Motel 6 in Washington State Sued for Providing Guest Lists to ICE Agents

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

So, immigration's not really been a concern for a while, at least in comparison to everything else. But this is a "fun" little story.

The attorney general in Washington filed suit against the state branches of Motel 6, a motel chain. The reason? Apparently, at least six of the motels provided guest lists to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents without probable cause, search warrants, or reasonable suspicion. These agents would then use those lists to single out Latino-sounding names, and proceed from there.

To give you an idea of the scale, four of the Motel 6 locations compromised the information of at least 9,000 guests, with the number expected to increase as more information is uncovered by the investigation. A spokesperson for the parent company of Motel 6, G6 Hospitality, released a statement, saying that "Motel 6 takes this matter very seriously, and we have and will continue to fully cooperate with the Office of the State Attorney General."

While ICE itself is not a party to the lawsuit, they did go on to defend their actions in a statement, spokesperson Danielle Bennett stating that "The agency's immigration enforcement actions are targeted and lead driven, prioritizing individuals who pose a risk to our communities. It's worth noting that hotels and motels have frequently been exploited by criminal organizations engaged in highly dangerous illegal enterprises, including human trafficking and human smuggling."


My takeaway from this? Well, this kind of pokes a hole in the idea that ICE agents aren't targeting people just for being Hispanic. In addition, this also shows that round-ups like this don't just affect illegal immigrants. If you ever stayed at one of these Motel 6s, then congratulations! A federal agency just got access to your name, driver's license number, what room you stayed in, your date of birth, and your license plate number! All because you decided to stay at a Motel 6. But hey, as long as your name sounds white, at least you won't be specifically targeted.

Also, I really don't want to be that guy, but seriously, a government agency going around, rounding up people from their rooms and taking them away? This really sounds like it could be happening in certain European countries during the 1940's, if you catch my drift.

Source: Washington Post

thebobmaster:
A federal agency just got access to your name, driver's license number, what room you stayed in, your date of birth, and your license plate number!

Do you not think that they already had all of that information anyway? Bar the room number.

If you are a US registered driver, at least.

I mean, sure, breach of confidentiality. Arguable racial discrimination (although how is the prosecution going to prove that, out of interest?). But the actual loss of information isn't the issue here.

Wait, I though illegal couldn't get driving license anyway? Plus what happen to people who don't have a driving license anyway?

Catnip1024:

thebobmaster:
A federal agency just got access to your name, driver's license number, what room you stayed in, your date of birth, and your license plate number!

Do you not think that they already had all of that information anyway? Bar the room number.

If you are a US registered driver, at least.

I mean, sure, breach of confidentiality. Arguable racial discrimination (although how is the prosecution going to prove that, out of interest?). But the actual loss of information isn't the issue here.

You raise a good point. It's more of the fact that an agency other than the DMV or Auto Agency or whatever has that information, possibly in their records.

As for how the prosecution is going to prove racial discrimination: From the sound of it, the ICE agents were literally taking the guest list, circling Latino-sounding names, then going on their way. If they were, that is now evidence that they were profiling (that word was one I wanted to use, but couldn't remember until now) against Latinos.

Meiam:
Wait, I though illegal couldn't get driving license anyway? Plus what happen to people who don't have a driving license anyway?

My guess is that, for those people, the field for license number is blank, or says "N/A" or something like that. Of course, that now puts THOSE people at risk, because as you said, illegals can't get driver's licenses, which means not having one would probably raise suspicion that someone without a license is an illegal immigrant.

'Bout time somebody stood up for the 4th Amendment.

I do want to hear the justification for "it's not a racial thing, but we're checking out the Latino names" though. That totally-not-racist pretzel should be fun.

Meiam:
Wait, I though illegal couldn't get driving license anyway? Plus what happen to people who don't have a driving license anyway?

If, like most undocumented individuals, all you did was overstay a legal visa, your license and registration from when you were legal would still be valid/available to you. And because the government, theoretically and rightly, isn't allowed to just randomly investigate people without cause, that could stand for a very long time.

Kinda like you can just drive around for years without car insurance if the police have no reason to pull you over. Only less criminal, because overstaying a visa is bureaucratic, civil offense rather than a criminal, "go to jail" one.

altnameJag:

I do want to hear the justification for "it's not a racial thing, but we're checking out the Latino names" though. That totally-not-racist pretzel should be fun.

I don't see how checking the status of people with Latino names in a country with a bunch of illegal Latino immigrants is somehow racist? Is this somehow invasive or something? I assume they are just running the Names through a Computer to check and then respond accordingly?

Fischgopf:

altnameJag:

I do want to hear the justification for "it's not a racial thing, but we're checking out the Latino names" though. That totally-not-racist pretzel should be fun.

I don't see how checking the status of people with Latino names in a country with a bunch of illegal Latino immigrants is somehow racist? Is this somehow invasive or something? I assume they are just running the Names through a Computer to check and then respond accordingly?

I'm fairly sure people have some rights to privacy. I don't think the government is allowed to look into your details without cause other than "well you sound like a latino and there's a lot of latino criminals". Hell, if they're only checking the latino names isn't that ignoring possible non latino illegal immigrants? How is that not profiling by race?

I find the idea that "the agency's immigration enforcement actions are targeted and lead driven, prioritizing individuals who pose a risk to our communities" is laughable. That WAS their priority during the Obama administration, as he limited who they could go after. Now the shackles are off so to speak and they're hitting whoever the hell they can regardless of the threat they pose. Hell, they even recently complained that Trump isn't going far enough for them, that they feel betrayed. As for the racial profiling bit, I imagine ICE doesn't go looking for white people without papers. It's all about optics, and in this country, people never expect their white neighbor of being here illegally. They hide in plain sight.

Fischgopf:

altnameJag:

I do want to hear the justification for "it's not a racial thing, but we're checking out the Latino names" though. That totally-not-racist pretzel should be fun.

I don't see how checking the status of people with Latino names in a country with a bunch of illegal Latino immigrants is somehow racist? Is this somehow invasive or something? I assume they are just running the Names through a Computer to check and then respond accordingly?

1) That's explicitly profiling by race, which is illegal.
2) The government randomly checking out people "just in case" is explicitly unconstitutional, citizen or not. (4th Amendment)

why is the attorney general going after motel 6 and not ICE? All motel 6 did was comply with a federal agency. If a bunch of federal agents showed up at pretty much any small business and start flashing badges around, most employees will comply if for no other reason that they dont get paid enough to piss off federal agents and go to jail on obstruction.

Ryotknife:
why is the attorney general going after motel 6 and not ICE? All motel 6 did was comply with a federal agency. If a bunch of federal agents showed up at pretty much any small business and start flashing badges around, most employees will comply if for no other reason that they dont get paid enough to piss off federal agents and go to jail on obstruction.

Probably because the attorney general is state level and ICE is federal level.

Derekloffin:

Ryotknife:
why is the attorney general going after motel 6 and not ICE? All motel 6 did was comply with a federal agency. If a bunch of federal agents showed up at pretty much any small business and start flashing badges around, most employees will comply if for no other reason that they dont get paid enough to piss off federal agents and go to jail on obstruction.

Probably because the attorney general is state level and ICE is federal level.

States can sue federal agencies, see Massachusetts v EPA, and a separate suit may end up being filed, but my guess is that Washington's AG is going after motel 6 because it may be a signal to other business' of what's to come for anyone pulling the same shit. It could also be that ICE maybe requested, but never compelled handing over the guests lists, so there may be some legal reasoning to why ICE isn't being named in the suit.

Nedoras:
Now the shackles are off so to speak and they're hitting whoever the hell they can regardless of the threat they pose.

What type of world is it that people are surprised that a law enforcement agency is enforcing the law?

I'm sorry, but at the Federal level corporatists will never win the fight over illegal immigration. They can obstruct it, they can limit it, they can slow it down, but at the end of the day the law is the law and there's no room for interpretation on the fact that illegals are illegal and will remain as such until the day that the border is effectively abolished and immigration becomes unlimited and unvetted, which is to say never so long as the government, law enforcement and military continue to be functional.

TrulyBritish:
Hell, if they're only checking the latino names isn't that ignoring possible non latino illegal immigrants? How is that not profiling by race?

I think the reason they're doing it stems from the vast majority of illegals in the US being Hispanic, though given how just in the past week I've heard someone I follow on YouTube discussing a South Korean who hadn't bothered to make the effort of going through the process after being in the country for 40 years, and my local radio talked about a group of Romanians who where set up in New England and Eastern Canada being busted and sent back.

We still have a long way to reaching 100% returns though. Corporatists hate it, but at the end of the day the Democrats will once again have their slaves taken away by a Republican they hate more then the devil himself.

Ryotknife:
why is the attorney general going after motel 6 and not ICE? All motel 6 did was comply with a federal agency. If a bunch of federal agents showed up at pretty much any small business and start flashing badges around, most employees will comply if for no other reason that they dont get paid enough to piss off federal agents and go to jail on obstruction.

Legally I'd guess ICE did nothing wrong. I'll admit to not looking through all the laws, but I'd be surprised if it were illegal to ask for information like they did. Proper response from Motel 6 would have been to deny their request. As long as ICE didn't compel information, they're in the clear I'd think.

Ryotknife:
why is the attorney general going after motel 6 and not ICE? All motel 6 did was comply with a federal agency. If a bunch of federal agents showed up at pretty much any small business and start flashing badges around, most employees will comply if for no other reason that they dont get paid enough to piss off federal agents and go to jail on obstruction.

The reason the attorney general is going after Motel 6 is that they handed over the guest list to ICE agents simply because they were asked to. No warrants, no reasonable suspicion, nothing. Just "ICE, show my your guest list." "OK, here you go."

In other words, while ICE was almost certainly in the wrong for even requesting the information, Motel 6 was definitely in the wrong for handing it over, as Motel 6 was at that point violating the privacy of all their guests without due cause.

Zontar:

Nedoras:
Now the shackles are off so to speak and they're hitting whoever the hell they can regardless of the threat they pose.

What type of world is it that people are surprised that a law enforcement agency is enforcing the law?

I'm sorry, but at the Federal level corporatists will never win the fight over illegal immigration. They can obstruct it, they can limit it, they can slow it down, but at the end of the day the law is the law and there's no room for interpretation on the fact that illegals are illegal and will remain as such until the day that the border is effectively abolished and immigration becomes unlimited and unvetted, which is to say never so long as the government, law enforcement and military continue to be functional.

I wasn't even saying they shouldn't do their job, I was pointing out the hilarity that they claimed they targeted threats to communities as a priority when that clearly isn't the case. They're hitting whoever they want regardless of priority, or how much of a threat someone is. I think they should just drop the damn fantasy they push of them really gunning after threats to society, when they're more or less doing a broad sweep of anyone who came across the Southern border. Also this isn't as simple as you're making it out to be either, but I don't get the impression that that seems to matter to you.

On a final note, that whole comment you made about how "Corporatists hate it, but at the end of the day the Democrats will once again have their slaves taken away by a Republican they hate more then the devil himself"? First off, cute little remark about the Democrats implying they're the same party that they were back then, ignoring the role reversal that has happened over the years. I have no love for the party, but cute none the less. Second, you have to be out of your damn mind if you think all corporate interests are the same. That there's just a bunch of greedy corporations giving money to Democrats so they can have cheap labor, and that's it. Look into who has lobbied for what when it comes to this issue, and you'll see it's all over the damn place. I'll repeat myself, this all isn't as simple as you're making it out to be.

At least they're not looking for anybody like me. Time to illegally emigrate for sure.

Zontar:

TrulyBritish:
Hell, if they're only checking the latino names isn't that ignoring possible non latino illegal immigrants? How is that not profiling by race?

I think the reason they're doing it stems from the vast majority of illegals in the US being Hispanic, though given how just in the past week I've heard someone I follow on YouTube discussing a South Korean who hadn't bothered to make the effort of going through the process after being in the country for 40 years, and my local radio talked about a group of Romanians who where set up in New England and Eastern Canada being busted and sent back.

We still have a long way to reaching 100% returns though. Corporatists hate it, but at the end of the day the Democrats will once again have their slaves taken away by a Republican they hate more then the devil himself.

I fail to see how that isn't still racial profiling though (which I'd be willing to bet is illegal). There is the concept of due process in law, you can't just investigate someone because their name "sounds like a criminal".
Hell, you just explicitly mentioned illegals who aren't latino, i.e. people the ICE apparently aren't bothering to investigate based just on their names.

Zontar:
What type of world is it that people are surprised that a law enforcement agency is enforcing the law?

None. But those of us who aren't right wing authoritarians have concerns about the excesses of law enforcement agencies when they try to enforce the law. Not least because in the process they're often, er, breaking the law.

I'm sorry, but at the Federal level corporatists...

Corporatism is the organisation of society as a series of major interest groups, often accorded some form of representation as official bodies. The state is then run through these interest groups, usually mediated by government.

Hence it is entirely unclear to me why these "corporatists" at the Federal level are relevant or even who they are in this situation.

TrulyBritish:
I fail to see how that isn't still racial profiling though (which I'd be willing to bet is illegal).

It most definitely is illegal. In fact, ignoring a court order to stop racially profiling Latinos is precicely the crime that Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio for. So illegal, but perhaps not punished as much as you would hope.

EDIT: Fun fact for anyone that didn't know: A federal judge refused to whipe the conviction for contempt of court from Arpaio's record, which means that he remains a convicted felon.

Never claim to be anti-authoritarian when you support people being investigated by federal agencies for having foreign sounding names.

altnameJag:

Fischgopf:

altnameJag:

I do want to hear the justification for "it's not a racial thing, but we're checking out the Latino names" though. That totally-not-racist pretzel should be fun.

I don't see how checking the status of people with Latino names in a country with a bunch of illegal Latino immigrants is somehow racist? Is this somehow invasive or something? I assume they are just running the Names through a Computer to check and then respond accordingly?

1) That's explicitly profiling by race, which is illegal.
2) The government randomly checking out people "just in case" is explicitly unconstitutional, citizen or not. (4th Amendment)

I didn't ask if it was legal or not. I asked where the supposed racism comes in to play. I don't see the logic.

Country with a bunch of Latino Illegal immigrants checks the status of Latinos...and somehow this betrays a hate of Latinos as a whole? How so? I imagine if it were a problem with a bunch of Asian Illegal immigrants they would then be checking people with Asian-sounding names.

I don't think they should have done this. I just don't see where you are getting the racism angle if not from where the sun doesn't shine.

Fischgopf:

altnameJag:

Fischgopf:

I don't see how checking the status of people with Latino names in a country with a bunch of illegal Latino immigrants is somehow racist? Is this somehow invasive or something? I assume they are just running the Names through a Computer to check and then respond accordingly?

1) That's explicitly profiling by race, which is illegal.
2) The government randomly checking out people "just in case" is explicitly unconstitutional, citizen or not. (4th Amendment)

I didn't ask if it was legal or not. I asked where the supposed racism comes in to play. I don't see the logic.

Country with a bunch of Latino Illegal immigrants checks the status of Latinos...and somehow this betrays a hate of Latinos as a whole? How so? I imagine if it were a problem with a bunch of Asian Illegal immigrants they would then be checking people with Asian-sounding names.

I don't think they should have done this. I just don't see where you are getting the racism angle if not from where the sun doesn't shine.

Then you're being dense.

How the fuck do they know if something is a hispanic name and that it belongs to someone who is hispanic? You guess and racially profile. I have an "irish" last name, not Irish. Wife has a "mexican" last name, not mexican. Not to mention there are a lot of hispanic people, with hispanic last names, who are fucking citizens of your country and would consider themselves born and raised americans, and they're being checked by the government "just in case" they're filthy illegals.

Pretty shocking state of affairs that people are bothering to devils advocate this shit.

Lets start over, nuke us all. Every last one of us. Start again from the ground up and see if the next set can do better.

CheetoDust:
Never claim to be anti-authoritarian when you support people being investigated by federal agencies for having foreign sounding names.

Some people may believe they are anti-authoritarian because the oppose the current main authority; they would however enthusiastically obey an alternative authority they believed to be legitimate.

Regardless of the event itself, if it's only in the level of filtering names to check (and the check itself is done without coming to direct contact (edit: or indirect contact, basically no harrasement) with the people unless it is verified they are illegal immigrants) then I don't see the racism.

It is arguing to have agencies act inefficently and ignore statistics purely for political correctness and a massive waste of manpower, time and money.

Jerast:

Fischgopf:

altnameJag:
1) That's explicitly profiling by race, which is illegal.
2) The government randomly checking out people "just in case" is explicitly unconstitutional, citizen or not. (4th Amendment)

I didn't ask if it was legal or not. I asked where the supposed racism comes in to play. I don't see the logic.

Country with a bunch of Latino Illegal immigrants checks the status of Latinos...and somehow this betrays a hate of Latinos as a whole? How so? I imagine if it were a problem with a bunch of Asian Illegal immigrants they would then be checking people with Asian-sounding names.

I don't think they should have done this. I just don't see where you are getting the racism angle if not from where the sun doesn't shine.

Then you're being dense.

How the fuck do they know if something is a hispanic name and that it belongs to someone who is hispanic? You guess and racially profile. I have an "irish" last name, not Irish. Wife has a "mexican" last name, not mexican. Not to mention there are a lot of hispanic people, with hispanic last names, who are fucking citizens of your country and would consider themselves born and raised americans, and they're being checked by the government "just in case" they're filthy illegals.

Pretty shocking state of affairs that people are bothering to devils advocate this shit.

Lets start over, nuke us all. Every last one of us. Start again from the ground up and see if the next set can do better.

You call it dense. I call it "not making shit up because it suits my preconcieved notions". Far as I'm concerned people like you are about as dense as they come.

Also

1. I don't live in the US, I don't have a Dog in this. This isn't me playing Devils advocate, this is me actually asking the User why he went and pulled that particular nugget out.

2. Who cares if it's possible to have a hispanic last name without being hispanic? Are you seriously pretending that generally speaking, it's non-hispanics that have the hispanic names? Are you trying to argue that the illegal hispanic immigrants aren't going to have hispanic names? It's really simple, most illegal hispanic immigrants are, shockingly enough, going to have hispanic names.

If you wanna die just go out and do the deed, it isn't difficult. But kindly leave the rest of us out of your "I weep for the Human Race" melodrama. I weep for anyone that can't make you disappear with the click of a button and I'm sure they spend plenty of time weeping over that as well.

Fischgopf:

Jerast:

Fischgopf:

I didn't ask if it was legal or not. I asked where the supposed racism comes in to play. I don't see the logic.

Country with a bunch of Latino Illegal immigrants checks the status of Latinos...and somehow this betrays a hate of Latinos as a whole? How so? I imagine if it were a problem with a bunch of Asian Illegal immigrants they would then be checking people with Asian-sounding names.

I don't think they should have done this. I just don't see where you are getting the racism angle if not from where the sun doesn't shine.

Then you're being dense.

How the fuck do they know if something is a hispanic name and that it belongs to someone who is hispanic? You guess and racially profile. I have an "irish" last name, not Irish. Wife has a "mexican" last name, not mexican. Not to mention there are a lot of hispanic people, with hispanic last names, who are fucking citizens of your country and would consider themselves born and raised americans, and they're being checked by the government "just in case" they're filthy illegals.

Pretty shocking state of affairs that people are bothering to devils advocate this shit.

Lets start over, nuke us all. Every last one of us. Start again from the ground up and see if the next set can do better.

You call it dense. I call it "not making shit up because it suits my preconcieved notions". Far as I'm concerned people like you are about as dense as they come.

Also

1. I don't live in the US, I don't have a Dog in this. This isn't me playing Devils advocate, this is me actually asking the User why he went and pulled that particular nugget out.

2. Who cares if it's possible to have a hispanic last name without being hispanic? Are you seriously pretending that generally speaking, it's non-hispanics that have the hispanic names? Are you trying to argue that the illegal hispanic immigrants aren't going to have hispanic names? It's really simple, most illegal hispanic immigrants are, shockingly enough, going to have hispanic names.

If you wanna die just go out and do the deed, it isn't difficult. But kindly leave the rest of us out of your "I weep for the Human Race" melodrama. I weep for anyone that can't make you disappear with the click of a button and I'm sure they spend plenty of time weeping over that as well.

The reason I pointed out the discrimination issue is that it is assuming everyone who has a Hispanic or Latino last name is potentially an illegal immigrant, and should therefore be considered suspicious. To me, this is using the same logic as a cop pulling over or following every black driver he spots because hey, black people steal cars sometimes.

Targeting everyone in one group because they might be doing something wrong is not all right, in my book. I mean, by that logic, all Christians should have been closely examined after the Oklahoma City bombings. Just because some illegal immigrants may be staying at a motel, and just because some crimes are committed in motels doesn't mean that we should accept an ICE agent simply walking up to the front desk, asking for a guest list, and being given it without question.

Now, if the ICE agent has EVIDENCE that an illegal immigrant is staying at that particular motel on that particular night, or that a potential illegal is committing a crime at that motel? Sure, get the appropriate paperwork, serve your warrant, and that's a very different story. That's not what's happening, though. What's happening is a certain group of people being considered as possible criminals based on nothing more than their last name. Tell me, how is that NOT discrimination?

By the way, I did some research. Do you know what the number two source of nonimmigrant admission to the US is? Mexico is still number one, I'm not denying that. But number two? Canada. Tell me, how would you feel about ICE agents singling out people with French last names in case they are illegal immigrants from Quebec? After all, there are definitely non-immigrants coming from Canada, so it's only fair.

inu-kun:
Regardless of the event itself, if it's only in the level of filtering names to check (and the check itself is done without coming to direct contact (edit: or indirect contact, basically no harrasement) with the people unless it is verified they are illegal immigrants) then I don't see the racism.

It is arguing to have agencies act inefficently and ignore statistics purely for political correctness and a massive waste of manpower, time and money.

This hits the nail on the head. If the majority of illegal immigrants in a country are from a nation with Hispanic names then it is only reasonable to place effort on investigating (not arresting, not kicking down the doors of, just going through a check on an administrative level) people with Hispanic names.

The agency won't be able to capture ALL illegal immigrants and will probably lose some effectiveness in other cultural names but its efficiency and strike rate will be far higher with this method.

Racial profiling? Really? What a wonderful way to ignore the elephant in the room with a virtue signaling lamp shade.

Of course they should racially profile illegal immigrant investigations when the VAST MAJORITY of illegal immigrants are from a particular ethnic background. Or should they go through the name registry in alphabetical order? I wonder how many hits they'll have per entry in the surname "Smith" category.

Abomination:

inu-kun:
Regardless of the event itself, if it's only in the level of filtering names to check (and the check itself is done without coming to direct contact (edit: or indirect contact, basically no harrasement) with the people unless it is verified they are illegal immigrants) then I don't see the racism.

It is arguing to have agencies act inefficently and ignore statistics purely for political correctness and a massive waste of manpower, time and money.

This hits the nail on the head. If the majority of illegal immigrants in a country are from a nation with Hispanic names then it is only reasonable to place effort on investigating (not arresting, not kicking down the doors of, just going through a check on an administrative level) people with Hispanic names.

The agency won't be able to capture ALL illegal immigrants and will probably lose some effectiveness in other cultural names but its efficiency and strike rate will be far higher with this method.

Racial profiling? Really? What a wonderful way to ignore the elephant in the room with a virtue signaling lamp shade.

Of course they should racially profile illegal immigrant investigations when the VAST MAJORITY of illegal immigrants are from a particular ethnic background. Or should they go through the name registry in alphabetical order? I wonder how many hits they'll have per entry in the surname "Smith" category.

Less about 'virtue signaling' and more about the 14th amendment. Racial profiling by definition is a standard of unequal protection. The assumption that a person might be undocumented based on their last name turns an entire group of people into second class citizens. Are you also ok with monitoring communications of Americans with 'muslim sounding' names, because they might be a terrorist?

Jux:

Abomination:

inu-kun:
Regardless of the event itself, if it's only in the level of filtering names to check (and the check itself is done without coming to direct contact (edit: or indirect contact, basically no harrasement) with the people unless it is verified they are illegal immigrants) then I don't see the racism.

It is arguing to have agencies act inefficently and ignore statistics purely for political correctness and a massive waste of manpower, time and money.

This hits the nail on the head. If the majority of illegal immigrants in a country are from a nation with Hispanic names then it is only reasonable to place effort on investigating (not arresting, not kicking down the doors of, just going through a check on an administrative level) people with Hispanic names.

The agency won't be able to capture ALL illegal immigrants and will probably lose some effectiveness in other cultural names but its efficiency and strike rate will be far higher with this method.

Racial profiling? Really? What a wonderful way to ignore the elephant in the room with a virtue signaling lamp shade.

Of course they should racially profile illegal immigrant investigations when the VAST MAJORITY of illegal immigrants are from a particular ethnic background. Or should they go through the name registry in alphabetical order? I wonder how many hits they'll have per entry in the surname "Smith" category.

Less about 'virtue signaling' and more about the 14th amendment. Racial profiling by definition is a standard of unequal protection. The assumption that a person might be undocumented based on their last name turns an entire group of people into second class citizens. Are you also ok with monitoring communications of Americans with 'muslim sounding' names, because they might be a terrorist?

If there is a government department, funded by taxpayer money, I would want it to perform in the most efficient way possible. This means focusing on the areas of highest probability.

Certainly there are going to be outliers but that's what they are, outliers. The resources of the government department are not infinite. The man hours available can only be stretched so far.

The whole Islam = Terrorism issue is going to upset those with a stronger social conscience than others. While I feel the ham-fisted approach of the American government towards radical Islam is a self-fulfilling prophecy, there's no putting that genie back in the bottle. If those with the most determination to cause significant damage to human life are of one ethnic background or religious doctrine it stands to reason that the government agency responsible for minimizing that type of damage to the nation diverts more resources towards that ethnic background or religious doctrine. Like it or not but different cultures behave differently and have differing social cues and its up to intelligence agencies to have experts in those fields and the proportions of experts to each social group needs to reflect the proportion of threats generated by that social group.

You want your Islam experts working Islam cases and your non-Islam experts working non-Islam cases. It's simple allocation of resources. This means the Islam experts will focus on individuals with names that are most likely to be followers of Islam. For every Muslim named "John" there will be 5,000 named "Muhammad". The agency will naturally develop a list of suspects of those type of names WITHOUT intentionally focusing on them. You fish in the waters you know are biting and you have the bait and skills to attract.

I am not from the United States so I do not hold the Constitution in any high regard. I find it is a bureaucratic nightmares that adheres to the letter of the law, perverts the spirit of the law, while serving as roadblocks to true social progress in the United States. That said, it at least also serve as roadblocks to social degradation in other areas - but other countries have been observed to function in a far more egalitarian way without the shackles of such irrefragable legislation. The SPIRIT of the amendment is to ensure that no individual is placed above any other when it comes to their treatment by government agencies. However, should a certain demographic group show a higher proportion and likelihood of terrorism it is only fair that the government passively monitor and focus on that group for the safety of all citizens - Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

I feel the word "monitor" is being used to encompass ALL forms of monitoring when there are very varied levels when it comes to investigations. Every single Muslim is not treated as a potential terrorist at all times, there are varying degrees of attention paid to individuals based on history and behavior relating to domestic threats. If an individual shows zero sign of such things they're ignored. If someone believes the government has the power and resources to monitor ALL Muslims in the United States then they would also have the power to monitor all PEOPLE in the United States. They do not have either.

inu-kun:
Regardless of the event itself, if it's only in the level of filtering names to check (and the check itself is done without coming to direct contact (edit: or indirect contact, basically no harrasement) with the people unless it is verified they are illegal immigrants) then I don't see the racism.

It is arguing to have agencies act inefficently and ignore statistics purely for political correctness and a massive waste of manpower, time and money.

They shouldn't be checking names regardless. 4th Amendment.

That they're only checking specific "Latino sounding" names makes it racist, efficiency be damned. I don't want my governmental agencies violating the constitution, efficiently or not.

Abomination:
If there is a government department, funded by taxpayer money, I would want it to perform in the most efficient way possible. This means focusing on the areas of highest probability.

A governmental agency shouldn't be violating the constitution at all, efficiency be damned.

I am not from the United States so I do not hold the Constitution in any high regard. I find it is a bureaucratic nightmares that adheres to the letter of the law, perverts the spirit of the law, while serving as roadblocks to true social progress in the United States. That said, it at least also serve as roadblocks to social degradation in other areas - but other countries have been observed to function in a far more egalitarian way without the shackles of such irrefragable legislation. The SPIRIT of the amendment is to ensure that no individual is placed above any other when it comes to their treatment by government agencies. However, should a certain demographic group show a higher proportion and likelihood of terrorism it is only fair that the government passively monitor and focus on that group for the safety of all citizens - Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Then it would be focusing on right wing white supremacy groups, considering they pose a higher terrorism threat than Muslims.

But they aren't.

I feel the word "monitor" is being used to encompass ALL forms of monitoring when there are very varied levels when it comes to investigations. Every single Muslim is not treated as a potential terrorist at all times, there are varying degrees of attention paid to individuals based on history and behavior relating to domestic threats. If an individual shows zero sign of such things they're ignored. If someone believes the government has the power and resources to monitor ALL Muslims in the United States then they would also have the power to monitor all PEOPLE in the United States. They do not have either.

And without evidence, they shouldn't be monitoring anybody.

That's how it's supposed to work.

Xeorm:

Ryotknife:
why is the attorney general going after motel 6 and not ICE? All motel 6 did was comply with a federal agency. If a bunch of federal agents showed up at pretty much any small business and start flashing badges around, most employees will comply if for no other reason that they dont get paid enough to piss off federal agents and go to jail on obstruction.

Legally I'd guess ICE did nothing wrong. I'll admit to not looking through all the laws, but I'd be surprised if it were illegal to ask for information like they did. Proper response from Motel 6 would have been to deny their request. As long as ICE didn't compel information, they're in the clear I'd think.

Yeah, it's technically not illegal to just ask for things, provided that aren't compelling or threatening reprisal.

And investigating people in America without any prior suspicions (and having a Latino sounding name doesn't cut it) is unconstitutional, but good luck trying to get that to stick in this environment.

altnameJag:

inu-kun:
Regardless of the event itself, if it's only in the level of filtering names to check (and the check itself is done without coming to direct contact (edit: or indirect contact, basically no harrasement) with the people unless it is verified they are illegal immigrants) then I don't see the racism.

It is arguing to have agencies act inefficently and ignore statistics purely for political correctness and a massive waste of manpower, time and money.

They shouldn't be checking names regardless. 4th Amendment.

That they're only checking specific "Latino sounding" names makes it racist, efficiency be damned. I don't want my governmental agencies violating the constitution, efficiently or not.

From a short check you seem to refer to "Equal Protection Clause" which is around "provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws"" which isn't really violated as it's just the police going to most likely cases rather than only acting the law for a certain race.

Also, in response to Jux, this isn't racial profiling as it is "Racial profiling is the act of suspecting or targeting a person of a certain race based on a stereotype about their race, rather than on individual suspicion" and latinos being the majority of illegal immigrants is as close to fact as possible rather than stereotype (as opposed, for example, crime rate of afro americans which can be debated if it is more or the same as other races).

altnameJag:
Then it would be focusing on right wing white supremacy groups, considering they pose a higher terrorism threat than Muslims.

But they aren't.

Hmmmm, is there a proof of government agencies outright ignoring all white supermacy groups? Not to mention that this is strictly incorrect as it is a false equivelance since:
1) The number of muslims is the USA is small, about 1% of the population, while white people are around 77% of the population, so you need to divide the number of attacks in the proportion of the populace.
2) There are world spanning radical islam movements which can radicalize, supply and train terrorists, thus making them a bigger threats.
3) The amounts of radical islam attacks that are actually carried out are despite the increased part of the surveillance so logic follows that the amount of attacks would have been a lot higher if it was known how inefficent government agencies act. Basically, only referring to attacks that were actually carried out is like saying vaccination for diseases that are now rare is pointless.

Agema:

CheetoDust:
Never claim to be anti-authoritarian when you support people being investigated by federal agencies for having foreign sounding names.

Some people may believe they are anti-authoritarian because the oppose the current main authority; they would however enthusiastically obey an alternative authority they believed to be legitimate.

... The current main authority being the right wing authoritarians they actively support. They're anti-authoritarian but only against the people who aren't in charge and don't have any authority. Fucking retards.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here