ICE Rigged Its Vetting Tool To Make Sure It Can Always Keep Immigrants Locked Up
from the dick-move-upon-dick-move dept
As the rhetoric has amped up around immigration enforcement, so have the tactics. ICE was never anyone’s idea of a good time, but its actions have become much more aggressive, thanks to this administration’s steady stream of anti-immigrant sentiment. While not supporting the criminal activity engaged in by its informants, ICE is performing warrantless raids, deporting critics, and claiming helping undocumented children is a criminal offense.
Now, it’s getting its software to pitch in. Reuters reports ICE is detaining more people than ever, keeping them imprisoned while their court cases — which may take years to adjudicate — are pending. Up until recently, ICE would make a determination on the risk level of detainees, allowing some to post bond and stay with their families while their court cases played out.
That’s no longer the case. The system ICE uses to make this determination — detain/release — is still being used. But the info fed into it no longer matters. Thanks to Trump’s orders, there’s no determination being made. The software is a facade that spits out a single answer, no matter what info its given.
To conform to Trump’s policies, Reuters has learned, ICE modified a tool officers have been using since 2013 when deciding whether an immigrant should be detained or released on bond. The computer-based Risk Classification Assessment uses statistics to determine an immigrant’s flight risk and danger to society.
Previously, the tool automatically recommended either “detain” or “release.” Last year, ICE spokesman Bourke said, the agency removed the “release” recommendation, but he noted that ICE personnel can override it.
This caused detentions to triple in 2017. And the software, which is supposed to perform a risk assessment, no longer does anything at all. It may be overridden by ICE personnel, but why would any ICE employee bother? The president made it clear he wants immigrants locked up or kicked out. A rigged machine makes it easy to ignore mitigating factors in favor of treating everyone as the “worst of the worst” ICE is actually supposed to be targeting.
At this point, it makes no sense to even have the system running. ICE may as well drop the charade and just detain everyone. The discretion was built into the system, but that’s been removed. That leaves everything up to the discretion of ICE officers, who have zero motivating forces pushing them towards more lenient behavior.
This is another small step towards diminishing the protections of the Constitution. The government operates a system that pretends to offer a fair balancing of relevant factors, but has secretly removed one of the two options immigrants are supposed to have. Couple this with President Trump’s tweet about stripping away the last vestiges of due process at the border and you have a government progressively undermining the rights that actually make America great.
Filed Under: algorithms, detain, detention, ice, release, risk
Comments on “ICE Rigged Its Vetting Tool To Make Sure It Can Always Keep Immigrants Locked Up”
"the protections of the Constitution" don't extend to invaders.
BY THEIR CHOICE. Come here on own initiative and can LEAVE at any time. In the past, they could expect to be let loose AND supported by taxpayers.
There aren’t tens of millions with legitimate asylum claims, it’s nearly all carefully coached lies — as the real data shows, besides that allowing in gang members, drug traffickers, and those who expect to live on our largesse is just plain self-destructive.
We’re not obliged to commit suicide. We aren’t ignorant aborigines who can’t resist, nor sappy socialists. — By the way, notice how unlimited immigration is now at forefront of European Union topics too? — Where the hell is a UNION in allowing unlimited foreigners who can ONLY tear your country apart?
No, kid: it’s PROTECTING MY RIGHTS, not those you make up out of the blue for foreigners whose first act here is violate our laws by ILLEGAL entry.
Re: "the protections of the Constitution" don't extend to invaders.
You need more capital letters to help with your racist rant.
Re: Re: "the protections of the Constitution" don't extend to invaders.
The “invaders” rhetoric is irrelevant. The only real question is what the flight risk is and how likely it is that the accused will show up for their court appearance.
Re: Re:
And there aren’t tens of millions of people crossing the border, either. Also, referring to immigrants as “invaders” is a hell of a Trumpian thing to do.
Re: Re: That hair can split the other way.
Well. There are at least an estimated 11 million illegal aliens residing in the US currently.
Re: "the protections of the Constitution" don't extend to invaders.
BY THEIR CHOICE. Come here on own initiative and can LEAVE at any time. In the past, they could expect to be let loose AND supported by taxpayers.
The vast majority of immigrants are net positive for the economy and are not supported by taxpayers. But, for some reason, racist assholes don’t seem to want to admit that.
There aren’t tens of millions with legitimate asylum claims
Nor are their tens of millions of people crossing the border. But, nice try.
it’s nearly all carefully coached lies
That accurately describes the drivel that you are spewing, yes.
besides that allowing in gang members, drug traffickers, and those who expect to live on our largesse
Again, that’s a very, very, very, very small percentage of those coming across the border. And, besides, they all still deserve the basic rights and due process afforded to ANYONE on American soil.
We’re not obliged to commit suicide.
Respecting people’s rights is suicide? What the fuck?
unlimited foreigners who can ONLY tear your country apart?
What a bunch of bigoted bullshit. Your family immigrated at some point too.
No, kid: it’s PROTECTING MY RIGHTS
It’s not protecting your rights to lock up people without any basis to do so.
you make up out of the blue for foreigners
The Supreme Court has made it clear for well over a century that the US Constitution grants rights to people on American soil, whether they are citizens are not.
Why do you disagree with the Constitution?
Re: "the protections of the Constitution" don't extend to invaders.
"the protections of the Constitution" don’t extend to invaders.
This 1896 decision by the SCOTUS essentially says you’re full of shit:
[A]ll persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guarantied by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
But you go right on making shit up. Whatever makes you feel better, jackass.
Re: "the protections of the Constitution" don't extend to invaders.
Goodness, you’re a disgusting human being.
Too bad we can get rid of you and that other douchebag to an actual shithole.
Re: Re: "the protections of the Constitution" don't extend to invaders.
I’m really sorry to have triggered you, snowflake! Better grab your gun and head to your safe space.
Fact of the matter is I wash my balls with the tears of you nose-picking tards.
Re: Re: Re: "the protections of the Constitution" don't extend to invaders.
wow you sound like such a nice person. I bet you have loads of friends who adore you.
Re: Re: Re: "the protections of the Constitution" don't extend to invaders.
Sounds like someon has a full nappy and is up way past bedtime.
Re: Re: Re: "the protections of the Constitution" don't extend to invaders.
I’m really sorry to have triggered you, snowflake! Better grab your gun and head to your safe space.
Pointing out you’re an ignorant asshole is not being triggered. But, the fact that you react that way to someone calling out your bullshit certainly suggests someone is a bit sensitive about the quality of their bullshit arguments.
Re: Re: Re: triggered...snowflake...safe space...
Wow, dude. You sound like you’ve been hurt terribly.
Please consider therapy or group support before you consider taking radical or violent action. You sound triggered. I suspect for you, triggers are common.
At least with support or in a recovery program you might learn what triggers and safe spaces actually are.
Re: What if the migrants are sovereign citizens like yourself?
Re: "the protections of the Constitution" don't extend to invaders.
The protections of the constitution extend to everyone. That’s the point of the constitution, to give everyone the same rights, because it doesn’t state it only applies to specific people. And I’d be glad to admit i was wrong, if you can prove to me the constitution only applies to certain people and not others, and that means referencing the exact line/s and even quoting the section specifying those exceptions.
If i have to do the same, and you are willing to admit you were wrong, then I wouldn’t mind doing the same. Considering you like to throw conjecture and opinions out as factual arguments, I won’t hold my breath.
Maybe because the policy was changed to zero tolerance?
You know, once of the things Trump ran on.
Re: Re:
By going on about “zero tolerance”, you’re admitting that they are breaking the law. In the past, the policy has been more open.
So, basically, you’re ranting about trump actually enforcing the law of the land.
Re: Re: Re:
I didn’t rant at all, actually. I agree with what’s going on.
If people have a problem with how we’re holding those who are overloading our resources by crossing our border illegally, there’s a simple solution.
Allow us to build a wall, to curtain the majority of these illegal crossings.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Allow us to build a wall, to curtain the majority of these illegal crossings.
Sounds great – when’s the check from Mexico coming?
And have you seen the prototype with the see-through concrete?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/14/trumps-border-wall-look-at-numbers.html
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I don’t care if we have to pay for it. It’ll save us money in the long run, despite what people say.
And I’m sure there would be interests attempting to make it as weak/easily bypassed as possible. It’s time to wake up to this shit, and let our ‘representatives’ know we won’t stand for it anymore.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You control all three branches of government. Nothing’s stopping you from building it…
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I care if we have to pay for it. I mean, we don’t want to mortgage our children’s future for more debt, do we?
Or does the debt only matter when a democrat is in office?
But seriously, what happened to Mexico paying for it?
Was that just more bullshit? If we can’t trust him to make Mexico pay for it, how can we trust him about the cost?
I.mean he was supposed to lock her up too…still waiting for that. I’m starting to think he’s a lying shitbag. Better wait until we get a president we can trust so he doesn’t fuck the wall up too. See through concrete doesn’t sound too effective to me.
Re: Re: Re:4 Numeracy is dead.
Mortgage our future? The entire wall is the cost of one year’s worth of Food Stamps or one year of NIH funded drug research.
Re: Re: Re:5 Numeracy is dead.
So if it’s that insignificant, maybe we should’ve used part of the 1.9 trillion in “tax cuts.”
Re: Re: Re:5 Numeracy is dead.
So then, Mexico isn’t paying for it?
"I will build a great wall — and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me –and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words." – DJT
I marked his words. Does Mexico fund the NIH or food stamps or something I don’t know about?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
It’ll save us money in the long run, despite what people say.
Let’s break that down a bit, using the same article from Fox News, the most trusted news source, and a personal favorite of Donald Trump.
Per the article, Trump said: "We have a lousy wall over here now, but at least it stops 90, 95 percent," Trump said. "When we put up the real wall, we’re going to stop 99 percent. Maybe more than that."
So we’re looking to build a wall that will address the 4-9% of people who the wall doesn’t stop. I’m sure 100% isn’t achievable, but then again, I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if Trump had no idea what a ladder was.
In 2017 there were an estimated 304,000 apprehensions at the southern border. Since the wall is already 90% effective – Trump’s own words – (and let’s use the worse case because why not?), then an estimated 31,000 walked past the border guards.
What’s being proposed is spending 23 billion dollars on a wall to prevent 31,000 people from entering per year. Assuming the same rate over 10 years, you will end up spending $75,000 per person on this fucking wall ($23,000,000,000/310,000 – not including interest, because let’s face it, between the military, the tax cuts, and helping the farmers that trump fucked over there’s not a lot of spare funds).
But to you, that makes fiscal sense?
I hope whatever you do for a living doesn’t involve counting. Because as far as math goes, you really suck at it.
Re: Re: Re:2 "Think of the children" cuts both ways.
Who cares? If this keeps toddlers from being dragged across the Arizona desert in summer, then it’s a worthy expenditure.
That little girl that was used as a poster child for this issue changed my mind on the wall.
Re: Re: Re:3 "Think of the children" cuts both ways.
Mexico not paying for it changed mine.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have fallen for the standard tactic of the very rich when they think that the wealth disparity will cause them problems. That is get the population to turn onto some easily created enemy which can be blamed for the economic problems the very rich are are causing.
Re: Re: Re: Re:-
What resources are being overloaded- aside from bureaucratic mess that is our immigration system?
Our nation now has more jobs than available workers.
We have an aging population without a sufficient replacement workforce to support their social security, or work in nursing homes or assist independent living.
The construction industry needs affordable labor to build affordable housing- especially with the tariffs driving up supply costs.
Schools- or rather the district bureaucrats- need to be forced to show accountability for how the ridiculous amount of money they get is being spent- because it’s improving education. Immigrants would also provide additional tax base necessary to fund the pension and healthcare bills of retiring workers.
Immigrants are mostly younger, more healthy, and use less healthcare than US citizens. More healthy people spreads the risk and lowers health insurance prices. And again, we need more people to fill the low skill/low pay positions that support direct care like CNAs.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:-
correction- school districts need to show how they spend money because it’s NOT on improving education
Firstly, stop saying just “immigrant” when the subject is ILLEGAL immigrants. You’re conflating in purpose.
Second, if they’re here illegaly, GTFO. I don’t mind prioritizing the more dangerous folks, but they all can and should be deported.
There’s nothing wrong with a system that just says “deport=true”.
Re: Re:
Immigrant.
Re: Re: Re:
Alien. You aren’t an immigrant until you naturalize. Until they you’re just visiting.
Assuming otherwise is really denigrating to the rest of the world. It’s a weird sort of liberal brand of exceptionalism. “They’re here. Of course they want to be one of us. They’re not just here to make money and go back home”.
Re: Re:
A person is not illegal.
Re: Re: Re:
The word being used is “immigrant,” not “person.” In fact, 99% of the world that isn’t an absolute sh!thole, and even some that is, recognizes immigration only in accordance with established laws. Thus, while there is an absolute right to exist, there is not an absolute right to move anywhere in the world you want. If you contend there is, give me your address and I’ll just start living at your place – and don’t you dare call me an illegal occupant.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
An act of immigration that does not comply with the given laws of a specific country can be illegal. But an immigrant is a person, and a person is not illegal.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Man, these “you’re in America, dammit, speak English!” guys don’t usually have a very good grasp of basic syntax or grammar, do they?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, “Immigrant” refers to a person who has completed all legal requirements and been granted Citizenship.
Jumping the border doesn’t make you an “immigrant” of any stripe – you become an Illegal alien.
If you want to work in another country, you apply for, and are usually granted, Legal Alien status. Which simply means that you are NOT trying to become a Citizen, but have fulfilled the legal requirements to work in that country.
And can we knock it off with all the RACIST!!!! garbage? Being NOT WHITE CHRISTIAN is no excuse for breaking laws. Nor is having a cellphone and declaring yourself a “journalist” license to break laws.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
We need a new internet law where anytime a person begins a post with “Well actually” or “Actually” it can safely be assumed that what follows will be racist, mysoginist, homophobic or all three.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The Oxford English Dictionary disagrees with your assertion.
Re: Re: Re:3 No, not really.
WHO CARES what the OED says.
I know people that have been here for decades. I don’t arrogantly assume they want to become American out of some misplaced sense of national superiority.
Re: Re: Re:4 No, not really.
Who cares what words mean? I mean it’s not like the OED is an exhaustive mutually agreed upon source for what the stupid coming out of you mouth means…
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
What do you arrogantly assume about those people, then?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Why yes, it would be great if you would knock it off with all the racist garbage.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
But then however could he carry on without his raison d’être?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is another one of the dumbest arguments against generally open borders, saying those of us that favor it must allow immigrants to live in our houses.
Immigrants crossing US borders are not forcing themselves into private homes. Public land and infrastructure are public- you don’t own it anymore than I do. And once someone pays for gas or transportation- they are contributing to the tax fund used to build and maintain roads, and have the same rights to use as everyone else. In fact, every cent they spend in the US contributes to taxes in some manner.
Unless someone is a known committer of violence or fraud, I see no reason to block their entry. Citizenship- voting rights- should continue to require significantly more. But to coming here to build a better life- whether running from violence or lack of opportunity to avoid starvation- should be simple and not drive people to avoid a lawful process.
Re: Re:
Better ‘Immigrant’ then ‘Illegal’ which is dehumanizing tens of millions of people (similar to racist slurs people called some enemies, like ‘gooks’ for the enemy in Vietnam).
I’m not making this up. Hispanic groups have said that shortening Illegal Immigrant to just Illegal is a dehumanizing racist slur.
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re:
Second, if they’re here illegaly, GTFO.
So um, then why are you putting them in camps instead of, you know, getting them the fuck out?
Do you tards even know what you want anymore, or is trump dementia contagious?
Re: Re: Re:
Because once they make it onto our lands, and claim asylum, they have to go through our asylum proceedings. As it’s the established law.
Building a wall would allow us to control who gets onto our land, and we wouldn’t have to waste so many resources sorting out this mess.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you believe such a wall will absolutely stop all illegal immigration, you should be pushing for a wall at the Canadian border, too.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
And all along the coasts, too.
Just make sure you make it watertight.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, I just thought Mexico was sending a check for it.
There’s rallies where he yells “Who’s gonna pay for the wall?” and all the chimps yell “Mexico!”
You telling me they weren’t serious? They sure sounded serious…
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
How would USA force Mexico to pay for the wall? By invading the nation? At gun-point? How?
It’s safe to say that if we built the wall, we would be paying for it. Depending on what the wall was made of, it could be for a long time.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
By kidnapping Mexican children into illegal concentration camps. Using the inhumane treatment of children as a bargaining chip was the (moronic) intent behind it.
Re: Re: Re:4 It happens to all perps.
Your hysterical nonsense is a result of Obama’s mass detention of families being struck down by the courts. We can’t arrest the parents without sending the kids somewhere else.
It’s no different than if you were to be arrested for drunk driving and vehicular manslaughter.
Re: Re: Re:5 It happens to all perps.
Jaywalking*
Re: Re: Re:5 It happens to all perps.
WhataboutObama!
Drink!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
If I recall correctly, Trump’s proposal during the campaign appeared to be to commandeer the money which Mexican immigrants attempt to send home to their families, until the cost of the wall had been paid off. (Thereby also decreasing the incentive to come to the US in the first place, since they wouldn’t be able to help support their families by doing so.)
I don’t think I’ve heard so much as one whisper of this since the election. And not much about it as Election Day got close, either.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
If I recall correctly, Trump’s proposal during the campaign appeared to be to commandeer the money which Mexican immigrants attempt to send home to their families, until the cost of the wall had been paid off.
Hmmmmm….and in order for that to actually work, the Mexican immigrants would need to reside in the United States.
So then it stands to reason, we should be letting more of them in so that there’s more cash to take.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I think the idea is that there are already enough of them here (legally as well as illegally) that it would work even if we manage to keep all the ones still trying to come here from getting in.
And/or a certain amount of assumption that ramping up to a point where we could completely prevent them from getting in would take long enough that the wall could be paid off in the meantime.
There’s any number of holes in the idea, of course – which might have something to do with the reason why it doesn’t seem to have been talked about very much for a while.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I think the idea is that there are already enough of them here (legally as well as illegally) that it would work even if we manage to keep all the ones still trying to come here from getting in.
But if we let more of them in, then by this idea, there’d be more money to take.
mo money = gooder wall
Hell, we let enough of them in and we could build that fucking wall up the eastern and western coasts! And across the northern border too! To keep the cold air out!
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I refer you to a comment from a previous discussion on this subject:
I consider it appropriate that Mexico should pay for a wall along its border, Canada should do likewise, and then maybe the world community will agree to spring for a lid.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
How would USA force Mexico to pay for the wall?
Perhaps all the chimps cheering for it should tell us. It was Trump’s promise, on many occasions.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/06/16/watch-highlights-donald-trumps-2016-announcement-ill-build-border-wall-and-mexico-will
I never heard Trump say we were paying for it. Never.
I’m just finding it hard to trust him to accurately scope out building a snow fort, much less a $23B wall, given how full of shit he was then and continues to be now.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Depending on what the wall was made of, it could be for a long time.
See-through concrete maybe. Same stuff the Space Force uses.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/14/trumps-border-wall-look-at-numbers.html
He said he prefers a concrete wall because it was the hardest to climb, but also said he wants it to be see-through.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Looking for a way for those two statements to be compatible (in hopes of maybe finding a way to avoid the fall-back conclusion that he wasn’t thinking it through at all), maybe he wants a wall honeycombed with small holes, too small to crawl (or, presumably, pass small items – like packaged drugs) through but big enough to let people see what’s on the other side?
I’m not sure that would be particularly practical, but at least it’s not as obviously nonsensical as transparent concrete.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
in hopes of maybe finding a way to avoid the fall-back conclusion that he wasn’t thinking it through at all
Trade wars are easy to win.
I’m going repeal and replace Obamacare with something cheaper and better.
If I win I’m going to instruct my attorney general to look into your situation.
I’m going to renegotiate NAFTA.
I’m going to broker a better deal with Iran.
Mark my words, Mexico will pay for the wall.
Yeah, don’t bother.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
It’s more an intellectual exercise than anything; I always like to try to see if there’s some way, no matter how much of a stretch, the other party’s position could make sense from some perspective.
I even manage that with Trump, often enough.
That doesn’t mean the perspective from which that position makes sense is right, or even sane, of course.
Re: Re:
Covered this last week, hoss. You must have missed it, so I’ll just quote it in full:
land of the free, home of the brave, i dont think! seems to me to be anything but, with a few extremely powerful and equally as extremely bias people calling all the shots! what the hell has happened to this great nation? it’s so abhorrent to see it degrading like this!
Re: Re:
what the hell has happened to this great nation?
Stupid people. Lots of them. Turned it into a downright shithole.
Re: Re: Stupid people
I’ve hypothesized before it’s a primal thing. Rats that overpopulate will turn on themselves when the food supply runs out. We may make up excuses for why we do it, but we do it all the same.
Right now the top ten thousand families control more than half the wealth, and the rest of us are working harder to earn less than ever before. So we’re feeling the scarcity.
And it’s easier to blame weirdos, whether racial minorities or religious minorities or whatever. And migrants always have strange, alien customs and strange, alien looks about them and worship strange, alien gods. So they’re easy targets.
The alt-right even continues to hate on the Jews, and it’s only because it’s a dead giveaway that our administration doesn’t capitalize on that as well.
Re: Re: Re: Stupid people
Eh. I think that’s a contributing factor, but Trump voters had an above-average income. Some people are just racist (or, if we’re to give them the benefit of the doubt, merely indifferent to racism) regardless of their income.
Sure it does; it just takes a little bit more care coding it in dog-whistles. Trump’s initial failure to condemn David Duke and the KKK, his "very fine people on both sides" remarks after Charlottesville, plus hiring guys like Gorka and Bannon (though at least they’re gone now).
‘Merika where the illusion of Justice is alive and well even when the government robs citizens of property without conviction, where the outcome is determined before the question is even asked, where the court can never hear the reason information was leaked, where those representing the government have said the pillars of the legal system don’t really count for much, where we think a lawyer with 15 min to review your entire case is adequate representation, where copying a song had higher penalties than polluting a waterway.
Incorrect false artical
A imagrant that is here illegaly dosn’t have one iota of a constitutional right of being here. So, yes they all are criminal if they broken our laws of being here, with out going through the proper channels. End of question.
Re: Incorrect false artical
So they have no right of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness?
Then why don’t we just shoot them all and be done with it?
Re: Wrong, try again
The US Supreme Court says otherwise.
Re: "Proper Channels"
Usually I hear this as an excuse to persecute whistleblowers. But it works just as well to persecute migrants.
I expect it’s soon going to be used to persecute protestors.
Dissidents.
Re: Incorrect false artical
Artacal is carrekt. Yu ar rong. Youse dickshonary nex tym.
Deja vu
Sounds like ICE treats their ‘vetting’ software the same way police treat their probable cause on four legs: As a legal excuse to do what they wanted to do anyway. So long as it does what they want it to accuracy can hang.
Re: Deja vu
More like a drug-testing kit.
Instructions:
1. Open vacuum-sealed pouch.
2. Remove blue test strip.
3. A blue test strip indicates the presence of narcotics.
4. Officer may override blueness at his/her discretion.
Wow.
We actually invented the probable cause wand.