Or Maybe Freedom Isn’t On the March

by Brian on March 2, 2005

As an alien who will presumably have to apply for residence in the US one of these days, I found “this post at TalkLeft”:http://talkleft.com/new_archives/009897.html somewhat disturbing.

bq. Homeland Security is requiring immigrants in 8 cities who are in the process of applying for residency to wear electronic monitoring ankle bracelets 24/7.

bq. These people have never been accused of a crime. There are 1,700 of them to date. Homeland Security says monitoring will prevent those ordered deported from running and hiding. But, a 2003 Justice Department report (pdf) blamed inadequate record keeping by immigration officials as the reason for problems deporting non-detained aliens.

I’m ever so glad the GOP is such a strong supporter of small government and individual liberty.

More seriously, it’s times like this that I think “Adam Morton”:http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~amorton/moral.html may be right – our complacency about the morality of institutions of citizenship and borders could very well look like a serious moral shortcoming when history casts its judgment on our era.



Matt Weiner 03.02.05 at 6:58 pm

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.


unf 03.02.05 at 7:00 pm

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.


Matt Weiner 03.02.05 at 7:05 pm

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.)


jet 03.02.05 at 7:17 pm

“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.


Brian Weatherson 03.02.05 at 7:19 pm

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.


ben wolfson 03.02.05 at 7:19 pm

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


Matt 03.02.05 at 7:32 pm

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.


Matt Weiner 03.02.05 at 7:39 pm

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.


Matt 03.02.05 at 7:40 pm

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.)


Steve LaBonne 03.02.05 at 7:44 pm

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?


Matt Weiner 03.02.05 at 7:51 pm

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.


Steve LaBonne 03.02.05 at 7:57 pm

According to this official website, the bracelets are indeed only being used for aliens who would otherwise be detained.


jet 03.02.05 at 7:58 pm

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.


Matt 03.02.05 at 8:00 pm

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.


Steve LaBonne 03.02.05 at 8:09 pm

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.


Andrew McManama-Smith 03.02.05 at 8:10 pm

In Japan they deport you the second they think you’ve made a visa violation. A friend of mine was deported two weeks before he was to defend his phd thesis and had a terrible time getting back into the country. I’m sure he would have been very happy to have had the option of an ankle bracelet.
Morton may be right about the place in history, but there’s no quick solution to that issue. For example Japan or South Korea will never allow for 10% foreign-extraction populations. The best solution is a work around : bring prosperity everywhere, and eventually no one will have their prospects defined by their birthplace.


mc 03.02.05 at 9:03 pm

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.)


Darren 03.02.05 at 9:13 pm

If the state was the enemy of the people would you be an enemy of the state?


Matt Weiner 03.02.05 at 9:32 pm

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.)


Steve LaBonne 03.02.05 at 9:45 pm

“But if people in the government are thinking of putting bracelets on every person applying for residence, they should stop.” You would have my hearty, indeed horrified, agreement should any such proposal be floated.

Aside- lefties had better not be too squeamish to talk openly about government inefficiency, plenty of which most certainly exists (I’m a [local] government employee, former state employee, trust me, I know!), if they hope to persuade their fellow citizens to pay for _efficient_ delivery of needed government services.


Brian Weatherson 03.02.05 at 9:47 pm

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.


abb1 03.02.05 at 10:04 pm

I’m curious: assuming the same level of immigration law violation – does everyone get to wear a bracelet? Like, a WASP British immigrant, for example? Or would someone at the DHS decide on a case by case basis? The article doesn’t say…


The Navigator 03.02.05 at 10:24 pm

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.


Matt 03.02.05 at 10:51 pm

I can’t find the part of the report you’re refering to (is it the audio part? I’m using public computers now and can’t listen to it.) But, I’m about 99% sure it’s being presented not clearly, and what’s meant is that this is a pilot program _for those w/ deport orders_, and that they are thinking of extending it to all of those w/ deport orders, not to all people applying for change of statuts in some way. (The later would likely face serious constitutional objections, I’d think.) I’m no fan of the DHS and certainly not of ICE. I’ve had enough professional interaction with the later to know what sort of serious bastards they can be. But, I would be absoluty shocked if you’re interpreting this the right way. I’m all but positive it’s mean to be only about those w/ deport orders.


Steve LaBonne 03.03.05 at 12:11 am

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.


Steve LaBonne 03.03.05 at 12:30 am

Navigator, I don’t classify any of the following as minor technical violations: 1) providing inaccurate information on your visa application, 2) overstaying your visa, 3) failing to keep the government up to date about changes in your employment or other factors that affect the legality of your status. And while I don’t agree with 4)the Draconian law that prescribes deportation for aliens who have been convicted of quite minor crimes in the past, while it remains the law it has to be followed. If you really have information about massive deportations of Muslims who do not fall into any of those four categories, I am genuinely eager to hear about it.


Lars 03.03.05 at 12:44 am

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.


Brian Weatherson 03.03.05 at 1:10 am

Matt, the main claims I was going off were in the audio part, especially towards the end.

Lars, if you listen to the link report, you’ll see that some of the people being put under surveillance include people who are here while the courts here appeals of the non-extension of their visas. Maybe he has broken immigration laws, but the report certainly made it sound like DHS was monitoring him so they could deport him if his appeal is rejected. And remember his appeal is not against a criminal conviction or the like, just against a routine visa non-extension. I’d bet that’s someone who hasn’t been accused of any crime, even breaches of immigration statutes. (Unless it’s now a crime to appeal a DHS ruling I guess…)

Steve and others, it may well be a less than ideal political strategy to attack this now, but it always seems to me that once this kind of thing gets going it’s _much_ harder to stop later down the track. In any case, the people most familiar with the person discussed by NPR seemed more sympathetic to him than to DHS, so I wouldn’t be too surprised if publicising cases like this helps. Of course if you just want to not trust NPR, then you won’t believe this. But if you’re going to rule as non-evidential anything that doesn’t appear on a government website, then it will be hard to have serious debates about this.


Adam 03.03.05 at 1:41 am

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.


pedro 03.03.05 at 2:21 am

I got married to an American citizen, and I’ve been applying for change of status. It is an aggravating process, and one fraught with numerous sources of confusion. I can see how easy it would be for someone in my position to involuntarily violate technical immigration regulations.

I can also see how incredibly inept BCIS is at keeping track of the whereabouts of immigrants. It turns out that when one moves from one place to another, not only do you need to inform a central office of your move, but also each of the local offices processing your different cases, as the offices do not communicate with one another. How is it that it is in the interest of the security of American citizens that the different BCIS offices do not communicate with one another?

When I become an American citizen, by the way, I will remember very well who were the unsympathetic douchebags calling for the incivil treatment of immigrants. There’s no way in the world I’ll vote republican. Civil liberties should be afforded to everyone, not only to citizens, and if there is a case for some form of protectionism in affairs of nationality, I affirm that it is immigrants, who are often far more vulnerable than citizens, who are in more need of protection.


Matt 03.03.05 at 2:51 am

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.)


nick 03.03.05 at 3:49 am

Frankly, the only Americans who understand US immigration laws and their implementation are those who have to deal with it through spouses, other family members or business. Which is why jet’s ignorance is so typical.

After all, there’s no votes in campaigning on a pledge to make the BCIS less Kafkaesque.


Chris 03.03.05 at 4:35 am

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.


Matt 03.03.05 at 4:43 am

You’re quite right- I was over-generalizing. (Of course violations of some parts of the INA are also crimes, even if not explicitly made crimes by the INA itself- human trafficing or terrorist activity and the like.)


Movie Guy 03.03.05 at 5:02 am

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

It will capture your attention.


Tom T. 03.03.05 at 5:31 am

pedro et al., keep in mind that harsh treatment of immigrants is thoroughly bipartisan. AEDPA and IIRIRA, for instance, were enacted under the Clinton administration.


cm 03.03.05 at 9:16 am

(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.


Yusuf Smith 03.03.05 at 11:26 am

For example Japan or South Korea will never allow for 10% foreign-extraction populations.

What’s the US’s foreign-extraction population, then? Something like 99%, isn’t it.


Steve LaBonne 03.03.05 at 1:42 pm

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.


Matt 03.03.05 at 3:15 pm

Let me agree with you on the last bit. One of the (very!) few things that Bush has proposed that I support is some of his immigration plans- the guest-worker program in particular. It’s far from perfect. But, it’s the closest thing to a step in the right direction we’ve seen in years. It would be great if the democrats would get behind it, soften some of the edges, and push it through. (There would be an added plus in that the seriously anti-immigration republicans in Colorado and Arizona and the like would start to spin like mad- always fun to watch.)


abb1 03.04.05 at 9:19 am

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

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


margaret 03.05.05 at 7:01 am

You are legally present in the US. You apply for legal permanent residence. Your application is denied and, in the manner prescribed by the the INA, you appeal. You have not broken any law, you are not subject to detention, yet you are a potential guinea pig for the pilot monitor program. IT IS NOT SIMPLY A DETENTION ALTERNATIVE.

Comments on this entry are closed.