Emails Show ICE Couldn't Find Enough Dangerous Immigrants To Fulfill The Adminstration's Fantasies
from the Operation-Goalpost-Relocation dept
When you've got an official narrative to deliver, you need everyone to pitch in to keep it from falling apart. No one can say ICE didn't try. The Trump administration -- bolstered by supporting statements conjecture from DOJ and DHS officials -- has portrayed undocumented immigrants as little more than nomadic thugs. Unfortunately, there's hardly any evidence available to back up the assertion that people here illegally are more likely to commit serious criminal acts.
Back in February, shortly after Trump handed down immigration-focused executive orders, ICE went all in on arresting undocumented visitors and immigrants. Included in this push was a focus on so-called "sanctuary cities" like Austin, Texas, which had vowed to push back against Trump's anti-immigrant actions.
Emails obtained by The Intercept show ICE doing all it can to prop up Trump's "dangerous criminal" stereotyping. Unfortunately, despite all of its efforts, ICE failed to come across many dangerous criminals during its February sweeps.
On February 10, as the raids kicked off, an ICE executive in Washington sent an “URGENT” directive to the agency’s chiefs of staff around the country. “Please put together a white paper covering the three most egregious cases,” for each location, the acting chief of staff of ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations wrote in the email.
It's a good starting point, especially if the administration is relying on you to back up its assertions. ICE was willing to go the extra mile to do just that, apparently.
“If a location has only one egregious case — then include an extra egregious case from another city.”
This is an interesting ploy: cannibalizing nearby cities' reporting in order to present some semblance of an "egregious case" immigrant nightmare --one that would need to be stripped of redundancy before final presentation.
Unfortunately for ICE agents, you can't make something out nothing. Three cases per city proved to be almost impossible. Many raids failed to uncover even one egregious case. With the clock ticking down, some ICE offices decided to grab "egregious cases" completely unrelated to the current operation.
In February 11, an official responded to a colleague’s list of egregious cases by pointing out that they were unrelated to the ongoing operation. “The arrest dates are before any operation and even before the EO’s. What is up with these cases?” the official wrote.
What's up with those cases is there were almost zero new cases to report to the man upstairs. Hundreds of arrests were made, but many involved people with no prior criminal record. In the remaining arrests, most of the priors found were minor violations, with the worst being drunk driving.
Not exactly the "public safety threat" the Trump administration had promised. When it became clear the "egregious case" reports might total only a handful of serious criminal offenses from hundreds of arrests nationwide, ICE quickly applied its own spin.
As criticism escalated, ICE shifted to downplaying the operation as “no different than the routine,” telling reporters that the raids were the same “targeted arrests carried out by ICE’s Fugitive Operations Teams on a daily basis,” and suggesting off the record that claims to the opposite were “false, dangerous, and irresponsible.” As it became clear that dozens of individuals with no criminal history had been apprehended, ICE shifted gears and told reporters that in addition to targeting safety threats, the raids were always meant to target those whose only crimes were immigration-related, like re-entering the U.S. after deportation…
By spinning it this way, ICE can pay needed lip service to the administration's "dangerous immigrants" narrative and portray the lack of egregious cases as the result of the banal day-to-day work of immigration enforcement. But in doing so, it undercuts the narrative it's trying to serve. If there are so many dangerous criminals out there, why isn't ICE focused on them, rather than dozens of people whose only criminal act is a lack of documentation? ICE can't have it both ways. Neither can the White House.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: crime, dhs, doj, exaggerations, ice, immigrants
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
1) "during its February sweeps" -- is a limited data set
2) "almost zero **new** cases" -- your emphasis, slyly omitting those already listed and needing caught
3) "people whose only criminal act is a lack of documentation" -- are criminals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1) "during its February sweeps" -- is a limited data set
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 1) "during its February sweeps" -- is a limited data set
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 1) "during its February sweeps" -- is a limited data set
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 1) "during its February sweeps" -- is a limited data set
Depends upon what problem you are referring to as there is more than one problem in that area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1) " during its February sweeps " -- is a limited data set
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1) " during its February sweeps " -- is a limited data set
"If you fail to condemn those attacks, you fail to have any moral grounds to condemn any actions by" Palestine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1) " during its February sweeps " -- is a limited data set
As for your 'slaughter in far greater numbers' snipe, can you clarify exactly what you mean? Are you referring to the number of terrorists killed while attacking Israeli civilians? Because Israel has an absolute right to self defense there. For example, it doesn't matter if a dozen terrorists attack me, I have a right to kill all of them to defend myself regardless of their numbers. Or are you referring to when the Israeli military has to go into Palestinian territories as a response to terrorist attacks? How can you ignore the multitude of documented human rights violations committed by the Palestinians and choose to condemn Israel? You must have absolutely no morals or be incredibly ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1) " during its February sweeps " -- is a limited data set
And Israel has ignored countless UN resolutions condemning the treatment of the "natives". Oh wait, that's anti-Semitism, the world can go piss off.
It's always like this with Israel: Whatever they do is justified, legal and super-good and moral. Anyone who criticizes or fights back is an anti-Semite, or worse.
If you are a Palestinian fighting for your rights, they might just kill you. And when you fight back, you are a terrorist and now they will take the rest of your land from you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1) " during its February sweeps " -- is a limited data set
And do you hold dictatorial control over things you give to others as well?
"It's always like this with Israel: Whatever they do is justified, legal and super-good and moral. Anyone who criticizes or fights back is an anti-Semite, or worse."
Israel is like every other nation on earth, it does what it thinks is necessary to survive. There is no other nation on this planet without blame, but I do notice that there are a lot of people picking on this one a great deal.
If Israel should do what the UN says, end of story, then so should every other nation.
"If you are a Palestinian fighting for your rights, they might just kill you."
I bet you would not hold this same view in other areas of the world. What about the rights of criminals to peddle drugs? What about the rights of doctors to peddle their wares without regulation? What about others rights to be free of slavery, or sexual discrimination, or tyrannical government.
Name any place on the planet where you can fight back against a government without being called a terrorist. If you are busy singling a nation out over this, it is pretty clear you have bias. A freedom fighter is a terrorist somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1) " during its February sweeps " -- is a limited data set
I bet you would not hold this same view in other areas of the world. What about the rights of criminals to peddle drugs? "
Are you serious? Instead of a rant, I'll just ask if you are familiar with the term, "false equivalence".
Many years ago, I believe it was the early 1990s, I remember a stark headline in the newspaper that brought it home for me. They were keeping score on the number of killed. It was something like 800 Palestinians killed and 2 Israelis. When it got to 1,000, a third Israeli died. Wow, 1,000 to three. Ya.
Then there was the time the Israelis dropped a 500kg bomb on an apartment building because they thought a member of the PLO leadership lived there. He wasn't home but 16 Palestinians that were lost their lives. Was this hombre a bad guy? Well, he did travel to other countries trying to get support for Palestinians.
So fighting back against a government? The Israelis aren't governing the Palestinians. They are the lords and masters over a conquered territory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1) " during its February sweeps " -- is a limited data set
Fuck proportionate response. Someone fucks with your civilization, you end them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 1) "during its February sweeps" -- is a limited data set
Oh and - This article is not about Israel or its occupants. Just thought you'd like to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 1) "during its February sweeps" -- is a limited data set
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1) "during its February sweeps" -- is a limited data set
One may be for more freedom of movement, or one can be anti-immigration, or simply be mad about illegal border crossing. However, that isn't the point here. Everyone gets it, you aren't saying anything revolutionary. You are simply being a poor apologist for a bullshit program. Good for you that you like the result anyway.
Of course, if ICE and friends would get the fuck off their asses and check where immigrants (and contraband) actually enter the country - in the back of tractor trailers - well then you would have less illegal crossings and imports, and probably less dead people. But no, it's more fun to unreasonably harass individuals in cars or dick around with helicopters in the desert. What ever will they do for kicks when they build their environmental disaster wall?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1) "during its February sweeps" -- is a limited data set
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are bitching about one stereotype...
"Emails obtained by The Intercept show ICE doing all it can to prop up Trump's "dangerous criminal" stereotyping."
while using another...
"Included in this push was a focus on so-called "sanctuary cities" like Austin, Texas, which had vowed to push back against Trump's anti-immigrant actions."
As long as you keep using them, you have no standing to be complaining about others using them.
These cities have publicly announced that they will be flouting the law, they get what they get that same as the Trump admin should get and Obama admin should have gotten when they did the same.
We can't get through one news story about immigration without those on both sides being nothing but stupendous hypocrites about almost everything!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's a thing called 'separation of powers' built into the constitution that backs them up, you should read up on it.
The Trump Administration has essentially zero options to crack down on sanctuary cities due to past legal precedents limiting executive power (including some rulings that happened under the Obama administration). They could try to, but the sanctuary cities are almost certainly going to triumph in court if they do.
If you think it's garbage that the courts will side with the cities over the federal government, well, this is one of the problems in operating under such an old constitution that was written by people who feared a strong central government. That's why the federal government is weaker then most national governments if you compare our system to other nation's democracies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do any of you just want to look like an idiot? I am not going to stop you.
Just ignore you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Guess what - there are sanctuary states ... go figure, how could that happen?
How does it feel ... you know, looking like an idiot?
States rights are not just for racists you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All I care about is people actually following the law, especially the government itself.
We can change the law too, but we cannot support other people breaking it just because it fits your political agenda, the moment you do that you are the same quality of a street brigand and server violet revolution to put you down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You deserve violent revolution to put you down if you decide that it is okay to break the law to serve your political interests.
You are only making a case for anarchy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In the United States, cities are state agencies, chartered by the state, which can delegate whatever authority they have. That's the legal principle that made it unconstitutional for cities to (for instance) discriminate against members of ethnic groups: the Supreme Court reasoning being: the state didn't have that power and therefore couldn't delegate it to any of its agencies.
Similarly in the Chattanooga City ISP case--the Supreme Court ruled that Tennessee could delegate whatever powers it wished to the city, and the state chose (no matter how foolishly) not to delegate the right to provide internet service outside certain geographical boundaries.
Both of these decisions might appear odd unless you grasp the basic legal premise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is NO democracy alive today. Why do you keep using that word? Trump would not have been voted into office if we were a democracy. Not even our presidential elections are democratic! We have an electoral college, your state does not even have to allow you to vote for a president at all! You have no constitutional right to vote for president.
Now, if I had the power, I would love to give you an actual democracy, I would take joy in you watching you destroy yourselves, I would only suck to see your children die in the bloodbath that would follow in the folly of your ignorance and foolishness!
Democracies commit suicide, that is all they are capable of. The ignorance of the masses... basically people like you cannot be overcome in a democracy.
Like someone famous once said...
Democracy is two wolves and one lamb deciding what is for lunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1) Are you the one who previously claimed that voters in the U.S. don't even have any indirect control over who gets elected?
2) If so, did the Founding Fathers intend it that way?
3) If the answer to #2 is "yes", why did they set up ways to have elections? Surely there's other ways to ensure that offices of state aren't inherited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't know what was claimed but if you read what they said and know anything about the election process you will learn two things.
The voters have direct control over who gets elected and no, it is not democratic because the system was setup to specifically prevent that.
this leads to #2, yes the Founding fathers intended that, because almost all of them hated "democracies" because it is nothing more than a tyranny of the majority over the minority which would soon cause a nation to commit suicide.
On #3. They made that clear. "Eternal Vigilance" and per George Washington, stop with the political parties.
In our ignorance we are throwing our own country away just to spite those we disagree with. I do not think that we will find a solution to this problem because ignorance is the only winner here. And since the only back and forth is a bunch of mean spirited words people have long sense left any semblance of civility and would immediately refuse the truth the moment it showed up because it would reveal something bad about their own group and that is untenable. It is better to perish in ignorance than to admit you had it wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, then, something is only "democratic" if the voters have direct control, and thus anything where voters have indirect control is explicitly not democratic? If not, what do you mean? If that's right, then the term "representative democracy" is an oxymoron?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/27/trump-says-sanctuary-cities-are- hotbeds-of-crime-data-say-the-opposite/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"These cities have publicly announced that they will be flouting the law,"
Has NOTHING to fucking do with trumps bullshit claims about crime rates... you fucking uncomprehending tool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Got nothing to say about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
WAT DA FUQ is wrong with you folks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Standing? ... like someone needs to prove they have been adversely impacted by something just in order to state their opinion about that something - wow, this is perverse.
What ever happened to States Rights? Oh ... I forgot, those are only for enacting racist, sexist, xenophobic legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazed
Amazed that TD is still so devoted to keeping the comments open.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amazed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You people are utter trash. No evidence? First off, NO ONE HAS SAID MOST UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS ARE CRIMINALS. We have shown again and again that they undermine domestic labor.
BUILD THE WALL! FIGHT Foreign Exchange Market ABUSE! END THE FED!
Seriously, why is TECH dirt obsessing over PROMOTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. You are nothing but a bunch of partisan hacks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really? What was it that donald said ..... hmmmm, here's one. I guess you are arguing that he did not mean "most". Weak sauce.
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
Well that is true by virtue of bringing crime by entering illegally, and some have been documented to actually be rapists, but they are also meaningless statements, Trump is clearly fear mongering here, because we also "raise" our criminal and rapists too. We gonna kill all the kids before they prove they can be bad?
But I think the problem here is that some of you hate that the other side is fear mongering about things. Well stop your side from doing it first... hah... that's right... not gonna happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"NO ONE HAS SAID MOST UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS ARE CRIMINALS"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You have?
Most articles I've read on the subject indicate that areas with robust immigration tend to spur economic growth which in turn creates more jobs for domestic workers.
https://www.google.com/search?q=immigration+and+economic+growth
Here's a letter from almost 1,500 economists (you know, the people who really understand this issue from an economics point of view) stating that immigration is an overall positive to our economy, with the possible exception of the uneducated domestic workers. Maybe we should focus on educating our domestic workforce, instead of blaming those who immigrate here and are making our country a better place for everyone.
http://www.newamericaneconomy.org/feature/an-open-letter-from-1470-economists-on-immigrati on/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Living in California, I been run into by these illegals on more than one occasion. Once you get through the no comprendo and my father's brother's cousin can fix it reeeal cheeeap routines, you find they have no insurance or license. It prompted me to buy the higher grade uninsured motorist coverage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But you knew that. So wth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They are statements of facts. Your attempts to muddy the facts are a failure. The illegal entry alone is a criminal act as per codified law.
If this law is okay to break what about the others? If you agree that breaking the law is okay when your politics are being served what say you if another politics you hate begin to break the law? When do you have a right to accuse them of criminality when you give others a pass on it as well?
Do you not think they will not notice your double standard and view you as an opponent with no reason?
In many ways, you are inversely justifying Trumps false claims by making false claims of your own in combat to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now, on a side note, how do you feel about all the bullshit side shows using illegal immigration as a spring board into existence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: illegal immigrants are illegal...
But that's not what truly matters. Why? Because if the country benefits from it, then the only problem is with the illegality, not the immigration.
This entire matter is PURELY one of economics, than then can also involve additional issues and context, (as it always has been) - and anyone who tries to deal with it purely as anything else, e.g. as a matter of xenophobia, racism etc. will cause more problems than they solve - hence the issues here.
When dealing with illegal immigrants, there are only a few things that matter:
Is the country benefiting from their presence? If so, how, and maybe WHO is doing so?
What other problems have they brought with them and are causing?
Does the cost of removing them from the country outweigh the benefits of them being here? THIS is the biggest issue. The problems factor on both sides, though - many individuals benefit from both sides - some from keeping them, some from removing them, irrespective of the overall country's benefit. Obviously it doesn't help matters if there is NO punishment (compared to legal immigrants) - the problem is figuring out the best way of doing that while still getting the most economic benefit from their presence, (so long as they're not guilty of anything more egregious, so economics becomes secondary).
So, on the one hand we have illegal immigrants being exploited for labour (esp. farm/domestic workers), yet on the other we have people who benefit from removing them, and the war between these two factions is what is causing all the problems.
And so the most beneficial solution for the COUNTRY, while still respecting human rights etc., is the hardest to find - a way of punishing illegal immigration whilst gaining the most benefit from their presence as a nation. If illegal immigrants had no economic role to play, most of them wouldn't have immigrated in the first place - for most, a better life = a job to support a home/family etc..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy. Officer safety trumps all. Apprehending dangerous criminals is dangerous. It's much safer to apprehend non-violent civil offenders than to apprehend violent criminal offenders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hah!
You can't judge the skills of the current administration by looking at the previous ones.
This one most certainly can have it both ways as well as all the way down. They are not constrained by logic or constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confirm our fantasy!
The ridiculous argument “illegal immigrants have broken the law, therefore they are criminals, therefore they are dangerous” seems to have supporters among the authors of some unfortunate on this page. If a government states that “any person caught north of n° North latitude will be considered a criminal”, that decision may carry legal weight. But, as Tim’s article indicates, it has little bearing on whether that person is more or less likely to hurt others.
In other words, basically what you’d expect from arresting a sample of humans of arbitrary immigration status anywhere on the planet. But people who apparently live in a simple, self-flattering universe need to transform this into some sort of grave danger.
"The US will be a glorious place as soon as we get rid of those violent illegal immigrants causing all of our crime!
...
(Now let’s go fabricate data showing illegal immigrants are the cause all of our crime.)"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confirm our fantasy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confirm our fantasy!
It doesn't matter if they are violent or not, it doesn't matter if they help the country or not, they are not supposed to be here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Confirm our fantasy!
Any country that would prefer to get rid of immigrants regardless of whether “they are violent or not, … if they help the country or not" is clearly on a declining path. Laws that require a country to deport citizens who (clearly!) want very much to be here should be changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Confirm our fantasy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Confirm our fantasy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That and the fact that they are here illegally? They are criminals according to our system. They are here illegally, which makes them criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would let all 800K stay as long as every other illegal immigrant gets kicked out. Would you agree to that?
If not, then that proves it isn't about DACA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]