Hey, there! Log in / Register
ICE agents doing a little skulking around in East Boston
By adamg on Mon, 09/25/2017 - 8:17pm
Being a sanctuary city doesn't mean much, apparently. Just ask folks on Lexington Street in East Boston tonight - if you can find any of them.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
That's probably not what they
That's probably not what they're actually up to but it's better than the truth when they don't want to blow a lead.
Supremacy Clause
"Being a sanctuary city doesn't mean much, apparently"
Whether you like it or not, immigration policy and enforcement is done exclusively by the feds, not the states (or cities).
I've seen ice police SUV
I've seen ice police SUV vehicles 3 months driving down Bennington Street towards Central Sq, nothing new in Eastie.
"Whether you like it or not"
It's supposed to be, which is the argument for sanctuary cities. Note that sanctuary city status, in the modern incarnation, means simply that local police do not act as ICE agents, execute ICE detainers, or inquire into immigration status when arresting or otherwise interacting with members of the public.
That's nice if taken at face value
But that's just the figleaf presented to the court of public opinion, isn't it? I mean when the Marty Walsh makes noise about refusing federal agents entry into City Hall, Tommy Chang makes noise about refusing federal agents entry onto school grounds, you're starting to dance on the edge of interfering with legitimate law enforcement activities, aren't you?
Not executing raids on behalf of ICE and not asking for papers is one thing. Making a policy point of never doing it, ever, no matter what, even if you've already arrested and charged someone, is probably legal, though I disagree with it.
But doing a big dance about not honoring ICE detainers is just just just on this side of a line the other side of which is outright ignoring federal warrants. And given the established power of the federal government to press state law enforcement into federal service under certain conditions, it's not a very clear line either.
I don't see it that way
I don't see "You can't come onto property that I control unless you have a valid warrant," as anywhere near the edge of interfering with legitimate law enforcement activities.
I'd agree with you
if we were talking about private citizens and private property. And if I thought the Bill of Rights applied in full to anyone and everyone sucking down oxygen on American territory.
But we're talking about public property and about people who aren't here legally and don't enjoy the same set of protections against federal administrative action as those here legally.
Do this thought experiment with me:
Juan Nadie presents himself to the guards at the American Embassy in San Qualquier and wants in so he can put flyers for his taco truck under the wipers of all the diplomats' cars. The guards tell him to scram. Are they violating his rights? Now let's say he hops the fence and the guards catch him doing his thing in the parking lot and give him the boot. Are they violating his rights yet?
Now let's say this scene takes place on the southern border, and
a) He goes through on a work visa with his taco truck but lets his visa lapse
b) He goes around the checkpoint, never bothers with a visa, hops the fence, and ICE catches him the moment he crosses
c) ICE catches him a day later
d) ICE catches him a year later
e) ICE catches him ten years later
Where, other than in case (a), in your mind, does this guy start having the same Constitutional protections that you and I and every citizen, guest worker, and green card holder enjoy?
I'm tryin' but I can't figure out if the consensus position on your side is that everyone everywhere has American Constitutional protections or whether things like national boundaries have any practical meaning to you folks.
"you folks"
The reason you're confused is because you're not a very good listener. Your habit of putting words in others' mouths interferes with that; if you insist that other people are saying what you want to hear, you're always going to be a few facts short of a valid argument.
I am not a lawyer, but even I can tell that your concept of "public property" is insufficiently rigorous to use as the basis for an argument. I'm not even sure that such a concept exists in law. There is property owned by the city, property owned by the state, property owned by the MBTA, property owned by private entities. The public may be granted access to any or all of these under various conditions. What's your point? It's got nothing to do with being a sanctuary city.
It seems like a waste of time to do so; it's just a lot of meandering, really. What's your point? That undocumented people don't have the same rights as citizens? No kidding. They do nevertheless have some rights, including some rights to due process, and there's nothing in federal law that compels state or local police to act as immigration agents. That is the entire point of this discussion.
My point
is specifically that people who are in the process of hopping the metaphorical or literal fence don't have a right to due process when it comes to being sent back to the side they came from except for a very narrow set of circumstances that I'm very certain do not apply to the people we're talking about.
And I further assert that there's no magic expiration date or statute of limitations in federal immigration law that changes the previous statement no matter if the fence hopping happened today, yesterday, or two decades ago. And my further point is that there shouldn't be any such expiration date, on the grounds that having one encourages more people to hop the fence themselves and/or send unaccompanied children to hop the fence. On the grounds that our immigration policy should discourage lawbreaking, encourage immigration only of people who are likely to succeed here, and refrain from creating an underclass of people who flout our labor laws, depress wages on the low end of the scale, and whose tenuous relationship with the law does nothing other than harm this thing we like to call the rule of law in our society, which is took centuries of hard work to build up and on the whole is rather unique in a world where ethnic strife and dictatorial governments are the rule rather than the exception.
That's my point. But why debate it when you can just call me stupid, evil, and all sorts of other names?
Yo, Roman
I know that you work really hard to project the ethos of a Real Red-Blooded Midwestern American Conservative MAN! with your posts here. You push it to the point of cartoonish stereotype, actually.
The question is: Do you honestly think the Nazi Army of the Future is going to make an exception for you as an immigrant refugee from the eastern bloc with Jewish ancestry when they begin their Final Solution II pogrom?
History says "don't count on it".
Yo, Swirly
I know that you work real hard to make like you're On The Right Side Of History (TM) with your posts here. You push it...well you're just plain pushy and shrill, actually.
The question is: Can you name me the one person on this forum who's ever actually threated a Jew with physical violence in general and extermination at the hands of neo-Nazis in particular? Repeatedly? Unapologetically? Every chance she gets?
Searchable history says, "It's you, of course!"
Again, American Nazis aren't smart enough to know they're Nazis
They think they're just Great Americans. It goes hand in hand with their life-long hatred of education and teachers in general. It's their oldest grudge but of course they can't figure out why.
Threaten?
I don't think that word means what you think it means. The word you are looking for is "predict", and it's a pretty safe prediction.
When making accusations
It helps to supply actual evidence.
Midwestern?
I didn't know midwestern men are now considered especially virile. Whatever, I'll take it!
virile?
No. Nationalist, yes.
Am I understanding your position correctly?
I believe that you are saying that anybody who is accused by ICE of being here illegally, irrespective of whether or not he or she is in fact an American citizen or here legally, is not entitled to due process. Is that approximately right?
Amazing
Cognitive dissonance abounds with this Roman guy - an immigrant who wants to play the nationalist tough guy.
Amazing, to the easily amazed
Tell us please exactly how many generations back one's ancestors had to have come here in order to be legitimately against open borders and what sort of paperwork would have to be presented to the Ministry of Truth to certify that viewpoint?
While you're at it, do tell me what else I am and am not allowed to believe. I'd hate to commit another faux pas like that. Mustn't think incorrect thoughts....
This is a common memory lapse among Romans
When I was a kid (not that long ago) it was very common to have Nonnis and Nonnos in the house that didn't speak a word of English. The family would always be very defensive and protective, but it was very common for grandparents in certain areas. Fast-forward a generation and those elders have sadly passed, but their nipoti now loudly claim that anyone who doesn't speak English get thrown out of the country. Wicked classy.
My memory's just fine
Your's could use a tune-up though.
It might help you recall the difference between wanting to kick people out because they don't speak English (some friends you must have) and thinking we shouldn't be letting in anyone and everyone from anywhere and everywhere regardless of what language they speak.
I never said that I or anyone I knew wanted to kick out
-The people from another place who talked funny. Those people were of your political affiliation. Your own family a short time ago faced the same discrimination you feverishly endorse now. The only difference is the calendar year. Why does every little thing need to be explained?
No sir
I am saying that the determination of whether you are or are not an American citizen, permanent resident, or holder of a valid visa, with right of entry or not is a fact that is not subject to determination by the judicial system in quite the same way that an accusation of having committed a crime is.
How so?
Isn't pretty much any assertion of fact by the government, whether it's "you committed a crime," "your house is closer to the lot line than the zoning code allows," "you owe $963 in additional taxes," "your monthly Social Security entitlement is $2,731," or "you are not an American citizen and therefore here illegally," ultimately subject to judicial review?
Mostly yes, but sometimes no
As we're fond of pointing out here, there are few absolutes in real life when it comes to Constitutional protections and the Bill of Rights.
On the one extreme, if a law enforcement officer puts you, a citizen or lawful resident, in cuffs, then he's got to either charge you or cut you loose, and if he doesn't then he's operating outside the law and has committed a crime himself.
On the other extreme, a soldier on a far-off battlefield doesn't need to get a warrant to shoot an enemy infrantryman. That's a specific Constitutional carve-out for separate civilian and military law, as I recall.
When interacting with foreigners or LPRs on American soil, the only matter to be adjudicated is whether you in fact are a citizen, LPR, or have a valid visa. To the extent that there are immigration judges who would and do adjudicate such things, I don't understand how that fact would be a contested issue beyond you saying "Here's my passport/birth certificate/driver's license/visa" and DHS or ICE saying "Your visa has expired" or "You never got a visa."
Supremacy Clause
In the Commonwealth, Art. IV MDR The people consented to United States Jurisdiction.Jurisdiction is concurrent and the local authorities are the people's agents under Art VI MDR. (Substitutes and agents)
Every public officer has sworn an oath to support this constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof. Its the same with the marijuana issue, there is a law. If you want to change the policy see your US rep.
The United States has informed the Commonwealth by letter that it intends to enforce the drug laws. In addition, all the names of the persons with Perscriptions for the product and the Doctors writing who write them have been requested by the White House Drug Office. They will at some point get that information.
The so-called Cole memorandum is defunct, public policy is defined by reference to the law and legal precedents, not a supposed public consideration, and or budget issues. The law must be obeyed and a faithful execution thereof is required by all, right down to the cop on the beat or the rule of law is lost!...Where wou7ld we be then?
So...
Oh, dogs and cats would be living together, no doubt about it. So if the federal government decided tomorrow that it wants BPD to spend all its time and resources chasing after, let's say, check-cashing violations, you'd be OK with that?
Can you explain further?
I was under the belief that state and local law enforcement agencies were not under any obligation to enforce federal laws. Is this not correct? I am further under the belief that the police officer on the beat is not obligated to enforce, for example, building code violations, tax deficiencies, or immigration violations any more than the building inspector is supposed to enforce child support decrees. Am I wrong here again?
Does Sanctuary cover MS-13?
The cited post asserts (with no supporting evidence) that the evil ICE guys are "looking for people without documents. Don't open your doors!"
Great. A little bit of fake news to enliven a slow Tuesday night?
How about an equally baseless claim that ICE is "looking for MS-13 murderers. Hide your machetes!"
One's as likely as the other, given the source.
Fantasy racism aside
The idiots that make up the majority of ICE “officers” have really been enjoying themselves since the orange traitor let them off the leash. Especially when you consider that most of them would have been campus cops otherwise. They have literally become the brownshirts that Trump threatened they’d be and what really cracks me up is that they have to write “Police” above the ICE ID on their vests when protecting and serving is clearly the last thing on their small minds.
It's funny (in the SAD way) how
liberals positively love the federal law enforcement machine when it comes to violating the constitutional rights of people they don't like (gun owners, right-of-center PACs, religious conservatives, shareholders of private corporations, the list goes on), but then level the most vitriolic, hate-filled, fantasy-based invective one can imagine at that same federal law enforcement apparatus when it's enforcing laws they disagree with.
It would be amazing if it were new or unique, but at this point it's merely noteworthy.
Who knows? Maybe the MTV and the smartphones really do ruin people's ability to be intellectually honest. Or at least the instinct to politely hold one's tongue.
Couple of points....
I’m 55, so I think I’m a little past the MTV generation you speak of and I certainly never identified as one of those damn liberals, but I digress. Hate is too strong an emotion to waste on a bunch of goons that seem to be filled with it. Nice try, though.
55 and you type that vitriol
55 and you type that vitriol in public? You know those guys are doing a job. They may even disagree with some of what they do. Attacking them for their job is pretty immature. Maybe you should watch some MTV and chill out.
Aren't you the clever one?
It's amazing how the Trump administration has elevated the vocabulary of the dull normals. Now they all use the word "vitriol", although if you held their feet to the fire they couldn't tell you what it means.
I know "these guys", as well as CBP, are notoriously corrupt and unprofessional. Dubya also tried to hire up a whole bunch of agents, and failed because they simply could not get enough of them to pass a polygraph test and a drug test. What they did hire, well...to quote your manboy Trump, "they're not sending their best". These people and those who support them are a disgrace to the nation; why should we respect them?
And I’ll type more and more vitriol
Especially when fascism is always accompanied by the just doing their job excuses.
Disagreeing with what they do
Disagreeing with what they do only matters if it means they stop doing it. Otherwise they're still collecting a paycheck, doing the things that they know are wrong, and them doing it has the same effect as someone who thinks it's right, or doesn't care as long as they can go home at the end of the shift. The enforcer's pangs of conscience don't make a difference to the parent separated from their children.
I hope you wouldn't say "they're doing a job, they may even disagree with some of it" about a mob enforcer.
"Just doing a job"
Just like my local meth dealer is just doing a job. Or like Bull Connor and his deputies in Birmingham were just doing a job when they violently enforced racial segregation by cracking the skulls of peaceful protesters.
Oh, and for the record, "Nuremberg defense"
Blaming The MTV!
I remember when the Huey Lewis video for Doing It All For My Baby made me finally say "Screw Them Jackbooted Pigs!"
For me
it was Dire Strait's "Money for Nothing."
That was the one that the jackbooted thugs might have fancied
You know, with the certain adjective used to describe the millionaire.
MTV?
Is that even culturally relevant anymore (or at any time in the last 5 years)?
Last I recall, they stopped showing actual
music videos about twenty years ago or so.
Congratulations
I couldn't come up with a list of less-oppressed groups of people in this country if I thought about it for a week
Then you've obviously never
Then you've obviously never been a gun owner in MA
Or run ads for pro-file advocates
http://www.universalhub.com/2017/brookline-company-agrees-not-beam-anti-...
Still waiting for
the black guy to come take your guns away? Good thing you don’t need an organ transplant and the goons won’t let your donor into the country. You may not get a kidney, but you get to keep your MP5.
Time to put down the bag of glue
If you really think that feds have been going door to door and pulling members of any of the above-listed groups out of their homes, you need to turn off Infowars/Fox and, as the bumpersticker says, kill your television (and computer).
I don't think, I know
The IRS under Obama had a habit of selectively auditing right-wing PACs.
The Department of Education under Obama threatened colleges and universities with all sorts of litigation and defunding unless they established kangaroo courts and related programs to combat a nonexistent "rape epidemic."
Obamacare was ramrodded through on a party-line vote by the Democrats and has caused all sorts of headaches and costs to both small, medium, and large businesses without really making any dent in the quality of healthcare available for purchase in this country.
That's just three federal examples I can pull out of mainstream newspapers without resorting to National Review (ominous thunder!) Fox News (some other scary noise!!) or Breitbart (an even scarier noise!!!!!).
And to throw in something closer to home, I know that Maura Healy regularly uses the office of the AG to intimidate right-of-center businessmen, political groups, and gun-owners.
First of all, none of those
First of all, none of those involve pulling people from their homes or separating them from their families.
Secondly, as I said, put down the bag of glue.
That's because none of those
That's because none of those people are here illegally and they haven't broken any other laws either.
Breaking laws
What Massachusetts laws have been broken when people don't have immigration documents?
Better hurry and get those donations going to Puerto Rico if you want brown people to stay on their island - those folks can come here legally and take your jerbs!
Hi!
It's the lunatic who equates racial slurs with people who hate PC bullshit. How are you doing? Did you get accepted into that mental health program you were going to look at? I really hope so.....
Pot calling kettle black?
Actually, plywood is calling you, Dougie.
Nah..
Just making sure my friend Scratchie's mental state is kept under control......it takes off to strange places sometimes.
Just to clarify
You are not my friend, and my mental state is none of your concern.
But thanks for clarifying that you're OK with racial slurs as long as you "hate PC bullshit". With that helpful context, I'll be sure to give your opinion all the consideration it deserves in the future.
Just to re-clarify...
We are best friends forever, and nothing will ever stop that. Your mental state concerns me sometimes, regardless of what you say.
To re-re clarify, your commentary linking non-PC BS and racial slurs is very disturbing, and comments like that may cause people to question your mental state (which I've done, and I'll do again). Your thought process is frightening.
Good talk
You seem to really be hung up on that
“right of center” bullshit, yet turn around and threaten to cite Breitbart as a source for your warmed over RWNJ bullshit. Unless you count Steve Bannon as “right of center”?
Bro, equating the prosecution
Bro, equating the prosecution of rapists with bias and oppression of conservatives really doesn't like... make your case for you.
MS-13
I don't know what's more comical.
The farce of jackboot thugs asking citizens for their papers, or this posters assumption that ICE would ever go up against MS-13.
Jeff Sessions was in Boston just last week saying exactly that.
Vowed to dismantle the MS-13 street gang “clique by clique and member by member.”
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2017/09/jeff_sessions_de...
ICE doesn't do the heavy work
That would be the FBI.
Oh, well, if JEFF SESSIONS said it
Did he now. Well, I guess we can all sleep safe at night.
Nah
\
Why do that when it's easier to shake down business owners?
I've heard they only make
I've heard they only make $30K a year, so I'd go after the easy target.
Bingo
When I get elected, I end salaries for cops and start paying them by the task. Writing up the bar for serving at 1:59 AM pays X. Armed raid on an MS-13 property pays 10X.
Can't see
How anything could possibly go wrong with that idea.
Good to see things haven’t changed much
In LaTulippe world.
Welcome back, dvdoff
Was wondering what happened to you.
hey HEY!
Yes, dvdoff - welcome back from the dark web!
Or is that The Upsidown?
Leavenworth?
Your recent return to targeted snark is much appreciated!
No!
Retirement! That’s why I can use my real name.
TheTulip
That proposal is exactly as intelligent and practical as every other suggestion Will makes.
Well
Where have flat salaried cops gotten you? Do you get what you pay for from your community's police protection?
Just for you, Will
Libertarian Police Department
Okay
That was cute, and unfortunately over the head of way too many people in this country.
I get what I pay for
Yes.
Well, they won't. They're
Well, they won't. They're going after low-hanging fruit. Easier to pick off a parent than someone who's potentially armed. ICE has done more to create MS-13 than they ever have done to stop it, and breaking up families will only help feed that monster.
Sort of misses the point about sanctuary cities
When local and state officials create alliances in communities of undocumented people they get more cooperation on crime investigations. If you take a story on its face and say they are looking for someone with a criminal record but nobody will open the doors to them they won't find that guy.
Sanctuary cities don't stop ICE
Sanctuary cities don't stop ICE. They just refuse to allow police to serve ICE detainers, inquire into immigration status or be deputized by ICE. Sanctuary city status doesn't stop ICE from doing their own thug work, but that's the point -- so much of what ICE does depends on states and localities doing it for them.
The states have some choice about this.
Of course the states lack of cooperation with ice has less to do with compassion and more to do with the fact that they leave people in hoc without paying that very expensive bill of housing them
It doesn't work like that
ICE detainees are housed in county jails and other facilities throughout the country, with little relationship to where they were detained or living. Massachusetts has three such facilities. The budgeting is kinda complex - starting two years ago, the ICE funds went directly into the Massachusetts general fund, but the state increased the budget for the three facilities where ICE detainees are held.
If ICE paid their bills this
If ICE paid their bills this wouldn't have been an issue with local and state governments.
They are paying their bills
They pay the Commonwealth, who puts the money in the General Fund, but has increased the budgets of the 3 facilities to compensate for increased costs.
The deeper question is whether the Commonwealth is profiting from this. Probably not, but they are not losing money in the deal, either.
this is an old ICE tactic
they've been doing it for a long, long time
Grabs popcorn to read comments.
I don't even have to switch to controversial on this site to get the good stuff.
I am ALL FOR ICE coming in if
I am ALL FOR ICE coming in if they intend to nail MS-13. I'm against illegal immigration but if there are people we HAVE to get out it is these f-ckers in the MS-13 gangs. Those are people you do not want in this country. Get them out first, worry about the rest later.
And yes, there are MS-13 in East Boston. Just look at the police logs and articles about the arrests of these guys.