist secret police force. And that's the kind of thing that can and does get really really bad.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 09-15-2019 at 05:07 AM.
  #2  
Old 09-15-2019, 08:55 AM
OldGuy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,464
It is certainly true that people can be detained without a warrant if caught committing a crime. When that leagally becomes an arrest, I'm not sure.

The problem I see is not necessarily the "arrest" but the apparent lack of habeas corpus to remove the person from custody.
  #3  
Old 09-15-2019, 08:59 AM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I was under the impression that arresting people was one of those things you generally needed a warrant for.
In that case, try getting out of your car and assaulting a cop the next time you're pulled over for a traffic violation, then demanding to be released because the officer didn't have a warrant.

Really, just drop the Gestapo/Nazi comparisons. They're grievously insulting to the memory of actual victims of the Nazis, and their descendants. The modern situations they're applied to almost never come close to what actually happened under Adolph and his merry band of psychotics.
  #4  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:05 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,759
Yes, the OP is operating under a misapprehension about arrest warrants. The police don't generally need a warrant to arrest someone they find committing an offence. They can arrest right away, provided a statute gives them that authority.

Gestapo comparisons are decidedly unhelpful. But hey, if you want to make it easy for people to dismiss your concerns by over-egging the pudding, go ahead.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #5  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:07 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
... This is actually news to me. I was under the impression that arresting people was one of those things you generally needed a warrant for. ...
Sounds like you didn't have a good understanding of the laws and rules we've been operating under for a very long time now. If that misunderstanding is the basis for your yet-another-Nazi-comparison, it seems especially easy to dismiss as the nonsense that it is.

ETA: Ninja'd

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-15-2019 at 09:09 AM.
  #6  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:15 AM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,064
If ICE can't arrest someone for, say, walking in the area of a US border carrying a bunch of belongings and being unable to produce any ID or proof of citizenship, then what's the point of ICE agents? Do you expect them to stand there and get a bench warrant?

I think the trouble comes in when being in a southern border city and having brown skin becomes a pretense for targeted harassment. That's certainly an ongoing issue that has been debated, judiciated, and subjected to policy changes. But that's unrelated to the ability for ICE agents to arrest people on suspicion of violating immigration law without a warrant.
  #7  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:15 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
... And then of course there was the recent news that ICE was running training exercises for "Urban Combat", taken from a document that they failed to censor correctly. It's intended to be hyper-realistic, which, as a reporter from the guardian explains:
"Hyper-Realistic is defined as 'such a high degree of fidelity in the replication of battlefield conditions in the training environment that participants so willingly suspend disbelief that they become totally immersed and eventually stress inoculated.'”
So - just to be clear on where we are on this.

...
Given that the domestic terrorist organization Antifa has recently decided they think it's cool to attack ICE facilities, I think training exercises for "Urban Combat" are probably a reasonable part of their agents' training.
  #8  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:24 AM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,763
The problem here is that you can't observe someone being an illegal alien. So a warrant is required for an arrest on that basis.
  #9  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:31 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
The problem here is that you can't observe someone being an illegal alien. So a warrant is required for an arrest on that basis.
No, this is false. ICE agents can detain someone upon reasonable suspicion, and arrest them upon probable cause.

My understanding is that since immigration is a civil matter, the determination of probable cause is not required to be judicially reviewed either, and that the process can be conducted by ICE as determined by the legislature. That's from memory, so I could be wrong on that one.
  #10  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:42 AM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
No, this is false. ICE agents can detain someone upon reasonable suspicion, and arrest them upon probable cause.

My understanding is that since immigration is a civil matter, the determination of probable cause is not required to be judicially reviewed either, and that the process can be conducted by ICE as determined by the legislature. That's from memory, so I could be wrong on that one.
What is a reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal alien? Tell me about these observable characteristics of an illegal alien that distinguish them from citizens and legal aliens. The justice system may ignore the fiction in your kind of reasoning but that doesn't address the issue in the OP.
  #11  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:46 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
What is a reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal alien? Tell me about these observable characteristics of an illegal alien that distinguish them from citizens and legal aliens. The justice system may ignore the fiction in your kind of reasoning but that doesn't address the issue in the OP.
I'd say observing someone who is climbing a border fence, or observed entering the country outside of a controlled access point would meet the criteria of reasonable suspicion.
  #12  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:52 AM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I'd say observing someone who is climbing a border fence, or observed entering the country outside of a controlled access point would meet the criteria of reasonable suspicion.
You've observed the crime of entering the country illegally. That isn't the same as arresting people on a 'suspicion' that they are an illegal alien. Can you prove you are a citizen if an ICE agent grabs you? Isn't that the claim they use for arrests all the time? It's always easy to wave away unjust laws on the basis that they're only getting the bad guys, until they turn that law on you.
  #13  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:53 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
The problem here is that you can't observe someone being an illegal alien. So a warrant is required for an arrest on that basis.
Ding ding ding. I would hope that it is understood that the exception is when a crime is obviously in progress, and that I didn't need to spell that out for a bunch of people who should damn well know better. Yes, if I assault a cop and he sees it, then obviously there is a clear and present reason to detain me. You don't need an arrest warrant for a crime in progress. However, if a cop sees me and has a vague hunch I was the dude involved in a bank robbery somewhere some time ago, I hope you'd all agree that said cop should get a warrant before arresting me.

So how does ICE establish that there is a "crime in progress"? Taking it from that LA Times piece above:
After he was moved to a privately run immigration detention center 85 miles outside Los Angeles in the Mojave Desert, Carrillo’s hope that ICE would quickly remedy its mistake gave way to a sense of despair.

“Inmates were telling me, ‘You’re not going to see a judge for weeks. In here, you don’t have any rights,’” he said. “I started getting real scared: How long was I going to be in here? How could this be happening?”

It was not until Carrillo’s fourth day in detention, when an attorney intervened and presented agents with Carrillo’s passport, that ICE corrected its error. Carrillo emerged from custody to find his phone filled with messages from angry clients. Several fired him.
The dude's a US citizen. They just snatched him up from a car park and took him to a detention center, and had his lawyer not intervened, nobody can tell how long he would have been stuck there. The article goes on to note:
Similarly, in three dozen false arrest lawsuits, Americans caught in the ICE dragnet alleged that officers took them into custody on the basis of cursory computer searches. The agents, according to the lawsuits, often overlooked evidence of citizenship, such as passports, and failed to examine paper files or conduct interviews to confirm the accuracy of their database searches.
Emphasis mine. Again, this is an organization that can take you off the streets and make you disappear with little to no oversight, and they do not require a warrant to do so. They make a lot of serious mistakes, are extremely racist, and some people who are definitely US citizens have lost years of their lives fighting this. If you do not see this as a problem, then I have no idea what could possibly wake you from your stupor. Like, here's another case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stereonz
If ICE can't arrest someone for, say, walking in the area of a US border carrying a bunch of belongings and being unable to produce any ID or proof of citizenship, then what's the point of ICE agents? Do you expect them to stand there and get a bench warrant?
Um... I mean... That's kinda how that kid who was a US citizen got detained for 21 days. He was coming back from visiting mexico. He even had papers on him! It's just that they didn't trust that they were real because he also had a mexican visa on him that had bad information.

But of course, the vast majority of cases I'm talking about aren't "people near the border who look like they're crossing illegally". It's "worker in west virginia taken into custody and them dumped halfway across the country" or "hairdresser in Iowa taken into custody because ICE had bad intel". Again, to quote the LA Times article:

Quote:
That year [2009], the ICE agent who conducted the flawed investigation into Morales issued 77 official requests to detain people he identified as eligible for deportation. Of those, 31 had to be canceled when it turned out the subjects were Americans or lawful residents, according to records in a lawsuit Morales later filed against the agency.
31 out of 77! Nearly half the people this guy booked were citizens or lawful residents! That's insane! This guy, by the way, was operating in Rhode Island. Lots of fence-jumping going on there.

Have things gotten better since then? Maybe, but then you get cases like this:

Quote:
ICE agents found Davino Watson when the Jamaican native was serving time in a New York state prison on a drug charge.

Under questioning about his immigration status, Watson said he was a U.S. citizen through his father, who had naturalized. An agent looked for Watson’s father in immigration databases, but he pulled up the wrong person, court records show. Instead of Hopeton Ulando Watson, who lived in New York, the agent landed on Hopeton Livingston Watson, a man living a state away in Connecticut who wasn’t a U.S. citizen.

Once he had served his sentence for selling cocaine, Watson was transferred to ICE custody, where he remained for 3½ years. Even after ICE realized the error in identifying his parents, federal lawyers refused to free Watson. They seized on a new U.S. reading of Jamaican law to argue Watson should be deported because his father was not his legal guardian when they left the island nation.
That's recent. He got out in 2018.

Again, if you're not concerned about this, I don't get why not. I'm honestly lost what it would take to shake some of you people, what it would take to say, "Hang on, this government body having this kind of uninterrupted power is probably a bad thing."

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 09-15-2019 at 09:55 AM.
  #14  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:58 AM
Taesahnim's Avatar
Taesahnim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Over there. No, further.
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
So this letter from the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Agency probably won't have the intended effect.

There's a lot there, but the relevant part for this thread is this:
ICE does not need a warrant to make an arrest

ICE officers are sworn federal law enforcement officers who operate within the confines of the law. Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides ICE officers the authority to arrest aliens without a judicial warrant. In fact, no judge in this country has the authority to issue a warrant for a civil immigration violation. Congress, by statute, vested this authorization solely to supervisory immigration officers. Local police officers don’t need a warrant when they encounter someone breaking the law in a public space, and the same holds true for ICE officers. Obstructing or otherwise interfering with an ICE arrest is a crime, and anyone involved may be subject to prosecution under federal law. In addition, encouraging others to interfere or attempt to obstruct an arrest is extremely reckless and places all parties in jeopardy
This is actually news to me. I was under the impression that arresting people was one of those things you generally needed a warrant for.
No. Apprehending an illegal is considered the same as an arrest "on view". An officer does not need a warrant to arrest someone that the officer sees committing a crime.

Quote:
I am not the first person to draw parallels between ICE and the secret police of various authoritarian regimes.
And you and they are totally wrong.
  #15  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:59 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
Really, just drop the Gestapo/Nazi comparisons. They're grievously insulting to the memory of actual victims of the Nazis, and their descendants. The modern situations they're applied to almost never come close to what actually happened under Adolph and his merry band of psychotics.
I take particular issue with this line of argument. The reason we "never forget" in the first place is that remembering what happened is a good way to stop it from happening again. If the steps society took towards fascism in the past are some holy, untouchable relic of the past where any comparison is insulting, then what's even the point of remembering it to begin with? Just forget the lesson; you're certainly not going to be using it any time soon. And then when we get concentration camps that aren't as bad as back then (yet), and a police force that can arrest people for spurious reasons who are closely identified with the president's party that aren't as bad as back then (yet), we can just lean back and assume that we don't need to worry, and things certainly can't get worse... yet.

I don't know if you've been paying attention to the Jews against ICE protests, but... newsflash. They sure as hell don't think these comparisons are "insulting".
  #16  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:02 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
You've observed the crime of entering the country illegally. That isn't the same as arresting people on a 'suspicion' that they are an illegal alien. Can you prove you are a citizen if an ICE agent grabs you? Isn't that the claim they use for arrests all the time? It's always easy to wave away unjust laws on the basis that they're only getting the bad guys, until they turn that law on you.
You may be speaking about how you wish the law to be, but I'm talking about what the law actually is. If someone is observed doing the things I described, they can certainly be detained and arrested.

If arrested on suspicion of being in the country illegally, the burden is on the person being arrested to demonstrate they are here legally. That determination can't be made by ICE agents in the field, but it is done after an arrest at an immigration hearing determination (there's a word for this that escapes me).
  #17  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:06 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
The problem here is that you can't observe someone being an illegal alien. So a warrant is required for an arrest on that basis.
But now you're creating an unenforceable standard. To obtain a warrant, a peace officer has to swear an information or similar document, setting out the basis for the officer's reasonable and probable cause that X has infringed the law and should be arrested.

But if you say there's no way for an ICE officer to articulate why there are reasonable grounds to believe X has committed a breach of immigration laws, then there is no way, in your analysis, for a warrant to issue.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #18  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:16 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taesahnim View Post
No. Apprehending an illegal is considered the same as an arrest "on view". An officer does not need a warrant to arrest someone that the officer sees committing a crime.
As stated above: that's an absurd standard, because picking out any individual as "illegal" happens to be pretty hit-or-miss. It's one thing if you're at a border checkpoint, it's entirely another if you're minding your own business in your home in... Well, literally anywhere in the country, come to think of it.

But hey, not like people involved with border patrol have any notable biases that would make this scarier, right?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.new...455947%3famp=1

Just kidding, of course they do!

Shit, I now regret putting so much work into the OP, since basically nobody seems to have read it.
__________________
"Until their much-needed total political extinction, you can expect the GOP to continue to take corporate money to systemically murder you and everyone you know."
- A. R. Moxon
  #19  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:46 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
.... Shit, I now regret putting so much work into the OP, since basically nobody seems to have read it.
Maybe try leaving the Nazi comparisons out of your next one. You wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
...
Really, the thread title talks about comparisons to the Gestapo, but to the degree that they're necessary, it is only to shake people awake. What ICE is doing is horrible all on its own. ...
If you really believe that ICE having the gall to arrest people without a warrant is "horrible all on its own", then do what I advised once and leave the Nazis out of it.
  #20  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:46 AM
Some Call Me... Tim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Given that the domestic terrorist organization Antifa has recently decided they think it's cool to attack ICE facilities, I think training exercises for "Urban Combat" are probably a reasonable part of their agents' training.
I was unaware that there existed a singular organization of that name, and am curious how the organization you refer to announced its decision. Would you please link the press release, meeting minutes, or whatever other facts led you to make this claim? Thanks.
  #21  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:07 AM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
But now you're creating an unenforceable standard. To obtain a warrant, a peace officer has to swear an information or similar document, setting out the basis for the officer's reasonable and probable cause that X has infringed the law and should be arrested.

But if you say there's no way for an ICE officer to articulate why there are reasonable grounds to believe X has committed a breach of immigration laws, then there is no way, in your analysis, for a warrant to issue.
So you do understand. Aside from people crossing the border and someone shouting "I am an illegal alien!" there really isn't much of a way in the law to enforce this. Rather than addressing that problem we take the usual easy way out and ignore people's rights.
  #22  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:13 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post

Shit, I now regret putting so much work into the OP, since basically nobody seems to have read it.
Oh, I did read it. It contained a clearly erroneous statement about the law, which seems to have been the foundation for your grievance, and, based on that error, a completely off-base comparison to the Gestapo - that's the actual question in your thread title.

I'm afraid once I assimilated those two facts, the rest of your OP just seemed so much sound and blather.

There may be the genesis for a good debate there, but not once you've poisoned the well so thoroughly in your OP.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #23  
Old 09-15-2019, 12:17 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
If ICE can't arrest someone for, say, walking in the area of a US border carrying a bunch of belongings and being unable to produce any ID or proof of citizenship, then what's the point of ICE agents? Do you expect them to stand there and get a bench warrant?
[QUOTE=Bone;21861627If arrested on suspicion of being in the country illegally, the burden is on the person being arrested to demonstrate they are here legally. That determination can't be made by ICE agents in the field, but it is done after an arrest at an immigration hearing determination (there's a word for this that escapes me).[/QUOTE]

It amazes me that people will post 'what's the point of even having this law enforcement agency if they can't just arrest someone for walking along the street without being able to produce ID?', but also complain about any comparison with the Gestapo and their "Papers, please" actions. Or will post that if arrested, the burden is on the person being arrested to prove their innocence, especially since they won't have access to a lawyer or friends and relatives to help them get documents. I don't think that expecting any LE to have a warrant or probable cause for an arrest instead of just 'they're brown, they were kind of near the border and carrying belongings, lets throw them in a concentration camp until they can prove they are innocent' is exactly unreasonable, and I don't think Nazi comparions are unwarranted when you're talking about an organization that arrests US citizens without a warrant or probably cause and holds them for years despite there being no crime whatsoever beyond looking like they might be foreign.
  #24  
Old 09-15-2019, 02:33 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
The Gestapo would not bother to make a legal argument. They didn't have to.
  #25  
Old 09-15-2019, 06:07 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taesahnim View Post
An officer does not need a warrant to arrest someone that the officer sees committing a crime.
But what does it mean to see someone committing a crime, if the crime is being in the country without legal permission to be here?

A person who's attacking a cop looks like they're attacking a cop. A person who's breaking into a bank looks like they're breaking into a bank. A person who's in a bank at two in the morning looks like a person who's where no person most likely has a right to be at that time. A person driving a car who's weaving back and forth across lanes looks like a person who's probably in no condition to be driving.

A person who's walking down the street, or harvesting apples, or mowing lawns, or doing IT work at Amazon, looks exactly the same whether they're a US citizen descended from four generations of citizens, or got naturalized forty years or forty days ago, or are here on a legitimate work visa, or overstayed a tourist visa, or jumped a fence.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I take particular issue with this line of argument. The reason we "never forget" in the first place is that remembering what happened is a good way to stop it from happening again. If the steps society took towards fascism in the past are some holy, untouchable relic of the past where any comparison is insulting, then what's even the point of remembering it to begin with? Just forget the lesson; you're certainly not going to be using it any time soon. And then when we get concentration camps that aren't as bad as back then (yet), and a police force that can arrest people for spurious reasons who are closely identified with the president's party that aren't as bad as back then (yet), we can just lean back and assume that we don't need to worry, and things certainly can't get worse... yet.

I don't know if you've been paying attention to the Jews against ICE protests, but... newsflash. They sure as hell don't think these comparisons are "insulting".
Seconding.

Not every Jew, of course, has the same opinion. But as a person of Jewish heritage who wouldn't exist if my father and his parents hadn't gotten out of Poland in time, mine is this: The lesson of the Holocaust isn't 'Germany in the 1930's and 40's was uniquely evil.' It's 'if such things could happen in Germany, they can happen anywhere. And once they've really got going, it takes an awful lot of blood and grief to get them stopped again, and it'll be too late for a lot of the victims. So watch out for early signs, and stop things before they're unmistakably out of hand.'


Not everything happening now that's sometimes compared to behavior of the Nazis deserves the comparison. And it's true that making the comparison is sometimes impolitic and may backfire. But it's entirely false that the comparison should never be made unless and until formal death camps are set up and operating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
If arrested on suspicion of being in the country illegally, the burden is on the person being arrested to demonstrate they are here legally.
The burden is on a US citizen to demonstrate that they are one?

Isn't the exact opposite of "innocent until proven guilty"? Even if you're going to claim that only citizens are entitled to that, some of the cases cited in this thread have been of citizens. Plus, of course, when the charge is specifically 'you're not entitled to be in the USA', by its very nature denying the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure of the person to non-citizens means withholding it from citizens.
  #26  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:05 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Not everything happening now that's sometimes compared to behavior of the Nazis deserves the comparison.
Trump is sometimes called a Nazi, but I think he lacks the imagination. If he were a Nazi, his ambition would be to conquer Mexico, exterminate the Mexicans, and resettle the territory with white Americans.
  #27  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:45 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
But what does it mean to see someone committing a crime, if the crime is being in the country without legal permission to be here?



A person who's attacking a cop looks like they're attacking a cop. A person who's breaking into a bank looks like they're breaking into a bank. A person who's in a bank at two in the morning looks like a person who's where no person most likely has a right to be at that time. A person driving a car who's weaving back and forth across lanes looks like a person who's probably in no condition to be driving.



A person who's walking down the street, or harvesting apples, or mowing lawns, or doing IT work at Amazon, looks exactly the same whether they're a US citizen descended from four generations of citizens, or got naturalized forty years or forty days ago, or are here on a legitimate work visa, or overstayed a tourist visa, or jumped a fence.











Seconding.



Not every Jew, of course, has the same opinion. But as a person of Jewish heritage who wouldn't exist if my father and his parents hadn't gotten out of Poland in time, mine is this: The lesson of the Holocaust isn't 'Germany in the 1930's and 40's was uniquely evil.' It's 'if such things could happen in Germany, they can happen anywhere. And once they've really got going, it takes an awful lot of blood and grief to get them stopped again, and it'll be too late for a lot of the victims. So watch out for early signs, and stop things before they're unmistakably out of hand.'





Not everything happening now that's sometimes compared to behavior of the Nazis deserves the comparison. And it's true that making the comparison is sometimes impolitic and may backfire. But it's entirely false that the comparison should never be made unless and until formal death camps are set up and operating.







The burden is on a US citizen to demonstrate that they are one?



Isn't the exact opposite of "innocent until proven guilty"? Even if you're going to claim that only citizens are entitled to that, some of the cases cited in this thread have been of citizens. Plus, of course, when the charge is specifically 'you're not entitled to be in the USA', by its very nature denying the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure of the person to non-citizens means withholding it from citizens.
No, just the ones who fail the paper bag test.

But that's the point.
  #28  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:07 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
The burden is on a US citizen to demonstrate that they are one?

Isn't the exact opposite of "innocent until proven guilty"? Even if you're going to claim that only citizens are entitled to that, some of the cases cited in this thread have been of citizens. Plus, of course, when the charge is specifically 'you're not entitled to be in the USA', by its very nature denying the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure of the person to non-citizens means withholding it from citizens.
In many cases, yes. That is the law. Innocent until proven guilty, or the presumption of innocence applies at trial, in criminal matters. Since immigration is mostly a civil action, it doesn't apply. There are of course other laws that control where the burden lays, but often times the burden is on the individual to demonstrate their right to be in the country. Here's the wiki:

Quote:
Burden of proof involving a permanent resident
Further information: Lawful permanent residents (United States)
A lawful permanent resident (LPR) is a person "having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such status not having changed."[52] An LPR can either be an "alien" or a "national of the United States" (American), which requires a case-by-case analysis and depends mainly on the number of continuous years he or she has spent in the United States.[53] "In removal proceedings involving an LPR, the [DHS] bears the burden of proof, which it must meet by adducing clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the facts alleged as grounds for deportation are true."[8][9] This is to uphold the U.S. Constitution, deter civil disorder, and protect the United States against major lawsuits.[21][22][54]

Burden of proof involving a nonpermanent resident
In removal proceedings involving a non-LPR, the burden of proof is on the alien to show that he or she "is clearly and beyond doubt entitled to be admitted and is not inadmissible under" the INA.[55] Specifically:

Arriving Aliens: As a general rule, the arriving non-LPR alien bears the legal burden of proof of clear admissibility to the United States.[51][55]
Aliens Present Without Admission or Parole: This refers to illegal aliens.[7] In this case, once the prosecution establishes that the respondent is a non-LPR alien, the burden of proof is on the respondent to demonstrate that he or she is in lawful status in the United States.[51][55]
Admitted Aliens: This refers to aliens who were admitted by the government. In other words, they lawfully entered the country as opposed to unlawfully. Here, the legal burden of proof of removability falls on the prosecution.[8][51]
Regardless of the category, if the alien is requesting any form of relief from removal, e.g., cancellation of removal, waiver of inadmissibility, and/or protection under the CAT, the burden of proof for demonstrating eligibility for the relief squarely falls on the alien.[55]
In the first category, DHS bears the burden. In the second category, the alien bears the burden.

Now, if a person is actually a citizen, they would be in the first category, however unless they can demonstrate they are in the first category, I would think they fall into the second.

And a lawful detention or arrest is by definition not unreasonable, and therefor not violative of the 4th amendment. As long as the proper process and procedures are followed, there is nothing illegal about ICE detaining a person that is suspected of being in the country illegally, and arresting them if they have probable cause to do so.
  #29  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:20 PM
alnath is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
In that case, try getting out of your car and assaulting a cop the next time you're pulled over for a traffic violation, then demanding to be released because the officer didn't have a warrant.

Really, just drop the Gestapo/Nazi comparisons. They're grievously insulting to the memory of actual victims of the Nazis, and their descendants. The modern situations they're applied to almost never come close to what actually happened under Adolph and his merry band of psychotics.
True enough. We are just at the beginning of the process that ends with Gestapo tactics. As a nation we had better act now to bresk the back of this rapidly developing monster. Hope a 2020 Democratic run on the Executive and Legislative branches is in time...
  #30  
Old 09-16-2019, 12:07 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
In many cases, yes. That is the law. Innocent until proven guilty, or the presumption of innocence applies at trial, in criminal matters. Since immigration is mostly a civil action, it doesn't apply.
Detaining and arresting people without probable cause or a warrant and claiming that they need to prove something but giving them no trial or access to council or people not detained by calling it a 'civil action' is awful. Whether it's technically legal or not is beside the point - the actions carried out by the Gestapo in Nazi Germany were also legal, after all.

Quote:
And a lawful detention or arrest is by definition not unreasonable, and therefor not violative of the 4th amendment.
The 4th amendment does not mean 'whatever you pass as a law to detain people is ipso facto reasonable', it does in fact set limits on what a law can do. Further, the term 'unreasonable' isn't limited to the strict legal definition, for example most people today would find segregated drinking fountains 'uneasonable' even though courts at the time upheld them.
  #31  
Old 09-16-2019, 12:30 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Detaining and arresting people without probable cause or a warrant and claiming that they need to prove something but giving them no trial or access to council or people not detained by calling it a 'civil action' is awful. Whether it's technically legal or not is beside the point - the actions carried out by the Gestapo in Nazi Germany were also legal, after all.
Sure, if that was what was the common practice, but it's not. The wiki describes the process generally for immigration hearings. There is due process, though it's not the same as for criminal trials since the hearings are not criminal trials. This is described in the wiki article I quoted above, but forgot to link. Here is the link.

You're conflating the necessary requirements for arrest, as if probable cause is the same as a judicial warrant. They are not the same thing. The link in the OP from ICE describing the fact that, "no judge in this country has the authority to issue a warrant for a civil immigration violation. Congress, by statute, vested this authorization solely to supervisory immigration officers. " is accurate. So claiming that people are arrested without a judicial warrant is an absurdity since there can never be such a warrant. Now, detentions upon reasonable suspicion, and arrests upon probable cause - that's the current state of the law and has been for many many decades.

As to a lack of trial - it's not a criminal matter mostly. This is the thing that people hang their hat on when they object to the term "illegal aliens", right? Not being a criminal matter, there isn't a criminal trial. But a respondent is able to have an attorney represent them, but my understanding is that one is not provided to them as they would be in a criminal trial.

And this refrain that the actions of the Gestapo were legal is pretty awful. It can be leveled against anything lawful. The parallels trying to be drawn here, and by the OP, are terrible and unpersuasive. They probably do more damage to whatever cause is trying to be advanced because it harms credibility and makes readers not take seriously any claims being made.
  #32  
Old 09-16-2019, 02:42 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
You're conflating the necessary requirements for arrest, as if probable cause is the same as a judicial warrant. They are not the same thing. The link in the OP from ICE describing the fact that, "no judge in this country has the authority to issue a warrant for a civil immigration violation. Congress, by statute, vested this authorization solely to supervisory immigration officers. " is accurate. So claiming that people are arrested without a judicial warrant is an absurdity since there can never be such a warrant. Now, detentions upon reasonable suspicion, and arrests upon probable cause - that's the current state of the law and has been for many many decades.

As to a lack of trial - it's not a criminal matter mostly. This is the thing that people hang their hat on when they object to the term "illegal aliens", right? Not being a criminal matter, there isn't a criminal trial. But a respondent is able to have an attorney represent them, but my understanding is that one is not provided to them as they would be in a criminal trial.

And this refrain that the actions of the Gestapo were legal is pretty awful. It can be leveled against anything lawful. The parallels trying to be drawn here, and by the OP, are terrible and unpersuasive. They probably do more damage to whatever cause is trying to be advanced because it harms credibility and makes readers not take seriously any claims being made.
All this talk of what the law is seems like it's missing the point somewhat.

Why yes, it is completely legal for ICE to snatch people off the street with no warrant based only on very flimsy probable cause (which leads to a lot of mistakes).

Why yes, it is completely legal for them to deport people, even US citizens, without a criminal trial, and often without being represented by an attourney.

Why yes, it is completely legal for them to separate families and stick them in concentration camps indefinitely.

The part of this that's supposed to bother you is not "oh wow, all that stuff is against the law", because it isn't - and that kinda makes it worse. The part that's supposed to bother you is that it's that it's happening at all, and that it's getting worse. That's why people are saying "The Gestapo was legal too". That's why I'm not super interested that I don't have a super deep understanding of immigration case law, unless the part I'm misunderstanding is any of those "completely legal" things above.

Christ, you throw all your toys out of the pram at the slightest suggestion that someone regulate your mass murder devices, but a government organization with an embarrassing rate of inaccuracy snatching people from the street and detaining them for years on end is apparently A-OK? I do not get republicans at all.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 09-16-2019 at 02:44 AM.
  #33  
Old 09-16-2019, 02:49 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Also, let's be clear here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alnath View Post
True enough. We are just at the beginning of the process that ends with Gestapo tactics. As a nation we had better act now to bresk the back of this rapidly developing monster. Hope a 2020 Democratic run on the Executive and Legislative branches is in time...
By the time anything is so bad that it can reasonably be compared to the Gestapo without scolds less interested in learning the lessons of history than they are in venerating those long dead regardless of the cost complaining that you're "cheapening the memory"... It's already way too late. By the time things get that bad, the fight is lost. The country is lost. There is no way back that isn't drowned in the blood of the innocent. By the time it gets bad enough for people like Jackmanii not to complain about these comparisons cheapening the memory of the victims of the Gestapo, it will no longer be possible to make these comparisons in public.

This is why I prefer using history to search for early warning signs. Why things that aren't really like the Gestapo but sure seem to be going in that direction deserve incredible scrutiny. Because we cannot let it get that far.
  #34  
Old 09-16-2019, 06:23 AM
Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
No, just the ones who fail the paper bag test.

But that's the point.
We refer to the off-border CBP checkpoints as Skin Checks. The one I pass through most often is a good 90 minute drive from the border.
  #35  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:17 AM
RickJay is online now
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Given that the domestic terrorist organization Antifa has recently decided they think it's cool to attack ICE facilities,
This thread started with a crazy overreaction and it continues to deliver.

I'm kind of surprised, going back to the OP, that the fact cops can arrest you without a warrant would escape notice. I mean, there have been approximately 11 trillion TV shows and movies about cops arresting perpetrators and we don't all throw our hands up in disgust and say "man, why do they NEVER get a warrant in these shows?"

Budget Player is altering the tune here, and hey, there's creeping fascism throughout the Western world; that is an unfortunate fact. But leading off a discussion about that with "I thought you needed a warrant to arrest people" is like leading off a purportedly serious discussion about NFL football by saying "I thought there were three quarters in a game" or "I thought a field goal was worth five points."
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!

Last edited by RickJay; 09-16-2019 at 07:20 AM.
  #36  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:27 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
This thread started with a crazy overreaction and it continues to deliver.

I'm kind of surprised, going back to the OP, that the fact cops can arrest you without a warrant would escape notice. I mean, there have been approximately 11 trillion TV shows and movies about cops arresting perpetrators and we don't all throw our hands up in disgust and say "man, why do they NEVER get a warrant in these shows?"

Budget Player is altering the tune here, and hey, there's creeping fascism throughout the Western world; that is an unfortunate fact. But leading off a discussion about that with "I thought you needed a warrant to arrest people" is like leading off a purportedly serious discussion about NFL football by saying "I thought there were three quarters in a game" or "I thought a field goal was worth five points."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
The problem here is that you can't observe someone being an illegal alien. So a warrant is required for an arrest on that basis.


Yes, thank you, I am well aware that cops arrest people for crimes in progress without warrants. I sincerely regret not making it more obvious in the OP that that's not what we're talking about, but I honestly thought it would be obvious from the context clues that ICE doesn't have that option, or, at least shouldn't.

So can we drop this absurd canard, or what?
__________________
"Until their much-needed total political extinction, you can expect the GOP to continue to take corporate money to systemically murder you and everyone you know."
- A. R. Moxon
  #37  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:36 AM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post


Yes, thank you, I am well aware that cops arrest people for crimes in progress without warrants. I sincerely regret not making it more obvious in the OP that that's not what we're talking about, but I honestly thought it would be obvious from the context clues that ICE doesn't have that option, or, at least shouldn't.

So can we drop this absurd canard, or what?
Start a new thread then, you ruined this one. You said "I was under the impression that arresting people was one of those things you generally needed a warrant for." Don't be mad the people on the dope jumped in to correct you.

Furthermore, as much as I have an issue with ICE and their tactics, it's silly to think that ICE never has probable cause to arrest people. 37 people spilling out of a van in the desert near the Mexican border after being stopped at a checkpoint? You don't think that would count as probable cause? If you were an ICE agent would you stand there and say, "Hang on guys, we can't tell their immigration status based on this."
  #38  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:37 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
I'm really sorry for assuming that the dope could read for context or read half a page of posts or think even half a step further before jumping in with ill-thought-out nonsense. My bad. I'll request the thread be closed and try again.
__________________
"Until their much-needed total political extinction, you can expect the GOP to continue to take corporate money to systemically murder you and everyone you know."
- A. R. Moxon

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 09-16-2019 at 07:39 AM.
  #39  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:47 AM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,064
I mean you just said, post #36, that you don't think ICE should have the option to arrest people for probable cause. Do you still believe that? Am I missing context, did I not think half a step further? What am I missing?
  #40  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:12 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
All this talk of what the law is seems like it's missing the point somewhat.
My point was to correct or address misunderstandings of the law, and provide context where it was left out or omitted in a way to be misleading.

For instance, your first example of the person held for 26 days seems to leave out relevant context - like the fact he was traveling with his brother who was undocumented, the fact that while he had documentation, when ICE reviewed them they discovered there was also documentation that he was a Mexican national (mother filled out travel visas from Mexico). This is no justification for the conditions as described, of course.

It seems like an underlying understanding of the law is necessary to have an informed discussion, otherwise you go down the path of misstating obvious facts and grandiose unreasonable comparisons to Nazis.
  #41  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:15 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It seems like an underlying understanding of the law is necessary to have an informed discussion, otherwise you go down the path of misstating obvious facts and grandiose unreasonable comparisons to Nazis.
(bolding mine)

Guys, I think I found the holy grail -- Bone used the R-word (or a variation on it, anyway)!

Maybe we can be friends after all, Mr. Bone! We can join together and talk about what we find reasonable, and what we find unreasonable, and bridge our differences, and this eminently reasonable discussion will flower into mutual understanding, affection, and love, to serve as an example to debaters the world over!
  #42  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:25 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
(bolding mine)

Guys, I think I found the holy grail -- Bone used the R-word (or a variation on it, anyway)!

Maybe we can be friends after all, Mr. Bone! We can join together and talk about what we find reasonable, and what we find unreasonable, and bridge our differences, and this eminently reasonable discussion will flower into mutual understanding, affection, and love, to serve as an example to debaters the world over!
Nice try, but no. I was using the language that BPC used (my bold):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
By the time anything is so bad that it can reasonably be compared to the Gestapo without scolds less interested in learning the lessons of history than they are in venerating those long dead regardless of the cost complaining that you're "cheapening the memory"... It's already way too late.
He states that comparisons are unreasonable. I'm stating the position as stipulated, not making an assessment.

Last edited by Bone; 09-16-2019 at 08:27 AM.
  #43  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:31 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Nice try, but no. I was using the language that BPC used (my bold):

He states that comparisons are unreasonable. I'm stating the position as stipulated, not making an assessment.
Don't resist so much! Just let it happen. Let the reasonableness flow over you. I promise, it's far better than you imagine!
  #44  
Old 09-16-2019, 09:34 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
For instance, your first example of the person held for 26 days seems to leave out relevant context
There is no context where a US Citizen, who presents his ID, SS card and Birth Cert. to authorities should then be imprisoned for 26 days over a civil immigration violation.

People who actually commit crimes, who have actual victims of their actions, and have been found guilty in a court of law frequently spend less time in jail than that.


Ultimately, this is the problem with ICE. They act under the rules of law enforcement, their targets are people who commit civil infractions, but the actions they take are comparable to those taken against hardened criminals who represent a danger to society. Imprisonment without bail, and often without legal representation, until they are done processing your case, to their internal satisfaction.

It's the law enforcement equivalent of a blank check. ICE decides who is "probably" illegal. ICE decides to detain them without a right to bail. ICE decides when they are satisfied enough to release them.
  #45  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:09 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
There is no context where a US Citizen, who presents his ID, SS card and Birth Cert. to authorities should then be imprisoned for 26 days over a civil immigration violation.
It would be great if these things could resolve quickly. I'd say when there are conflicting documents it would take some time to resolve. 26 days seems too long, but 3-7 doesn't. I seem to have lost the cite, but my reading was that about 80% of people that claim citizenship are actually determinated to not be citizens, so false claims are not rare.
  #46  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:38 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It would be great if these things could resolve quickly. I'd say when there are conflicting documents it would take some time to resolve. 26 days seems too long, but 3-7 doesn't. I seem to have lost the cite, but my reading was that about 80% of people that claim citizenship are actually determinated to not be citizens, so false claims are not rare.
That's not my problem, that's ICE's problem, one they should attempt to solve without imprisoning American Citizens for multiple weeks because their papers failed to meet ICE's lofty standards. If they can't manage it currently, they should scale back their operations so they can both process claims quickly, and not detain people in terrible conditions.

BTW, that cite you reference suggests that 20% of people claiming to be citizens are actually American Citizens being wrongly imprisoned. Name some other type of imprisonment where we are OK with 20% of those imprisoned being factually innocent?
  #47  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:03 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
My point was to correct or address misunderstandings of the law, and provide context where it was left out or omitted in a way to be misleading.

For instance, your first example of the person held for 26 days seems to leave out relevant context - like the fact he was traveling with his brother who was undocumented, the fact that while he had documentation, when ICE reviewed them they discovered there was also documentation that he was a Mexican national (mother filled out travel visas from Mexico). This is no justification for the conditions as described, of course.

It seems like an underlying understanding of the law is necessary to have an informed discussion, otherwise you go down the path of misstating obvious facts and grandiose unreasonable comparisons to Nazis.
How far down the road does this have to go before you find comparisons to Nazis acceptable in your eyes?
  #48  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:05 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It would be great if these things could resolve quickly. I'd say when there are conflicting documents it would take some time to resolve. 26 days seems too long, but 3-7 doesn't. I seem to have lost the cite, but my reading was that about 80% of people that claim citizenship are actually determinated to not be citizens, so false claims are not rare.
Would the number of people that make the claim and the number of people that actually are U.S. citizens be available?
  #49  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:35 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
... Name some other type of imprisonment where we are OK with 20% of those imprisoned being factually innocent?
California, for felony arrests, only 2/3 result in conviction. I guess you could quibble about whether never charged / charges dismissed / not guilty are "factually innocent" or not, but I'd be surprised if those same quibbles didn't apply to suspected illegal immigrants.

Quote:
In 2015, 242,460 adults in California were arrested for felony offenses. Of those, 162,282 were convicted. Three percent – 7,537 – were later released by police officers. Sixteen percent – 38,733 people – were never prosecuted. In 14 percent of the cases, the 33,908 adults arrested had their cases dismissed or were acquitted.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-16-2019 at 11:39 AM.
  #50  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:40 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
California, for felony arrests, only 2/3 result in conviction. I guess you could quibble about whether never charges / charges dismissed / not guilty are "factually innocent" or not, but I'd be surprised if those same quibbles didn't apply to suspected illegal immigrants.
How many of those were actually imprisoned, and of those how many were factually innocent?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017