Once upon a time, “Our Gang” referred to those little rascals featured in the American comedy series by the same name that featured a band of poor black and white neighborhood children who wore their hats sideways and had adventures together. These days, the term “gang” generally refers to bands of poor kids of color from urban neighborhoods who hang out together and, sometimes, get into trouble. In rich white communities, such “gangs” don’t exist; we call them “fraternities.”
Don’t get me wrong — I’m all in favor of having the police investigate and arrest violent criminals. And the Globe quoted University of Texas Professor Susan Ritter who said that MS-13 is involved in drugs, arms and car theft rings, which suggests that MS-13 is indeed an appropriate target for law enforcement efforts.
But if MS-13 is a criminal enterprise, why does the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency have the lead role sweeping through our neighborhoods rather than criminal law enforcement agents? And why wouldn’t ICE spokesman Michael Gilhooly say how many people were arrested, for what crimes, and where they were being held?
And taxpayers want to know: after all this investment of public resources, did you get bad guys in the MS-13 or not?
The answer may lie buried at the bottom of the Globe story. Apparently, says Professor Ritter, MS-13’s presence in Boston is “lower key than in other cities.”
“Maybe they’re just getting started,” she added.
Maybe that’s right. But reports of uniformed ICE agents entering apartments with warrants for people who no longer live in the building and arrests of people with no ties to MS-13 raises the specter that ICE and law enforcement officials are using the fear of “gangs” as an excuse carry out wide-ranging sweeps of immigrant communities in search of someone — anyone — whom they might arrest, whether on criminal charges or minor immigration violations.
“People are scared,” said a Chelsea community organizer quoted by the Globe. “They don’t know what’s going on. They don’t want to go out of their houses. It’s just terrifying.”
The use of terrifying tactics seems to be the ICE way. This is the same agency that rounded up some more than 350 immigrants working at the Michael Bianco factory in New Bedford last March, shipping many of them to remote prisons in Texas without first giving them access to counsel. In many instances, minor children were left behind.
I wonder, too, if this is part of the Bush administration’s “Operation Endgame,” a 10-year campaign to track down and deport all the immigrants to the United States who are living and working here without proper documentation, by the year 2012.
Whatever you call it, the storm-trooper approach to law enforcement will drive both legal and undocumented immigrants underground, where they are more likely to become victims of crime and less likely to report those crimes to the police. And when parents are too afraid of the police to leave their homes to participate in public celebrations like the annual Caribbean festival, their children may be more likely to see the local neighborhood gang as an appealing alternative.
The terrible irony is that violent gangs like MS-13 thrive when people are driven underground. And it feels like ICE is just getting started.
By Carol Rose, Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts
The new Swampscott High School comes equipped with a complete set of cameras in every single classroom, hallway and lecture hall (yes, there are those, too, in this 55 million dollar behemeth).
wow.
<
p>
what do the classroom cameras “aim at”? and who watches?
They’re situated at the corners of each classroom by the door, so they pretty much get the entire view of the class.
<
p>
When I was still in High School, the school added a few cameras by the entrances and exits, and a few others in the halls. The one’s in the hall worked in a way that people didn’t regularly watch the footage – but, the footage could be used if something actually happened. It’s typically the same way on school busses. Say there’s griffiti on the way, someone could go back to the footage and see who did it. Alternately, there could be someone who started an underground newspaper or something too… so who knows if the cameras will be used responsibly?
“say there’s graffitti on the wall“, not way. LOL .
I would like to start by asking why you can’t bring yourself to use the term “illegal immigrants”? You refer to legal immigrants but refer to the criminals who are here illegally as “undocumented immigrants” and “immigrants..who are living and working here without proper documentation”. Why are the word play; why not just call a spade a spade?
<
p>
Now for the substance of your post, the way I take what you wrote is that ICE should not be allowed to go through neighborhoods of known illegal immigrants and make arrests. In addition, ICE and other law enforcement are somehow doing something dishonest by saying that this is “gang” related.
<
p>
I ask why they can’t? We (by we I am specifically referring to our representatives in the legislature) choose to fund ICE and charge them with the task of maintaining the legal process of immigration. Part of that task is catching the people who try and do an end run around that process. In fact, according to ICE, their purpose is to “effectively enforce our immigration and customs laws and to protect the United States against terrorist attacks.” So, we have created this agency, charged them with doing a job and now you want to complain that they are doing the job we charged them with? What is it that you want, ICE agents to sit around with their thumbs up their asses? Apparently not based on this line you wrote “taxpayers want to know: after all this investment of public resources, did you get bad guys in the MS-13 or not?”
<
p>
So which is it, do you want them to do their jobs or not?
<
p>
As for coupling this action with an anti-gang action, hey that’s just good, efficient law enforcement and also shows good prioritization. If we have a known area where illegal immigrants are living and gangs, mostly made up of illegal immigrants, are also known to live in this same area, why not make this area a priority for ICE enforcement to eliminate the safe heaven for MS-13 that is created by the illegal immigrant community?
<
p>
I personally find your hypothesis that this type of crack down somehow makes it easier for gangs moronic and over simplified. And why would legal immigrants be driven underground by the “storm trooper” tactics (as you called them)?
<
p>
As to your childish “what is a gang” question and trying to compare gangs to fraternities, this is just stupid. When was the last time a child was shot in the neck in her mother’s arms because of some cheeky high jinks of a fraternity?
<
p>
I never took my fraternity membership very seriously while at the University of New Hampshire, but you, Carol Rose, can kiss my ass with a comment like that.
They traffic in phony IDs. They distribute alcohol to underage drinkers along with illegal drugs. Some of them are rapists. Sometimes they even kill their own members in spooky rituals. Clearly, we need to crack down.
if you’re being serious or not.
I don’t want to put words in Carol’s mouth, but I read her argument as follows: groups of kids in minority communities are “gangs,” whereas groups of kids in white communities are not.
<
p>
Fraternities have been known to engage in thuggish behavior. Most do not, but to what I think is her point, most groups of kids who happen to be minorities are not gangs in the way you are using the term; that is, they are not prone to violence.
<
p>
I only speculate like this in the hope that we can remove the invective from this discussion.
You know, I have a buddy of mine. We’ve been friends a long time. We met in a fraternity. He’s an asian american. Of the non-rapist, non-hazing, really nice guy variety.
<
p>
Everytime I call our fraternity a “frat”, he yells at me. You wanna know why? Because of people like you, Carol Rose, and the girl who gave my comment a “zero,” ostensibly because I am now sticking up for fraternities everywhere. He thinks fraternities shouldn’t be called “frats” because it invokes a negaitve stereotype. I used to laugh at him. Until right now.
<
p>
So, here’s my thing – when I was a kid I learned the definition of “prejudice” was just that – to pre-judge. To prejudge a group of people due to a similar characteristic they might have.
<
p>
So, here I am on a “liberal” message board arguing that not all kisd who happen to be in fraternities are violent angry rapists, because you, Carol Rose, and Zero Girl have decided that immigrants are not worthy or prejudice (fair enough) but “white kids” are.
<
p>
How do you figure? I was in a fraternity. As far as my criminal history goes – there isn’t one. That goes for nearly all of my fraternity brothers, who have actually done really well for themselves.
<
p>
Underage drinking? Drugs? Violence? You can find that in any bar, or on any college campus, regardless of whether or not there are fraternities on that particular campus.
<
p>
So, thanks for bringing down the liberal cause with mindless non-sense. You go ahead and keep touting the virtues of violent gangs made up of illegal immigrants versus “white college guys” and see how far it gets us.
<
p>
Nice work.
Carol offended you, and I compounded it. Sorry.
<
p>
But this is not about fraternities, and I’m not going to argue with you about fraternities. I’m glad you had a pleasant experience with them. Many people do not. Many people dislike fraternities. That is plain fact.
<
p>
So point out the error of her comparison, and move on to the main point, please. The question is, are federal authorities unfairly using the label “gang” to target immigrants? Clearly you think not. OK.
<
p>
No one disputes that MS-13 is dangerous. No one would like to have MS-13 around. But is ICE, in its zeal, stepping on people’s rights? That is the question. And like your rights and my rights, it matters.
<
p>
I’ve read the news story and Carol’s piece a couple of times, and I can’t see where the ICE is over-stepping its bounds.
<
p>
There’s always a tension between individual rights and law enforcement. We have laws, and its right that they’re enforced. If you’re looking for illegal immigrants, its not unfair to look in immigrant communities. If the ICE has reasonable information that would lead it to believe members ofr MS-13 are here illegally, and they know where to find MS-13 members, then it’s absolutely necessary that they follow those leads. And in so doing, protect the communities of safe, friendly, and hard-working immigrants (legal and illegal) on whom gangs (GANGS!) routinely prey.
<
p>
Positions like Carol’s make the ACLU not only a punhing bag for the right, but also completely out of touch with ordinary Americans.
JK is missing some important points:
<
p>
– The Constitution doesn’t say its protections only apply to citizens. They apply to everyone inside our borders. Should a visiting professor from China have no free speech rights? Should we be able to prevent international tourists from visiting places of worship? No.
<
p>
– Some say that people who are here illegally don’t qualify for those protections, but the Constitution clearly protects people even when they have been convicted of crimes, like the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
<
p>
– These sweeps terrorize whole communities of people who “look foreign,” even if they’re citizens or live here legally. Do you want to live in a country where everyone has to carry papers that prove they’re a citizen, 24-7, and show them on demand whenever the police decide they want to see them, warrant or not? That’s one of the things the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent.
<
p>
As for fraternities, no, they generally don’t use guns, but it’d be hard to argue they’ve never hurt or killed anyone and that it’s all just good clean fun.
To your first and second points. The Constitution does apply to non-citizens who are hear legally. However, I am not a constitutional lawyer but would tend to think that while you can’t murder someone who is illegally here, it probably does not and should not project illegal immigrants from being detained and prosecuted for illegally entering the company.
<
p>
To your third point. IMO, you are both right and wrong in this point. The bill of rights were meant to prevent unlawful search and seizure. However, if the ICE agents obtained a legal warrant prior to conducting these raids then the raid would
not have been unlawful(ugh, double negative, sorry)have been lawful. As far as carrying papers, all guests in this country should be required to carry papers (i.e. green cards and visas) 24-7 and show them when asked by law enforcement, I believe that is one of the terms of the green cards and visas.<
p>
As to the frat vs. gang comparison (I can’t believe I am defending frats since I actually disdain them), but it is just bullshit. Frats are groups of people that usually do charity work and have a good, lawful goal while gangs are a group of people with unlawful goals. Sure, sometimes there are people who take things to far and there are instances of rape, death, assault, etc. but those are the exception rather then the rule.
<
p>
The difficult part is determining who is supposed to be carrying papers and who isn’t. If someone is not carrying any papers proving they are a citizen, how do the police know if they were born here, have parents that are US citizens, went through the naturalization process, left their green card/visa at home, or are here in violation of US law?
<
p>
Unless you are going to ask everyone to carry proof of citizenship, it is difficult to ask anyone to. It becomes far too easy for the police to harass immigrants (and even natives) if you require them to carry proof of citizenship. Which means the only reasonable policy for police to follow is to assume that someone has a legal right to be here unless there is evidence to the contrary (and accents/looks do not count as evidence).
You don’t have a very good understanding of the constitution, so I’ll enlighten you on a few things. First, a quote from you:
<
p>
<
p>
The constitution absolutely does protect immigrants, undocumented or otherwise, in all matters. However, that doesn’t mean that they can’t be detained and prosecuted. Anyone can be detained for questioning for a short period of time, if they’re somehow connected to some sort of a case. However, to keep them beyond that period of time (which varies, but is rarely longer than a few days), there needs to be evidence and charges brought, etc. So, for example, if an immigrant was wanted for a crime they could be detained and prosecuted, but they’d still have all the rights and priviliges afforded to everyone on this soil, including (but not limited to), the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent, a trial by jury, probable cause for a warrant, etc.
Read what I wrote.
<
p>
I said the constitution protects illegal immigrants. But I said it does not and should not protect them from being arrested and prosecuted for the crime of entering the country illegally.
<
p>
So you have “enlightened” us on nothing.
<
p>
Many, but not all matters.
spelled out in the Constitution. Sorry if that was ambiguous, but that’s what I meant. They still get free speech, due process, etc. etc. etc. And even things that may not apply to them, because they’re here illegally (such as certain equality amendments, perhaps?), still would until they’re proven not to be citizens. Due process, again. But that’s just my understanding, of course. I have taken Con Law, so I know a little bit about this stuff, but that certainly doesn’t make me an expert. Feel free to disagree.
Is that the right to decide who gets to vote is to be determined by law, as I understand it.
So, the answer to your question is that you asked an irrelevant question, as there's nothing in the constitution that gaurantees non-naturalized immigrants the right to vote. But there's plenty that gaurantees everyone in America the right to due process, free speech, freedom of religion, etc.
<
p>
There are several reasons someone might not want to refer to people as illegal immigrants. One is that in this country, people are assumed to be innocent until they are found guilty in court. So you shouldn’t call someone an illegal immigrant unless a court has determined that their presence here is illegal. Another one is based on the same concept as jury nullification: if people consider a law to be unjust, they should act against its enforcement. It is similar to why 150 years ago there were people who refused to call people that escaped from slavery fugitive slaves.
But the term “undocumented” wouldn’t apply either. It should be alleged illegal immigrant.
<
p>
To your second point. Your answer would be that you do not call them illegal immigrants, or alleged illegal immigrants, because you feel the law that says we, as Americans, are the ones who should decide who is allowed to enter the country and everyone should be allowed to enter the USA. Is that correct? If not please clarify.
I am of the opinion that people should be allowed to live and work anywhere in the world as long as they agree to be a good member of the community they choose to live in (meaning they have to agree to follow the local laws). I think that citizenship should only affect what elections you can participate in, and that dual citizenship should never be allowed (but only if citizenship means what I want it to mean in most of the world). I also recognize that this is a fairly radical opinion and that very few people agree with me. Although the European Union is a slight move towards this concept of citizenship.
<
p>
Another reason to not call someone an illegal immigrant is that grammatically, you are calling the person illegal. I find the idea of calling a person illegal to be very offensive. Only actions can be illegal, not people. We do not even refer to violent criminals in such a degrading way (nobody calls someone an illegal rapist or an illegal murderer). I would prefer a term such as “people who immigrated illegally,” which at least gives them the respect of calling them people and only calling their actions illegal.
But your grammatical reason for not calling someone an illegal immigrant doesn’t hold water to me.
<
p>
An illegal immigrant is someone who came here illegally. We don’t call people illegal rapist or illegal murderer because we don’t need to make distinctions between legal rapists and murders and illegal ones. Do you want to start calling murderers “people who committed a murder” so that you call them people first too?
…that more than a few people in the US presume that persons of–shall I put it mildly–brown hue and who primarily speak spanish are illegal aliens. It may or may not be true that their right to enter the US should be subject to verification in an administrative proceeding before the ICE (formerly INS), but it is incorrect to presume ab initio that they do not have the right to enter the US. Yet, that is what many people do.
<
p>
Until the administrative proceeding has been concluded, you would be incorrect in your conclusion that they don’t have the right to enter or reside in the US.
<
p>
Regarding your exmples of rapists and murderers, with respect to the first, did you presume that the accused Duke students were rapists? I most certainly withheld judgement. With respect to persons who kill other persons, do you presume that they are necessarily murderers? There are, as I’m sure you are aware, also degrees of manslaughter. Just because someone kills someone else, doesn’t mean that he is a murderer.
<
p>
People in the USofA really do need to withhold judgement until the process has been carried out. And not even stop withholding judgement there.
I would actually prefer the phrase a person whose right to remain in the US following entry has not been determined. Which is the correct characterization, but it is too long to use in a newspaper article. Let’s understand something: “illegal alien” is nothing more than an emotive phrase. I prefer the more precise one.
<
p>
There are numerous reasons why persons who are rounded up and alleged to be illegal immigrants have the right to remain in the US, One is, well, they might have been rounded up, but they have a right (green card) to be employed in the US but they don’t have it with them. Two, they have enough wealth that they do not need to be employed in the US. Three, they may have legitimate right to asylum. Maybe more.
<
p>
Until those issues are resolved, the right of an alien to remain in the US is unclear.
have a few comments.
<
p>
First on the precision of language. I like precise language too but was called a homophobe on this site because I was using the term “homosexual” instead of “gay”. So I’m for taking the extra couple of seconds for precision in language but not when it’s done only to bolster one’s argument.
<
p>
As to your reasons why someone rounded up in an ICE enforcement action could be legal, here is my response. To the visitor that didn’t have his green card, I would hope that if that was the case it could be sorted out and the person released in a very short time, within a day. For the person who is wealthy enough that they don’t need to work, why didn’t they apply to be here legally. Maybe they thought because they were rich that law doesn’t apply to them. That’s not someone I want added to our citizenry. Besides, if they had money then they had the means to go through the legal process. So if ICE detained someone who was here illegal, who had enough money that they didn’t have to work, I would say deport them and let them apply to come here legally from their home country but I would want them denied based on their already breaking the laws of our country once unless they could offer some other compelling reason they should be allowed, like your third person. Someone who wants asylum. If there is a compelling reason that is a legitimate reason for asylum, fine they should stay. Cubans, let them in and not just on this stupid wet/dry policy we have now. But a Mexican or Gutamalian or Brazilian who came here illegally just for a better job or to make money to send back home, I would want them to apply to be here legally prior to entering so that we have a chance to make sure we are not allowing criminals in that are just coming here to break the law.
…the right to be in the US, with the ability to prove that you have the right to be in the US. Those are two separate issues.
<
p>
My mother in law had a green card when she was living in the US. I doubt very seriously that she carried it with her werever she went. If she was whisked off the street or the job place, how was she supposed to prove that she had had a green card? Unfortunately, there is apparentnly no central repository for that information.
<
p>
Regarding the wealthy, it is likely that they can arrange for permanent Aufenthaltsgehnemigungen (residency permits) but, suppose they don’t have the papers with them? And suppose that the ICE does not provide them with a methology to get the paper to them expeditiously.
<
p>
Asylum seekers, I’ll stand on.
<
p>
I will put it to you bluntly. Your continual bleating on “illegal” before they have been determined to be “illegal” is more than a bit tiresome. Why, I might ask, do you continually bleat about people from central America, whereas I have never seen anything about illegals from Ireland? You know why as well as I do.
(And I am trying to be civil but I am actually really pissed about the statement you made on the other thread.)
<
p>
I see your point about conflating the two issues, but I am currently not sure where to go with it. So let me work out my thoughts here in this post.
<
p>
By accounts of the ICE action, they were enforcing warrants, so they were not just grabbing anyone with brown skin and a Spanish accent. They had specific people they were looking for who were known to be in that community.
<
p>
Now in other ICE raids, such as the one in New Bedford, they had specific information that illegal immigrants were working in a factory. Is it unreasonable that they obtained a warrant to investigate this matter and showed up at the factory and asked anyone with a foreign accent, yes mostly brown skinned people with Spanish accents, to prove they were here legally? I don’t think it is. But, for disclosure purposes, I think that profiling is a legitimate law enforcement tool if it is not abused.
<
p>
As to how they allow people to prove they are not hear illegally, I am not sure of the logistics of that. Where do you keep papers of that nature and how does ICE get those if the people do not carry the papers on them? How did your mother-in-law handle this?
<
p>
There was this German kid that came over to intern at my wifes accounting firm a couple of years ago, he was hear on a temporary work visa. He carried his German passport everywhere we went. I know this because that is what he used for ID when ever he was carded at a bar. When I travel out of the country I always carry my passport. I don’t consider this a burden. I also alway carry my license here in the states and don’t consider that to be a burden either. So why is it so burdensome to ask people who are guests in our country to carry something that would allow law enforcement to check if they are here legally?
<
p>
I will see a Scottish friend this weekend, I believe he is not a US citizen and will ask him what is required of him. I know he has a driver’s license, so that is one way he could possibly prove he is here legally.
<
p>
Also, to try an insinuate that my discussion of illegal immigrants is racially motivated is bullshit. You should just let that one die.
Hey All,
<
p>
I do not mean this in a patronizing way, but every argument about immigration always gets sidetracked by discussions like these. As such, I’m linking to an essay I wrote about this and hoping that the real issue in this post can be discussed, a police state.
“Migrant” has other connotations.
And I am trying to be civil but I am actually really pissed about the statement you made on the other thread.
<
p>
…as uncivil as you wish. I used to get blasted over at FreeRepublic.com for their anti-gay postings. I quickly learned to gather a thick skin, so I don’t really care whatever epithets you might send my way. I don’t know who you are, and you don’t know who I am and we will never meet, so feel free to fire away.
<
p>
On the point of your comment. Regarding
<
p>
By accounts of the ICE action, they were enforcing warrants, so they were not just grabbing anyone with brown skin and a Spanish accent.
<
p>
I have not read all of the accounts of the ICE action, but in none of the accounts have I read any mention of “warrants.” Now, if the ICE had evidence of employment of aliens illegally, the ICE could have apprehended the miscreants outside of the workplace; the ICE could have apprehended the miscreant employers (which was not done in the five meatpacking plants in the midwest shortly after the 2006 election), and they could have apprehended the miscreant employees in their homes and fitted them with GPS devices that would track them to ensure that they would show up for their immigration status hearing. I seriously do not understand why you do not comprehend the last. Until their immigration status has been determined they are not illegal aliens.
<
p>
As an aside…
<
p>
As to how they allow people to prove they are not hear illegally, I am not sure of the logistics of that. Where do you keep papers of that nature and how does ICE get those if the people do not carry the papers on them?
<
p>
…just to let you know–and I believe I know where this is leading–when we first started coming over to Germany in 1985, we actually did carry our “papers” (passports) with us wherever we went. After a couple of years, we discovered that that was silly–and it damaged the passport–and we left them at the apartment. On the other hand, if we were approached by the Gestapo regarding our presence here, we would have to ask them for permission to return to our apartment to retrieve our documents. Did the ICE do that? I have seen nothing to suggest it.
<
p>
I suspect, but cannot prove, that people who were taken into custody by the ICE did the same: they left whatever papers they had in their apartments. But, since they had been taken into custody by the ICE from their workplaces, not their apartments, and whisked away to Nirgentwo, they were unable to retrieve whatever papers they might have had. Typical Catch-22.
It had to do with the post you made on the thread about the Hubbard family. The insults would have been about your, IMO, unpatriotic remarks. (removed the H because I am seldomly “humble”) But I have moved past the feelings I had at that moment and glade I did not react with the emotions I was feeling at the time.
<
p>
As to your post, on the subject of warrants I draw your attention to the following line that was in the opening paragraph in the article from the Globe sited in the original post. (emphasis added by me)
<
p>
<
p>
I also read this news release from ICE that states:
<
p>
<
p>
So it appears that this was not ICE out on their own doing this as the original post tried to portry it “But if MS-13 is a criminal enterprise, why does the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency have the lead role sweeping through our neighborhoods rather than criminal law enforcement agents?”
<
p>
ICE also answered this, “And why wouldn’t ICE spokesman Michael Gilhooly say how many people were arrested, for what crimes, and where they were being held?” The number was 36 in this one raid. Seems like a success to me.
<
p>
This press release was issued the day after this post. Makes me wonder why the original post wasn’t updated with this new information. Maybe because if you read the press release it seems that the post is misleading and many of the things they are asking for were actually done.
<
p>
ICE could have apprehended the miscreant employers.
<
p>
That is exactly what they did in the New Bedford case.
<
p>
As to “I seriously do not understand why you do not comprehend the last. Until their immigration status has been determined they are not illegal aliens.” I do understand this, and do not understand why you keep insisting I don’t. Sorry if I didn’t put “alleged” in front of “illegal immigrants” every where and I can’t go back and edit the posts. But I do understand that alleged illegal immigrants are allowed due process in defining their immigration status.
<
p>
As to your suggestion of GPS tracking, that seems fine for first offense. However if they were previously released and then did not appear for a court date, I am more inclined to hold them without bail until their hearing based on their previous demonstration that they can’t be trusted to show up when required. By the way, this goes for virtually any charge, not just alleged illegal immigrants.
<
p>
In response to the people that may have been detained as alleged illegal immigrants but were legal and not allowed to get their papers to prove it, I’m not sure either. However, based on the information contained in the ICE press release, this was a multifaceted operation that included many different branches of law enforcement on the local, state and federal level. Also, their were individuals that were just arrested by the local law enforcement, indicating to me that their were of legal status for immigration but had broken other laws that are enforceable by other agencies. So it sounds like people were allowed to prove their immigration status prior to being “whisked away to Nirgentwo”. There may have been no “catch-22” here.
I saw my Scottish friend this weekend and inquired about his status. He is here on a work visa and has a green card. He is required to carry that proof of being here legally all the time. The green card also has a number similar to a social that he has memorized in case he ever forgets or looses his green card. Also, the green card allowed him to obtain a drivers license which is also an acceptable proof of him being here legally and so that is what he carries all of the time. His green card sits in a safe at his house.
<
p>
He does not feel that this is too onerous for the privilege (his words) of living and working here.
<
p>
Interesting side note, he has been here for about 15 years, has an ex wife who is American and two kids. His wife tried to have him deported during their divorce procedures. His lawyer used two arguments against this. First he argued that he had two young (under 7 at the time) kids and it would be unfair to separate the kids from their father. Second, all of his papers have always been up to date and he has broken no laws that would result in his deportation. The first argument was thrown out by the judge as being inconsequential to the proceedings and the second argument is what kept him here.
over here in Germany, we’re supposed to carry our US passports with us wherever we go, even within Germany. We did so for the first few years, but stopped doing it when it became clear that it was physically damaging the passports. So we stopped doing that. Nobody complains, even though it’s clear that we are Americans and could be asked for our “papers” by the German authorities.
<
p>
Before Schwengen, we would carry our passports when we would go from Germany to another country (hotels would actually require us to deposit the passports with them for inspection, as did inter-country trains) but that’s about it.
this part of the story really captured my atention.
apparently one or more of the following is true:
They didn’t say he was arrested because he had a tatoo. They said he was arrested and that he had the tatoo.
although i read it as the implication the globe was making. maybe ICE will chime in and tell us just why they picked up who they picked up, and what they are charged with.
<
p>
Notice my emphasis.
thanks, i had missed that.
never chimes in about anything. They are completely secretive and it is very hard to get any information from them.
Congrats, you’re in the running.
<
p>
<
p>
In case you’re not familiar with MS-13, they are an ultraviolet gang known for machete attacks, extortion, drug dealing and murder.
<
p>
You can find some further information here
<
p>
Unfortunately, I’m out of time or I’d address the rest of your idiotic post.
We appreciate the factual component of your post — that’s a helpful contribution. The rest of it is not.
is a good reason to release the constitutional restrictions on police power?
What proof do you have that the Constitutional restrictions on police power have been eased?
In case you’re not familiar with MS-13, they are an ultraviolet gang
<
p>
…they aren’t an infrared gang. If they were, you’d really have to worry about global warming.
<
p>
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
I like a lot of local ACLU work: defending the substitute teacher at English High, for example, who criticized the JROTC program, or Menino’s notion of seizing Stop Snitching T-shirts.
<
p>
And I think the ACLU is on target to examine whether ICE agents are not following proper procedures, or what the outcome of their raid was. That’s good. Transparency, accountability.
<
p>
But, like Ed et al above, the “what is a gang?” set-up is so impossibly ludicrous as to impeach your credibility (and more broadly, your institution’s).
<
p>
Amateur sociology obscures the real point this post might be making about lousy federal policing.
<
p>
I’m sympathetic to the “what is a gang” question, in other contexts. Not so much in the context of trying to identify MS-13 members and get them the bleep out of here if possible. If the ICE is doing this blindly and stupidly, then they should be called out. But the anti-police rhetoric weakens your credibility on this point.
<
p>
BPD surveillance at a festival which has had shootings in the past sounds like an excellent idea. Personally, I’m a fan of that kind of surveillance.
BPD surveillance at a festival which has had shootings in the past sounds like an excellent idea.
<
p>
What it depends on is the degree of manipulation that the police have over the surveillance.
<
p>
We were here in Munich during the 1992 G-7 conference. The Munich police were doing more than a bit of videocam work on the crowds outside of the conference area, and more than a bit of it was subsequently manipulated by editing and so forth. We were there, but not protesting, but I noticed the policewoman directing the videocam at the crowd.
<
p>
Regarding I’m sympathetic to the “what is a gang” question that is an interesting issue. Here in Europe there have been massive fires in Italy, Spain and the Peloponese (Greece). I don’t know about Spain, but there has been more than a bit of evidence that the fires in southern Italy (Calabria) and Greece were intentionally set by arsonists (Brandstifter). The theory in Italy is that the arsonists are Mafiosi (the “gang”) who are trying to drive hoteliers out of business so that they can buy the property cheaply.
<
p>
Transfer this theme to the US. It has been known for a long time that many ethnic groups have gangs that prey on non-gang members of their ethnicity and, indeed, on others. This kind of thing isn’t new. And it isn’t limited to “illegal aliens.”
Since MS-13 has been brought up several times in this post I just wanted to make some clarifications.
<
p>
An important fact to realize is that MS-13 has been strengthened, not weakened by U.S. policy. MS-13 used to be relegated to communities in Los Angeles and U.S. deportation policies have spread them all across the hemisphere.
<
p>
They now thrive on the immigration to the United States as they frequently assault migrants on their routes North. They are a brutal gang but they have only been made stronger by U.S. policies that fail to consider the effect they have on other countries.
I’m surprised Ms. Rose hasn’t commented on the latest news about this raid: Link
<
p>
According to the article, those arrested include “36 violent gang members and their associates, many of whom have criminal records, including one who is accused of murder.”
<
p>
Not exactly a “fraternity,” is it?
There’s not exactly a lot of detail in that latest story, and it all comes from ICE.
<
p>
Not saying it’s not true. Hopefully it is. But this doesn’t really address the many concerns that people have written about here. At this point it’s still “the ends justify the means.”
I was referring to how I developed a thick skin. I won’t recount the silliness that I learned by posting on FreeRepublic.com I actually got one person to admit that his anti-gay remarks there were silly, and that he would never say them in public. It was hillarious.
<
p>
My anger had nothing to do with your sexual orientation. It had to do with the post you made on the thread about the Hubbard family.
<
p>
That’s what I presumed that you were referring to. I’m not going to rehash that discussion here, but your inability to understand the point that I was making there is somewhat disconcerting. As is your inability now to understand the difference between patriotism and wastefulness.
<
p>
Regarding the rest of your comment, I don’t follow even Boston area news that closely when we’re here in Germany. If the ICE were executing warrants, fine. I had presumed that the discussion was referring to the New Bedford case, which apparently was not the fact. On the other hand, my comment regarding proving status remains. If you are whisked away from your abode, where your papers are, and are thereby unable to prove status, how are you supposed to prove your status? Dial 911?
<
p>
I suppose that, when every legal resident in the US is required to carry a card (or have an RFID chip implanted) that describes his or her status, then things will be resolved. But conservatives have been decrying requiring that for ever since I was a sentient being fourty years ago. Do you have a suggestion?
<
p>
I’ll let you know that I am highly suspicious of press releases from government agencies regarding things like this. I will harken back on the BATF “knock-knock” on the Branch Davideon door. It was obvious that, the way it was handled, it was intended to be a public relations ploy for more funding. They brought along the news media, for gawd’s sake. How much more obvious could that have been?
You say you are distrustful of government agency press releases, as I am sure many people are. Then when a government agency invites the media to go along to document a raid, you call it a public relations ploy. What is it that you want them to do? Nothing, sit around with their thumbs up their asses?
<
p>
As for requiring everyone in the US to carry ID cards, I have admittedly never understood the objection to this by conservatives. Essentially, we all have ID that identifies us as a US citizen, it’s a social security number. If you are a citizen and detained by ICE or any other agency and they need to know your immigration status, give them your SSN. If you are a legal resident or guest, you are here on a green card and have a similar number to give them. If you don’t known your SSN or equivalent, I am positive that law enforcement can obtain that information based on other information such as name and date of birth and address, etc. So it seems to me that the “proving status” argument is a bit overblown. Unless you are saying that simply telling the people who are detaining you your name, DOB and SSN or equivalent is to difficult.
<
p>
Oh, and you lost me with the patriotism and wastefulness line. What were you referring to?
Then when a government agency invites the media to go along to document a raid, you call it a public relations ploy.
<
p>
Well, that’s clearly what happened with the Branch Davidean raid in Waco in early 1993.
<
p>
As for requiring everyone in the US to carry ID cards, I have admittedly never understood the objection to this by conservatives. Essentially, we all have ID that identifies us as a US citizen, it’s a social security number.
<
p>
I hate to disabuse you of your contention, but the fact is that my mother in law–who was always solely a German citizen during her residence in the US, had and still has a social security card. And she receives SS payments based on her SS contributions during the 30 years that she legally worked in the US. SS numbers don’t indicate citizenship. Try again.
<
p>
I’m sorry but
<
p>
If you don’t known your SSN or equivalent, I am positive that law enforcement can obtain that information based on other information such as name and date of birth and address, etc.
<
p>
is total bullshit. I’ll tell you another of my little stories. I had memorized my SS number. My brother hadn’t. But I knew that they were sequential. It was only because I knew my SS number that my brother could reclaim his SS account.
<
p>
But that’s an aside. I’m sure that you will tell us the percentage of people who are detained by ICE usw. who do not have SS numbers. That’s the real issue, isnt’t it? How many people are detained by ICE who do not have have little pieces of paper with their SS numbers on them. I probably don’t know where my little Zettle (piece of paper) with the SS number on it that was issued 40 years ago.
<
p>
Oh, and you lost me with the patriotism and wastefulness line. What were you referring to?
<
p>
Are you really that stupid? The Hubbard parents enouraged their children to become cannon fodder for an unnecessary war. And we supposed to sympathize with them in their grieving for their loss? The unfortunate fact is that the children followed their parents’ advice, and now two of them are dead, an nothing is going to bring them back.
<
p>
But that doesn’t mean that the rest of us should be required to cry crockodile tears for the parents’ idiocy. It’s the parent’s defalcation that is being mourned.
Who the hell is talking about the ATF and Waco? We were discussing ICE and what happened in Massachusetts. And again, you complain about not believing the press releases and then complain about motives when they give you the transparency you want?
<
p>
To your story of your mother-in-law and her SSN, she had to prove she was here legally to obtain it. So yes, a SSN is proof that you are here legally. Sorry I previously said proof citizenship because it is proof of being in the country legally.
<
p>
Your anecdote about your brother not remembering his SSN is nice, but incorrect. Here is a link to all he had to do to get a new SSN. Ready for it. Fill out a form and submit it to the SS agency.
<
p>
And by your “bullshit” line you are really trying to say that police can’t determine who you are based on name, DOB, address, etc.? Really?
<
p>
As far as I can tell from the articles and the press releases on the ICE raid, you are just full of shit. All of the people detained had broken the law, weather that was immigration law, weapons possession law, or committing an act like murder or theft. So why don’t you “tell us the percentage of people who are detained by ICE” without cause, because based on the available information the answer was none.
<
p>
You may not know where your zettle are (keep injecting German words into the discussions, no one sees that as another condescending effort) but I bet you know exactly were your passport is.
<
p>
I am done discussing the Hubbard family with you. Your position that they are somehow responsible for some terrorist killing them or dying in an accident because they didn’t persuade their kids from serving their country is just perverse. That’s like saying the parents of kids abducted, raped and murdered by sicko pedophile who is out on parole for committing a similar act are responsible because they didn’t teach their kids to run fast enough to get away from the perv.
Are you really that condescending?
<
p>
I am really that condescending. I’m literaly amazed at the lack of reading comprehension that is evident here. It would take me a fortnight to parse through these comments, but, here’s a few.
<
p>
To your story of your mother-in-law and her SSN, she had to prove she was here legally to obtain it.
<
p>
That wasn’t the issue. The assertion was whether the fact that she had an SS number indicated that she was a citizen. Which was demonstrably untrue. She was never a US citizen, even though she had an SS number, and, now, as retired, she is collecting SS payment from the US government, even though she’s living in Germany
<
p>
Your anecdote about your brother not remembering his SSN is nice, but incorrect. Here is a link to all he had to do to get a new SSN
<
p>
That’s nice, but it also wasn’t the issue. Aside from the fact that that was in the late 1960s (almost pre-computer era), what would have done with his previous contributions if he got a new SS number? Zeroed them out?
<
p>
As far as I can tell from the articles and the press releases on the ICE raid, you are just full of shit. All of the people detained had broken the law, weather that was immigration law, weapons possession law, or committing an act like murder or theft.
<
p>
You don’t need a weatherman to tell you the direction that the wind’s blowin’ do you?
<
p>
I’ll pass on the second two, except to ask you–does the ICE get involved in weapons possession, murder or theft? Probably not, but maybe they do. As to the first, your presumption that, just because the ICE rounds up some people on the mere presumption of immigration violation is totally astounding.
<
p>
No, actually it isn’t totally astounding. It isn’t at all. Similar cases happened here in Germany in the 1930s.
<
p>
BTW, your last paragraph is totally insane, and is not worth the bother of composing a response to. I could, but it would take the fortnight. I’m just amazed that you would liken the two situations mentioned in your paragraph to one another.