Or Maybe Freedom Isn’t On the March

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

Never mind Japan and North Korea, what about the US, or the UK, or the rest of the EU? I made the point in another thread on immigration the other day (and no one responded) that leftists who believe in open-borders need to recognise that 95% of their fellow citizens disagree with them, and start to allocate more of the time they spend thinking/talking about immigration to trying to convert their fellow citizens rather than handwringing/namecalling at the govt. Otherwise, their tendency to wring hands/call names will be revealed for what it is – a therapeutic or identificatory exercise – as suggested by the tendency to speak first and ask questions afterwards, illustrated in this post. (i.e., I think Steve L has it right – even if you want to have a go at the govt about immigration, you’ve picked the wrong issue yet again.)

OK then, I’m persuaded by some of your points, and this is my final offer.

If this is only being applied to people who would otherwise be in cells, then it’s definitely preferable to having them in cells.
And it’s probably better than the immigration policy of many other countries.
But if people in the government are thinking of putting bracelets on every person applying for residence, they should stop.

I think Morton’s point is not necessarily meant to point to any particular solution, “Open borders now” or whathaveyou. I think his point is that it’s a problem that isn’t even recognized as a problem. Bringing prosperity to everyone would definitely be nice, but the fact is that people’s concern for others doesn’t seem to stretch across national borders enough to make that a goal here. (I’m not sure I agree with Morton’s point here; just trying to say what I think it is.)

And I still agree with Jet’s third paragraph, although “government inefficiency” is a bit libertarian-sounding for this lefty. But “the government making a big noise about kicking ass while not doing the gruntwork that really helps everyone” is fine by me. (Yes, I’m a lousy framer.)

3 quick points.

First, it isn’t at all obvious that the solution is electronic monitoring or jail. TL linked to the 2003 report to make the point that old fashioned case workers can do a perfectly effective job at keeping track of people provided they aren’t complete incompetents or hopelessly underfunded.

Second, even if you decide that is the alternative, there is no justification for the arbitrary sounding conditions imposed on the monitorees. If you think you can have electronic monitoring with govt agencies behaving reasonably, I think kid you’re a dreamer.

Third, the NPR report said that (some senior officials in) Homeland Security see this as a pilot that they want to extend to everyone, including me. I don’t hear much of a chorus of rousing condemnation of that. All this talk about whether in the very short term this is better than the (narrowly construed) alternatives strikes me as hopelessly unrealistic. Pilot programs get expanded, and the best time to oppose the expansions is as soon as the pilot starts.

Well a fourth point too. Anyone who thinks it is odd for people with left-wing sympathies to worry about this hasn’t been paying too much attention to which side the ACLU is on in most cases. There are some Republican ACLU supporters, but there are a lot more Democrats who are civil libertarians.

Steve L:
“no, you aren’t ordered deported for small technical violations of the rules, that’s a red herring.”

How confident are you of that? Weren’t there over a thousand Muslims rounded up after 9/11 and deported for what were often quite technical violations – without ever being charged, much less convicted, of anything more serious? I didn’t follow it closely, but that was my impression, and if it happened once under the Bush administration it can happen again.

The NPR report did not strike me as a particularly thorough or responsible piece of reporting, and its suggestion of a massive expansion of the program is at variance with whatever other information is currently available. I intend to withold judgment until and unless this can actually be confirmed (I would protest vigorously, letters to my Congressional representatives etc., were that to transpire- my soon-to-be-ex-wife comes from India and I have lots of permanent-resident and recently naturalized Indian friends, so I’m actually quite sensitized to abusive treatment of immigrants).I am no Bushite on civil liberties issues, not by a long shot, but the _current_ use of bracelets does not strike me as objectionable.

Nobody said it was odd for lefties to make a big noise about this program in its current state, only that it’s politically maladroit. I, though I classify myself more as a centrist, would agree with that.

This information that started this debate provides an illuminating comparison:

Gov’t Info on Program:
http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/factsheets/061704detFS2.htm (same as above)
ICE detains all aliens … required to be detained under the nation’s immigration laws. … In order to address those aliens who fail to appear in court or fail to depart under the court’s order … Release on an Order of Recognizance … An appearance bond … Electronic Monitoring Devices … Intensive Supervision Appearance Program

Talk Left and NPR
These people have never been accused of a crime.

When breaking current immigration law is no longer considered a crime, something is seriously wrong.

We discussed this very issue in my immigration law class tonight. The Prof. is an adjunct who practices immigration law on a daily basis in one of the test cities for this program. She had nothing but good things to say about it.

The monitoring program is a substitute for detention. It can take weeks (or sometimes months) before the immigrant gets a hearing before a judge. During this period if the immigrant can’t post bond, then they are detained.

An immigration bond is a whole different animal than your normal everyday bail bond. The upfront is 50% instead of 10%, the remainder of the bond has to be secured by property or credit, and it is not like you will even be able to find one in every city. My prof. uses one from Florida, and we are in Kansas.

The other good thing about the bracelet program is the information the immigrants get from the contractor. The contractor doesn’t get paid unless the immigrant shows up for court, so they make sure that happens. There are many times where immigrants get confused about what is going on and when they are supposed to be there. Dockets get changed and they miss their hearing all the time. the monitoring program is a valuable source of information for the immigrants.

The ironic thing is that this program may become impossible if the current immigration bill makes it out of the senate. The house passed a version that would set a manditory bond of $10,000. You either pay it or sit in jail. This legislation would prevent judges from using programs like the electronic monitoring.

Lars,
The statement by Talk left about people never having been accused of a crime is probably right, at least for most people, though it is misleading. In general, violating immigration laws is not a crime, in the sense that it’s not a violation of a criminal code, and the sort of thing that can happen you is different from what happens to criminals, at least in some ways. For example, while one can be detained until one’s hearing, or during appeals, if you take voluntary departure or just go, you can’t be held for additional time. (Old supreme court cases hold that deportation isn’t a punishment, and that it’s not acceptable to add punishment to deportation orders- i.e.- saying we’ll make you work on a chain gang or spend two years in jail and then we’ll deport you.) So, they have violated the Immigration and nationality act, but this isn’t a criminal matter. This is what’s misleading about the report- not all violations of laws are crimes. In practical terms this has various effects- if you are willing to just leave (as most people served with deport order are) you can go- you’ll not be put in jail. But, you also don’t get full due process protection. The hearings are administrative law hearings, not criminal hearings. There is no jury, just an administrative law judge. You can have a lawyer, but only if you can get one yourself- you have a right to one “at no cost to the government.” And so on. So, it’s technically correct to say that someone who has violated the immigration laws has not commited a crime, though it is also misleading. (Sorry for this being rambling… I’ve been working on papers all day.)

Matt —

Not all violations of immigration law are crimes, but some are. For example, it’s a misdemeanor for an alien not to carry a registration certificate issued to him/her. It’s a misdemeanor not to notify the INS (now DHS or whatever) of a change of address. If you’ve been deported or removed, it’s a crime to reenter (or to be “found in” the United States).

Your point is a good one — just wanted to clarify.

It might be worth the time to research what the government is intending to do with RFID devices.

It will capture your attention.

(1) In the presence of less feasible (resources/high cost, resistance to severity) and more feasible (less severity, little resource and cost overhead) enforcement options, it is not unlikely that the more feasible enforcement option will be applied more massively. You cannot, or would not, throw everybody in jail, but you can issue everybody a bracelet. (And the “hard” cases will probably be thrown in jail anyway.) So you may end up with expanded enforcement.

(2) Additional low-cost enforcement options can beget more expansive laws. Feasibility of enforcement procedures is always an issue when defining new offenses or expanding the scope of existing ones. No lawmakers would like to make fools of themselves by writing unenforceable laws.

In other words, bureaucracies have a tendency to operate at capacity.

In Germany there was a discussion about bracelets to enforce house arrests, and one pretty explicit argument put forward was “we cannot throw as many people in jail as we would like” (because there is not enough capacity, and we would like them to pay for their own food and shelter).

In the speeding domain, the bracelet analogy is speed monitoring devices built into cars that transmit speed/id/location information to transponders. So you can enforce speeding in places without putting a cop there. (And whereas the cops are busy for the time they have somebody pulled over, the transponders are not.) Imagine the possibilities.

As Adam again reminded us, “The monitoring program is a substitute for detention. It can take weeks (or sometimes months) before the immigrant gets a hearing before a judge. During this period if the immigrant can’t post bond, then they are detained.” _That’s what the bracelets are an alternative to._ Brian and others, please read the above as many times as necessary until it sinks in. Then we can discuss reality instead of straw men- the latter kind of discussion really gets us nowhere.

Pedro, having gone through all the crap for my wife, I heartily agree with you that few Federal agencies are as full of incompetents and/or dirtbags as Immigration. Whatever the rules and the means chosen for their enforcement, there is never any excuse for that.

On a political note, I don’t like Bush, didn’t vote for him, have indeed never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. But the political “strategy” of mindlessly denouncing as evil or potentially evil _anything_ that happens to be done by the Federal Government during Bush’s term in office is a good way to insure that Republicans will remain in power for a long, long time. As one who wants to get rid of Republican misrule I say to the lefties who follow that “strategy”, thanks a whole bunch, guys.

On-Point show last night: Hyper-Invasive National Security.

Apparently these people have NOT been accused of any crime or misdemeanor.