Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
'Base! How Low Can You Go?
For all the grumbling immigration hawks are doing about the government's job enforcing law, the FBI has added hundreds of thousands of illegals' names to the Crime Information Center Database. But the WaPo's Ernesto Londoño finds some problems:
Two police associations have lobbied against the inclusion, saying that by acting on the warrants, departments risk alienating recent immigrants, a segment of the community that has historically had an uneasy relationship with law enforcement agencies. That, they say, is likely to hinder cooperation from witnesses and victims of violent crimes who are in the country unlawfully.
Separately, immigrant advocacy organizations are suing the government, saying that it had no legal standing to add administrative records to what has traditionally been a database for criminal warrants. Disregarding a deportation order is a violation of administrative, not criminal, law.
Because many outstanding deportation orders date back several years and in some cases don't reflect the person's current immigration status, some law enforcement officials and immigrant advocates say they fear that people could get picked up because of sloppy record keeping. The problem is compounded because some immigrants are ordered deported in hearings that can be held in their absence. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement says it screens records carefully before adding them to the database.
Oh, that's settled then.
|6.13.07 @ 9:20AM|#
Matt Welch did a web-only piece for this very site with the
exact same headline.
You can look
it up.
Don't get lazy on me, Davey. A nation of whippersnappers is relying
on you to learn the truth about the Old School. Stay Black.
|6.13.07 @ 9:22AM|#
Dunno, David. If they came straight outta Compton, they wouldn't
be immigrants.
OTOH, the "...fear that people could get picked up because of
sloppy record keeping" is well justified.
It's not just sloppiness, the same problems will crop up that are
happening in the "no-fly" database. A "Pedro Martinez" may be
wanted for murder, so every "Pedro Martinez" the cops come across
will be treated like a murder suspect.
BobDobalina|6.13.07 @ 9:23AM|#
Chuckles, co-sign. I was disappointed to find out the hedline
wasn't for a story about drug policy considering the quote.
Well, at least Weigel didn't put "Farrakhan's a prophet that I
think you ought to listen to ... "
David Weigel|6.13.07 @ 9:27AM|#
If there is a statute of limitations on headlines, I think one
four years old and on a different subject is a perfect candidate
for cannibalization.
(I didn't remember Welch's hed when I posted.)
|6.13.07 @ 9:29AM|#
the FBI has added hundreds of thousands of illegals names to
the Crime Information Center Database.'
Is this helpful at all? How many illegal aliens are using their
real name? What about legal aliens and citizens with the same name?
etc. etc. I can't see how this does anything but shit all over an
already impossible law enforcement problem.
|6.13.07 @ 9:31AM|#
statute of limitations on headlines
Seventy years after the death of the author. But this headline was
sampled to begin with, so your cool.
highnumber|6.13.07 @ 9:33AM|#
I have a country version of this song. It will be stuck in my
head all day long now. Thanks a lot!
(Unholy Trio on Down to the Promised Land - 5 Years of
Bloodshot Records, Great album!)
|6.13.07 @ 10:12AM|#
Of course a lot of those people under deportation order deserve
to be there. A lot of them are criminals. The party line on Reason
is that the borders should be open to anyone who is not a criminal.
How do you determine "who is not a criminal" if you don't do
anything to deport those who you know are. Further, even if you
pick the person up on a warrant, that doesn't mean they will be
deported. They can always fight deportation and win. The Blake v.
Carbone case is getting a lot of press these days. There, a
Jamaican convicted of sex with a minor won an appeal before the
Second Circuit to stay in the country. Even if you loose in court,
if you are connected enough and have enough money, you can always
go buy yourself a Congressman and get a special rider tacked onto a
bill letting you stay in the country. This happens more than you
think.
The whole thing just shows how empty the rhetoric is from the pro
immigration people are. They have no intention of ever deporting
anyone for any reason or stopping anyone no matter how vile from
entering the country. I love the excuse the cops are giving that
they are afraid to enforce the law because it might piss the
immigrant communities off. I would imagine arresting them for
anything pisses them off. At what point do the immigrant
communities or at least the criminal element, wake up and realize
that if they can intimidate the cops out of enforcing the
immigration laws they can intimidate them from enforcing other
laws. What that statement tells me is that we are a lot closer to
being like France where you have immigrant communities that
essentially police or don't police themselves because the police
are afraid to go there. Wonderful.
It is one thing to argue that we should let all of the hard working
law abiding immigrants stay in the country. What you people are now
arguing, by cheering this, is that we should let them all stay even
if they have come here and committed crimes.
Rhywun|6.13.07 @ 10:32AM|#
They have no intention of ... stopping anyone no matter how
vile from entering the country.
They do? Do you really believe this? Or have you simply not read
what people actually say on the matter?
|6.13.07 @ 10:42AM|#
"They do? Do you really believe this? Or have you simply not
read what people actually say on the matter?"
They say they do but what speaks louder actions or words? The fact
is that, as the cheering over this demonstrates, people say they
want to stop some from entering the country but when it comes to
actually doing it, then they want no part of it. If you are going
to stop people from coming in, you have to be willing to
aggressively enforce deportation orders and have an efficient
system of border enforcement. If you don't have that, you are not
going to stop anyone. Every time someone tries to do that, the open
borders crowd does everything to prevent it. Do you really believe
that if the law changed tomorrow and anyone who wanted to and did
not have a criminal record and did not commit a serious crime while
here could immigrate, that even that rule would be enforced? Hell
no. The battle would just change to how horrible it is that this or
that dirt bag is being deported because he only committed one
felony or how we can't deport those who deserve it because doing so
will anger immigrant communities and might mistakenly deport the
wrong person.
Yeah, they all say they want to stop the wrong people from entering
the country, but they will fight any effort made to make sure that
happens.
dhex|6.13.07 @ 10:49AM|#
"Well, at least Weigel didn't put "Farrakhan's a prophet that I
think you ought to listen to ... "
why? rap is not afraid of you...
man now i've got that song stuck in my head.
ps. motherfuck john wayne.
|6.13.07 @ 10:51AM|#
All your base are belong to us now.
You are on the way to destruction.
You have no chance to survive, make your time.
HA HA HA HA....
|6.13.07 @ 10:55AM|#
John is right. We should put a bullet through the head of every brown skinned person to show we are serious about not wanting criminals to enter this country.
shecky|6.13.07 @ 10:56AM|#
They have no intention of ever deporting anyone for any
reason or stopping anyone no matter how vile from entering the
country.
John, you're making shit up again.
|6.13.07 @ 10:58AM|#
Warren fuck off you moron. This has nothing to do with what the nature of immigration laws should be. It is about how those laws are enforced. Even if you had open borders, the party line on Reason at least has always been that you stop people with criminal records should be kept out. I don't think anyone at least publicly will argue that sending the Mexican mafia or other various reprobates back to where they came from is not a good thing. How do you do that if you are unwilling to enforce deportation orders? With magic wands?
|6.13.07 @ 10:58AM|#
If you are going to stop people from coming in, you have to
be willing to aggressively enforce deportation orders and have an
efficient system of border enforcement.
This article is about plain vanilla deportation warrants, not
criminal warrants and not specifically deportation warrants
deporting criminals.
You can't take people's reactions to the placing of these
administrative warrants into criminal databases to imply what would
happen if the deportation warrants were to deport people guilty of
an actual crime.
An example from the article of what probably should happen...
In Houston, for example, officials reached an arrangement with the local U.S. attorney and immigration offices in which the police department agrees to arrest people on administrative immigration warrants only if federal authorities intend to file criminal charges against them.
|6.13.07 @ 11:00AM|#
"They have no intention of ever deporting anyone for any reason
or stopping anyone no matter how vile from entering the
country.
John, you're making shit up again."
We won't enforce deportation orders on criminals. I guess we can
just send them letters and ask them nicely to leave the country.
Yeah, I am making stuff up.
|6.13.07 @ 11:01AM|#
How do you do that if you are unwilling to enforce
deportation orders?
How do you separate deportation orders due to the breaking of
immigration law from those due to the breaking of an actual law
with actual victims?
|6.13.07 @ 11:02AM|#
MikeP,
It is not about them being guilty of a crime and getting arrested
for it. It is about them having criminal records or being wanted
back home or having committed a crime while here and already served
their time for it. If you are an alien and go to jail, they don't
just let you out and deport you. Deportation is a different
process. You commit the crime do your time and then are subject to
the deportation process separately. There are lots of people who
are criminals but will never procecuted criminally for ignoring
these orders.
|6.13.07 @ 11:04AM|#
John,
Are you reading a different article? I read the whole thing, and I
could not find where it said all the names being included were
criminals.
Again, from the article...
The International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Major Cities Chiefs Association have opposed the inclusion of noncriminal immigration warrants in the database.
|6.13.07 @ 11:05AM|#
"How do you separate deportation orders due to the breaking of
immigration law from those due to the breaking of an actual law
with actual victims?"
All of these orders are the result of breaking immigration laws of
some sort. It might be as simple as overstaying your visa or it
could be as in the case of the Jamaican I mentioned above
committing a serious crime. The only way we have to make people
show up in court and actually enforcing the law and deporting those
who deserve it is by issuing warrents and draggin those who don't
show up for the hearings into court. Otherwise, people are free to
ignore them and stay in the country regardless of how much they
deserve to be deported. If they have already done the time for
their crime, we can't go rearrest them for that crime. At that
point, their only crime is ignoring the court order.
|6.13.07 @ 11:10AM|#
MikeP,
Is a convicted felon who fails to leave the country a "noncriminal
immigration warrent". Perhaps it is. In which case, I take back
what I said above. I still don't see a problem with enforcing court
orders. If you don't like the immigration system, change it. Don't
undermine the enforcement of the current system. Are we really to
the point that it is too much to ask for people to show up at their
deporation hearings?
|6.13.07 @ 11:11AM|#
The only way we have to make people show up in court and
actually enforcing the law and deporting those who deserve it is by
issuing warrents and draggin those who don't show up for the
hearings into court.
And if one believes that most people under these orders committed
no actual crime and therefore do not "deserve" to be
deported...?
|6.13.07 @ 11:13AM|#
Look at it this way, if I don't show up to traffic court, the police will put a bench warrent out for me and arrest me the next time I get pulled over. In fact, if I stay in the area long enough, they will come to my house and arrest me on a periodic bench warrent sweep that most jurisidictions do. But there is something wrong with arresting people who refuse to show up at deportation hearings? I guess the alien gets to choose whether he is subject to the system. If he doesn't like system or has something better to do, the whole court proceeding thing is just optional. An administrative formality.
|6.13.07 @ 11:14AM|#
Are we really to the point that it is too much to ask for
people to show up at their deporation hearings?
If they are going to be forcably displaced from their homes and
jobs for the "crime" of living and working in the United States
without the proper immigration status, then, yes, it is too much to
ask.
|6.13.07 @ 11:15AM|#
"And if one believes that most people under these orders
committed no actual crime and therefore do not "deserve" to be
deported...?"
Maybe they have maybe they haven't. That is why we have the
hearing. The issue is not whether they are going to be deported.
Arresting them doesn't deport them. The issue is whether they have
to actually show up at the hearings. If they don't have to show up
at the hearings and we will do nothing but send them letters asking
them to, then why have a hearing at all?
|6.13.07 @ 11:17AM|#
"If they are going to be forcably displaced from their homes and
jobs for the "crime" of living and working in the United States
without the proper immigration status, then, yes, it is too much to
ask."
Yeah it is too much to ask for them to live by the laws and show up
in court and straighten out their immigration status? Is it your
position that none of these people deserve to be deported? If it is
not, how do we deport any of them if there is no real requirement
to show up at the hearing? I work hard and obey the law, but I sure
as hell have to show up in court once in a while, whether that be
jury duty or some BS traffic ticket. But aliens apparently in your
view don't live by the laws citizens do. They can pretty much take
court orders under advisement.
|6.13.07 @ 11:23AM|#
John,
You have used this posting as a straw man to throw at those who
believe in free immigration for most people while restricting the
immigration of felons or the like.
If the deportation hearings were for those convicted or accused of
actual crimes, and if the database were limited to those convicted
or accused of actual crimes, and if the database listed the actual
crime, then you probably be reading about it here.
fyodor|6.13.07 @ 11:31AM|#
John,
Are you saying that in order to enforce deportations against
felons, it's necessary to enforce deportations against all
immigration violations? If so, I don't see that.
Just to be open about how this member of the "open borders crowd"
sees the issue you claim we're being disengenous about (not that I
really speak for ANYONE other than myself!), I'm ambivalent about
deporting people with criminal records who have done their time. On
one hand, if they're bad people who have done bad things, I'm not
particularly eager to go to bat for them or have them in our
country. On the other, if they've done their time, that seems like
a larger issue than where they live now. After all, former cons
have freedom of movement within national borders like anyone else.
Seems like deportation could be double jeorpardy (morally if not
legally). As for people with outstanding arrests, of course they
should be brought to justice, but that seems like a criminal matter
and not a purely immigration matter at all.
Anyway, you're ignoring the basic gist of the post. That by
enforcing lesser crimes, ie crimes with no particular victim even,
we may be interfering with the enforcement of more serious crimes,
ie violent crimes with actual victims. If by pointing this out "we"
are showing our true colors that we won't ever get serious about
enforcing immigration laws, even the ones you say we're supposed to
agree with you on, well perhaps you're just as susceptible to the
charge that you'll stop at nothing to enforce immmigration rules,
even when there's reason to believe doing so hurts enforcement
against violent crime? Oh no, this shows "our" true motivations but
you couldn't be generalized so broadly, I'm sure...
|6.13.07 @ 11:55AM|#
"Anyway, you're ignoring the basic gist of the post. That by
enforcing lesser crimes, ie crimes with no particular victim even,
we may be interfering with the enforcement of more serious crimes,
ie violent crimes with actual victims. If by pointing this out "we"
are showing our true colors that we won't ever get serious about
enforcing immigration laws, even the ones you say we're supposed to
agree with you on, well perhaps you're just as susceptible to the
charge that you'll stop at nothing to enforce immmigration rules,
even when there's reason to believe doing so hurts enforcement
against violent crime? Oh no, this shows "our" true motivations but
you couldn't be generalized so broadly, I'm sure..."
You either have laws or you don't. The debate about the substance
of the immigration laws is separate from the debate about whether
to enforce those laws. Just because you think the law should be a
certain way and isn't, doesn't justify refusing to and subverting
the enforcement of the law as it is. It seems to me that the open
borders advocates have no interest whatsoever in enforcing
immigration laws. I am therefore skeptical of any claims that the
enfocement of any immigration laws no matter how lax they are. When
you are unwilling even to force people to show up at deportation
hearings, you don't have much credibility when you claim that you
really intend to deport anyone.
Further, I disagree with the premise that enforcing immigration
laws makes it more difficult to enforce other laws. Other than
anicdotes I have never seen any serious studies or general evidence
to support that. Moreover, any loss in enforcing crime due to
people being unwilling to come forward must be balanced against the
number of crimes prevented by actually picking up and deporting
people who are hear illegally.
|6.13.07 @ 12:09PM|#
The debate about the substance of the immigration laws is
separate from the debate about whether to enforce those
laws.
Clearly, this isn't the case. You don't have to look very far for a
counterexample... this very thread, in fact.
Just because you think the law should be a certain way and
isn't, doesn't justify refusing to and subverting the enforcement
of the law as it is.
Actually, it does. Does the name "Harriet Tubman" ring a bell?
|6.13.07 @ 12:14PM|#
I forget... How does history remember the local authorities who assisted in the "deportations" in the greater Third Reich?
TLB|6.13.07 @ 12:31PM|#
Once again, Weigel TakesPropaganda seriously and runs with it, rather than looking at the deeper issue. Who profits from such stories? Which groups are the ones suing, and do they have any links to the MexicanGovernment? All things that real reporters might consider looking into.
dhex|6.13.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Yes, WhoProfits from the ColumnQuatro?
in a moment of seriousness:
dude, why do you even bother coming here? do you thirst for unique
hits that badly? wouldn't the freepers be a better home for your
TransmittedWisdom?
|6.13.07 @ 12:45PM|#
I shall not respond to TLB until he finally answers the ago-old question... "WhyDo YouType LikeThis?"
|6.13.07 @ 12:46PM|#
I realize some may call it "age-old," instead of "ago-old." Those people are clearly out to get me.
|6.13.07 @ 12:57PM|#
How does history remember the local authorities who assisted
in the "deportations" in the greater Third Reich?
The great god Godwin declares this thread over, and John the
winner, per His immutable law.
dhex standing in for Dan T.|6.13.07 @ 1:02PM|#
jake: i figure it's a tags thing. it's part of building a BlogEmpire.
|6.13.07 @ 1:05PM|#
I ask Godwin for either dispensation in this case or for a
corollary in the general case.
Arguments based on the premise that the law is the law and it
should be obeyed practically write their own refutations. But when
the argument comes from someone who is such a longtime contributor
and has seen it a hundred times, we should be allowed to jump
directly to the limiting refutation.
I ask that Godwin allow the following corollary:
Any argument from the premise that authority is right by definition is the equivalent to bringing up Nazis.
The Ultimate Arbiter|6.13.07 @ 1:21PM|#
Dispensation granted.
Corollary under consideration.
- The Ultimate Arbiter (by self-designation)
|6.13.07 @ 2:28PM|#
MikeP, the point of Godwin is that, when faced with an argument that "practically writes its own refutations", you should be able to do better than fall back on the facile and lazy argument ad Hitlerum.
|6.13.07 @ 2:41PM|#
While I agree the comparison is lazy -- if only to staunch
further "what part of illegal don't you understand" assertions in
what ought to be a normative debate -- it is hardly facile. In
fact, the notion of local authorities' not cooperating with
deportation arrests makes that comparison much more apt than
comparisons to the Trail of Tears, Jim Crow, Apartheid, or even
fugitive slaves.
My apologies to anyone I might have offended. I will endeavor to be
less lazy in the future.
|6.13.07 @ 3:53PM|#
I believe that making an argument that seems designed to force
one's opponent to make a Godwin violation is, in itself, a Godwin
violation.
Besides, even if MikeP is disqualified, I'm still here, so John
isn't the winner yet. I've only made a slavery/underground railroad
reference, which Godwin still allows.
(Not that MikeP is actually disqualified. The Ultimate Arbiter has
spoken, after all, and who are we to dispute that?)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245