Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
How a U.S. citizen was mistakenly targeted for deportation. He’s not alone (latimes.com)
124 points by tonyztan 10 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 140 comments



I'm a naturalised citizen.

I like to joke that I have more documenting showing my legal right to be in the US than my wife's grandmother. My wife's grandmother has a birth certificate but it is water damaged, illegible, and falling apart. Besides that she has no state ID (driver's license expired twenty years ago), and few other forms of identity.

Americans seem quite dead set against a national ID scheme (and associated database). The problem with that is that we wind up with a de-facto one, SSNs and social security cards being your main proof of who you are and your legal status. Birth certificates are problematic because they've never been standardised, and have no real fraud mitigation mechanisms (e.g. watermarks). Certainly my daughter's US birth certificate would be trivial to duplicate.

This is in no small part why I ordered my daughter a US passport even before it was needed. It is one of the best forms of ID and citizenship proof you can have, even if it expires you remain in the database indefinitely. It is also why I ordered myself a US passport-card, so I have proof of citizenship in my wallet at all times.

ICE, interior immigration checkpoints, and other initiatives seem to be on the rise. Even legal immigrants and US citizens need to protect yourselves, particularly if you're more likely to be profiled due to race.


The bit about birth certificates isnt all true - mine is from California, its on intaglio paper, with watermarks, and embossing - that particular paper (a certified long form) would be hard to copy.


You're right, but so is OP because you had to write "isn't all true."

My perfectly valid, accepted by the State Department for a passport and by a federal agency for a rather intensive background check, birth certificate was issued by what was then a tiny town in north Texas, just after that city had gotten large enough to have its own birth registry. It is hand-typed and has a raised seal that is now mostly flat due to age. It doesn't even have a unique identifier. It says it is recorded in "book 2, page 19" and there are three other birth entries on that same page. I got to see the original book when I went asking about it out of curiosity.

The only not-on-paper copy of it is on a microfiche roll at the new city hall. I've checked; they've not yet gotten around to digitizing records from my year of birth. Consequently, I can't order a copy of my birth certificate electronically from out-of-state. I have to mail in a paper form. The copy I get back is fantastically secure: microprinting, holographic seals, and a QR code unique ID. But the original, which is still good for everything, has none of those.

Maybe new birth certificates are standard but there are literally dozens of us who are still in our prime working years of life that have "proof of birth" paperwork that can be fabricated by anyone who knows how to type.


I had one like that. Nowadays they issue replacements on much plainer paper that goes through a laser printer. It's notarized, but nothing about it would be difficult to counterfeit.


I got a few copies of my daughter's (California) birth certificate a few months ago and it was printed with a laser printer. But: the border of the papers were intaglio printed, each certificate has a unique barcode, and was embossed. You could counterfeit it but it seems like a fair amount of work and would have issues with the unique ID on each one.


Yeah, this is what I have as well, mine is over a decade old however.


The certificate isn't the proof. Cross-referencing it with a Country Registrar's computerized records is.


You could be like a familial relation of mine, who didn't have a social security card, driver's license, or birth certificate. He lost them a long time ago.

Birth certificate was impossible to replace because the courthouse or whatever burned down before the records were computerized.

You can't get a social security card without a driver's license, and vice versa. He literally had tried almost everything.

In the end another family member photoshopped a social security card so he could get a driver's license, which he used to get an actual social security card.

The whole system is stupid as hell. It's easier to navigate if you lie than if you act truthfully.


Well, right, it's not even a unique document. Multiple, equally valid birth certificates can exist. As a form of ID, it's not great.

A passport or drivers license is much better because the issuer put a picture on it and already did the checking to make sure the birth certificate and social security card were valid.


I think you may have gotten a replacement when CA was short on the correct paper.

http://www.ocregister.com/2015/11/25/paper-shortage-puts-bir...


Depends on where you get it. My replacement is laser printed and notarized on very fancy certificate paper (California).


I think the parent is stating that it's simply very inconsistent and not standardized. I can anecdotally tell you that my birth certificate would be trivial to forge or duplicate as it lacks all features you just described, and was produced in the last decade.


> I like to joke that I have more documenting showing my legal right to be in the US than my wife's grandmother.

You are mistaken. Your wife's grandmother ( assuming she is native born ), even though she may not have "papers", is undeportable. Whereas you have legal documents showing that you are not a a native born citizen. You are someone that we can deport. Naturalized citizens can be deported from the US. A native born american cannot.

> Americans seem quite dead set against a national ID scheme (and associated database).

There really is no need. Most americans have state IDs and if they want to travel abroad, US passports.

> ICE, interior immigration checkpoints, and other initiatives seem to be on the rise.

But for american born citizens, that isn't a worry. It's a worry for immigrants - legal or illegal. Not for native born citizens.


> "Naturalized citizens can be deported from the US."

Naturalized citizens cannot be deported unless the government first proves in an Article III Federal Court that they obtained citizenship fraudulently and the court revokes their citizenship.

Source: https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/Print/PolicyManual-Volume...

> "Most americans have state IDs"

State IDs don't prove citizenship. IDs from States that don't comply with the REAL ID Act don't even necessarily prove legal presence.

> "But for american born citizens, that isn't a worry. It's a worry for immigrants - legal or illegal. Not for native born citizens."

Why would it be reasonable to have a system that "worries" legal immigrants? Should legal immigrants, especially naturalized American citizens, be harassed by the government?


"State IDS don't prove citizenship."

Nope. Back in the 1970s when I had medium-long hair (cut every four or five months) a bored INS guy in Detroit passed a couple of minutes asking me to establish my right to enter the US. The driver's license didn't prove anything, nor in his opinion did the draft card. At that point I just shrugged and he waved me through.


> Naturalized citizens cannot be deported unless the government first proves in an Article III Federal Court that they obtained citizenship fraudulently and the court revokes their citizenship.

So naturalized citizens can be deported whereas a natural born american citizen cannot.

> Should legal immigrants, especially naturalized American citizens, be harassed by the government?

Don't remember saying they should.


> "So naturalized citizens can be deported whereas a natural born american citizen cannot."

That's misleading.

A "naturalized citizen" who is proven to have fraudulently obtained citizenship, and therefore deportable, is considered to never have legally become a citizen in the first place. So this person would only have been a pretend "naturalized citizen" on the surface, and by the time they are deported they are not considered to be a naturalized citizen.

A real naturalized citizen, who legitimately obtained citizenship, cannot be deported against their will, no matter what they do after becoming a citizen.

So a naturalized citizen cannot be deported. A person who pretends to be a legally naturalized citizen but really isn't, can.

This is all in contrast to non-citizen immigrants, such as green card holding permanent residents, who can be deported for "aggravated felonies" as well as other specified reasons.

> "Don't remember saying they should."

I read it that way, but if that was not your intent then OK.


> ( assuming she is native born )

That's the key point. How do you prove this if your documents are shoddy?


Hopefully he gets some money out of this. Can't imagine being grabbed, held in a cell somewhere, and then told I had to be deported all of the sudden.

> Carrillo said his son brought a passport and a certificate of citizenship the government issued Carrillo but that ICE officers refused to review the documents.

Well that's just baffling. What exactly would they consider proof of citizenship if a passport and the certificate doesn't do it. What would it take? What if he didn't have a passport. Many people I know don't have one or have an expired one. Certainly not a requirement to have one.

> The refusal by ICE officials to listen to Carrillo’s claims of citizenship appeared to violate an agency policy that requires officers to thoroughly and quickly investigate such claims

It also violates decency and common sense as well, and veers into plain old brutality.

Rant: One thing I don't understand is why don't people have national ID cards in US. Most countries I know of have them, here it is a complicated mess of drivers license, SSN, birth certificates, each states makes their own ID card thing for those that don't drive. Every single time elections come around there is talk of ID cards and supposed voter fraud for months afterwards, with everyone pointing fingers and insinuating things. Then there are cases like these. People's identities are stolen based on the stupid SSN number and a name, most of those are already on the black market somewhere already.


The culture of the US has 2 parts that really don't like national IDs. A strong distrust of the federal government and a large number of evangelical christians. The natural distrust means that people generally don't want to give anything more to the federal government in general so it would take enormous political capital to add this. Second, the evangelical christians take end times prophesies from Revalation in the Bible very seriously. They believe that a national ID card is the "mark of the beast" that will be how the world is enslaved. It's a bit weird to outsiders, but it's a surprisingly common belief.

https://www.thefamilyinternational.org/en/viewpoints/future/...


> " It's a bit weird to outsiders, but it's a surprisingly common belief."

It's a bit weird to some of us Christians, too. :-) Some of us realize that the Bible is a book of metaphors and guidelines, not a literal future-history account. What John saw in his visions and how to interpret that has been a major source of discussion among religious scholars for a very long time now.

I am opposed to a national ID on a very specific point: It can be used as a tool for voter suppression if not done correctly.


> I am opposed to a national ID on a very specific point: It can be used as a tool for voter suppression if not done correctly.

We can solve it by making it the duty of the government to provide everyone with ID cards, not the other way. This is an even easier problem than universal healthcare.

But of course, "the government is always inefficient!" crowd will fight tooth and nail to keep it from happening.


> Some of us realize that the Bible is a book of metaphors and guidelines, not a literal future-history account.

The first time someone told me that the story of Adam and Eve was allegorical and not literal, it blew my mind.

I had grown up and been taught "literalism", in that everything that Bible said was literally the truth and not simply a story.


Serious question, how did you rationalize contradictions in the bible? The story of Adam and Eve directly contradicts the story of creation told immediately prior.

The Bible didn't make any sense to me until I took a religious studies course and learned that the old testament is basically the verbal tradition of the ancient Jewish people in written form. I had tried reading the bible when I was much younger, and the contradictions were so absurd I started highlighting them, and I ran out of highlighter before I ran out of Bible. I'm still not religious, but at least religion kind of makes sense to me now.


> It can be used as a tool for voter suppression if not done correctly.

I can see that somewhat but voter ID requirements and legislation in specific states can already be used for it. A free national ID would make it easier and would even fix or prevent abuses from individual states.

Besides if countries like India, which have more corruption, more poverty and fight with such issues like open defecation can manage to provide IDs to more than 95% of its population (and some states have close to 100%) surely we can do it as well.


In the past I would have agreed that state-level voter suppression was more likely, but this administration is pure evil and would potentially be far worse given that kind of power.


The fact that almost any other democratic country in the world have a national id for decades (since 1965 in Brazil for ex) demonstrate that there is no obstacle in that.


Neither New Zealand nor Australia have national ID cards, for what it's worth.


> I am opposed to a national ID on a very specific point: It can be used as a tool for voter suppression if not done correctly.

Having a free, low barrier, nationally accepted ID would help to disarm the weapon of voter suppression by ID demands.


> "Having a free, low barrier"

I agree, but the current administration would never allow either metric, because they don't want voter suppression to go away, they want to broaden and empower it. I am wholeheartedly disgusted with the state of our national government but I feel powerless to do anything about it. I vote (usually Independent/Libertarian/Democrat in that order as available on the ballot) and I contribute to organizations, but I'm just one person in a deep red state.


~10% of Americans don't have any kind of photo ID, although I've never heard the religious angle before

http://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AMERIC...


What do you think is preventing them getting photo IDs? The cost of it? Maybe it can be free or subsidized for lower income citizens. Somehow India, a much more poor country solved this mostly, it would seem we can solve it too.


maybe policy shouldn't be based on a minority of insane religious zealots.


They're not a minority in the US, either politically or culturally.


Evangelicals are.


Hopefully he gets some money out of this. Can't imagine being grabbed, held in a cell somewhere, and then told I had to be deported all of the sudden.

From the article:

> On Wednesday, attorneys for Carrillo announced a settlement deal in which the government will pay him $20,000 to resolve a civil lawsuit he filed over the arrest.


Saw that. I wish he'd gotten more than that. $20k seems like a slap on the wrist to the agency.


For being detained for 4 days, though? It seems reasonable to me for mistakenly arresting him. It doesn't excuse what sounds like unkind and rude behavior from the officers, though, which they shouldn't be doing even when really deporting someone.


4 days of mental anguish and distress is worth more than that. It's a stress and pain that will stay with a person for a long time. It also has to be enough of a deterrent so that the agency is more careful next time.


Sounds extremely low. They violated his rights.


In most states, no form of ID is required to vote. You walk in to your polling place and tell them your name and address. The vetting takes place during the voter registration process which either puts your name on the Voter Roll or not. You walk into the designated place that has your name in the book, and then you sign in as having received a ballot, on the line listing your name and address.

The last poll worker who asked me for an ID, I told them ID was not required in order to vote. They handed me my ballot, without even a single word of argument. It's not illegal for them to ask either; it's just a form of voter suppression instituted by either the Country Registrar, the District Supervisor or the Precinct Head.


How can you expect to not have fraud?


Right, because it’s easy to guess someone’s name and address and polling place. And to mimick their signature, which can be easily scanned and compared with the registration form. The Registrar can invalidate a voter’s registration on that basis.

The myth of voter fraud in the US has been debunked time and time again, just Google it for yourself. Voter fraud is a big distraction from the real Election Fraud that’s going on. Like the Democrat-appointed Country Registrar in Los Angeles who neglected to inform Precinct Leaders by law they were supposed to display the write-in candidates (like Bernie Sanders) on the table where people sign in. I toured 3 different precincts in my neighborhood and got into it with each Precinct Leader and showed them the CA Election Code to convince them to properly display the write-in lists. And then I tracked down the District Election Supervisor who told me no instructions were given about write-ins and he was upset about it too.

Or like the 5 Berner’s I know personally who had their registration changed to mail-in, through no action on their part. The dirty trick there is the voter is handed a provisional ballot when they show up at their polling place.


You don't need to guess people's name and address. And it can be systematic. And you can, with little effort, make it hard for a group of people to go to vote.


Signatures can be scanned and compared, but are they? I imagine this would only happen during a full audit, which doesn't sound like it happens a lot.

It is kind of like saying a door can be locked.


> why don't people have national ID cards in US

The passport serves that.


Passports cost money and are only issued to citizens. An ID card could be issued to permanent residents, long term visa holders even. It would be smaller in size, have a public key based digital signature chip on it, etc. Basically more of a non-crappy social security card.


> It also violates decency and common sense as well, and veers into plain old brutality.

Yup.

This should result in a large settlement, and punishment ranging from minor discipline to jail time for the officers involved.


The reason for his detention is mentioned near the end of the article:

"After several hours, Carrillo and another detainee were driven to a privately run immigration detention center in Adelanto, 85 miles outside Los Angeles in the Mojave Desert."

Privately run centers don't get paid based on citizenship or not but on services rendered.


I wonder if the $20K settlement is a contractual sanction against the vendor for making an identity error.


There are so many underlying issues here. Race. Politics. Police conduct. Private prisons. Even NSA-level surveillance (the obvious efforts to geolocation his phone prior to the arrest). Demonetization of felons. Just about everything that is wrong in the US landed on this guy. Everyone needs a lawyer. You don't have to pay them, but memorize their name/number for that day you find the world landing on your head.


> Demonetization of felons

Do you mean disenfranchisement?


I think he means "demonization" but it's a really interesting typo.


That makes a lot more sense. I was really confused and wondering if we had veered off into YouTube territory. Although, there is still an argument to be had about felons are monetized because private prisons make money off of it. Hmm...


Stupid work computer is always correcting my spelling without me noticing. Back at home now on a machine that actually works (linux).


The process of taking dollar-valued felons into the human sphere is truly demonizing.


Probably meant something akin to 'demon-ization'.


Felons have trouble getting jobs. Demonetization may have been the intended word.


That would assume felons were ever "monetized".

I mean, plenty are (of the Wall Street kind), but we're far from demonetizing them.


The private prison system is, in many cases, state-sanctioned slavery. Prisoners are very definitely monetized — and not just by the $15/minute phone calls to their loved ones.


Private prisons monetize prisoners, so releasing someone is demonetization. (I joke ... sort of.)


Prisoners are monetized via slave labor.


Or it could have been demonetization of florins.


Shouldnt the government have a database for all the US passports it has issued? How does a problem like this happen to someone who has a passport?


Just to put things in perspective, a quick google search gives a number of 380k-442k detentions per year [1]. The article states 2,840 citizens identified for deportation since 2002 (or average ~190/yr)[^]. Giving us an error rate of ~0.046%, averaged over the 15 years.

[^] were these people detained? Does it count in the data set?

[1] http://www.endisolation.org/resources/immigration-detention/ (these numbers may be wrong, I haven't fact checked this site)


Any is too many.


Just contrasting this to death sentence

> estimate that if all death-sentenced defendants remained under sentence of death indefinitely at least 4.1% would be exonerated. [1]

@_@

1. http://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230.abstract


While we should strive towards zero, perfection is for the gods. Till then, we just have to try and understand how far we have to go.


I’m actually in favor of having a biometric system like Aadhar in the United States.

We should be automating our border patrol, I cringe at how inefficient our government is. Why are we still using paper records and certificates? These government bureaucrats are literal parasites on our society.


So let's replace this "inefficient" human bureaucracy with the fine work of the top dollar private sector contractors that have spearheaded advanced biometrics programs like Theranos, run it as efficiently as healthcare.gov, with all this private data stored in a database as secure as that of Equifax.


Theranos is not an 'advanced biometrics program'.


Leeching off of the taxpayer is like a drug. And much like an addict, the government bureaucrat will fight to maintain their unearned privileges. Sad!


Wouldn't a private government contractor also fight to maintain their contracts?


But even that is only as good as the infrastructure behind it. I landed at Dulles on an international flight one day and the entire immigration system was down so none of the self-service kiosks or agent terminals were working creating huge backlogs. In the end US passport holders were let through with a visual passport check while all others were SOL until the system came back online.


I'm wholly opposed to a national ID scheme, but a national ID scheme would prevent stuff like this.

We currently have no national registry of who, or who isn't a citizen, and no verifiable way to tie identity to work status, or anything else.

Stuff like this is part of the price we pay for freedom I suppose.


"Stuff like this is part of the price we pay for freedom I suppose."

What an odd conclusion to draw from this. Do countries with national ID's not have freedom?


They seem to have less freedom overall, theoretically - in any case, the American psyche has a well ingrained fear of big government, we fought a war over it, more or less - a war that we in part continue to fight amongst ourselves.


Are you living in fairy land? Or in a bubble? How does USA citizen have more rights/freedom than for example Scandinavians?


The core idea of the American vision of rights is that rights against future governments matter just as much as rights against present ones. For example, a Democrat speaking in support of the DNC doesn't need free speech against a Democratic administration, but they would need it against a Republican one. That's the reason behind the "what if we need to rebel?" argument against gun control, the "turnkey tyranny" argument against self-surveillance, and the rest. American political philosophy will seem totally incomprehensible if you miss this point!


Yes, this.

In politics, you should never give yourself more power then you wish your opponent to have at some point in the future.

Another is, a right by executive order isn't a right.


A few ways:

1) Freedom of speech in the US is the most unrestricted in the world. "Hate speech" (or more accurately: whatever the current cultural consensus deems to be beyond the pale) is not an exception.

2) Protections for criminal defendants in the US are the greatest in the world:

* No other country has a hard rule that excludes all illegally-collected evidence, and legally-collected evidence flowing from illegally-collected evidence, from trial.

* More generally, we have very extensive rules of evidence that limit what can be admitted into court, to protect the rights of the criminally accused, and both sides of a civil case. The UK has similarly extensive rules, but the rest of Europe does not.

* An absolute right to trial by jury for anything greater than a petty criminal charge.

3) The right to homeschool your children. This is essentially illegal in Sweden, Germany, and some other European countries.


> 2) Protections for criminal defendants in the US are the greatest in the world:

Other countries (such as Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) have weaker protections for criminal defendants during the trial, yes. But, assuming you are convicted, prison sentences tend to be shorter on average and there is no death penalty. On another point, to compare Australia to the US, the High Court of Australia has basically full appellate jurisdiction (even on state law questions) when it chooses to exercise it, whereas the US Supreme Court's jurisdiction is limited to appeals on points of federal law only, and AEDPA has limited access to federal habeas corpus. So I think the convicted have greater rights of appeal under Australian law than US law. So it isn't clear to me that criminal defendants actually have more rights under the US system overall – they have more rights prior to conviction, but less rights afterward.


I don't see how the different jurisdictions of the high courts really plays into this. Everything in the Bill of Rights (with the exception of the right to jury trial in civil cases, recognized substantially by every state anyway) is applied to the states as a matter of federal law and is therefore subject to review by the federal Supreme Court. For things not implicating any federal question, why is having an appeal to the federal Supreme Court important? Having an extra layer of government does not grant you more rights in and of itself.


From the criminal appellants viewpoint, it is in their interests to have as many opportunities to appeal and as many grounds to appeal as possible. The more opportunities to appeal, the greater chance that one of your appeals may turn out favourably to you. So, in the US system, you cannot appeal points of state law to federal courts, but in the Australian system you can, so you have more opportunities to appeal in Australia. Plus, AEDPA limits access to federal habeas corpus (which is a form of collateral appeal as opposed to direct appeal), whereas there is no corresponding limitation under Australian law.

How does this to relate to rights? Well, arguably one of our rights is the right to appeal adverse judicial decisions. And the Australian legal system grants more extensive rights in that area than the US one does.


And, of course judicial process is the means by which other rights are given effect, so less appeal opportunities translates, the reliability of the individual courts being equal, to less effective protection of whatever rights exist on paper.


Again, if a state law case implicates any federal issues, such as the Bill of Rights, then you can appeal to the US Supreme Court.

For those not well-versed in law, this discussion is very misleading. Appellate courts do not retry facts, they only decide if there was an error of law in the lower court. American states retain a lot more power than Australian states do, including the right to their own common law and to apply their own judicial philosophy. To substitute the judgment of the federal courts on issues of purely state law is to abolish federalism to a large degree.


> For those not well-versed in law, this discussion is very misleading. Appellate courts do not retry facts, they only decide if there was an error of law in the lower court.

Appellate courts (at least in some systems) are allowed to reopen the facts, for example to consider new evidence not available at the time of trial - see e.g. http://www.courtofappealbc.ca/appellant-guidebook/3.5-introd...

> American states retain a lot more power than Australian states do, including the right to their own common law and to apply their own judicial philosophy. To substitute the judgment of the federal courts on issues of purely state law is to abolish federalism to a large degree.

Australian state court systems have always been subject to review by higher courts. Originally by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, and now the High Court of Australia has taken over that jurisdiction. I don't think it is reasonable to say that because we do federalism differently than the US, we don't do federalism at all.

It is also worth keeping in mind that there is a potential tension between states rights and individual rights. If a state is trying to limit my rights as an individual, and the federal government or courts wants to stop that, and "states rights" limit the ability of the federal government or courts to step in and protect my individual rights, then that is a case in which my individual rights are being sacrificed to protect "states rights". So, I'd say that in the matter of appeals, the US chooses to prioritise states rights over individual rights in a way in which Australia doesn't.


You seem convinced that additional appeals can only work in the defendants favor. Suppose that a state supreme court decides to give more rights to defendants under its common law. Suppose the state supreme court finds for a defendant based on that. Allowing the prosecution to appeal that decision to the federal supreme court actually HURTS the defendant.

I'm not saying there's no federalism in Australia. I'm saying that the federalism is substantially limited by having one general common law to rule them all. And also by imposing a single approach to judicial decision making.

Also, I think you continue to misrepresent the situation. You have every right to appeal a violation of your federally-granted rights to the federal Supreme Court. It is only rights granted to you only by your state that cannot, generally, be appealed. As I said above, it also means that prosecutors cannot try to get a decision made for you, by a state court on the basis of state law, overturned by the federal courts. So it cuts both ways.


> You seem convinced that additional appeals can only work in the defendants favor.

No denying that in the general case greater rights of appeal could work against the defendant as well as in favour of them. But in practice it all depends on how defendant-friendly the federal and individual state court systems actually are. I'm sure that for at least some US states, if the federal court system was granted Australian-style supremacy over them, the end result would be more defendant-friendly than it is now. Maybe for some other states it would be the opposite, but you have to ask which of those two situations would be the more common.


> 2) Protections for criminal defendants in the US are the greatest in the world

That is assuming you stay alive, no? As far as I know, USA is the only developed country where a police officer killing an unarmed person doesn't even make national news.

> 3) The right to homeschool your children. This is essentially illegal in Sweden, Germany, and some other European countries.

Another way to see this is that kids in Sweden or Germany have basic right to education whose quality is certified by the government. In America, anything goes. (Whether it's good or bad is a matter of opinion, I guess...)


I think I would still rather be a defendant in the Swedish justice system than the US one if I had a choice.


You also have the highest incarceration rate in the world, private prisons, mandatory minimums, DAs who extort people into accepting plea deals under the threat of extreme sentences, a civil system which encourages frivolous lawsuits, etc...


Re: incarceration rate

We have one of the highest crime rates in the world. If our penal system didn't work the way it did, America would descend into chaos.


You forgot how it is the other way around bro...


>> Do countries with national ID's not have freedom?

> They seem to have less freedom overall, theoretically

I think you accidentally forgot to type a very long and well-cited essay in between those two lines?


Which war was that - the revolutionary war? I would suggest that was more about establishing our own 'big government' than being governed by England...


One can argue that the revolutionary war was about the power of government.

See the 3rd thru 10th amendments, specifically the 3rd and 4th.

The war was as much about the question of what the powers of government ought to be as anything else.


If you want to understand the motives of the Revolutionary War, look at the Articles of Confederation rather than the current Constitution.


Or, better, the Declaration of Independence.


> in any case, the American psyche has a well ingrained fear of big government, we fought a war over it, more or less

Kind of, though it was really more about the potential that central government would eventually act me way on one particular issue, but the side of big central government won that war. (We earlier fought a war against government without representation, but that's a different issue.)


One can argue that the revolutionary war was as much about the power of government, as it was about representation.

See the 3rd thru 10th amendments, specifically the 3rd and 4th.

The question is not whether the government is federal, or more of a confederation, it was what the rights of that government, and the rights of the people ought to be.


> See the 3rd thru 10th amendments, specifically the 3rd and 4th

I'm not sure how Amendments to the Constitution which replaced the Articles of Confederation provide any evidence whatsoever about the purposes of the Revolutionary War (they provide evidence of the concerns that needed to be addressed as part of the massive centralization, relative to the AoC, that the Constitution represented, but that's a whole different issue.)


The genesis of the bill of rights has more to do with how the British ran government in the colonies, and dealt with dissenting opinion than with just the concerns of the anti-federalists. Specifically in re the 3rd amendment.


What are you smoking?


Some Americans have an extremely narrow and odd definition of freedom. I've been told before I don't have freedom because I'm Canadian.

Also the highest incarceration rate in the free world and an election system subject to massive corruption. But hey, no national ID is more indicative of freedom.


> but a national ID scheme would prevent stuff like this.

If ICE wouldn't accept a passport, I doubt a national ID would have helped.


> Stuff like this is part of the price we pay for freedom I suppose.

That's really easy to say when you (and, honestly, I) are not the ones paying that price.


Freedom from what, exactly? Clearly the government has made databases with citizen information, just poor ones. Why would a higher quality database where the key was some national ID number deprive you of freedom?


This is one of the truly American stupid statements that mean nothing to the rest of the world.


> I'm wholly opposed to a national ID scheme

Curious, why?


Fear of tracking, loss of state sovereignty, another large federal bureaucracy that is difficult to deal with.


> Fear of tracking

There is already pervasive tracking I am afraid. Having a smartphone, social accounts, banking online, NSA running wild, face recognition tech tested in airports, traffic cameras. At this point, it seems an ID card wouldn't make much of a difference in that area. I have an ID card by being a citizen of another country, I just don't feel like I am somehow tracked more or less free because of it.

> another large federal bureaucracy that is difficult to deal with

I've seen state government being just as dysfunctional and I've seen other countries have even more bureaucratic governments. If they can do it, so can the federal government.

In a way the social security card is already a broken and terrible ID, which is misused and causes billions of dollars in waste every year. So the ID is effectively there, it's just very bad and an in need of an update.


Stuff like this is the price we pay for oppression by overzealous immigration enforcement. The price for freedom in this instance would be less vigorous enforcement against illegal immigrants.


The great britain deported a bunch of unwanted people to Australia back in the day. Instead of wasting tax payer money, more criminals should be deported out. May be to Puerto Rico or some other territory far away where labor is cheap.


Perfect, lets bring back public executions too? I think your opinions regarding those dirty criminals would change pretty quickly if you had been born less privileged or maybe had a friend/family member who got thrown in jail for dealing weed or lying on their taxes. Or if you lived in Puerto Rico.. but hey who cares what happens to everyone else right?


Will you be ok with Puerto Rico deporting all of its criminals to your city ?



>As a young teenager, Carrillo automatically became a U.S. citizen when his mother went through the naturalization process. As an adult, he had two serious run-ins with law enforcement: a 2007 conviction for carrying a concealed weapon and another in 2011 for sending sexually explicit material to a minor, according to law enforcement records reviewed by The Times.

>In the second case, Carrillo was sentenced to 240 days in jail and three years’ probation, the records show.

In theory ICE could check this out, but sanctuary city policy is to not cooperate with ICE, so my guess is they did not have immediate access to this information.

Given that this was an outlier case, I'm guessing the city would withhold the verification because most times it would show illegal status. Of course, it would make sense if all the enforcement agencies had synchronized data, but that seems like a pipe dream for an organization like the US gov.


>In theory ICE could check this out, but sanctuary city policy is to not cooperate with ICE, so my guess is they did not have immediate access to this information.

I don't think this has anything to do with sanctuary cities. I am convinced they had easy access to his info:

"As a young teenager, Carrillo automatically became a U.S. citizen when his mother went through the naturalization process."

That means USCIS had everything -- his SSN, fingerprints, photos, (even though from his teenage years). Could have been trivial for ICE to check, if they wanted to.


My speculation was dead wrong, in fact LA functions more or less like a regular city regarding the LAPD/ICE relationship

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/27/los-angeles-mayor-flirts...

>LAPD officers have historically shared intelligence with ICE through the CalGang database system, and ICE agents are in the county jails on a near-daily basis.


In theory ICE could check this out, but sanctuary city policy is to not cooperate with ICE, so my guess is they did not have immediate access to this information.

Also I think Hilary's emails and Benghazi obviously played a factor here. And Obamacare. And gay marriage. And liberals.


You forgot Uranium One, that one is clearly the most important at all.


> After being allowed to make a phone call to an uncle, Carrillo said his son brought a passport and a certificate of citizenship the government issued Carrillo but that ICE officers refused to review the documents.

Seems the problem lies with ICE officers and not the city.


>ICE officers refused to review the documents.

Curious why did they refused to review the documents. Just malice, racism ect?


They probably believed that it wasn't their jobs to check the paperwork, that a judge would sort it out.

That's so far from the truth, though. Despite their having orders to get Carrillo, it was their job to read the paperwork that was provided. The alternative is police who are "just following orders". History shows the consequences of that to be armies of evil.


Probably because they're Immigration and Customs Enforcement - not Immigration and Customs Judges. They enforce the orders that they're given. The proper forum for presenting that evidence would be in front of a judge. Or do police officers get to tear up arrest warrants because a family member gave them a video tape showing the person being arrested is innocent?

inb4 'just following orders' response: We're not talking about murdering people here, so here's a ladder so you can get off your high horse and we can engage on the same level.


From the article:

"The refusal by ICE officials to listen to Carrillo’s claims of citizenship appeared to violate an agency policy that requires officers to thoroughly and quickly investigate such claims"

Of course they are not going to release a suspect immediately, but their responsability was to investigate those claims and bring their supperior's attention to them. They were not "following orders", they were going against them.


>...but he was told he had to file his complaint in writing to an ICE officer who was assigned to his case. He said he did so, but received no response.

>The refusal by ICE officials to listen to Carrillo's claims of citizenship appeared to violate an agency policy that requires officers to thoroughly and quickly investigate such claims. If there is any doubt whether someone is a citizen, the policy instructs officers not to arrest the person until the confusion is resolved.


> until the confusion is resolved.

How is the confusion resolved? ICE officers are equipped to verify the documents?


> ICE officers are equipped to verify the documents?

If Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not equipped (internally or by communication with USCIS) to confirm the validity of purported immigration documents, why bother having the agency at all? I mean is there anything more essential to their purported mission?


The damage of an illegal immigrant being out a couple hours longer is minimal. The damage of a citizen being falsely arrested is ideally the worst possible thing we should do. In the case of blatant malice like this, that should be treated exactly like the kidnapping that it is.


Start by putting a passport authentication device in the offices. Secondly if they are too incompetent to do this, establish a contact number with the relevant agency to verify it quickly. Honestly if they can verify your passport in the airport, how hard is it for ICE to do this?


They can certainly contact USCIS, which holds the official records for immigration and naturalization. Both USCIS and ICE are part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

They can also contact the U.S. Department of State, which issues passports, to verify the passport.


> The proper forum for presenting that evidence would be in front of a judge.

Ok that makes sense. However given that they are ICE not just a regular police force wouldn't stuff like showing proof of citizens also be enough to amend the order.

> family member gave them a video tape showing the person being arrested is innocent

A video tape is not the same as a passport. A passport is good enough for the DHS to let people into the country or not, nobody has to go in front of a judge there. I don't see why ICE employees couldn't also perform the same check.


ICE is not a normal police force where warrants are issued by judges, they can pick someone up with no specific warrant, they can detain anyone they wish, for as long as they wish, with no due process, provided they believe they are not a citizen.


> sanctuary city policy is to not cooperate with ICE

I don't think that's true, unless you have an example. Usually sanctuary cities have policies like "don't hold illegal immigrants while you wait for ICE agents unless they've broken another law", "don't automatically notify ICE when an illegal immigrant is released from jail", etc.

It doesn't mean "don't return their phone calls and never share information".


> In theory ICE could check this out, but sanctuary city policy is to not cooperate with ICE, so my guess is they did not have immediate access to this information.

Cities aren't the source of authority for naturalization information, USCIS is. Sanctuary cities have no effect on ICEs ability to verify information whose authoritative source is another office that, like ICE, is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.


That's not how criminal records or sanctuary cities work.


I don't think you understand what a "sanctuary city" is.


Cities are not responsible for naturalization.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: