Comments on: Or Maybe Freedom Isn’t On the March

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I found the first comment to TL insightful:

TL, to answer your question [“Why are Americans so apathetic about this?”], it’s simply because Americans don’t believe the technology will be used against themselves, someday.

I just applied for a job in a country which my own country’s Ambassador has recently declared to have in effect given up its sovereignty. So I’m a bit concerned that I might be considered an enemy alien one day, too.

By: unf

unf — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Always click the link. The report makes clear, as do the comments at TalkLeft, that this program only applies to those who have entered the US illegally or who have overstayed their visas. I presume neither description applies to you. The alternative for such persons, who may not be criminals but manifestly have violated the law, is that they be incarcerated until they are deported or allowed to remain in the U.S.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Brian has argued in the past that it’s very difficult to avoid falling into technical violation of immigration rules at some point. If that’s true, then this program shouldn’t fail to concern us. I’m not currently an immigrant anywhere, so I wouldn’t know.

(And, if you think I’m exaggerating with my first comment—I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that, at some point in the future, it could happen that Canada retaliates against US immigrants for something that the US has done to Canadian immigrants.)

By: jet

jet — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

“it’s very difficult to avoid falling into technical violation of immigration rules at some point.” Well it is also very difficult to never accidently go over the speed limit; should we stop handing out tickets? It would appear that having to wear an ankle bracelet until your situation is sorted out, because you broke the law, is a small price to pay. Much better than sitting in a dentention center.

But then again, I want to know where all the money went that was supposed to upgrade the immigration system so the system was more streamlined and less difficult to navigate. We spend how much on Dept of Homeland Security? And for what, and all I’ve noticed is they steal my nail clippers when I fly.

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Unf, the program includes a report (by the reporter not a direct quote from a Homeland Security rep so it’s not watertight evidence) that some senior officials in Homeland Security would like to extend it to all people applying for residency in America. (The report is about 8:15 into the broadcast.) That it doesn’t yet so apply doesn’t make me feel much happier if this is the intent of the pilots.

By: ben wolfson

ben wolfson — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Unf, shouldn’t you be posting once every two weeks at unfogged?

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Matt W is exactly right that it’s quite hard to always be in total compliance w/ the immigration laws. (Immigration is one of my areas of special interest, so I’m not just speaking from casual knowlege here.) Jet’s example doesn’t show what he thinks it does- of course we already almost never give out tickets for minor or technical violations of traffic laws- when was the last time you were stopped for going 36 in a 35 mph zone? I know he means it as an analogy- my point is that it’s not a good one.
But, I’m not sure that Morton’s idea is one I buy, either. From the link, it’s hard to know what he thinks the alternative is. I don’t think he’s written substantially on the issue, though I’d be excited to read such if he has. But, I think that there are perfectly good arguments that strongly suggest that boarders and citizenship in some form are necessary for freedom. (These go back at least to Kant). And, to say otherwise usually (though not always, of course) suggests not having thought much about it. I’m not accusing Morton of this- again, he doesn’t say enough to evaluate what he means- but the idea that we would be better w/o boarders seems pretty utopian, even if we assume people would be better than they are. But, of course we should re-think how we administrate boarders and citizenship, and how they relate to our other moral duties. If that’s all Morton means, his point is obvious to anyone who looks.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Well it is also very difficult to never accidently go over the speed limit; should we stop handing out tickets?

Jet, everywhere I’ve been in the U.S. people exceed the speed limit routinely. Tickets are only issued in cases of egregious violation. So, I don’t think this analogy really helps your case. As for breaking the law—I think Brian’s claim (certainly the claim made by Adam Morton) is that those laws in themselves are unjust.

That said I’m in total agreement with your second paragraph. Making the immigration system more navigable would be better from all perspectives here, I think, security as well as the well-being of immigrants.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Some thoughts after reading the linked posts-
IF the alternative to the ankle bracelet is detention, then the bracelet is obviously to be prefered, for both humanitarian and cost reasons. If other options work even better, go for those, but the article didn’t address the ankle bracelet vs. phone calls comparison, just phone calls vs detention. And, the article is certainly at least somewhat misleading in saying that the people have never been accused of a crime- what they surely mean is they’ve been accused of nothing more than violating immigration statutes. As I said above, this is quite easy to do. But, these are laws like any other, so that part of the article is misleading. So, in cases where the choice is detention or the bracelet, we should obviously use the bracelet. But, we should look for other options, and should reform our immigration laws. (Note that many other countries, including Australia, use detention to a greater degree than does the US, and often in a much more sever form than is now common in the US. This doesn’t make the US practice okay, but no one should suspect that this is purely a US problem. It’s a problem in most wealthy countries.)

By: Steve LaBonne

Steve LaBonne — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

One the one hand the immigration people get hammered, rightly, for not keeping track of aliens who, after their deportation orders are issued and pending appeal, abscond. (And no, you aren’t ordered deported for small technical violations of the rules, that’s a red herring. And I’m quite familiar with immigration procedures as a result of having had an immigrant spouse.) On the other hand, just imagine the outcry if they simply locked up every alien in that position. So they come up with what appears to be a humane compromise- only to get hammered for that. What the hell are they supposed to do?

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Are all the people who are subject to ankle bracelets on this program ordered deported? I thought not from reading the linked description, but if so, it may be a reasonable compromise as things stand. Still, Brian’s comment raises cause for concern, I think.

By: Steve LaBonne

Steve LaBonne — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

According to this official website, the bracelets are indeed only being used for aliens who would otherwise be detained.
http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/factsheets/061704detFS2.htm

By: jet

jet — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

In a pointless defense of my analogy (please skip unless you just want to practice reading), I say my analogy holds. Most drivers can’t tell the difference between 35 and 40 without looking at the speedometer. Also, going 40 isn’t really much more dangerous than going 35. Yet pass a speed trap at 40 in a 35, and you have good odds of being some cops hourly entertainment and quota filler.

Forget to get your passport properly stamped, or some clerk makes a mistake when you were leaving the country, and you will probably get back in with no problems (only doing 36). Forget to get your visa extended (going 40) and you stand a decent chance of wearing an ankle bracelet.

But this is really one of those government waste issues. At the current state of inefficiency there are two options, either less security or less liberty. We should pick the third solution which is more liberty and more security. More money is spent on upgrading government computer systems than would ever be spent in the corporate world. Yet look at the state of the FBI or immigration systems and you wonder how they are capable of functioning. Bringing this to the attention of the public in a way that causes the problems to be resolved and thus no more need for unwarranted ankle-bracelets or 9/11 hijackers is the best solution. So I say frame the debate in a way that the focus is on government inefficiency with liberty and security being the victims of the negligence.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Matt W-
It’s not totally clear from the links if this only applies to those ordered deported, but there is a fair amount that makes me think so. (Note that all the comparison articles are clearly about people who have a deportation order. You can have such an order but also be applying for asylum or some other form of protection, or change of status. My guess is that these are people who have a deport order and are fighting it in some way. But, that’s not 100% clear.)
Steve- I guess it depends on what you mean by “technical”. I’d tend to consider not taking enough credits while in school to be a technical violation, but you can certainly be deported for that, and people are all the time. Similarly, I’d consider taking a day too long to report for special registration, or getting one’s request to remove conditional permanent residence status in late to be technical violations, but deport orders can and are issued for such violations fairly regularly.

By: Steve LaBonne

Steve LaBonne — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

However you interpret the information, the ICE web page I linked makes it clear that we are not talking about slapping ankle bradelets on people who otherwise would be walking around scot free, but about ICE frankly not having enough beds to house all the people who under previous practice would need to be detained despite being judged non-dangerous. That is, this is a matter of people who would previously have been in the pokey and now instead are conditionally free to live normally. No matter how you slice it, from a human rights standpoint that’s an advance, not a decline. So for the moment my reaction is: nothing to see here folks, move along.