Immigration law: No offence

Immigration law
No offence
Aug 18th 2011, 16:52 by J.F. | ATLANTA

THE American Immigration Lawyers Association just released a report detailing what happens when criminal-law enforcement agents—ie, the police—enforce civil-immigration law. It looked at 127 cases from 24 states and Washington, DC in which clients of immigration lawyers were stopped, questioned or arrested by police for minor offences that resulted in the commencement of deportation proceedings. So it is a small sample, and not necessarily a representative one: most of these cases involved immigrants represented by or able to speak to counsel; there are plenty of others who were unable to contact an attorney before removal, and so represent themselves pro se during the removal process. It makes for dispiriting reading.

Remember those assurances given in Georgia, Arizona and Alabama, that new laws only allowed police to check the immigration status of people suspected of crimes? That civil-liberties concerns were overblown, and suggestions that racial profiling would take place were just so much liberaltarian whining? If anyone believed lawmakers then, they should not now. People were placed in deportation proceedings after being pulled over after police noticed broken lights over licence plates or, in Minnesota, having frost on the windshield. And those were among the more legitimate stops: at least in those cases the drivers were unlicenced. In Texas police demanded identification from a man leaving a convenience store; when he couldn't produce any he was taken to a sheriff's office, charged with no crime and handed over to immigration authorities. Police detained a passenger in a car being driven by a licenced driver for having no identification on him; he too was handed over to immigration authorities, and departed the country voluntary (presumably in advance of, and to avoid, deportation proceedings). A woman in California was handed over to immigration authorities after police told her, "You fucking Mexicans are all alike." Another woman was pulled over for making an illegal right turn; before she said anything, an officer said, "I know you're illegal."

Now, supporters of harsh immigration law might claim these are just a few bad apples. The actions of a couple of overzealous or bigoted policemen should not be taken as representative. But rights are rights: they either matter in every case or not at all. And if Republicans are really as concerned about liberty and individual freedom as they claim to be, the fact that police can demand identification from anyone they like anytime they like ought to alarm them. In any event, incidents such as the ones detailed in the report will likely grow more common. In the first half of 2011, five states (Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Indiana and Utah) passed bills modelled on Arizona's.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/immigration-law?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/nooffence

It really was not rocket science to figure that this would happen...

AILA is a pro-illegal organization, for one. Two, every single illegal alien broke the law! Our gov't (past & present, Republican & Democrat) have allowed the invasion of millions, which is the largest invasion of any nation, at any time, by any means & in direct violation of Article IV, Section IV of our Constitution.

Not only have they allowed the invasion, they force American tax payers to pay billions on billions of dollars to provide welfare, free medical care, prison cells and to educate the invaders numerous children. At the same time, the invading horde break numerous laws and massive document fraud.

US code on illegal immigration is as follows;



Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code: Improper Entry by Alien, states that any person who enters the United States without proper documentation will face penalty, meaning they have committed a federal crime.

1911

8 U.S.C. § 1325—Unlawful Entry, Failure to Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud

Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper entry into the United States by an alien, (2) entry into marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws, and (3) establishing a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading immigration laws. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) amended 8 U.S.C. § 1325 to provide that an alien apprehended while entering or attempting to enter the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01911.htm

TexasBlue wrote:AILA is a pro-illegal organization, for one. Two, every single illegal alien broke the law! Our gov't (past & present, Republican & Democrat) have allowed the invasion of millions, which is the largest invasion of any nation, at any time, by any means & in direct violation of Article IV, Section IV of our Constitution.

Not only have they allowed the invasion, they force American tax payers to pay billions on billions of dollars to provide welfare, free medical care, prison cells and to educate the invaders numerous children. At the same time, the invading horde break numerous laws and massive document fraud.

You're changing the subject. The point of the article is that stereotyping is a direct result of this law. Something that the right said would NEVER happen because "there are laws against stereotyping". All these examples proof though, that just because people look South or Central American, they are subject to more traffic stops and other checks.

There are laws against profiling. If there's profiling, then the laws take care of those who profiled. But those who happened to have been profiled happened to have been here illegally.

No. The ones mentioned in the article were the ones profiled who were actually illegal immigrants. Do you really think that just these people were pulled over for minor traffic violations? You really don't think that other people who looked Mexican were pulled over for the same minor violations?

TexasBlue wrote:There are laws against profiling. If there's profiling, then the laws take care of those who profiled. But those who happened to have been profiled happened to have been here illegally.

WHUT ??????????

can you give some statistics on the numbers of right wing cops being arrested for unlawful profiling

BubbleBliss wrote:
No. The ones mentioned in the article were the ones profiled who were actually illegal immigrants. Do you really think that just these people were pulled over for minor traffic violations? You really don't think that other people who looked Mexican were pulled over for the same minor violations?

Are you kidding me? If Mexican nationals who are here legally or American citizens of Hispanic origin were profiled, there would be this HUGE lawsuit on violations of their civil liberties.

cable2+1 wrote:WHUT ??????????

can you give some statistics on the numbers of right wing cops being arrested for unlawful profiling

First off, you're accusing cops of profiling to be right wing. That's wrong.

Two, can you give some statistics on the numbers of American citizens being arrested for unlawful profiling?

cable2+1 wrote:WHUT ??????????

can you give some statistics on the numbers of right wing cops being arrested for unlawful profiling

TexasBlue wrote:First off, you're accusing cops of profiling to be right wing. That's wrong.

First off, it's not I who says the left wing support the illegal immigrants... given that, it can only have been right wing cops, cos left wing cops would....

TexasBlue wrote:Two, can you give some statistics on the numbers of American citizens being arrested for unlawful profiling?

Second off, the article talks about cops profiling illegal immigrants "look alike", NOT American citizens... which is why I asked me question

There are some major flaws in the article above.

First, as Tex rightfully noted, is the source of this "study" AILA - an organization biased toward illegal immigrants (who are, in fact, criminals based on their illegal presence in this country in the first place).

Second, even the story above admits that extremely small sample size of the study does not make it a true representation of the facts.

Third, the examples of "abuses" cited, particularly the alleged offensive quotes, were anecdotal and the author did corroborate these in any way. As such they remain mere allegations.

Fourth, ALL of the people busted, were here illegally! Thus they were criminals, guilty of violating federal immigration laws.

Illegal immigration is a very serious problem in this country and unless our federal government gets serious about enforcing immigration laws, more and more states are going to find it necessary to take actions on their own.

cable2+1 wrote:First off, it's not I who says the left wing support the illegal immigrants... given that, it can only have been right wing cops, cos left wing cops would....

Your statement is invalid. Our police here aren't at liberty to do as they wish. Those who try are punished. You read about it all the time. It's statements like yours that drive me up a wall. You've never visited the USA as far as I know, yet you make these absurd statements as if you lived down the street from me.

You never ever hear me saying that British police do this or do that. I make no silly accusations about things I know nothing about.

cable2+1 wrote:Second off, the article talks about cops profiling illegal immigrants "look alike", NOT American citizens... which is why I asked me question

You make that statement based on this from the article

A woman in California was handed over to immigration authorities after police told her, "You fucking Mexicans are all alike." Another woman was pulled over for making an illegal right turn; before she said anything, an officer said, "I know you're illegal."

and there's no evidence that these things were actually done or said.... other than the author of the column saying that it did. I need more evidence than that.

cable2+1 wrote:First off, it's not I who says the left wing support the illegal immigrants... given that, it can only have been right wing cops, cos left wing cops would....

TexasBlue wrote:Your statement is invalid. Our police here aren't at liberty to do as they wish. Those who try are punished. You read about it all the time. It's statements like yours that drive me up a wall. You've never visited the USA as far as I know, yet you make these absurd statements as if you lived down the street from me.

You never ever hear me saying that British police do this or do that. I make no silly accusations about things I know nothing about.

No police are free to do as they wish BUT the police the world over carry on regardless.. it's the nature of the beast.. power corrupts, even if the power is that of lowly copper... So it matters not where we live, the Fuzz where we live ARE corrupt, as I say it's the nature of the beast, it was always thus and will always be.. that's why liberals in every country try hard to put into place mechanisms to over see the actions of the Bobbie on the beat.. Each country has it's own horror stories of Police corruption and abuse, yours, mine and the guys in Greenland.

I did like your "Those [the corrupt police] who try are punished." it made me smile.. it's a bit saying all office workers are honest and those who aren't are sacked.. when we all know most office workers go home with the odd pen or paper clip or even the more expensive items, not nailed down... So to amend my statement.. "Power corrupts so do's opportunity"

cable2+1 wrote:Second off, the article talks about cops profiling illegal immigrants "look alike", NOT American citizens... which is why I asked me question

TexasBlue wrote:You make that statement based on this from the article

A woman in California was handed over to immigration authorities after police told her, "You fucking Mexicans are all alike." Another woman was pulled over for making an illegal right turn; before she said anything, an officer said, "I know you're illegal."

TexasBlue wrote:and there's no evidence that these things were actually done or said.... other than the author of the column saying that it did. I need more evidence than that.

the article is all we got.. we can disagree with what's said.. as we often do here in these forums.. but to claim the facts in a article are untrue, we must have evidence to back that up.. and not just to claim the article is untrue cos the facts don't come with enough evidence to please.

I'm gonna have to agree with Dbl on this one. The scanty data put forth in the article do not justify the emotional tone. I have yet to be convinced that racial profiling is a serious problem. Which is not to say it does not exist at all--that's ridiculous. Of course it does, to some degree. I don't know what that degree is. Obviously, any time a cop uses the law as an excuse to hassle Mexicans without justification, that's a bad thing, and the cop should be punished. But the article is disingenuous in its implication that there is no difference between "a few bad apples" and a sweeping epidemic.

cable2+1 wrote:the article is all we got.. we can disagree with what's said.. as we often do here in these forums.. but to claim the facts in a article are untrue, we must have evidence to back that up.. and not just to claim the article is untrue cos the facts don't come with enough evidence to please.

I don't see them claiming the claims are "untrue." They're saying they're anecdotal. They're just one person's say-so. This does not automatically make them false, of course. They could very well be true. Or not. We just don't know. So there is a very good reason to be suspicious, and take the claims with a grain of salt. (After all, if someone is busted for being here illegally, there is a very powerful incentive to make up a story like that.)

Part of critical thinking is tuning out your biases and questioning the source of your information, and applying the same degree of skepticism to everything, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it.

kronos wrote:Part of critical thinking is tuning out your biases and questioning the source of your information, and applying the same degree of skepticism to everything, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it.

This is exactly why I like links to go along with what I post. It becomes more than just some guys opinion at that point. If someone (an opinion writer) says that a bunch of union thugs beat up a guy at a rally and there's no evidence, then I shy away from it. But if that writer inserts a link to a video from YouTube, then it becomes fact, not opinion.

To Cable; yeah, there's corrupt police the world over. More in some places than in others. We here in the USA have very tight regulations on the federal level regarding profiling and each state also has it's laws that enhance what the federal laws entail.

TexasBlue wrote:

kronos wrote:Part of critical thinking is tuning out your biases and questioning the source of your information, and applying the same degree of skepticism to everything, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it.

This is exactly why I like links to go along with what I post. It becomes more than just some guys opinion at that point. If someone (an opinion writer) says that a bunch of union thugs beat up a guy at a rally and there's no evidence, then I shy away from it. But if that writer inserts a link to a video from YouTube, then it becomes fact, not opinion.

To Cable; yeah, there's corrupt police the world over. More in some places than in others. We here in the USA have very tight regulations on the federal level regarding profiling and each state also has it's laws that enhance what the federal laws entail.

Yep Tex, that's why I was asking if you had data to back up your anecdotal ]if not wishful] claims.. Power corrupts, with the office worker it's taking home the odd pen with the police it's bending the enforcement of law.. and each, the office worker / police person.. getting away with what they can in the society they are active in.. which is why offices have cctv cameras and why no one should trust the cops.

The data I want to see probably doesn't exist.

I'd like to know:

1) the total number of Mexicans who are asked for their ID, and
2) the number of Mexicans out of 1) that turn out to be here illegally.

I don't know if the police are required to keep any record of the ID requests they make, and if the Mexican successfully produces ID, if the request isn't lost to history.

cable2+1 wrote:Yep Tex, that's why I was asking if you had data to back up your anecdotal ]if not wishful] claims.. Power corrupts, with the office worker it's taking home the odd pen with the police it's bending the enforcement of law.. and each, the office worker / police person.. getting away with what they can in the society they are active in.. which is why offices have cctv cameras and why no one should trust the cops.

The data isn't easy to find, if you really want to know. But I see it all the time... cops being busted for breaking the law. It's not a rare thing here. They are dealt with all the time. And don't get the Civil Rights Commission involved. It gets ugly then.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
No. The ones mentioned in the article were the ones profiled who were actually illegal immigrants. Do you really think that just these people were pulled over for minor traffic violations? You really don't think that other people who looked Mexican were pulled over for the same minor violations?

Are you kidding me? If Mexican nationals who are here legally or American citizens of Hispanic origin were profiled, there would be this HUGE lawsuit on violations of their civil liberties.

That would be true if you could actually proof that profiling was going on. How can you say you were profiled if you're being pulled over and asked for your Driver's License for minor traffic violations? It's pretty hard to build a case on profiling if the Cop that pulled you over can always say that you broke the law. How can anyone proof that they were only pulled over for that minor traffic violation because they looked hispanic?

As for questioning the source, I say that that is not an argument. Just like the NRA, groups or assiciations that have a certain interest are the ones who invest in finding out details and getting empirical data. Without those groups, you'd never get any data for certain subjects.

BubbleBliss wrote:As for questioning the source, I say that that is not an argument. Just like the NRA, groups or assiciations that have a certain interest are the ones who invest in finding out details and getting empirical data. Without those groups, you'd never get any data for certain subjects.

When I mentioned questioning the source, I was referring specifically to the quoted statements made by the expelled immigrants. I wasn't trying to slur the ALIA.

Suppose the police officer denied saying it. It's just the Mexican's word against the cops. Who do you believe? I wouldn't believe either one. They both have an incentive to lie. They cancel each other out. So I'd have no opinion. If you'd automatically believe either one just because of who they are, or because believing the one guy affirms your beliefs better than the other, then you're not thinking, you're just reacting in a Pavlovian manner.

I have no reason to believe ALIA is fabricating anything, but Dbl's comment about the reliability of the data holds true. And of course, they could be repeating fabricated statements.

Here's the ALIA report:

http://www.aila.org/content/fileviewer.aspx?docid=36646&linkid=236762

Always better to go straight to the horse's mouth. Now we can assess the claims better.

What's your assessment?

This line throws me for a loop to the point that I find disdain for this organization;

Police are perceived as no longer just protecting public safety and enforcing criminal law but also, or even primarily, as enforcing civil immigration law.

Enforcing civil immigration law? Duh.

Law. Law. Law. It's a law. It's also one that our gov't fails to properly enforce. Notice that I didn't say Obama.

I really get sick of the bastardization of this topic as if we here are racists and are unlawfully profiling our own citizens. Again, we ave severe penalties on the federal level against profiling and if you think that it's not enforced, one has rose-colored glasses on.

It always seems to be that this subject always seems to favors the illegal alien (a law breaker).

Tex, do you seriously believe that racial profilers are always caught?

Like BubbleBliss said, it's hard to prove, and therefore, easy to get away with.