4 ms·

ICE is actually routinely breaking both the letter and the spirit of the law. There are now dozens of videos of them harassing, intimidating, beating, or detain

by estearum 10mo ago

ICE is actually routinely breaking both the letter and the spirit of the law. There are now dozens of videos of them harassing, intimidating, beating, or detaining people for exercising protected speech. A spokesperson for DHS just last week openly said that they're allowed to arrest people based on "reasonable suspicion" which is unambiguously illegal.

mothballed 10mo ago
I've been held ~24 hours by DHS under RAS, it is definitely a thing near the border where they don't need PC to jail you. They put me in jail but I was never under arrest, I later got my federal arrest record and there was nothing. Maybe that was what they were referring to? Jailing citizens with no warrant nor PC was happening to me under Biden so it's not new either.
- hn_throwaway_99 10mo ago
  What is RAS?
  - mothballed 10mo ago
    Reasonable articulable suspicion. In my case, an imaginary dog "alerted" an unnamed handler. So that gave them RAS to strip me naked, be jailed, and be made to poop in front of them to ensure there were no drugs that came out. Contacted several lawyers, nothing to be done, no chance of fighting it. Girl that tried before me, lost.
    - ncr100 10mo ago
      Gross! Seems like it's worthy of being publicized. Sincerely .. as a point of protest. E.g. "Do you want your children to be forced to poop in front of grown men, as many times as they want her to, and for there to be No Law Against This? Democracy..use it." Or something better? Accompanied by a video illustrating a naked person pooping in front of satisfied Federal agents, and then a scene with a lawyer saying, "there's nothing you can do to fight having that done to you, lady." It feels like USA needs a re-think around concentration of power in the Federal side of our government.
- estearum 10mo ago
  Correct you can be detained based on reasonable suspicion. You cannot be arrested on it. The difference might seem subtle, but 1) it's not, and 2) it certainly shouldn't be to actual DHS officials. It's literally in the text of the Constitution. And yes, near the border has had shaky Constitutional protections for a long time. To suggest it's "not new" to expand that shakiness across the entire nation, eliminate time constraints on it, then scale up the "immigration" enforcement arm 100x is just laughable though. Of course it's new! It's new in scope, scale, and intensity. That makes it new!
overfeed 10mo ago
SCOTUS has deemed Kavanaugh stops to be legal, i.e. you can be stopped on the basis of your apparent ethnicity alone
- estearum 10mo ago
  You can be stopped on reasonable suspicion, which Kavanaugh expanded (and he seems to have immediately realized his name is permanently besmirched). But they definitely cannot arrest people based on reasonable suspicion. Anyone speaking on behalf of DHS should know the difference.
  - zahlman 10mo ago
    Kavanaugh's concurrence does not "expand" reasonable suspicion. It explains that a combination of factors including "apparent race or ethnicity" may cause reasonable suspicion. Which, in fact, as a basic matter of probabilistic reasoning, given the other information in https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf, it might. And an important part of the decision is that (emphasis his): > Plaintiffs’ standing theory is especially deficient in this case because immigration officers also use their experience to stop suspected illegal immigrants based on a variety of factors. So even if the Government had a policy of making stops based on the factors prohibited by the District Court, immigration officers might not rely only on those factors if and when they stop plaintiffs in the future. and to affirm existing understanding of reasonable suspicion: > Reasonable suspicion is a lesser requirement than probable cause and “considerably short” of the preponderance of the evidence standard. Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 274. Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 885, n. 10; Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273. Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English. Cf. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 884–885 (listing “[a]ny number of factors” that contribute to reasonable suspicion of illegal presence). (In other words, he clearly lays out the reasons why such a "combination of factors" may create reasonable suspicion, per precedent.) As for Kavanaugh "realizing" any such thing, I can't fathom why you think so. This is the same guy who has been very visibly protested by activists of a similar stripe from the beginning.
zahlman 10mo ago
> There are now dozens of videos of them harassing, intimidating, beating, or detaining people for exercising protected speech. Show me one. I have already seen countless claims of this sort, only to later line them up with video footage that clearly demonstrates that "exercising protected speech" was not the cause of action and that the response was clearly justified. For example, freedom of speech does not allow one to block traffic for protest purposes, or blocking entrances to buildings, or preventing pedestrians from passing by on the sidewalk (https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_pdf_file/kyr_protests.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_pdf_file/kyr_...). And it certainly does not allow violence against ICE officers or other citizens, both of which I've seen a fair bit of. I have even seen multiple examples of protesters enacting their own Terry stops against people they suspect of being ICE agents. > openly said that they're allowed to arrest people based on "reasonable suspicion" which is unambiguously illegal. Show the quote, and show the relevant law. ---- Whoever flagged this comment while it's at +3, please feel free to explain how you think it's in any way counter to HN guidelines.
- estearum 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - zahlman 10mo ago
    > Go quick now, move the goal posts! You thereby forfeited your right to a serious consideration of your evidence.
    - estearum 10mo ago
      As the prophecy foretold
      - zahlman 10mo ago
        Telling you that your prediction of moving the goalposts is incivil and demonstrates a lack of good faith, is not itself moving the goalposts. I have no more to say to you.

mothballed 10mo ago

I've been held ~24 hours by DHS under RAS, it is definitely a thing near the border where they don't need PC to jail you. They put me in jail but I was never under arrest, I later got my federal arrest record and there was nothing. Maybe that was what they were referring to? Jailing citizens with no warrant nor PC was happening to me under Biden so it's not new either.

hn_throwaway_99 10mo ago
What is RAS?
- mothballed 10mo ago
  Reasonable articulable suspicion. In my case, an imaginary dog "alerted" an unnamed handler. So that gave them RAS to strip me naked, be jailed, and be made to poop in front of them to ensure there were no drugs that came out. Contacted several lawyers, nothing to be done, no chance of fighting it. Girl that tried before me, lost.
  - ncr100 10mo ago
    Gross! Seems like it's worthy of being publicized. Sincerely .. as a point of protest. E.g. "Do you want your children to be forced to poop in front of grown men, as many times as they want her to, and for there to be No Law Against This? Democracy..use it." Or something better? Accompanied by a video illustrating a naked person pooping in front of satisfied Federal agents, and then a scene with a lawyer saying, "there's nothing you can do to fight having that done to you, lady." It feels like USA needs a re-think around concentration of power in the Federal side of our government.
estearum 10mo ago
Correct you can be detained based on reasonable suspicion. You cannot be arrested on it. The difference might seem subtle, but 1) it's not, and 2) it certainly shouldn't be to actual DHS officials. It's literally in the text of the Constitution. And yes, near the border has had shaky Constitutional protections for a long time. To suggest it's "not new" to expand that shakiness across the entire nation, eliminate time constraints on it, then scale up the "immigration" enforcement arm 100x is just laughable though. Of course it's new! It's new in scope, scale, and intensity. That makes it new!

overfeed 10mo ago

SCOTUS has deemed Kavanaugh stops to be legal, i.e. you can be stopped on the basis of your apparent ethnicity alone

estearum 10mo ago
You can be stopped on reasonable suspicion, which Kavanaugh expanded (and he seems to have immediately realized his name is permanently besmirched). But they definitely cannot arrest people based on reasonable suspicion. Anyone speaking on behalf of DHS should know the difference.
- zahlman 10mo ago
  Kavanaugh's concurrence does not "expand" reasonable suspicion. It explains that a combination of factors including "apparent race or ethnicity" may cause reasonable suspicion. Which, in fact, as a basic matter of probabilistic reasoning, given the other information in https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf, it might. And an important part of the decision is that (emphasis his): > Plaintiffs’ standing theory is especially deficient in this case because immigration officers also use their experience to stop suspected illegal immigrants based on a variety of factors. So even if the Government had a policy of making stops based on the factors prohibited by the District Court, immigration officers might not rely only on those factors if and when they stop plaintiffs in the future. and to affirm existing understanding of reasonable suspicion: > Reasonable suspicion is a lesser requirement than probable cause and “considerably short” of the preponderance of the evidence standard. Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 274. Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 885, n. 10; Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273. Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English. Cf. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 884–885 (listing “[a]ny number of factors” that contribute to reasonable suspicion of illegal presence). (In other words, he clearly lays out the reasons why such a "combination of factors" may create reasonable suspicion, per precedent.) As for Kavanaugh "realizing" any such thing, I can't fathom why you think so. This is the same guy who has been very visibly protested by activists of a similar stripe from the beginning.

zahlman 10mo ago

> There are now dozens of videos of them harassing, intimidating, beating, or detaining people for exercising protected speech. Show me one. I have already seen countless claims of this sort, only to later line them up with video footage that clearly demonstrates that "exercising protected speech" was not the cause of action and that the response was clearly justified. For example, freedom of speech does not allow one to block traffic for protest purposes, or blocking entrances to buildings, or preventing pedestrians from passing by on the sidewalk (https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_pdf_file/kyr_protests.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_pdf_file/kyr_...). And it certainly does not allow violence against ICE officers or other citizens, both of which I've seen a fair bit of. I have even seen multiple examples of protesters enacting their own Terry stops against people they suspect of being ICE agents. > openly said that they're allowed to arrest people based on "reasonable suspicion" which is unambiguously illegal. Show the quote, and show the relevant law. ---- Whoever flagged this comment while it's at +3, please feel free to explain how you think it's in any way counter to HN guidelines.

estearum 10mo ago
[flagged]
- zahlman 10mo ago
  > Go quick now, move the goal posts! You thereby forfeited your right to a serious consideration of your evidence.
  - estearum 10mo ago
    As the prophecy foretold
    - zahlman 10mo ago
      Telling you that your prediction of moving the goalposts is incivil and demonstrates a lack of good faith, is not itself moving the goalposts. I have no more to say to you.