By Lisette Diaz
We were all afraid of the knocks on our door, especially if it happened early in the morning. We all knew what it could mean — ICE, la Migra, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
There was always a second of pause, a moment of silence where my parents and I would look at each other — the slight silent hesitation where a thousand thoughts ran through all of our heads. Who will take care of the children when they take us? Do you remember where all our important documents are? You remember who you’re supposed to call first? Take care of your siblings. We love you.
Many immigrant families know this drill. ICE has built a reputation of shattering families and destroying immigrant communities. Recently, ICE started a public relations campaign where they are attempting to create an image of themselves as “fair and effective.”
But here at the ACLU, we have a better understanding of the practices that ICE has carried and will continue to carry out under the Trump Administration. President Trump ordered an additional 10,000 new ICE agents, tripling the current number, to implement his enforcement agenda. An agenda that pays lip service to going after only the “bad hombres ” when it actually seeks to target all undocumented immigrants regardless of their criminal history or ties to this country.
President Trump has essentially given ICE free range to do as they please. The proverbial “shackles” have come off, creating panic among immigrant communities. Widespread constitutional violations, including racial profiling and unlawful stops, have contributed to the public image ICE has within communities.
A high school in Maryland with a high Latinx population saw a decline in attendance as deportation fears rose. Parents avoided sending their kids to school fearing they would be picked up by ICE while they were dropping them off or picking them up.
The ICE-induced panic extends beyond the classroom and into our nation’s courthouses. Experts have seen a sharp decline in Latinas reporting domestic violence and sexual assault. A woman identified by the initials I.E.G. was arrested by half a dozen ICE agents in a courthouse in El Paso County while seeking a protective order against her abusive partner. El Paso County Attorney Jo Anne Bernal speculated that the only other person who could have tipped ICE off was her alleged abuser. Victims are not reporting crimes and even dropping their cases fearing deportation.
Our courthouses cannot thrive if they do not allow all individuals access to justice. ICE is not enforcing the law but preventing the law from being enforced, disrupting public safety and ensuring that crimes, such as domestic violence, go unreported.
Fortunately, judges across the United States are speaking out. Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court Cantil Sakauye sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, urging them to end the practice of courthouse arrests. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey Stuart Rabner has also written a letter to Kelly.
In fact, ICE, despite claiming to be “fair and effective” in this new PR strategy, has quite a history of detaining and deporting the least expected individuals: American citizens. Data from 2010 suggests that over 4,000 American citizens were either detained or deported in that year alone.
If this is how ICE views its operations as “fair and effective,” then it leaves much to be desired.
Prior to January, I was frequently critical of the government due to unintended adverse consequences. I did not like the immigration policies prior to the administration of 45 because I saw them as too punitive and disruptive of families. I now find myself wondering if the targeting of families through the most vulnerable, children as they attend school, victims of domestic and sexual violence crimes, may be very intentional. These are not the tactics of a government that wishes to protect its citizens from criminal behavior, but rather the actions of a government evolving towards the establishment of a police state. Increasing numbers of officers ostensibly to deport criminals, but actually targeting those whose only crime is being here without appropriate documentation. Could this be only the first targeted group ? Maybe, but maybe not.
Oh no, it’s a vast conspiracy. Maybe the next targeted group will be doctors? Lions and tigers and bears……
From what I’ve read, the children (many of whom are citizens by birth… I call them citizens, others may call them “anchor babies”) are not the target… their parents are… ex. see yesterday’s Bee article, where parents ask teachers/principals to act as a “foster” if the parent(s).
Maybe we are in perfect agreement… is difficult to tell your nuance… but using kids to “get to” undocumented parents (assuming non-criminal) is wrong… using victims of crime to deport THEM, as opposed to those who are the “perps” is wrong.
BTW… the distinction between a “police state”, and a “nanny state”, isn’t as wide as you may think… using taxes to coerce behavior (sugary beverage tax), bans on activities (wood-burning, providing plastic bags free of charge, etc.), or requirements (fluoridation of water, strict conservation of water even if someone is willing to pay the costs), are NOWHERE NEAR the same… but they lie on the same slope. All restrictions require “policing”… unless it’s just words.
Some would say undocumented/illegal persons are more “dangerous” than sugary drinks/woodburning… criminally/economically… I am FAR from that view… but, it seems to be this inclination to “control others”… only distinction is how individuals view their motives and their ‘righteousness’…
As we move to a communal healthcare system, whether it’s the ACA, some Reconciliation Mongrel, or single payer; actions of other people will affect us more and call into question some accepted norms of where individual rights end.
I support the sugar water tax and add a minimum purchase age of 16. As we found out with tobacco enforcing a minimum purchase age dramatically reduces the number of available outlets and thus usage. The mayor of Seattle has proposed a sugar water tax (in between denying the sex trafficking allegations) to reduce obesity. Then in a frenzy of SJW dizziness decided that wasn’t good as mostly lower SES people drank large amounts of sugar water so therefore he needed to tax non-sugared drinks too, “for equity”.
So the reduce obesity tax is a ruse since he’s taxing non sugary drinks too. Go figure!
“So the reduce obesity tax is a ruse” well I personally believe that the sex trafficking lawsuits (4 as of today) are getting a little close for him so he is trying to change the narrative by taking on “White Privilege”. He’s taking a page from Trump’s playbook though I suspect he will not find it as effective as he is just going back to the usual SJW bogeyman instead of introducing something unexpectedly crazy.
Jim
“actions of other people will affect us more”
I am not sure that it is accurate that the “actions of other people will affect us more”. I do believe that we may become more aware of how the actions of other people do affect us. Because so few of us realize how much we already pay for the preventable ill health of others, I think that the real affect may be that we become more aware of the true costs of our care. For example, many people I talk to about health care are not currently cognizant of the costs of having people use the ER as their only source of care and thus think, as some of our GOP legislators have recently articulated that everything is fine since a person can use the ER as care provider of last resort. If everyone knew just how much that raises their own hidden costs and taxes, I can confidently predict that there would be an outcrying for universal, less expensive care.
Tia,
Agreed that there are lots of hidden costs and opportunity costs in the healthcare arena. I was having a discussion like this with a crazy woman in the park on Saturday.
We pay for lots of care indirectly and we have opportunity costs in not taking care of children. It’s also seemed the height of idiocy to pay for healthcare for old people but not children.
Howard
1. The use of children in order to identify their parents was exactly what I was alluding to.
2. I agree that there are extremist states on both ends of the political spectrum. However, I do not agree with you that using taxes to modulate, as opposed to dictate behavior are in any way similar. They are on completely separate mountains, let alone the “same slippery slope” from ICE activities. The reason is that while ICE is a “force”, the others are voluntary. There is nothing at all to force a person to purchase or not purchase a sugary beverage. If that is what one really wants, you can save up until you have enough. Or you can drink the free water from the fountains at the park. I have no problem with discouragement, even strong discouragement from doing something slowly lethal to yourself. The dividing line in my mind is the use of force. You may see them as similar. I see no similarity whatsoever.