ICE Trying To Deport Journalist For Reporting On Abusive ICE Behavior

from the thugs-in-uniforms dept

For many years (looong before this current administration), we've documented the problems with ICE, a government agency that has long been totally out of control, abusing its power and authority not just in dealing with immigration, but in literally seizing blogs, because Hollywood told them to do so. The organization has done nothing to improve its reputation over the years, and lately almost seems to relish in the free reign it has to act like complete thugs in uniform.

The latest story -- as with seizing blogs -- appears to have some serious First Amendment concerns, though there's no indication that ICE cares at all about that. In this story, ICE detained a journalist and is trying to have him deported because of that reporter's coverage of ICE activities. Freedom of the Press has the details, but the short version is that Manuel Duran, who fled El Salvador a decade ago over death threats there, has been living in the US and reporting for a few different Spanish language news organizations.

In April, he was reporting on immigration protests in Memphis when he was arrested. That, by itself, is problematic enough. All too often we've seen reporters being arrested for covering protests, despite multiple courts stating quite clearly that such arrests violate the First Amendment. Indeed, Duran's own case was dropped and the judge dismissed the case. However, ICE not only refused to let Duran out of jail, it transferred him to another ICE detention center, and are trying to deport him back to El Salvador.

Duran has been living in the United States for over a decade, since he fled from El Salvador after his life was threatened. His life is here, and this is his community. He has worked for Memphis publication Las Noticias for years, where he has done important reporting exposing ties between local police and ICE and covered immigration detention.

Duran’s attorneys say it is precisely this critical reporting that led law enforcement to target him. "The actions pursued by government officials in this case threaten core First Amendment freedoms that are essential to our democracy: the right to criticize and expose the actions of government officials, and the right of members of the press to write and publish about them," a legal filing by Duran’s attorneys states.

Duran wrote a statement from behind bars, which was read by his girlfriend at a press event in Memphis on April 16. “This episode in my life has not been easy, but I have taken it as an opportunity to learn first hand the drama and reality that our families are living when they are arrested by immigration and then deported,” it reads. “This is a cruel system that criminalizes people who pose no danger to this country.”

Once again, it appears that continuing to detain him is a clear attack on the First Amendment. Some will almost certainly argue that if he's undocumented, there's no excuse and he should be deported. But the fact that he was clearly targeted for his 1st Amendment protected activities should be a massive concern to everyone -- even those who agree with plans to deport undocumented people in America.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 1:56am

    'Vindictive' is putting it mildly

    Freedom of the Press has the details, but the short version is that Manuel Duran, who fled El Salvador a decade ago over death threats there.

    ...

    However, ICE not only refused to let Duran out of jail, it transferred him to another ICE detention center, and are trying to deport him back to El Salvador.

    I find it rather difficult(read: Impossible) to believe that they've kept him locked up this long and are unaware of his history, so by trying to deport him back to the place that he fled to save his own life they are basically making it clear that they have no objection to quite possibly literally sending him to his death.

    For contrast, consider a case from earlier this year over in the UK. In that one extradition to the US was denied because the defense argued, and the court agreed, that US treatment of prisoners was so bad that they couldn't in good conscious send them to the US to be tried.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Erik, 25 May 2018 @ 5:36pm

      Re: 'Vindictive' is putting it mildly

      I am on the immigrants side on all of this if they are law abiding people, especially if they are coming here to escape persecution. Did he ever apply for asylum? Did he ever try to properly immigrate? Ten years I think it said he was here. I honestly don't know what I'd do in that situation

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 8:04pm

        The system really, really wants to throw them out.

        That's the problem, the system is decidedly not on their side whether or not they come to escape persecution. Check out John Oliver's LWT bit on Immigration Court. They require four year olds to defend themselves without either a lawyer or a child welfare advocate. (Adults don't get a lawyer either, nor much more than two minutes before a DoJ attorney. They don't even get to see an actual judge.)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 6:31pm

      Re: 'Vindictive' is putting it mildly

      Be Glad you aren't British in England

      Tommy Robertson was arrested today for
      "inciting people to riot " by just talking online
      about Muslim child rapists who were in court to be
      sentenced .
      All caught as he was live streaming .
      I'm so glad that mainstream media is covering this as
      much as they have .
      Almost like how mainstream media is crying fowl over Colin Noir about his video that big media didn't even finish seeing to the end before they burn him on the stake .
      Google it people
      Big media is out to screw you over and you all are cheering them on

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        spodula, 29 May 2018 @ 12:33am

        Re: Re: 'Vindictive' is putting it mildly

        yeah, the fact there was a reporting ban to avoid predudicing the trial, and he violated a previous order have nothing to do with it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 25 May 2018 @ 3:39am

    Sounds a bit different to me.

    More like "ICE wants to deport undocumented immigrant discovered in the context of arresting protesters without authority".

    They'd probably want to deport him when discovering him in any other way, too.

    So basically the question is whether this is sufficiently "fruit of the forbidden tree" to give him a free pass once. Problem with that is that they can hardly pretent not having gotten notice of him now, so that would be a short relief.

    The proper solution, of course, would have involved a formal application for refugee status.

    I'll readily admit that this looks shitty but it does not sound like he has bothered giving the U.S. authorities a chance to actually consider the death threats he got for deciding about whether to admit him as a refugee.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      icon
      Bamboo Harvester (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 4:36am

      Re: Sounds a bit different to me.

      Agreed. He wasn't picked up for reporting, he drew attention to himself THROUGH his reporting.

      I'm tired of this "undocumented" sophistry. It's only used because of all the "what part of ILLEGAL in illegal alien do you not understand?".

      He broke the law(s) of this country. He got caught. Through his own actions. Makes it hard to be sympathetic.

      Also, if he was truly under death threats, he should have applied for Asylum over a decade ago when he first jumped the border.

      Gotta wonder WHY he was under a death pall in El Salvador to begin with.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Vel the Enigmatic, 25 May 2018 @ 5:32am

        Re: Re: Sounds a bit different to me.

        At what point is it ever mentioned Manuel is undocumented?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 5:43am

          Re: Re: Re: Sounds a bit different to me.

          The Memphis Daily News reported that he was arrested for being an undocumented immigrant outside the courtroom.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 8:28am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds a bit different to me.

            What is the difference between undocumented and illegal in reference to immigrants?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              David, 25 May 2018 @ 9:13am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds a bit different to me.

              "Illegal" implies a crime rather than residing without legitimation. The consequences of a crime are punishment like prison terms, the consequences of residing without legitimation may be deportation.

              Residing without legitimation is often connected with crimes, and a number of them committed by proper citizens (often the violation of labor laws).

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 2:08pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds a bit different to me.

                "Illegal" implies a crime

                It can also describe something that's not permitted, but is not a criminal offense—like parking in a no-parking zone.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 9:38am

              Undocumented vs Illegal

              What is the difference between undocumented and illegal in reference to immigrants?

              Politics, mostly. "Undocumented" sounds less pejorative than "illegal." Noncitizen "lawful permanent residents" (i.e. such as "green card" holders) are by definition lawfully present and will not be deported by the government absent some specific event. Being arrested for being in the wrong place, but being found not guilty, would not be such an event. If the individual in question were a lawful permanent resident, he might still spend some unjustified time in jail until an attorney made the case that he was not involved in a crime. Once that happened, he would be released and go back to his life.

              By contrast, people who are not citizens and are present without any government permission (green card, asylum, various visas, etc.) are present in violation of Federal immigration law, hence "illegally present" or "illegal immigrant." When discovered, they can be detained and referred for deportation even if they live an otherwise model life (valuable member of the community, no criminal activity, etc.). Per the article, that appears to be what happened here. The detainee was not known to ICE and was at no risk of discovery or deportation. He involved himself in a situation where the police started arresting people (whether the arrests were justified is irrelevant here). He got arrested. Once arrested, someone noticed he was not a lawful resident, so now ICE wants to deport him. If he had not been there, he would not have been arrested and would have remained unknown to ICE. If they had liked his coverage, maybe they would have released him before anyone thought to check his immigration status. Maybe they checked everyone who got arrested, in which case avoiding arrest is the only way to avoid this situation.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Thad, 25 May 2018 @ 8:16am

        Re: Re: Sounds a bit different to me.

        Jeez, I think the transition from "He wasn't picked up for reporting, he drew attention to himself THROUGH his reporting" to "I'm tired of sophistry" gave me whiplash.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 8:25am

        Re: Re: Sounds a bit different to me.

        "Undocumented" isn't even correct now that there's an arrest report and ICE records.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 10:54am

      Re: Sounds a bit different to me.

      They'd probably want to deport him when discovering him in any other way, too.

      Nope. It appears he was singled out for his reporting, which should concern even

      So basically the question is whether this is sufficiently "fruit of the forbidden tree" to give him a free pass once. Problem with that is that they can hardly pretent not having gotten notice of him now, so that would be a short relief.

      That's not what fruit of the forbidden tree means, but glad you've picked up some terminology you don't understand.

      I'll readily admit that this looks shitty but it does not sound like he has bothered giving the U.S. authorities a chance to actually consider the death threats he got for deciding about whether to admit him as a refugee.

      How do you know that?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 11:52am

      Re: Sounds a bit different to me.

      I'll readily admit that this looks shitty but it does not sound like he has bothered giving the U.S. authorities a chance to actually consider the death threats he got for deciding about whether to admit him as a refugee.

      Depending on the immediacy of the threats it's entirely possible he didn't because he didn't feel he had time. It could have been a situation of 'leave now and enter the country illegally', or go 'try to go through the legal process and not being able to leave at all.'

      As for once he was here, he might not have wanted to take the risk of applying for refugee status just in case the answer turned out to be 'no' and he was sent back(the fact that he'd already entered the country illegally would probably not work in his favor there). Whether that worry was a valid one or not, I would find it hard to blame him for not wanting to risk it given the possible outcome.

      Whatever the case though, trying to send him back is, as I noted above, quite possibly literally sending him to his death. He's undocumented and entered illegally, fine, but a death sentence(or at the least indifference to it) seems a tad harsh of a punishment for someone who's apparently been productively living in the US for a decade.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 28 May 2018 @ 3:05am

      Re: Sounds a bit different to me.

      You will not find any part of the Constitution that requires you to be a citizen to have rights -- especially since the Constitution protects those rights by prohibiting government action, not by granting anyone any rights whatsoever.

      For that matter, you won't find any explicit requirement that someone even be human to be a citizen.

      Federal law makes it a crime for anyone acting under color of law to violate any civil, statutory or constitutional right within any territory controlled by the United States or by any government official of the United States. This crime ranges from a misdemeanor for the most basic violation, through felony and all the way to capital crime in extreme cases. Any two or more people who conspire to commit such a crime (and ICE agents never act alone), have automatically committed a felony under these laws. (Title 18, Sections 241 & 242).

      It simply doesn't matter if he's legal, illegal, or not even human. When ICE decided to go after him for exercising a right protected by the first amendment, all the ICE agents involved committed a federal crime punishable by ten years in a federal prison!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Hero, 25 May 2018 @ 5:09am

    Oh come on. This is just another example of someone trying to hide behind the First Amendment.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gwiz (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 7:02am

      Re:

      Oh come on. This is just another example of someone trying to hide behind the First Amendment.

       

      You do know that that is a feature, not a bug, right?

      The First Amendment (and all of the Bill of Rights) was specifically designed to shield individual persons from tyrannical actions of the US government.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 8:25am

        Re: Re:

        Even non-citizens? I don't recall that bit from school.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 8:29am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Maybe a refresher course is in order.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 11:58am

          The Bill of Rights applies to everyone. Period.

          Yes, occasionally we'll get officials who, amid all their other bullshit will explicitly say that is not the case, but courts have often affirmed that the rights charted in the Bill of Rights are inalienable.

          Granted, this doesn't stop the courts from ignoring those rights, but they seem to not discriminate between Americans and aliens when ignoring them as well.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          The Wanderer (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 5:13pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Of course. If you look at the text of the First Amendment, you will not see anything in there about citizenship.

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

          The only mention of even "the people" in there is about peaceful assembly and asking the government to make things right.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Bergman (profile), 28 May 2018 @ 3:11am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            There are certain things that are required in order to exercise those rights, that those rights are effectively abolished without.

            If you can't find out that the government is breaking the law, you cannot petition for redress. If the press gets deported for exercising the freedom of the press, then their freedom has been infringed.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Bergman (profile), 28 May 2018 @ 3:09am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The Constitution doesn't grant anyone any rights whatsoever. It protects rights that everyone already has from birth by prohibiting certain government actions.

          Federal statutes additionally make it a federal crime to violate anyone's civil, statutory or constitutional rights under color of law, which makes every ICE agent involved in the man's arrest, detention, trial and deportation for exercising rights protected by the first amendment guilty of a federal crime punishable by ten years in a federal prison!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Hero, 25 May 2018 @ 9:45am

        Re: Re:

        I was being sarcastic.

        Not too long ago there was a TechDirt article where law enforcement was upset that people who were arrested for protesting against Trump were "hiding behind the first amendment".

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          David, 25 May 2018 @ 10:00am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Well, "hiding behind the First Amendment" seems much more apt in this case, doesn't it? Basically the answer to "you have no legal resident status" is "but you figured this out while I was engaging in First Amendment protected activities".

          Their reason for arresting him was in violation of the First Amendment. But that case is over. It does not legitimate his stay. Being under threat of getting killed in El Salvador would cause a legitimate reason to stay but that case has to be put forward yet. If he has worked as a journalist about deportation for 10 years, hopefully he got enough of a clue to put his ducks in a row in time and prepare his case.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 11:51am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "hiding behind the first amendment"

          This phrase reminded me of a prominent example of hiding behind the first amendment, Citizens United v. FEC

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Christopher (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 5:10am

    Lost me at undocumented.

    I was 100% sympathetic to his plight until you used "undocumented" instead of illegal. Speak plainly.

    -C

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 7:08am

      Re: Lost me at undocumented.

      But he's not here illegally, so using that terminology would not be accurate or clear.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 8:27am

        Re: Re: Lost me at undocumented.

        An "undocumented" person having been here for 10+ years is almost certainly here illegally. Does he have a visa? Has he been granted citizenship or asylum? Either of those counts as "documented" so I think not.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 10:13am

          Re: Re: Re: Lost me at undocumented.

          "almost certainly"... bit of an oxymoron? "Almost" kind of kills the "certainly" part. Which means you don't actually know.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 2:01pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost me at undocumented.

            I don't think we *do* know. The article didn't explain what legitimate reasons, if any, this person has to be in the US. But "undocumented" implies he has none. There is a little uncertainty there, thus the use of the word "almost".

            Nice strawman though.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 6:43pm

          Re: Re: Re: Lost me at undocumented.

          This is why you need to do some real research instead of watch Fox News. It is not illegal to remain in the country without permission. Being a non-citizen and undocumented means that he can be deported, but he is not presently breaking the law. He is not illegal, nor are his actions.

          Also, people cannot be illegal because their existence cannot break the law. Only their actions can be illegal. When you say, "speak plainly," you just mean "use the terminology of xenophobes and racists."

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Hans, 26 May 2018 @ 12:01am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost me at undocumented.

            This is why you need to do some real research instead of watch Fox News.

            Heh. Cute. Never watch it, makes me ill.

            It is not illegal to remain in the country without permission. Being a non-citizen and undocumented means that he can be deported, but he is not presently breaking the law. He is not illegal, nor are his actions.

            I'm pretty certain you're either mincing words, or you're horribly confused. (Too much... um... let's see... HuffPo? DailyKos?) How about showing us the research you apparently did?

            As I understand, reason he can be deported is because of a civil violation of the INA. In other words, it's against the law, i.e. illegal, for him to stay in the country. Further, being deported means he will not be able to legally return for a number of years. A punishment for ... wait for it ... breaking the law.

            Entering the country illegally (e.g. without a visa, or after deportation) is a criminal violation of the INA, also illegal, and can get jail time followed by deportation.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2018 @ 10:22am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost me at undocumented.

              "I'm pretty certain you're either mincing words, or you're horribly confused. (Too much... um... let's see... HuffPo? DailyKos?) How about showing us the research you apparently did?"

              Try the Supreme Court of the United States of America: "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States."

              https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

              "As I understand, reason he can be deported is because of a civil violation of the INA. In other words, it's against the law, i.e. illegal, for him to stay in the country."

              An undocumented person can be deported because they are not a citizen, do not have a visa, and otherwise do not have permission to remain. That is not the same as breaking the law. They can also be deported for violations of the law, but that's another scenario.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 25 May 2018 @ 8:15am

      Re: Lost me at undocumented.

      Speak plainly.

      Sure, I'd be happy to. You're a racist.

      ...was that too plain for you?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 8:29am

        Re: Re: Lost me at undocumented.

        I don't know about @Christopher but I'd feel the same if we were talking about someone who came here from England under the same circumstances. This has little to nothing to do with racism. While @Christopher may in fact be a racist there isn't enough information offered here to come close to drawing that conclusion.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 8:32am

          Re: Re: Re: Lost me at undocumented.

          "This has little to nothing to do with racism."

          Not sure how you came to this conclusion.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 8:38am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost me at undocumented.

            Because deportation of illegal aliens is not a race issue despite the far-left's characterization of it as such. While racial profiling does occur and needs to be stopped an illegal alien is still an illegal alien regardless of their point of origin. It only appears to be a race issue because the vast majority of the aliens here illegally are from Spanish or Portuguese speaking countries. They and people from everywhere else are still here illegally and should be sent home. There is a system in place that they can all take advantage of to become citizens and, if they're illegal, they've clearly not availed themselves of it.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 11:54am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost me at undocumented.

              "Because deportation of illegal aliens is not a race issue "

              Your opinion lacks substantiating evidence in support of your claim. To use your own words ... there isn't enough information offered here to come close to drawing that conclusion.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 2:02pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost me at undocumented.

                Deportation as an act is not a race issue. Deportation of this individual might be. There is a big difference between the two.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 3:15pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lost me at undocumented.

                  Oh I see - the tool used in racist behavior is not racist its self - got it.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Bruce C., 25 May 2018 @ 5:24am

    Just can't win...

    It's agencies like ICE that make me think the libertarians are right and we need to cut down government. It's companies like Comcast that make me think the progressives are right and we need to use big government to enforce anti-trust laws and other consumer and worker protections properly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 6:12am

      Re: Just can't win...

      Comcast is a monster that crosses the lines between government-run companies and private companies. They are a state actor since they work hand in hand with the government allowing unfiltered access to their networks without a court order. They get paid handsomely for this access and also get to become monopolies over a good percentage of the population. The reason why they seem to defy the rules is that they are not subject to them any longer.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 7:38am

      Re: Just can't win...

      As with all things, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Government overreach is a problem, but then we also need them to have some teeth because corporation interest will only align with public interest so long as there's money to be made.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 9:21am

      Re: Just can't win...

      Regarding Comcast, the libertarian would point out that Comcast behaves badly because its monopoly position insulates it from pressure to improve. It is a monopoly in part because government-granted exclusions make competing with it more difficult than would apply in a true "free market." Competing with them is by no means cheap even if they aren't protected, but look at how much political trouble Google Fiber encountered trying to deploy a service customers wanted. If Google had been encumbered only by basic safety and reliability laws (the kind a libertarian would admit (perhaps grudgingly) that a government should enforce), rather than the mess that actually exists, then Google Fiber could have rolled out farther and faster than it did.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 26 May 2018 @ 5:17pm

      Re: Just can't win...

      You don't need to "cut down government" to deal with ICE's excessive behaviour and you don't need "big government" to protect consumers and workers. Those are both things any normal government should do. Why does it have to be one extreme or the other?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 26 May 2018 @ 8:24pm

        Big and Small Government

        First off, people don't advocate for big government. There's no one saying that government should be huge or even that government should control everything. Rather, it's fairly accepted that government should be exactly as big as it needs to be, and no bigger.

        The problem is the disagreement regarding which services should be run by the state. Some want the state to only be responsible for civics and the military whereas others realize that other services cannot be trusted to the market, so they need to be heavily regulated, and if that doesn't work, then they need to be socialized entirely.

        The argument against small governments is that they neglect the general welfare. The impoverished and marginalized segments of the public end up unserved, destitute and miserable, and as such ultimately turning to organized crime (that is, an alternative state government) to survive. Yet arguments against big government is that the state does a poor job of providing necessary goods and services so they shouldn't try.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2018 @ 9:18am

          Re: Big and Small Government

          There are those who are well known for their "small government" stance while at the same time increasing government in a huge way. These people are liars.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dan (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 6:53am

    More honest headline

    "ICE Trying to Deport Journalist for Being in the Country Illegally for Ten Years".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      bob, 25 May 2018 @ 10:52am

      Re: More honest headline

      I'm with Dan on this one. I think you need to rewrite your headline.

      I'm sure ICE considers this situation a double win because of the ability to hush up a critic. However they are holding and trying to deport him for illegal immigration.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Mike, 2 Jul 2018 @ 6:09pm

      Re: More honest headline

      "Unlawful" not "illegal".

      It's not a crime to be an undocumented resident - but you have no right to residence, so can still be removed (that's also why you don't get a lawyer during deportation proceedings - the constitution provides one for criminal matters, not civil infractions).

      Unlawful entry is a misdemeanor the first time, a felony thereafter (so you _should_ be given a lawyer). If you can show the government has known about (or should have known about) your status for over 5 years, then statute has expired.

      For example, overstaying a visa exposes you to deportation but not prosecution.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 7:05am

    Seizing blogs

    The linked post only talks about the domain names being seized, which would not be a seizure of the blogs or a "literal" seizure at all.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 8:24am

      Re: Seizing blogs

      They took control over websites claiming they were copyright infringing based on complains from the RIAA, who then shafted them & never produced any evidence to back up their claims.
      In the mean time the owner of the blog was racking up legal fee's to get his property returned to him.

      But sure split them hairs.

      They shutdown a blog with no investigation beyond the RIAA's claims. All of the content they claimed was stolen was sent to the blog by the fscking record labels asking them to post it. They took away this persons livelihood based on lies, denied them a speedy trial, and then decided perhaps there wasn't actually a case and returned it without so much as an apology.

      But sure its no big deal, it wasn't real enough to matter.
      Swap the blog name for InfoWars and tell me if you feel the same.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 7:26am

    Undocumented, illegal, whatever word floats your boat.

    You are perfectly okay with sending someone to a place where they WILL be killed.

    You are perfectly okay with their first bite at the apple not being his immigration status, but trying to silence reporting about them.

    You are perfectly okay with them ignoring the law in doing their jobs.

    You are perfectly okay with the law not being followed b/c of their status despite the law covering them.

    You have decided that b/c of his status we should turn a blind eye to the illegal antics of ICE.

    I just wanted to boil this down for you.

    You can decide he should be deported because of his status & think ICE is a bunch of thugs violating the law of the land which is supposed to make us be the good guys.

    This isn't an either or thing, despite the stupidity since 9/11, if you are willing to allow "others" rights to be trampled to avoid being called a terrorist lover you shouldn't be shocked when the definition of "other" now includes your sorry ass.

    "“Mr. Duran Ortega was ordered removed from the United States by a federal immigration judge in January 2007 after failing to appear for his scheduled court date,” the ICE spokesman said. “He has been an immigration fugitive since that time. Mr. Duran Ortega is currently in ICE custody pending removal.”"

    So ICE managed to miss the fact he had his own fscking byline for many years, until he reported on their antics... ummm hmmm.

    How is it we are paying top dollar to the private firms to run the detention centers & the description of how they actually are don't match what the contract says they should be?

    But by all means, please focus on the word used to describe his status in the article rather than the illegal antics of ICE that have been running wild for years with no one stopping them. Remember a bunch of you live within 100 miles of the border & you've agreed with ICE treating it as a constitutional rights free zone...
    I mean its not like an agent tried to detain citizens for speaking spanish.... oh wait.
    I mean its not like an agent profiled people based on the suspicion of their color... oh wait.
    I mean its not like they are getting on you mass transit & demanding everyones papers... oh wait.
    I mean its not like they've deported children who were citizens b/c their database is screwed up and one Juan or another, it doesn't matter boot them.... oh wait.

    But sure, stomp your foot about those damn illegals & how we need to ignore law breaking by the "good guys"... I'm sure they won't get even more bold & flex their muscle on anyone they want to b/c little people should just accept having to prove they are a citizen & have their property taken.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 8:33am

      Re:

      Nobody here said we should ignore ICE's behavior. But this article's author turned it into a debate about aliens and their status rather than about ICE.

      ICE should still be taken to task for its transgressions of law but we all know that's never going to happen.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 9:25am

        Re: Re:

        > but we all know that's never going to happen

        I'm sure that's also how Nazis thought about losing the war they started, that is until they shot themselves in the head at the sight of defeat. Logic demands that the border be flooded with a steady stream of immigrants, until the persons cold as ICE finally shoot themselves.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bamboo Harvester (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 10:51am

      Re:

      The story was about a criminal picked up allegedly illegally for his actions, found to be a criminal, and re-arrested as a criminal and now facing prosecution (deportation).

      Let's set this straight. The US is one of the friendliest countries when it comes to illegal aliens. Yes, there is occasionally a push to "round them up", always for political purposes (usually local), and little is actually *done*. We'll get a sob story, usually a single mother here illegally, etc.

      Being in the US illegally is pretty much the same as having a Bench Warrant issued against you for non-payment of a minor traffic ticket - say a headlight out.

      Nobody, NOBODY goes out hunting those people.

      But get stopped for something else and that Warrant gets Executed.

      ANNOY the local police (or federal) by ranting in the media about how unfair they are, and someone WILL run a basic Wants and Warrants check on you. And when they find that old Bench Warrant, you get arrested.

      The same applies to illegal aliens. They're, for the most part, ignored. But you've got to be a special kind of idiot to call attention to yourself if you're one of them by pillorying the very Federal Law Enforcement Agency tasked with deporting illegal aliens.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Thad, 25 May 2018 @ 11:21am

        Re: Re:

        ANNOY the local police (or federal) by ranting in the media about how unfair they are, and someone WILL run a basic Wants and Warrants check on you. And when they find that old Bench Warrant, you get arrested.

        Yes, you have accurately described what this story is about.

        The next step is for you to see if you can figure out why this is a problem.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Hans, 25 May 2018 @ 11:50am

      Re:

      So. Many. Words.

      You are perfectly okay with sending someone to a place where they WILL be killed.

      Strawman much? I don't know which "you" you are referring to here, so I have to assume it's "all of us", unless we agree with your apparent world view, which I don't. Personally, I'm not "okay" with people, even the other-skinned undocumented ones, being killed. However, other than Duran's claim quoted by Mike, no evidence has been presented, even in all those many words you wrote, to support the claim. Yah, I'm not going to simply believe Duran's (or your) claim that he'll be killed. If only there were a process, some regulation, or something... yah, and some organization or government function that could investigate such claims. Then Duran could actually be here legally.

      Mike's theme in this post is that we should feel bad for Duran because ICE is enforcing the law only because he's been critical of them. This is also entirely unsupported (except for general handwaving about ICE's evil deeds). As a matter of logic, it's hard to prove either way. Barring other evidence, that's why his other legal status matters.

      Yah, ICE are jack booted thugs, and do some bad shit. That doesn't mean that any yahoo's claim of retribution should override laws. If Duran were busted for sexual harassment and rape, and claimed it was only because he'd been reporting on police misconduct, should we also assume that it's only because he's reported on misconduct and give him a pass on the charges? I mean really, what's a little groping when the police are out shooting innocent people? Right?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 1:18pm

        "no evidence [of killings] has been presented"

        Then you're not looking hard enough, Hans.

        Countless undocumenteds are here because they'd get slaughtered, or funneled into human trafficking, and we know this. ICE does its best to look away, to not keep records, but there are non-profits who track who gets sent back to war zones and lawless zones, where they're butchered like...well like refugees in a failed state. There are places where you can get the names of the dead bodies, and if you haven't seen them, it's because you haven't bothered to look it up online.

        We're in the era of fake news. There are channels that cater to your preferred ideology and keep the news you hear limited to your comfort zone, than there are that report on uncomfortable facts without outrageous extrapolation. It means it takes work to know what's going on.

        You can be comfortable or you can actually know what is happening. You can't have both. (Though if you choose the former, you can wind up looking stupid on internet forums.)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Hans, 25 May 2018 @ 11:03pm

          Re: "no evidence [of killings] has been presented"

          Countless undocumenteds are here because they'd get slaughtered, or funneled into human trafficking, and we know this. [...] There are places where you can get the names of the dead bodies, and if you haven't seen them, it's because you haven't bothered to look it up online.

          I was referring specifically to the claim made that Duran will be killed if he's deported to his home country, not that there aren't refugees from failed states. I'm well aware of the dangers in failed states, and why refugees arrive here. Their existence tells us very little about Duran. I'm also well aware that there is a process for requesting asylum that takes such situations into account. Sure, the current administration has some offensive ideas about which countries (cough religions cough) are deserving, but we're told Duran has been here for a decade. If you look, you can find statistics of the number of refugees granted asylum in the last several decades.

          We're in the era of fake news. There are channels that cater to your preferred ideology and keep the news you hear limited to your comfort zone, than there are that report on uncomfortable facts without outrageous extrapolation. It means it takes work to know what's going on.

          Thanks for the hot tip. I don't know what you think you know about me, but I'm not stuck in any echo chamber. I've been alive long enough, and I think my net is cast wide enough.

          You can be comfortable or you can actually know what is happening. You can't have both. (Though if you choose the former, you can wind up looking stupid on internet forums.)

          Oh please, such drama. That's a pretty silly false dichotomy. I choose both. I am comfortable, and you've pointed out nothing that I don't already know that convinces me I should feel otherwise. Sure, there are bad things in the world, that we should all work to eliminate. I happen to think that includes applying good laws consistently and fairly, and changing bad laws. Not simply ignoring ones that don't feel right today or because we don't like the enforcers. If law isn't applied justly, it has no meaning.

          Further, by almost every measure, the world is a better place today than it was in every decade before. I'm certain of that.

          Lastly, I'm not worried that your reality check, or nonsense false choice, has made me "look stupid". If you teach me something then I'm better for it. So far, you haven't.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 1:09pm

      I, for one...

      ...have totally learned to love terrorists.

      When they started calling my friends terrorists, when they started calling people I admire terrorists, when they attached terrorist to journalists, activists, even revolutionaries who defied the state because officials were burning state integrity and values for personal gain and acting with cruelty justified by questionable ideology, I started questioning if the people who I don't like or admire or understand who are called terrorist may have legitimate grievances and just cause to act violently.

      People don't start terrorists because they hate our freedoms, generally. They're made when NATO forces bomb the crap out of them, turning their family and friends into piles of corpses. Meanwhile the US news calls their toddlers and grandmothers militants so the US public doesn't feel guilty or question the policy of indiscriminate bombing.

      I have way more love for our terrorists than I do the officials assuring us they need to massacre villages to protect us.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Vic B (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 9:47am

    For the many right wing murikans who feel free to spew their hatred of the different, it really doesn't matter if he was undocumented or not. Any non-white person with a non northern European name is a potential target of character assassination. Trump led the flock.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Hans, 25 May 2018 @ 9:59am

    I certainly have no love for ICE, however I missed the part of the story where he applied for asylum and what the outcome was. Seems to me if we want to pillory government abuse, the story needs to include some possibly failed attempt at following the law, or some argument that the law is unjust or should be changed.

    One of the dangers of breaking the law, and drawing attention to yourself is that you'll suffer consequences. It's one thing to do that when you're trying to draw attention to the unjustness of the law (think lunch counters and bus seats). That's not the claim here. We're told it's because he's speaking out. That would be easier to accept if he weren't otherwise obviously breaking the law.

    I don't want Mr Duran killed were he to be sent home, either. However, think of the consequences if any law breaker could use "you're only punishing me because I spoke up" as a means to avoid justice.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 10:32am

      Re:

      The laws pertaining immigration are unjust and should be scrapped, as should borders in general. But that can't happen only by itself, many things would need to change to avoid catastrophic outcomes.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Hans, 25 May 2018 @ 11:07am

        Re: Re:

        The laws pertaining immigration are unjust and should be scrapped, as should borders in general.

        I could agree that there are likely unjust aspects to US immigration laws, but the specifics matter. However you'd have to provide an actual argument as to why borders should be scrapped for me to agree with that. Your comment is nearly useless as it stands.

        But that can't happen only by itself, many things would need to change to avoid catastrophic outcomes

        If you're trying to say that merely opening the borders would have catastrophic outcomes, I'd generally agree, but I think "catastrophic" is likely over-dramatic. Perhaps surprising or unexpected or maybe even negative, but not catastrophic. However, based on your first sentence I'm skeptical I'm correctly reading your intent. Again, your comment does little to advance whatever your cause seems to be.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 10:37am

    Americans: Ordinary citizens should be allowed to carry around firearms, because we need to be able to employ lethal force in the remote chance that our lives and/or liberty could ever be endangered.

    Also Americans: Whoa, whoa, they want to come here and live peacefully and productively within our borders when their lives and liberty are actually being endangered?! That's just unreasonable!

    America keeps claiming to be a nation based on Christian values, but I can't remember Jesus saying anywhere that "Fuck you, I got mine" was a virtue. Maybe I'm just misremembering; it's been a while.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bamboo Harvester (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 11:01am

      Re:

      "Also Americans: Whoa, whoa, they want to come here and live peacefully and productively within our borders when their lives and liberty are actually being endangered?! That's just unreasonable!"

      YES! It's ureasonable! Just like making ME, a Native-Born US Citizen fill out paperwork and take tests just to drive a car!!!!

      We DOCUMENT more Aliens every other year than any other country on the planet. IIRC, more than the entirety of Europe combined.

      There's a process. You fill out the forms, take the classes, take the tests, and you become a US Citizen. Or a legal operator of a motor vehicle.

      If you can't be bothered with the process, you're breaking the law. It's THAT SIMPLE.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Thad, 25 May 2018 @ 11:22am

        Re: Re:

        YES! It's ureasonable! Just like making ME, a Native-Born US Citizen fill out paperwork and take tests just to drive a car!!!!

        Chip, is that you?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 3:39pm

        Re: Re:

        Okay, there's a process. This guy comes here to try to escape the death threats.

        Let's take a look at the flow chart.

        https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/a87d1550853898a9b306ef458f116079.pdf

        We'll assume he doesn't have relatives here, so he's getting by on his skills. He even has a job offer, but presumably didn't get an H1-B visa as he was fleeing for his life.

        So, sorry, with no H1-B, and no way to wait for the green card, there's nothing he can do to get citizenship, so he just has to lay down and die.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        cattress (profile), 26 May 2018 @ 1:06am

        Re: Re:

        Just like a driver's license? If it were anywhere near that simple I wouldn't have sympathy for illegal immigrants. This is an excellent graphic that explains the legal immigration process https://visual.ly/community/infographic/politics/what-part-legal-immigration-dont-you-understand

        Refu gees go through a long and complicated process before they can come here. They await approval in places that are in active war, or destroyed by a natural disaster, or while running from a government or group that intends to kill them.
        Asylum seekers, like the journalist in this article, are the people who show up at the border under similar conditions as refugees. And you think the DMV is a pain in the ass bureaucratic nightmare... Imagine the DMV and IRS were brother and sister and they had a baby, that would be court system for asylum seekers. It doesn't matter if you have a legitimate cause for asylum and follow all of the instructions to the letter, you are at the mercy of this system. The journalist like hundreds of thousands of others, never got a court notice and was summarily ordered to leave. If you were in his shoes, would you chance getting arrested and deported to ask the broken system to give you the day in court that you should have gotten in the first place?
        It's really NOT THAT SIMPLE.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 2:07pm

      Re: Do you remember Jesus saying "Render unto Caesar..."

      "... that which is Caesar's"? It's generally interpreted to mean obey the gov't -- and in American interpretation, when gov't is serving We The People, not the arbitrary will of inherited tyrants.

      America keeps claiming to be a nation based on Christian values, but I can't remember Jesus saying anywhere that "Fuck you, I got mine" was a virtue.

      Nowhere does Jesus say for nations to commit suicide by letting in unlimited numbers of hostile foreigners. -- "HEY, worshippers of Baal and Satan! This way to the Holy Land! Defile it and our folk all you want, PLEASE!"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 2:27pm

        "Commit suicide" / "hostile foreigners"

        Nowhere does Jesus say for nations to commit suicide by letting in unlimited numbers of hostile foreigners.

        At what point are these foreigners determined to be hostile?

        At what point does letting them into the nation equate to committing suicide?

        What I remember of Jesus was something like If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone takes your cloak, do not withhold your tunic as well. Jesus was a generous fellow.

        Though there is a biblical tale about nation who were relentlessly paranoid of foreigners and would ravage them for being in their borders, a nation so ravaged by war that they lost all sense of human empathy.

        That was Sodom, sister city to Gomorrah. Their tale doesn't end well.

        It didn't end well.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Wendy Cockcroft, 30 May 2018 @ 5:52am

          Re: "Commit suicide" / "hostile foreigners"

          Also, this: "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." - Ezekiel 16:49 (NIV)

          I love how everyone jumps on the male rape angle and completely forgets the "Total indifference to suffering" attitude that underpins such behaviour. People who care about people don't hurt people.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 3:21pm

        Re: Re: Do you remember Jesus saying "Render unto Caesar..."

        Do you remember Jesus saying "Render unto Caesar..." "... that which is Caesar's"? It's generally interpreted to mean obey the gov't -- and in American interpretation, when gov't is serving We The People, not the arbitrary will of inherited tyrants.

        Um. Israel/Palestine was rather harshly occupied by the Romans at the time of Jesus. I get how you can take the message of "obey the government" from "Render unto Caesar" (it wouldn't be my interpretation, but it's not worth the argument), but given that one of Caesar's titles is where we get the term "dictator" from, I can't see any possible subtext where it could be stretched to mean "but only if Caesar is fluffy and cuddly." And I can't see how you could plausibly describe Tiberius Julius Caesar as anything but an "inherited tyrant."

        Nowhere does Jesus say for nations to commit suicide by letting in unlimited numbers of hostile foreigners. -- "HEY, worshippers of Baal and Satan! This way to the Holy Land! Defile it and our folk all you want, PLEASE!"

        Well, I could go back to Leviticus, and say, "And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God."

        But that's not something Jesus actually said, is it? Let's turn to Luke 10 instead. Jesus is asked, of the commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself," who should be considered a "neighbour?" Through the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus answers that your neighbour is not necessarily someone who shares a homeland with you, or a religion, or who studies the Bible. The excitable he gives instead is the foreigner who acts kindly.

        Although, if you can find any place where Jesus gives sermons about deporting (or even resisting) the unlimited number of hostile foreigners defiling the Holy Land and the Jews (by which, again, I mean the Romans), I'd be glad to hear you out.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2018 @ 12:58am

        Re: Re: Do you remember Jesus saying "Render unto Caesar..."

        Nowhere does Jesus say for nations to commit suicide by letting in unlimited numbers of hostile foreigners.

        And just how was the USA founded again?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2018 @ 9:21am

          Re: Re: Re: Do you remember Jesus saying "Render unto Caesar..."

          Is this why they want to dismantle our education system?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 12:23pm

    Judge not, that you be not judged?
    People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?
    The Stupid should be deported?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 12:26pm

    So, if I were an undocumented non-citizen, I should just write a negative article about the ICE so I don't get deported?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    restless94110 (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 1:47pm

    Let me Understand...

    So let me get this straight:

    An illegal alien who happened to have escaped detection for years, decided to become a "journalist," and report on other illegal aliens. Is that right so far?

    And then ICE arrested him for being an illegal alien. Right again?

    And then someone on Tech Dirt wrote an article on the supression of the press?

    Is that correct?

    Interesting. So if I commit crimes, all I have to do is become a "journalist" to evade being arrested?

    Please help me. I'm trying so hard to understand why Americans fight so hard for lawbreaking illegals. It really is hard for me to get it.

    So, help me. If I commit say... murder? And then I become a journalist. Then ICE or the cops or anyone should have no reason at all to arrest me?

    That is exactly what you were saying in this preposterous bit of nonsense you call an article on Tech Dirt.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 25 May 2018 @ 2:04pm

      "lawbreaking illegals"

      You lost me at lawbreaking illegals. You seem to have no perspective regarding why they're here and not where they were.

      Feel free to not read Techdirt if it offends you so.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 2:14pm

      Re: Let me Understand...

      > this preposterous bit of nonsense you call an article on Tech Dirt.

      Yeah, you're not going to last here "restless94110". I advise you, in all seriousness, to FLEE because I've been visiting this cesspit 8 years now, and it's impossible to change their elitist, leftist, corporatist, pro-immigration, anti-police notions. -- IF you stay, just have fun: it's entertainment like pro-wrestling, not a real "news" site. Everyone gets fooled by Techdirt's front, including me.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      cattress (profile), 26 May 2018 @ 1:26am

      Re: Let me Understand...

      Does trolling make you feel good about yourself, or do you just enjoy upsetting people, like a sadist?

      Clearly you didn't bother to read any of the "nonsense" in the article.

      Your just another badgelicker, intent on twisting the story to justify bad officer behavior

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 2:02pm

    ICE trying to deport ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT for that cause.

    Needs no other.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 2:20pm

    Once again, an "AC" somehow gets puts up as "Last Word".

    No one ever 'splained how that works, since ACs presumably can't get "Insider" credit to do that.

    Of course, those promoted to "Last Word" always echo the Techdirt line! -- So I conclude that it's sheer astro-turfing. A minion recently mentioned that's not a crime, which I think is a "tell" that was in its mind.

    I have good evidence from looking at hundreds of "accounts" in which some dozens have HUGE gaps of four to seven years that Techdirt (or some related) takes those over to promote the site with apparently old accounts, instead of "ACs".

    Don't trust ANY thing you see on "teh internets", starting here.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2018 @ 6:28pm

    Be Glad you aren't British in England

    Tommy Robertson was arrested today for
    "inciting people to riot " by just talking online
    about Muslim child rapists who were in court to be
    sentenced .
    All caught as he was live streaming .
    I'm so glad that mainstream media is covering this as
    much as they have .
    Almost like how mainstream media is crying fowl over Colin Noir about his video that big media didn't even finish seeing to the end before they burn him on the stake .
    Google it people
    Big media is out to screw you over and you all are cheering them on

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Prometheus, 25 May 2018 @ 7:56pm

    Who gives a shit. If he’s illegal, deport him. (This article makes it sound like he’s a refugee. That’s a legal status, he apparently is not one or they would not be deporting him).

    If I were an illegal I would probably try to avoid all sorts of actions that would bring attention to me, including plenty of legal actions.

    I also don’t care much if this is or isn’t vindictive. If he’s here illegally, he should be deported. Period. That’s the desired result.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The Wanderer (profile), 26 May 2018 @ 4:03am

      Re:

      The term "refugee" may have a specific legal definition, by which it refers only to people who have been granted a specific legal status - but that definition is neither the only nor (AFAIK) the original one, and it is still legitimate to use the word in the broader colloquial sense.

      The expression "an illegal" is problematic. It should not be, and I think is not, possible for a person to be illegal; the closest example I can think of is China's one-child policy (is that even still in effect?), under which having second or third child would be against the law, and so the child's existence would be illegal, and so the child would be an illegal person. (I'm also put in mind of the speculative-fiction short story - I think by either Isaac Asimov or Spider Robinson - about the man on his ~60th birthday who remembers, belatedly when a knock comes at the door in the last paragraph, that birth certificates now have expiration dates to avoid overpopulation.)

      To permit the government to engage in vindictive action is bad for both the principles on which our society is founded, and for all of us.

      The purpose of immigration law as I understand it is to ensure that those who immigrate to this country are not the sort of person we wouldn't want to have be here. The usual prime examples of that sort of person are things like people who are likely to in some way be a danger to society. The fact that he's lived here ten years without (apparently?) doing anything which would endanger society, and indeed is engaging in activities which we want to encourage in our citizens (public journalism on subjects of interest to a significant community), would seem to be a pretty strong indication that he is not the sort of person whom immigration law is meant to exclude, and that it is therefore not actually desirable to exclude him from the country. I think there's room to argue that a record like that should be able to stand in for the usual at-the-border immigration-check process, and that the fact that it is not is a flaw in our immigration laws.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Prometheus, 26 May 2018 @ 10:32am

        Re: Re:

        It is absolutely possible for a person's presence here to be illegal. In fact, in this case, it is. No, the term is not "problematic".

        Bonus points for trying to tie your SJW argument into overpopulation based euthanasia, I guess? Jesus Christ, you're a parody the ridiculous logic the Left uses.

        If you want to change the law, by all means lobby to have that happen, in the mean time it needs to be fairly and uniformly applied.

        He's an illegal alien. His presence is illegal. He needs to be deported. Fini. The rest of this story doesn't even matter. He can express his opinions on what assholes our government is from El Salvador.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2018 @ 10:37am

          Re: Re: Re:

          He can express his opinions on what assholes our government is from El Salvador.

          Not if the death threats he received while there have any validity to them.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Prometheus, 26 May 2018 @ 4:42pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            If they had validity, presumably he could have gotten actual refugee status. He did not.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Uriel-238 (profile), 26 May 2018 @ 6:45pm

              "presumably..."

              Stop presuming then, Prometheus. In the current clime refugees are poison skittles according to our peerless leader, and he's doing everything in his power to turn them away, regardless of the urgency of their plight, regardless of where they come from.

              And that's a problem considering the world is suffering from a pretty severe refugee crisis, possibly one meeting or exceeding the one caused by Napoleon when he invented Levée en masse and turned around on a hostile Europe that didn't much like the new post-revolutionary France, and made much of Europe unlivable.

              It doesn't take much research to figure out that the legitimate means to becoming a naturalized citizen are draconian and cruel.

              Now I get that you might under the illusion that we can't afford to feed and clothe and house these huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Yet somehow we certainly can afford to let the nation function as a tax shelter for our affluent and corporate interests. We can somehow afford to subsidize coal and oil and corn because solar power and alternative sugars are disruptive to the current stakeholders. (So much for free market capitalism, there.) And we can afford to develop invisible tanks (active camoflage) and invisible planes (radar resistant materials that the President confused for Hollywood invisibility) both of which are grossly overprice for their utility -- and still adequate concussion armor or medical care for our infantry continues to escape our military budget. I digress.

              The cost to take in all those refugees is proportionately tiny by comparison to any of these, what are favorite side projects of the elites, on which we squander our budget and go into deficit spending.

              So it's not about scarcity.

              And looking at the history of our refugees so far, they're certainly less likely than someone like you, Prometheus to become radicalized and go terrorist. Your perspective is so wanting, your beliefs so skewed I can't help but wonder if you're already stockpiling pipe bombs for the reckoning.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          The Wanderer (profile), 26 May 2018 @ 10:55am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes, it's possible for a person's presence here to be illegal.

          But a person's presence being illegal does not mean that the person is illegal.

          As long as it is legal for the person to exist, the person is not illegal.

          Call for deporting people all you want, and object to permitting them into the country all you want, and so forth.

          But to call the people themselves illegal - when it is not the existence of the people which is prohibited, but their presence in a particular region - is, in fact, problematic.

          What something being illegal means is that the law requires that that thing not exist.

          The only way for a person to not exist is for that person to either never be born, or to die.

          If a person's presence in the country is illegal, that presence can be caused to not exist by expelling the person from the country.

          But if a person is illegal, that person can only be caused to not exist by killing that person.

          Thus, to call people illegal is to implicitly call for them to be executed. And I'm reasonably certain that even you, going by the positions you've expressed here, would consider that - so to speak - overkill.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 26 May 2018 @ 12:31pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Careful with SJW I take by that you mean to imply you are against social justice and social equality, and want rule by force?

          Remember Prometheus that by federal law, you too are a felon (as are all of us) committing on average three felonies a day, mostly based on the CFAA and only by the grace of your own district attorney -- and no other official's interest in making you go away -- are you still a free man.

          Illegal doesn't actually mean much when the laws are crap, and are only selectively enforced, as they are per prosecutorial discretion.

          You seem like an unpleasant enough fellow, Prometheus and probably wealthy enough to be worthy of an asset seizure raid. Don't be surprised, when they come for you, to find you have too few resources in the courts to defend your own liberty, regardless of whether you did anything wrong.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Prometheus, 26 May 2018 @ 4:50pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You know damn well what “SJW” means, and how it is used as a pejorative.

            It means someone who uses an (often flexible) notion of “justice” as a political weapon. An example would be calling those who want a strongly enfoced border “racist” just because a majority of people arrested due to that are not white.

            And “illegal” is short for “illegal allien”. Those who are illegally present from foreign countries.

            It is true that we have far too many laws. However, an open border is not at all practical, particularly with the large income distribution our governments partake in.

            Some laws are good and I want enforced. Just as I want every murder caught (which is not at all to suggest hey are equivalent crimes) I want every illegal deported.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Uriel-238 (profile), 26 May 2018 @ 9:02pm

              "SJW"

              So far, without exception, SJW has always been a term used to dismiss someone's arguments without consideration. It's a gross ad hominem typically used internally to dismiss a source out of hand. It's a defense mechanism to avoid uncomfortable thought.

              And yes, when I see it as part of someone's lexicon they use in discussion with others, I associate it with the notion that it's acceptable for a member of a large society to give zero fucks for anyone outside his or her top fifty Facebook friends. That sort of non-inclusive attitude is epidemic in the US (if not globally). But it is toxic to a modern nation of millions. The sort of population that is necessary to sustain power grids, national highway systems and the internet.

              Feel what you want, but if you don't behave like the rest of the people in this world matter, eventually the commons all tragically fail, and as they are squandered, the human species is at risk of extinction.

              I am confident you don't actually know what laws are good or bad on account that no-one can actually remember even half the laws that apply to their own lives. Even the US Supreme Court has acknowledged this by refusing to require law enforcement officers in the US to know the laws they enforce. Rather they are allowed to guess at what is legal or not (and often violently guess wrong). Curiously civilians breaking esoteric laws are still expected to know they are, indeed, committing a crime.

              In this case, Prometheus, you've been explicit about the zero fucks you give regarding Manuel Duran, that you'd rather law be enforced than not, even if it means sending someone into implicit mortal danger.

              So your behavior has affirmed my hypothesis that people who use the phrase SJW are cold and cruel, and don't care about anyone outside of themselves (and a handful of others, but only to the extent that their well-being affects themselves).

              Just remember that apathy ultimately comes around. And you may well find yourself chairless when the music stops.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2018 @ 8:33am

      Re:

      Holy crap
      Up until 9 fucking 11
      we were basically border-less and didn't give a flying fuck who entered this country , Yes you had the border crossings but it was basically a "hi I'm here" ok go on thru .
      You know how many people flowed thru this porous wall ?
      Millions ... and until a few bunch of fucktards came along
      We were swimmingly along with out a care in the world with our perceived notions of freedom .
      We now a few are becoming WOKE to the fact that we are not free and under the jackbooted knife of those who want to control us in the name of freedom .
      Yea thats like expanding your dogs cage to twice its size , yea he is more free-er but still caged .

      So wake the fuck up america cause your next .
      Just remember when you see something and say something
      don't be surprised when someone finally says something about you and holy shit who then is left to save you ???

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 27 May 2018 @ 12:47am

      Re:

      Who gives a shit. If he’s illegal, deport him.

      Some of us find this attitude despicable and disgusting. How can you treat another human being that way? Seriously: look in the fucking mirror and ask yourself what's wrong with you that you can be so callous.

      Second, even if you believe that, don't you at least care about the 1st Amendment? And how targeting someone because of their speech is a problem?

      Or do you not even care about the Constitution?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.