anyone who is an undocumented immigrant has no free speech because they will be snatched
Why would you think your free speech rights should give you immunity from deportation if you're not actually here legally? Protesting while obviously out of compliance with the law is quite a bit different from being suppressed by a completely fabricated charge.
Because freedom of speech is more important than immigration bullshit, and because arresting people on unrelated charges is one of many tools in the toolchest of those who wish to silence dissent.
It is one of many chilling effects that makes large scale movements all but impossible in the US. Police simply wander around spotting people they think might have something in their past that allows them to arrest them. I'm a middle class white guy, and I've been detained and had my ID run at least a dozen times in the past two years, merely for having the gall to show up at a protest. I've never been arrested, and never had a warrant, so I don't fear being detained the way many would...but knowing that you will very likely be targeted just for being present, even if you aren't breaking any laws, insures a whole lot of people simply don't show up.
So, by saying this is OK, as long as it is not a "completely fabricated charge" you're insuring that there is no such thing as a large scale movement to change anything in the US. Most people cannot afford to be targeted by police in the way that a lot of activists I know have been.
I believe that undocumented workers have the right to free speech. I believe that people with warrants have the right to free speech. They don't have that free speech because they know they are likely to be targeted by police if they exercise that speech for dissent (just like anyone expressing dissent becomes a target). It's just that the cost of being targeted by police is so much higher than it is for someone like me.
I think understand your position a little better now, that as you said checking people's status has a chilling effect. I was thinking of the undocumented thing in the context of an actual protest with people holding signs saying they are undocumented. I believe this is basically daring the police to do something about you. There is basically no way for an undocumented immigrant to protest without crossing over into civil disobedience, which has obvious costs. I still don't think it's totally the same, but I see where you're coming from.
Actually, I think there's interesting discussion to be had around where you're coming from, and where I'm coming from. And, also with regard to the actual law.
Local police departments actually are not supposed to enforce immigration laws. It's even likely unconstitutional in some cases for local police officers to target people for searches and ID checks based on the assumption that they are here illegally. It's not even about my beliefs on the issue. It's about local police policy and ordinances.
The reasons that local police departments aren't tasked with immigration enforcement are many.
For example, imagine a domestic dispute between a person who is in the US without documentation and a partner who is here legally. Let's imagine the partner who is here legally is violent, and beats the crap out of the person who is here without documentation. How do you want this to play out? Do you want the person being abused to not call for help for fear of being deported? Or, do you want the cops to come do their job, help someone who is being hurt, and haul the abuser away leaving the victim of the abuse safe? Most jurisdictions in the US have chosen the latter. Cops have a lot of leeway to be assholes in this circumstance, but they're under policy guidance to help the victim and not make the situation worse.
Another example, say an undocumented immigrant witnesses a violent crime. Do you want them to be deported if they come forward and identify the assailant? Or, do you want them to be able to report the crime, give their testimony (even in court), and help put a dangerous person away?
I believe being part of the civic discourse, up to and including participating in a protest, march, rally, etc. is of a piece with these other examples. If a local police officer catches an armed robber, and that robber turns out to be an undocumented immigrant, I won't argue about immigration getting involved. But, if someone wants to speak to encourage more kind immigration law that effects them and their family? Yeah, I think they should be able to do that, without fear of being targeted.
Civil disobedience is great, and I support it. But, it is also an action that requires privilege. Many undocumented immigrants have families to support (often including children who are legal US citizens, having been born here); if they are arrested and deported for speaking out, their whole family suffers.
Admittedly, I fall very far on the side of being opposed to our immigration laws as they currently stand. I believe state borders are immoral, in and of themselves, regardless of how they are enforced. Even so, the reality is that local law enforcement shouldn't be using the threat of deportation to stifle dissent. Not because I say so, but because people all over the country have said so, and it is reflected in local laws and police department policies. But, when it comes to protests...the rules get tossed out the window. Protesters are nearly always considered second class citizens, and subject to more aggressive tactics; constitutional protections are considered much lower during a protest action, especially if some protesters are breaking the law.
Given that undercover cops often (so often that it is to be expected, and activist trainers have to cover it as though it will happen) incite law breaking in order to allow uniformed officers to engage more aggressively, I think it's time to turn that tide way the fuck back.
In short, I hear you. I might have even agreed with you at some point in the past. I understand where your position comes from. But, somewhere along the way, my allegiance flipped. I simply don't trust my government to have good intentions.
I think there's a useful discussion to be had about what private property looks like. Should a corporation be allowed to hold a monopoly over millions of acres of land over a span of hundreds of years, for instance? I think most folks, anarchists and extreme leftists included, would consider a home and a family garden a perfectly legitimate piece of "private property". But, somewhere, as the stakes get higher, and the abstractions for the entity that "owns" the property (and who is responsible for what happens on that property, such as pollution, violence, etc.) becomes more diffuse, there is useful discussion to be had about whether that is legitimate private property or not.
I believe it is a stretch to say that an entity as diffuse as the United States (or any nation state) should be able to prevent billions of people from traveling freely from Mexico to Canada.
In short, I think "private property" is a good and useful fiction that we can probably all agree on, when we are speaking of individual humans who live and work on a piece of property. When you begin to make up fictional entities to "own" the property, I am less confident of the rightness of the theory.
Yes, well done. My one-acre homestead is indeed exactly the same as a sovereign state, it in fact changes nothing when the scale is millions of times that large. Also access to private property and state immigration are in fact the exact same concept as well.
Why would you think your free speech rights should give you immunity from deportation if you're not actually here legally?
You are implying that only people who follow the laws in the US have the right of free speech. That's a very, very sad way to look at things, as it means anyone trying to actually change anything has no basic rights.
i.e. same sex couples, people smoking weed, etc. etc. These people are breaking the law (in most of the country) but they absolutely must be allowed free speech to talk about it. If not, how can anything ever change or get better?
Taking away free speech from people that don't follow the current laws of the US means a very bleak future.
Your right to free speech begins and ends with speech. You have a right to call for marijuana legalization, but if marijuana is illegal and you light up a joint in front of a cop, then yes he can arrest you and this is no violation of your free speech rights. Correspondingly, your right to free speech, right here and right now, is naturally pre-empted when you have no legal right to even be in the country. From the perspective of the US government, you are perfectly free to exercise your opinion about immigration reform from outside of the borders of the USA. The fact that this is obviously less desirable from the point of view of the illegal alien is basically irrelevant to what they have a "right" to do.
What you are talking about is civil disobedience, but you don't seem to understand how that works either. Civil disobedience is knowing something is against the law, and doing it anyway as an act of political resistance to motivate change in the system. Even then, you accept that an act is illegal and that you are breaking that law, rather than just blanket argument that anybody who is actively protesting a law should be allowed to break it without legal consequences because they disagree with it. I get it, you're for immigration reform so you think it's a stupid law and you don't care if they break it. But I'm arguing from the standpoint of a general legal principle.
I get it, you're for immigration reform so you think it's a stupid law and you don't care if they break it.
Not at all.
I'm for allowing people to assemble, peacefully protest and have their voice heard.
I'm for not escalating unrelated charges to people trying to do so.
Once you let that happen, you'll very quickly find every single person is breaking some obscure law or other, and every single person will be arrested when they even talk about voting for the other party.
Comments
Why would you think your free speech rights should give you immunity from deportation if you're not actually here legally? Protesting while obviously out of compliance with the law is quite a bit different from being suppressed by a completely fabricated charge.
Because freedom of speech is more important than immigration bullshit, and because arresting people on unrelated charges is one of many tools in the toolchest of those who wish to silence dissent.
It is one of many chilling effects that makes large scale movements all but impossible in the US. Police simply wander around spotting people they think might have something in their past that allows them to arrest them. I'm a middle class white guy, and I've been detained and had my ID run at least a dozen times in the past two years, merely for having the gall to show up at a protest. I've never been arrested, and never had a warrant, so I don't fear being detained the way many would...but knowing that you will very likely be targeted just for being present, even if you aren't breaking any laws, insures a whole lot of people simply don't show up.
So, by saying this is OK, as long as it is not a "completely fabricated charge" you're insuring that there is no such thing as a large scale movement to change anything in the US. Most people cannot afford to be targeted by police in the way that a lot of activists I know have been.
I believe that undocumented workers have the right to free speech. I believe that people with warrants have the right to free speech. They don't have that free speech because they know they are likely to be targeted by police if they exercise that speech for dissent (just like anyone expressing dissent becomes a target). It's just that the cost of being targeted by police is so much higher than it is for someone like me.
I think understand your position a little better now, that as you said checking people's status has a chilling effect. I was thinking of the undocumented thing in the context of an actual protest with people holding signs saying they are undocumented. I believe this is basically daring the police to do something about you. There is basically no way for an undocumented immigrant to protest without crossing over into civil disobedience, which has obvious costs. I still don't think it's totally the same, but I see where you're coming from.
Actually, I think there's interesting discussion to be had around where you're coming from, and where I'm coming from. And, also with regard to the actual law.
Local police departments actually are not supposed to enforce immigration laws. It's even likely unconstitutional in some cases for local police officers to target people for searches and ID checks based on the assumption that they are here illegally. It's not even about my beliefs on the issue. It's about local police policy and ordinances.
The reasons that local police departments aren't tasked with immigration enforcement are many.
For example, imagine a domestic dispute between a person who is in the US without documentation and a partner who is here legally. Let's imagine the partner who is here legally is violent, and beats the crap out of the person who is here without documentation. How do you want this to play out? Do you want the person being abused to not call for help for fear of being deported? Or, do you want the cops to come do their job, help someone who is being hurt, and haul the abuser away leaving the victim of the abuse safe? Most jurisdictions in the US have chosen the latter. Cops have a lot of leeway to be assholes in this circumstance, but they're under policy guidance to help the victim and not make the situation worse.
Another example, say an undocumented immigrant witnesses a violent crime. Do you want them to be deported if they come forward and identify the assailant? Or, do you want them to be able to report the crime, give their testimony (even in court), and help put a dangerous person away?
I believe being part of the civic discourse, up to and including participating in a protest, march, rally, etc. is of a piece with these other examples. If a local police officer catches an armed robber, and that robber turns out to be an undocumented immigrant, I won't argue about immigration getting involved. But, if someone wants to speak to encourage more kind immigration law that effects them and their family? Yeah, I think they should be able to do that, without fear of being targeted.
Civil disobedience is great, and I support it. But, it is also an action that requires privilege. Many undocumented immigrants have families to support (often including children who are legal US citizens, having been born here); if they are arrested and deported for speaking out, their whole family suffers.
Admittedly, I fall very far on the side of being opposed to our immigration laws as they currently stand. I believe state borders are immoral, in and of themselves, regardless of how they are enforced. Even so, the reality is that local law enforcement shouldn't be using the threat of deportation to stifle dissent. Not because I say so, but because people all over the country have said so, and it is reflected in local laws and police department policies. But, when it comes to protests...the rules get tossed out the window. Protesters are nearly always considered second class citizens, and subject to more aggressive tactics; constitutional protections are considered much lower during a protest action, especially if some protesters are breaking the law.
Given that undercover cops often (so often that it is to be expected, and activist trainers have to cover it as though it will happen) incite law breaking in order to allow uniformed officers to engage more aggressively, I think it's time to turn that tide way the fuck back.
In short, I hear you. I might have even agreed with you at some point in the past. I understand where your position comes from. But, somewhere along the way, my allegiance flipped. I simply don't trust my government to have good intentions.
Shouldn't this extend to private property as well? Who are you to say who can and can't be in your home?
I think there's a useful discussion to be had about what private property looks like. Should a corporation be allowed to hold a monopoly over millions of acres of land over a span of hundreds of years, for instance? I think most folks, anarchists and extreme leftists included, would consider a home and a family garden a perfectly legitimate piece of "private property". But, somewhere, as the stakes get higher, and the abstractions for the entity that "owns" the property (and who is responsible for what happens on that property, such as pollution, violence, etc.) becomes more diffuse, there is useful discussion to be had about whether that is legitimate private property or not.
I believe it is a stretch to say that an entity as diffuse as the United States (or any nation state) should be able to prevent billions of people from traveling freely from Mexico to Canada.
In short, I think "private property" is a good and useful fiction that we can probably all agree on, when we are speaking of individual humans who live and work on a piece of property. When you begin to make up fictional entities to "own" the property, I am less confident of the rightness of the theory.
Yes, well done. My one-acre homestead is indeed exactly the same as a sovereign state, it in fact changes nothing when the scale is millions of times that large. Also access to private property and state immigration are in fact the exact same concept as well.
You are implying that only people who follow the laws in the US have the right of free speech. That's a very, very sad way to look at things, as it means anyone trying to actually change anything has no basic rights.
i.e. same sex couples, people smoking weed, etc. etc. These people are breaking the law (in most of the country) but they absolutely must be allowed free speech to talk about it. If not, how can anything ever change or get better?
Taking away free speech from people that don't follow the current laws of the US means a very bleak future.
Your right to free speech begins and ends with speech. You have a right to call for marijuana legalization, but if marijuana is illegal and you light up a joint in front of a cop, then yes he can arrest you and this is no violation of your free speech rights. Correspondingly, your right to free speech, right here and right now, is naturally pre-empted when you have no legal right to even be in the country. From the perspective of the US government, you are perfectly free to exercise your opinion about immigration reform from outside of the borders of the USA. The fact that this is obviously less desirable from the point of view of the illegal alien is basically irrelevant to what they have a "right" to do.
What you are talking about is civil disobedience, but you don't seem to understand how that works either. Civil disobedience is knowing something is against the law, and doing it anyway as an act of political resistance to motivate change in the system. Even then, you accept that an act is illegal and that you are breaking that law, rather than just blanket argument that anybody who is actively protesting a law should be allowed to break it without legal consequences because they disagree with it. I get it, you're for immigration reform so you think it's a stupid law and you don't care if they break it. But I'm arguing from the standpoint of a general legal principle.
Not at all.
I'm for allowing people to assemble, peacefully protest and have their voice heard.
I'm for not escalating unrelated charges to people trying to do so.
Once you let that happen, you'll very quickly find every single person is breaking some obscure law or other, and every single person will be arrested when they even talk about voting for the other party.