ACLU Sues To End ICE's Rigged Algorithms That Keep Immigrants In Jail (theintercept.com) 249
A new lawsuit filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union and Bronx Defenders alleges that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement uses a rigged algorithm to detain virtually everyone ICE's New York Field Office brings in, even when the government itself believes they present a minimal threat to public safety. The Intercept reports: The suit, which asks that ICE's "Risk Classification Assessment" tool be ruled illegal and the affected detainees reassessed by humans, includes damning new data obtained by the NYCLU through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The data illuminates the extent to which the so-called algorithm has been perverted. Between 2013 and 2017, the FOIA data shows, the algorithm recommended detention without bond for "low risk" individuals 53 percent of the time, according an analysis by the NYCLU and Bronx Defenders. But from June 2017 -- shortly after President Donald Trump took office -- to September 2019, that number exploded to 97 percent.
"This dramatic drop in the release rate comes at a time when exponentially more people are being arrested in the New York City area and immigration officials have expanded arrests of those not convicted of criminal offenses," says the groups' lawsuit. "The federal government's sweeping detention dragnet means that people who pose no flight or safety risk are being jailed as a matter of course -- in an unlawful trend that is getting worse." Individuals detained under what the lawsuit calls a "no-release policy" will remain jailed until they can be seen by an immigration judge. People arrested by ICE had no access to information about how they were classified by the algorithm -- that's why the FOIAs were necessary -- and most don't have access to lawyers at the time of their detention, Thomas Scott-Railton, a fellow at the Bronx Defenders told The Intercept. "The result," he said, "is that people are detained for weeks, even months, without having been given the actual justification for their detention and without a real chance to challenge it."
The lawsuit alleges that this algorithmic rubber stamp violates both the constitutional guarantee to due process and federal immigration law that calls for "individualized determinations" about release, rather than blanket denials with a computerized imprimatur. Reached by email, ICE New York spokesperson Rachael Yong Yow told The Intercept, "I am not familiar with the lawsuit you reference, but I am not inclined to comment on pending litigation." The risk assessment algorithm is supposed to provide a recommendation to ICE officers who are then meant to make the final decision, but the agency's New York Field Office diverged from the algorithm's ruling less than 1 percent of the time since 2017. When detainees are finally seen by a human, non-algorithmic immigration judge, the lawsuit says, "approximately 40% of people detained by ICE are granted release on bond."
"This dramatic drop in the release rate comes at a time when exponentially more people are being arrested in the New York City area and immigration officials have expanded arrests of those not convicted of criminal offenses," says the groups' lawsuit. "The federal government's sweeping detention dragnet means that people who pose no flight or safety risk are being jailed as a matter of course -- in an unlawful trend that is getting worse." Individuals detained under what the lawsuit calls a "no-release policy" will remain jailed until they can be seen by an immigration judge. People arrested by ICE had no access to information about how they were classified by the algorithm -- that's why the FOIAs were necessary -- and most don't have access to lawyers at the time of their detention, Thomas Scott-Railton, a fellow at the Bronx Defenders told The Intercept. "The result," he said, "is that people are detained for weeks, even months, without having been given the actual justification for their detention and without a real chance to challenge it."
The lawsuit alleges that this algorithmic rubber stamp violates both the constitutional guarantee to due process and federal immigration law that calls for "individualized determinations" about release, rather than blanket denials with a computerized imprimatur. Reached by email, ICE New York spokesperson Rachael Yong Yow told The Intercept, "I am not familiar with the lawsuit you reference, but I am not inclined to comment on pending litigation." The risk assessment algorithm is supposed to provide a recommendation to ICE officers who are then meant to make the final decision, but the agency's New York Field Office diverged from the algorithm's ruling less than 1 percent of the time since 2017. When detainees are finally seen by a human, non-algorithmic immigration judge, the lawsuit says, "approximately 40% of people detained by ICE are granted release on bond."
ILLEGALS, God Dammit! (Score:5, Informative)
You fucking Twats...it's ILLEGAL ALIENS
Re:ILLEGALS, God Dammit! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a typical BeauHD piece. He has no formal education and has been silo'ed his entire twenty years on earth in one small town in the northwest without any immersion into what the rest of us go through every day. And somehow these people are not only given a voice with an attitude, they are given a megaphone to make their narrow-minded proclamations.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Would your stepfather have been able to make it into the USA under the current rules?
Re:ILLEGALS, God Dammit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
His stepfather didn't pull up the drawbridge. I doub't he's in congress or has ever been the president. The point he was making is that his stepfather followed the law. The new ILLEGAL immigrants do not. It doesn't matter how easy or hard it is to enter the country. They have no right to immigrate to other peoples lands. They are allowed to at the discrescion of the natives. It's harder now? Tough titties. Move to a different country that wants you I guess?
Re:ILLEGALS, God Dammit! (Score:4, Insightful)
His stepfather had the opportunity to follow the law. Current immigration applications from Mexico are processing submissions from the late 90s. If you apply today expect a 20-30 year wait for a decision.
Offer a legal path to immigration and people will use it. Remove legal options and desperate people will break the law. It's the same with drugs, the same with prostitution, the same with poverty, the same with everything. You can have a war on it that just makes the situation worse for everyone, or you can make it legal and regulated and get better outcomes like his stepfather.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Offer a legal path to immigration and people will use it.
You just admitted that there is a legal path. So in order to avoid any kind of confusion about what exactly you are asking for, what would you like to see that wait time drop to? 10 years? 5 years? 1 year? 1 month? 1 day? Please, inform us of what you would like to see, or else we will assume that what you want is a wait time of nothing. AKA, open borders.
Re: ILLEGALS, God Dammit! (Score:3)
Isn't it only fair to grant immigration to those who applied earlier? What other criteria should we be using?
And if that's how we decide, it's just a simple function of number of applicants and number of permitted immigrants. You can't just skip ahead of the 30 year wait list.
So, in fact, your proposal is to either use some other criteria than application date or it's to increase the level of immigration. In either case, you'd need to provide a lot more detail before such a recommendation is taken seriously
Re:ILLEGALS, God Dammit! (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you believe that people breaking the law should be forgiven and not prosecuted because if the law didn't exist they wouldn't have broken it? Do you not believe civilisations have the right to change their laws? Do you believe people have a right to enter any country they want, however they want?
You seem very defeatist about crime. The fact that people will commit crime is no reason to not punish them, or attempt to stop them. We don't just let people murder each other because "people are always going to do it anyway." Having a war on people murdering each other does not make it worse for everyone. And allowing anyone who wants to enter the USA to enter does not make it better for everyone. It makes it better for those outside the USA who want to live there. But that's not what the American government should be concerned with at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Proof? This says current wait times are around 5.5 years: https://www.cato.org/publicati... [cato.org]
You might be able to find some one-off case that's at 20+ for some reason, but don't act like that's the "norm". 5 years, although long, is not an unreasonable wait time. Ideally, they could trim it down to 3 years or so.
Re: (Score:3)
Comments like these remind me of 40 year olds who blame their parents for everything wrong in their lives. What has the USA done to destablise Mexico? Arent most of the problems over there caused by massive corruption and drug cartels allowed to operate with impunity?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not american. But it seems to me that you are arguing in favour of a colonial invasion... Fair play. But the native population has a right to fight against it and defend itself, as the Native Americans did. As most countries have done throughout history. The USA is a country that exists today. Just like China and India and every other one that exists, they have a history of conquest and warfare. However the society and civilisation that exists now should defend itself from outside threats, and defend it
Re:ILLEGALS, God Dammit! (Score:5, Informative)
Well - since it's as easy or easier now than it's ever been:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
legal immigration averages per year:
1970–79 424,800
1980–89 624,400
1990–99 977,500
2000–09 1,029,900
2010–18 1,066,800
In absolute numbers, the United States has a larger immigrant population than any other country, with 47 million immigrants as of 2015.[2] This represents 19.1% of the 244 million international migrants worldwide, and 14.4% of the U.S. population.
Top 10 sending countries in the recent years
Country 2015 2016 2017 2018
1. Mexico 158,619 174,534 170,581 161,858
2. Cuba 54,396 66,516 65,028 76,486
3. China 74,558 81,772 71,565 65,214
4. India 64,116 64,687 60,394 59,821
5. Dominican Rep. 50,610 61,161 58,520 57,413
6. Philippines 56,478 53,287 49,147 47,258
7. Vietnam 30,832 41,451 38,231 33,834
8. El Salvador 19,487 23,449 25,109 28,326
9. Haiti 16,967 23,584 21,824 21,360
10. Jamaica 17,642 23,350 21,905 20,347
Total 1,051,031 1,183,505 1,127,167 1,096,611
Painting Americans and American policy as xenophobic racists just to push some weird agenda of breaking immigration law is pretty annoying when it's simply patently false. And as the OP says, it's very disrespectful to legal immigrants to be lumped into the same conversation. I've emigrated twice myself, and would never want to be associated with people that break the laws of their new host country.
Re:ILLEGALS, God Dammit! (Score:5, Interesting)
Numbers don't signify ease or difficulty. There are Indians who have a wait time for a green card that is greater than their expected lifetime. Any foreign born children they have will have to leave the country.
Also, those numbers are declining since 2016 as are the numbers for asylum seekers, which have dropped dramatically. Since it takes years to get a green card, we don't see the effects of limiting entry to asylum seekers yet.
Finally, the absolute numbers are not meaningful. Proportions are more important.
Re:ILLEGALS, God Dammit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it easier or have things just got a lot worse in South America causing more people to try to escape that region?
If you look at the other stats on the Wikipedia page you linked to you will notice that numbers coming from the Far East and Asia are down but numbers coming from South America are up.
The way to fix immigration is to first offer legal paths to people and secondly have a long term policy of helping to stablize countries that people immigrate from. Instead of trying to fuck them up because they are communist or you have some other beef with them try to make sure people mostly want to stay there, and get yourselves a new growing economy to invest in and trade with at the same time.
Re:ILLEGALS, God Dammit! (Score:4, Informative)
2010–18 1,066,800
In absolute numbers, the United States has a larger immigrant population than any other country, with 47 million immigrants as of 2015.[2] This represents 19.1% of the 244 million international migrants worldwide, and 14.4% of the U.S. population.
Europe got 2400k over 500 million and sits around 10% of foreign-born. Same as US. So yeah, pretty nice.
Blame Canada! They accept 250k immigrants over 38 million. US would need 2140k over 325 million to match. They're the ones who make US look bad!
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/ce... [statcan.gc.ca]
Immigrant population
According to the 2016 Census, 7,540,830 people, that is, 21.9% of the Canadian population, were foreign-born (immigrants), 26,412,610 (76.6%) were Canadian-born (non-immigrants) and 506,625 (1.5%) were non-permanent residents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ILLEGALS, God Dammit! (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone breaks the law that doesn't give you a license to violate other laws.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You could extend human rights and due process to everyone. In Europe human rights are universal, not just for citizens. Everyone gets a fair trial, at least in theory.
Re: ILLEGALS, God Dammit! (Score:2)
Fair trial? Are you rich? Only the very wealthy can afford the sort of legal representation that gets you every benefit the rules of criminal and civil procedure is afforded to you. The prosecution is all to willing to let your rights go unnoticed.
Re: (Score:2)
Human rights are universal in the US too. Its just that a lot of people, and some officials, forget this.
Re: (Score:3)
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" That is the greeting on the statue of liberty. It seems we no longer believe that.
I'm not sure why trolls keep trying to make this point as though that poem was the 28th Amendment or the 11th Commandment or something. Immigration has been much tighter at times in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ILLEGALS, God Dammit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: ILLEGALS, God Dammit! (Score:2)
I knew it wouldnt be long before someone blamed trump. Hey genius, the article cited data from 2013-2017. Who was president then genius? Stupid fucking millennials and their ability to erase facts and substitute their own TDS.
The only difference between the trump administration and the obummer administration on immigration is that trump is at least telling you what he is doing. He isnt lying to you or abusing the H1B visa loophole to get donations from Apple, Amazon, Microsuck, HP, Oracle, and FaceFuck. Kid
Re:ILLEGALS, God Dammit! (Score:4, Insightful)
Lazarus's poem was never relevant to the message behind the Statue of Liberty. She was an activist trying to help Jewish immigrants who had been fleeing anti-Semitic persecution in Europe. It was a commissioned poem for a fundraising effort by a private entity helping to raise funds for the pedestal. The significant portion of funding for the pedestal came from private sources rather than government sources and most public funding only came about when other cities (than New York City) began to express interest in funding the pedestal for the statue's relocation. It never received federal funding. It was only after campaigning by Lazarus's friend that the poem was put on a plaque which hangs in the statue's museum. Everything involving the poem was a private effort and never reflected public policy regarding a stance towards immigration.
You may wish for it to be a desirable ideal but it's worse than the ideal expressed by the statue itself because it's inherently defeatist in contrast with the message presented by the statue.
There is a reason for each piece of symbolism with statue. Libertas and Columbia were the two figures that could have been used for the statue due to their prevalent in American iconography at the time. Columbia is uniquely American like Britannia is British and Marianne is French. Using Libertas meant the statue was not a reflection of a single nation, Libertas, being the embodiment of liberty, was significant as the French had just deposed Napoleon and installed a democracy while the Americans had just gone through a bloody civil war which ended slavery and bought liberty to the masses.
Her seven pointed crown was selected to avoid stirring up southern resentment as the original plan was for a pileus to top her head which is a symbol of emancipated slaves. The homage to this was instead done as a broken chain at her feet which was obscured by the robe. The crown is supposed to be a halo that points in seven direction representative of the seven seas, pointing in all directions. It's imagery is similar to that of the sun shining across the world or in this case the idea of Libertas, liberty, being cast on the world which serves as the counterpoint to the torch which is an icon of progress.
Libertas's robe was also a conscious choice. She had been used many times as a symbol for revolution and by using a flowing robe she upholds better the ideal of liberty via peaceful democracy over liberty via violent revolution. This is then reinforced by her holding the tablet in her left hand as a sign of the rule of law.
The Statue of Liberty says from the US grows the tree of liberty and Libertas is there to show you the way. It was as much a symbol of the bond between France and America as it was saying to other nations across the world to embrace democracy. By embracing the ideal of Lazarus's poem you are expressing defeatism at the ideal of bring liberty, democracy, and governments of the people to the world at large by instead just taking the "masses".
I would just like to get our Intelligence Agencies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" That is the greeting on the statue of liberty. It seems we no longer believe that.
Does any feel-good poem nailed to a statue make the law now, or just the ones you like?
Every person who quotes Emma Lazarus's doggerel as if it means something should be shipped to Dearborn MI and forced to live there permanently.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No, the ACLU argues that
Current bail practices are unconstitutional in violating due process rights and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, the prohibition against excessive bail in the Eighth Amendment, and the right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. [aclu.org]
They're not against bail entirely. They just think that money should not be the sole factor.
In New Jersey, for instance, lawmakers have imposed bail reforms that consider the individual in deciding whether someone can return home, not just how much money that person has. This approach makes the system more equitable and effective.
They think the individual circumstances should be taken into account. You can disagree with them, but they're not saying we should do
Re: (Score:2)
And under the US constitution, everyone in the United States is afforded certain protections, regardless of immigration status. Law enforcement must still treat them properly.
If for some reason an agency just decides that they want to absuse these people, then they should be honest about it; intead of perverting and misapplying laws and being disingenuous about it all, they should just proclaim out loud their belief that laws do not apply to the Trump administration.
Irrelevant (Score:3)
The case here is about if the authorities are acting legally, not whether or not these people are guilty.
Suspects have rights, that is the basis of a free society, the fact that your hate is so easily triggered is the real cause for concern.
The fact they are illegal immigrants is irrelevant to the question of law before the court. It is the same legal question as suspects being protected from abuse of process with the laws surrounding search and seizure, miranda rights and many other safeguards.
Re: (Score:3)
What standing do they have? (Score:2)
Did those in jail not commit a criminal act? Is the government minority report style picking up Mexicans abroad and bringing them across the border to NY in case they might perform some illegal acts?
Does the ACLU suggest deporting them right away? Wasn't ACLU also suing because the government is deporting them too fast? https://www.aclu.org/press-rel... [aclu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a fresh crime, they have committed one crime and are still in the process of doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
If ICE were detaining US citizens without due process, I'd be right there with the ACLU. And TFS disingenuously implies that to be the case. OTOH, someone who is in jail for illegal border crossing is quite obviously a flight risk. Ignoring the governments rules about where they're supposed to be is why they were arrested. Detain them long enough to be sure they aren't a US citizen who had their wallet stolen, or something, then release them in Mexico.
Re: (Score:2)
If ICE were detaining known US citizens without due process they'd be practicing false arrest, no?
Re:What standing do they have? (Score:5, Informative)
If ICE were detaining known US citizens without due process they'd be practicing false arrest, no?
Which they do all the time
Re: (Score:3)
If they're detaining *anyone* without due process, then they're acting unlawfully.
The Constitution and the rights it guarantees apply to all persons within the borders of the country, not only to citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Dew process? Isn't that how they make Velveeta?
Re: (Score:2)
I am curious as to where “due process” is defined, and whether that definition actually covers “must be entirely processed by a human”. Not trolling, genuinely curious.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't define what due process is however, which is exactly my point - it just says “due process”. In this case, ICE have a set “due process” that involves an algorithm and the ACLU want to have that declared illegal as it violates “due process” but that’s never defined.
Re: (Score:2)
"Due process" includes that you are able to challenge the decision. That's impossible if the decision was made by an algorithm that essentially is is a black box.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't flight exactly what they want illegal immigrants to do? If they leave the country they're no longer illegal immigrants - problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What standing do they have? (Score:2)
Who said we had to foot the bill to deport them to their country of origin? How about Antarctica? Or some isle in the pacific some 800 miles from our shore?
Re: (Score:2)
Any citizen, resident, or visitor is afforded the same legal rights to due process under the constitution. Many haven't even had hearings to determine if they're in the country legally or not. It is not allowed in the US to have indefinite detention without being charged or without access to legal representation. There is no exception for illegal border crossers, murdererers, jaywalkers, green card holders, prisoners of war, etc.
(one reason we have POWs in Guantanamo is to avoid dealing with constitutiona
Re:What standing do they have? (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends. Entering the country without the approval of an immigration officer is a crime. Overstaying a visa is not; it is a civil matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What standing do they have? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that the people who over stay or are here illegally are mostly white or wealthy people who over stayed their visa. Ice is not here for the white people or wealthy people. They are only interested in deporting the brown people.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Ice is not here for the white people or wealthy people. They are only interested in deporting the brown people."
Really? So you have proof of that?
I think you need to go ask a typical ICE officer if they care what color the skin is or how much money is in the wallet of the illegal alien they are deporting. I suspect they don't care; as they shouldn't. If you are here illegally, they will seek to deport you. That is their job.
You sound just like the people crying about police harassment and point to
Re: (Score:2)
Depends if you are claiming asylum or not. Entering a country to claim asylum is legal, even if you don't have permission.
Re: What standing do they have? (Score:3)
Thats patently false. The rules of asylum state You must seek asylum in the FIRST country you arrive in. You dont get to skip 5 countries because the free handouts are better in the US. That my friend is seeking to defraud the taxpayer. If there is no religious or political persecution in the central american countries they cross thru then they are required to seek Asylum there. This is the UN accord on asylum.
Re: (Score:2)
Under what law is that? Not the UN Convention.
https://fullfact.org/immigrati... [fullfact.org]
ICE doesn't arrest immigrants (Score:2, Informative)
Immigrants have residency cards or visas. ICE arrests people who are in the country illegally.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But but but "dreamers"...
Re: ICE doesn't arrest immigrants (Score:2)
I dream of sitting in Jeff Bezos mansion while he is out there having to cut my lawn. What about my dream? If wishes were fishes....
Re: (Score:2)
Do they? People are issued a paper visa by an embassy and when they enter the country, they surrender this visa, so until their green cards arrive in the post, they have no physical proof of legal residency.
Re: (Score:2)
How can a green card not be used as photo id? It may not be useful as photo id for everyday functions, but it is very much so a form of photo id. I know, because my wife was required to present hers at the college she attends in order to even be able to register for classes (she was already attending in prior semesters as it was).
And are you sure that in order for your GC to be valid that your foreign passport cannot lapse? To the best of my knowledge, while it may not be advisable to allow your foreign
Re: (Score:2)
It only functions as a proof of identity (by photo), a proof of birth date (by presence of birth date), and proof of legal status (the document itself). There's other proofs which may be required when a photo ID is requested. A driver's license includes proof of residency (address) and proof of being a licensed driver (DLN + expiration date) beyond the proofs on the green card.
Registering for college likely only required the proof of identity. It should be sufficient for other activities where you only need
Re: (Score:2)
Usually when you get a new passport, they will stamp your old one with CANCELLED or cut the corner off etc and give it back to you. If you have a visa that's still valid, you can present the old passport along with your current one.
I've known many people do this and never have any problem with immigration.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction:
"Optional Form 155B".
Re:ICE doesn't arrest immigrants (Score:5, Informative)
"ICE arrests people who are in the country illegally."
And also:
Jilmar Ramos-Gomez was detained by ICE while carrying a passport, drivers license, and military ID. buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/us-born-marine-ice-detained-passport
9-year-old Julia Medina was detained by ICE while carrying her passport. https://www.gq.com/story/borde... [gq.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What I have always done is provide the number of a government ID, passport or drivers license. It's pretty amazing, you don't even have to carry it with you.
They can then go verify it if they want to. Et voila. Hey - I did the same when I was living in other countries when asked to identify myself. So hard to live in a society with other people!
Re:ICE doesn't arrest immigrants (Score:4, Informative)
When you take on US citizenship, at the ceremony, they tell you that you no longer need to carry such proof.
Of course that hasn't stopped ICE from locking up people who are citizens but don't have the documentation with them.
People acquire citizenship in different ways and one way does not require any documents -- it's possible for a citizen to not have any document that proves their citizenship.
Obviously, no immigrant will have a US birth certificate.
Re: ICE doesn't arrest immigrants (Score:2)
You realize the push for RealID tied to drivers licenses prettymuch does mean you are carrying proof.
Re: (Score:2)
" that hasn't stopped ICE from locking up people who are citizens but don't have the documentation with them."
That hasn't stopped ICE from locking up people who are citizens but DO have the documentation with them.
Re:ICE doesn't arrest immigrants (Score:4, Insightful)
In the 1980s we made fun of the Soviet Union and its "internal passport" system. Now we apparently consider their old rules as aspirational.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: ICE doesn't arrest immigrants (Score:2)
Welcome to Real ID.
The Patriot Act.. turning citizens into suspects since 2003.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole fucking point of the American system of limited government was that the state owed accountability to individuals, and not vice versa, so that people didn't have to wander round with bits of paper "proving" who they are to bumptious officials.
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that ICE will accept your birth certificate as proof of citizenship.
https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
aclu.org/press-releases/us-citizen-who-was-illegally-detained-and-twice-deported-latest-victim-governments
Almost every person ICE is pursuing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obfuscation for political ends: "Immigrant" (Score:2, Insightful)
Emotive, dishonest piece.
Immigrants are those who have applied for, received and are present in a country by due process, on for example a visa.
Asylum seekers are those who present themselves promptly upon arrival and seek (I.e. ask for), asylum due to certain criteria. And who are evaluated by those criteria. Which do not include: "my country is poor".
People who do not fall into those categories, who do not (because they cannot) pay tax, and who have not been permitted to be there ... are illegal immigrant
Re:Obfuscation for political ends: "Immigrant" (Score:5, Informative)
No, what they're claiming is that the constitutional requirement for due process applies to all people, and this computer algorithm doesn't qualify.
Re: (Score:2)
What shouldn't be difficult to understand, but apparently is, is that "illegal" is something that can only be determined by a court. There is no "immediately" when it comes to proper process.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, but how did that attitude work out in the War on Drugs? People who do drugs are criminals, they should go to jail, right? Which results in all kinds of even worse problems than someone smoking weed or doing cocaine.
If you want there to be fewer illegal immigrants then offer them a legal path to immigrate. Not a 6+ month wait at the border for an asylum claim to be heard, not a 20+ year family reunion visa application processing time. Make it legal, make it fair, and make sure people who do immigrate h
Idea totally makes sense. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think you can enforce it, go ahead and try.
Freedom of movement was nice while it lasted! (Score:3)
That conversation [imdb.com] keeps getting more and more outdated. Except of course the part about the wives [wikipedia.org]!
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing about breaking the law... (Score:2)
you tend to get arrested when law enforcement catches you breaking the law.
Don't want to got to a detention center or jail? Try not breaking the law. I want to be able to rob a bank and have the ACLU sue on my behalf about how unfairly law enforcement is treating me and get sympathy from folks.
The idea that we should feel responsible for another countries problems to the point that those escaping them should be allowed to break our laws is a bigger problem than the folks running through the border.
Have he
Re: (Score:2)
Sympathy may be too much to hope for from most folks, but if you rob a bank and your rights as a not-yet-convicted suspect seem to be getting ignored, the ACLU very well may be there to back you up. Hopefully you'll never need to find out.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right, that is often too much for most folks.
That said, I can sympathize with illegal immigrants, but I can also sympathize with all sorts of other people that break laws as well. The problem is that those laws are there for a reason. Sure sometimes those reasons are bad, but I mean really? I still have to tell them all... stop breaking the law for a better chance. I often have less desire to expend resources on people doing things the wrong way and this would fall under that heading.
We all know
Re: (Score:2)
Sympathy may be too much to hope for from most folks, but if you rob a bank and your rights as a not-yet-convicted suspect seem to be getting ignored, the ACLU very well may be there to back you up. Hopefully you'll never need to find out.
If you rob a bank, you should expect to be detained (unless you currently live in the state of New York) so I fail to see what your point is about any rights being ignored.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Releasing illegal aliens on bond is highly risky as 87% of them never return for their court hearings
Did you actually read this? What the article is claiming is that 65%-70% of asylum seekers were showing up for those court hearings, then Trump took over and the number plummeted to 13%. Now, I could believe this figure given that his "fuck foreigners, only Americans are real people" rhetoric is probably convincing a lot of immigrants that there's no chance of a fair trial, but the idea that this is true at all is coming purely from the testimony of one guy citing an unsourced figure from an unpublished stu
Re: Illegal Alien == Disease Vector (Score:2)
The wall wont stop most illegal aliens: people who fly into the country and overstay their visas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have no record of vaccinations for most people here on a visa. It's only those people who apply for immigrant visas that need to show proof of vaccinations. All those H1B and H4 visa holders: no vaccinations required.
Similarly, I did not have to show any proof that I don't have a criminal history until I applied for a green card.
What puts people at risk is turning the undocumented into un-persons who live on the fringes of society.
Re: (Score:2)