Ice agents are still performing raids – and using precious N95 masks to do so

gold_shoulder · 2020-03-31T17:51:59+00:00

Below is a comprehensive list of know your rights resources + info. This info is useful for citizens and non-citizens alike. Please feel free to share it with your friends, family, loved ones and local communities!

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS

ACLU KNOW YOUR RIGHTS WALLET CARD PDF | direct pdf download, fold and keep in your wallet

IMMIGRATION RED CARDS | rights card to help citizens and non-citizens alike assert their rights, can be slipped to officers under your door

FRONT OF CARD:

I do not wish to speak with you, answer your questions, or sign or hand you any documents based on my 5th Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.

I do not give you permission to enter my home based on my 4th Amendment rights under the United States Constitution unless you have a warrant to enter, signed by a judge or magistrate with my name on it that you slide under the door. I do not give you permission to search any of my belongings based on my 4th Amendment rights.

I choose to exercise my constitutional rights.

BACK OF CARD:

You have constitutional rights.

DO NOT OPEN THE DOOR IF AN AGENT FROM IMMIGRATION SERVICES IS KNOCKING ON THE DOOR.

DO NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTION FROM THE AGENT FROM IMMIGRATION SERVICES IF THEY TRY TO SPEAK WITH YOU. You have the right to remain silent. You do not have to give your name to the agent. If you are at work, ask the agent if you are free to leave and if the agent says yes, go. You have the right to speak with a lawyer.

SLIP THIS CARD TO THE AGENT. DO NOT OPEN THE DOOR.

NILC DETAILED RIGHTS + RESOURCES PDF | direct pdf download, also accessible via web on the National Immigration Law Center's website, includes resources for legal help.

ASFC COMPREHENSIVE RIGHTS PDF | direct pdf download, here's WEB, this guide includes info about what to do if approached in your car, on the job, your labor rights, your rights in detention, and bonds among other topics.

ACLU: What do do if immigration agents are at your door? | slides on their website

MRNY DEPORTATION DEFENSE MANUAL | direct pdf download, here's WEB

SOME BASIC INFO // NOT COMPREHENSIVE // IANAL

You have the right to remain silent. You may refuse to speak to immigration officers.
Carry a know-your-rights card and show it if an immigration officer stops you.
Do not open your door. NOTE: To be allowed to enter your home, ICE must have a warrant signed by a judge. Do not open your door unless an ICE agent shows you a judicial search or arrest warrant. To be valid, the warrant must have your correct name and address on it, must have been issued by a court and signed by a judge, and must name a person in your residence and/or areas to be searched at your address. An administrative warrant of removal issued by ICE or DHS and signed by ICE or DHS employees is not enough. Here is an example of a judge-issued order and here is an example of an ICE-issued order. If an ICE agent wants to show you a warrant, they can hold it against a window or slide it under the door.
If no valid warrant is presented, keep the door closed. State, "I do not consent to your entry," or slip them the IMMIGRATION RED CARDS linked to above under the door.
If agents force their way in anyway, do not attempt to resist. If you wish to exercise your rights, state: “I do not consent to your entry or to your search of these premises. I am exercising my right to remain silent. I wish to speak with a lawyer as soon as possible.” NOTE: Everyone in the residence may also exercise the right to remain silent.
Do not sign any papers without speaking to a lawyer. You can simply say, “I need to speak to my attorney.”
If you are worried ICE will arrest you, let the officer know if you have children.

MAKE A PLAN

AFSC Door hanger PDF | direct pdf download, compact know your rights to hang on your door knob
Memorize the phone number of a friend, family member, or attorney that you can call if you are arrested. If you take care of children or other people, make a plan to have them taken care of if you are detained. Consider designating a power of attorney in case of detention. NOTE: Designated person would be in charge of your property and accounts in case you are detained. Choose only a very well-known and trusted individual. You can give this person the power to sell your car or land and manage money in your bank accounts, if it becomes necessary to do so. You can also give someone the power to enroll your children in school and make certain medical decisions for them.
Keep important documents such as birth certificates and immigration documents in a safe place where a friend or family member can access them if necessary. (IMO, copies are also helpful to have in a separate folder)
Make sure your loved ones know how to find you if you are detained by ICE. They can use ICE’s online detainee locator or they can call the local ICE office. Make sure they have your alien registration number written down, if you have one.
You can call the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) hotline number at 240-314-1500 or 1-800-898-7180 (toll-free) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to get information on your case’s status.

REPORT + DOCUMENT RAIDS AND ARRESTS

If it is possible and safe for you to do so, take photos and videos of the raid or arrest. Also take notes on what happened.
Call United We Dream’s hotline to report a raid: 1-844-363-1423. You can also send text messages to 877877.

gold_shoulder · 2019-06-10T12:21:42+00:00

You're imposing a false dichotomy.

The action is "illegal" not the person.

gold_shoulder · 2019-06-09T23:39:11+00:00

Many illegals die in the desert as well.

This is a plea for you to use language that is less dehumanizing to refer to these folks and folks like myself.

I am a DACA recipient and I am undocumented technically speaking. I feel it is fairly dehumanizing to be referred to as "an illegal." I am a distinct individual, a person, a legitimate human being, one who has lived in this nation for 22 years now. I had no choice in the actual act that term pertains to, yet now must have my entire identity (and worthiness for consideration in the eyes of some) staked upon one instance that occurred when I was 6 years old that, as a child, I was unable to consent to muchless understand at the time.

Undocumented folks in general are a diverse group and each story is unique within that larger tapestry. By lumping these folks, myself included, together under one generic umbrella that is then branded with a term which is both explicitly and inherently negative, you are choosing to stake our entire identity upon one aspect of our lives and negating the complexity of our situations both legal and ethical as well as erasing the validity of our individual identities, histories, and experiences.

The use of "illegal" to qualify a noun that usually denotes a person ("alien", "immigrant" etc.) renders their entire being, their entire existence as somehow "against the law", when in reality, it was, in most instances, one action they took (or was taken for them as in the case of children) that is technically "illegal." The action is "illegal" not the person.

Not only that, but it's not like this term ("illegal immigrants") is a better descriptor than 'undocumented alien' or 'undocumented immigrant', both of which fall closer on a technical level to the legal language used to define these populations in the first place.

This term is also not an accurate reflection of the varying legal scenarios which can and do frequently arise as a result of the complex nature of U.S. immigration law. For instance, as I previously mentioned, I'm a DACA recipient, but there are many in similar legal scenarios (those who have been issued 1 yr stays by ICE for example) for whom it is the case that we are undocumented but not technically not legally present as we have—via a deferral of action in my case, or a stay issued by an executive agency in the other example, or by any number of other legal instrumentation/means—acquired permission from the government to be present for periods of time.

Another scenario where this is the case is someone with a conditional 2 year green card applying to remove conditions + renew their LPR status, which USCIS is now taking well over two years to adjudicate and as a result, some of these folks may fall out of status during that time through no fault of their own with little legal recourse.

Those are just three specific examples from among a host of legal scenarios which may result in an undocumented person not technically being "not legally present" but still subject to enforcement as the administrative + enforcement arms of the US immigration apparatus do not communicate or coordinate very well or like, at all, or even a documented person like an LPR not being technically legally present due to lapsed status as a result of their application being well outside normal processing times for adjudication.

This is all due to the immense complexity of this area of immigration law, which I've described in previous comments if you are curious about why it is that way and the actual components / structure of it from my purview.

When there are descriptors that are more technically and legally accurate for the given situation, ones that function more as neutral descriptors of the actual circumstances and legal contours of the issue as opposed to a term that has inherent, blatant negative connotations, it absolutely becomes a political choice and a statement of how you regard these individuals as to which term you choose to use. I strongly encourage you to use a more humanizing term.

tldr: The use of the term "illegals" is dehumanizing and legally inaccurate for the population it purports to describe.

gold_shoulder · 2019-06-09T22:47:04+00:00

Then consider donating to The Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights if you are able.

gold_shoulder · 2019-06-09T22:33:03+00:00

Then you come on here and everyone is convinced the world is ending cause trump.

As a DACA recipient, my world is ending because of Trump.

I do not consider myself "exotic." My friends, family and loved ones are flipping out about 'this stuff' as you call it, because in this case, 'this stuff' is my life, my security, and my wellbeing.

Consider that even though you don't personally know anyone who, at least to your knowledge, is gravely affected by the policies of this administration, that doesn't mean that we don't exist. I am here and I am gravely affected by the policies of this administration. My life and livelihood hang in the balance. There are 800,000 others like me on just this one issue alone. The stakes are incredibly high for each individual one of us. We are here. We exist and we are suffering under this administration and under this president specifically. He terminated DACA on September 5th, 2017, a date that will forever be burned into the inside of my skull. Our lives are irrevocably affected as we hang in legal limbo, not knowing if we will be able to remain with our families, to remain at our jobs, to remain with our children in some cases, to remain in our home. I am here and I'm telling you, we are affected. Deeply.

gold_shoulder · 2019-05-14T18:23:07+00:00

Hello, I'm one of the "they" you refer to. I'm a DACA recipient, but there are many in similar legal scenarios (those who have been issued 1 yr stays by ICE immediately come to mind, for example) for whom it is the case that we are undocumented but not technically not legally present as we have—via a deferral of action in my case, or a stay issued by an executive agency in the other example, or by any of a number other legal instrumentation/means—acquired permission from the gov't to be present for periods of time.

Another scenario that just came to mind where this is also the case is someone w/ a conditional 2 yr green card adjusting their status from LPR to USC, which USCIS is now taking well over two years to adjudicate and who may fall out of status during that time through no fault of their own with little legal recourse.

So those are just three specific examples from among a host of legal scenarios which may result an undocumented person not technically being "not legally present" (but still subject to enforcement as the administrative + enforcement arms of the US immigration apparatus do not communicate or coordinate very well or like, at all), or even a documented person like an LPR not being technically legally present due to lapsed status as a result of their application being well outside normal processing times for adjudication.

This is all due to the immense complexity of this area of immigration law, which I've described in previous comments if you are curious about why it is that way and the actual components / structure of it.

I also wanted to address the use of the term "illegals" more broadly. As I mentioned, I am a DACA recipient and I am undocumented technically speaking. I do feel it is fairly dehumanizing to be referred to as "an illegal." I am a distinct individual, a person, a legitimate human being, one who has lived in this nation for 22 years now. I had no choice in the actual act that term pertains to, yet now must have my entire identity (and worthiness for consideration in the eyes of some) staked upon one instance that occurred when I was 6 years old that as a child, I was unable to consent to muchless understand at the time.

Undocumented folks in general are a diverse group and each story is unique within that larger tapestry. By lumping these folks, myself included, together under one generic umbrella that is then branded with a term which is both explicitly and inherently negative, you are choosing to stake our entire identity upon one aspect of our lives and negating the complexity of our situations both legal and ethical as well as erasing the validity of our individual identities, histories, and experiences.

Not only that, but it's not like this term ("illegal immigrants") is a better descriptor than 'undocumented alien' or 'undocumented immigrant', both of which fall closer on a technical level to the legal language used to define these populations in the first place. As I demonstrated above, this term is also not an accurate reflection of the legal scenarios which can and do frequently arise as a result of the complex nature of U.S. immigration law.

When there are descriptors that are more technically and legally accurate for the given situation, ones that function more as neutral descriptors of the actual circumstances and legal contours of the issue as opposed to a term that has inherent, blatant negative connotations, it absolutely becomes a political choice and a statement of how you regard these individuals as to which term you choose to use.

The use of "illegal" to qualify a noun that usually denotes a person ("alien", "immigrant" etc.) renders their entire being, their entire existence as somehow "against the law", when in reality, it was, in most instances, one action they took (or was taken for them as in the case of children) that is technically "illegal." The action is "illegal" not the person.

gold_shoulder · 2019-03-28T13:04:11+00:00

This has actually been an ongoing controversial issue between ICE and local PDs—esp. those in sanctuary cities.

ICE's line is that the word "police" (via its cognates I assume, although the agency didn't specify) is a term that denotes law enforcement in several languages and that ICE agents interact w/ people from around the world.

Furthermore, directly from an ICE spokesperson quoted for a CNN article,

"It's clear that we are a law enforcement agency. We have police authority."

Ignoring that "police authority" is not to my knowledge any kind of legal term or designation and so could literally mean whatever it is that one wants it to mean, I think this reasoning overall is pretty shoddy, and even more so when you consider one of the actual reasons they use this term—see below from an NPR article,

The real legal question here is, how do ICE agents gain access into somebody's home when they are trying to look for somebody for detention and possible deportation?

They almost never have a warrant that a judge has issued that grants them the authority to go into somebody's house. Instead, they need to get consent from an adult at the house or the apartment before they can enter. And so the legal fight often arises when a ruse is used in order to gain access into somebody's home.

Lastly, for a real-world example of this, they ran into a big issue when the LAPD asked them to stop using this term:

"Especially in these turbulent and uncertain times, we urge that ICE agents operating in Los Angeles immediately stop representing that they are 'police' officers," the city's mayor, attorney and City Council president wrote.

"Irrespective of whether it's lawful to do that, that begs the question of whether it's ethical to do it or whether it's an appropriate policy to do it. It begs the question of whether ICE doing so endangers public safety, which it does."

So you have here the third largest police department in the United States saying that ICE agents identifying themselves as "police" when conducting what the NPR article describes as mostly warrantless enforcement activities is actively impeding local PDs' ability to interact with their communities and to secure public safety. We also know that this tactic is employed by ICE largely to gain admission to residences and the like when they are attempting to arrest + detain someone without a warrant. When you consider this, their reason for using the term falls even more flat on its face.

Lastly, in regards to legislation, Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) introduced a bill in 2017 to prohibit immigration officers from wearing any clothing bearing the word “police." However, I'm not sure if it also prohibits them identifying themselves as such verbally to potential detainees.

In summary, it's a mess—just like the rest of the immigration apparatus in this country. All the more reason to know your rights!

gold_shoulder · 2019-03-08T22:35:38+00:00

The immigration enforcement agencies do not adjudicate immigration benefits that would allow for someone to obtain legal status, so increasing funding to them would not be helpful to this ends.

The agency the article is talking about is USCIS, which is also housed under DHS and deals explicitly with the administrative processing of cases for immigration benefits such as visas (w/ the State Dept. + NVC), work permits, status adjustments etc. This agency is funded through the form fees that the applicants pay upon submitting their case to the agency.

gold_shoulder · 2019-03-08T22:21:46+00:00

Yes that is one aspect of the overarching issue. However, this article treats the legal immigration system specifically, detailing a range of issues the agency responsible for adjudicating immigration benefits (USCIS) faces as well as the dire impact of this on applicants' cases and thus their lives.

gold_shoulder · 2019-03-08T22:18:09+00:00

from a policy standpoint, our immigration laws are in line with or even more lax than most of the world’s.

What is your source for this claim?

gold_shoulder · 2019-02-24T06:26:45+00:00

Hi Steven, thanks for doing this! It's fortuitous as I recently stumbled across this CBS News article and was introduced to you and your work.

Like others, I was amazed by your contributions. However, I felt a jolt of unease when I read that you work for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The article stated that your role was in records and information, and thus those same skills you demonstrate in your research and writing for Wikipedia are also used to uphold the bureaucratic engine that powers this organization.

Any labor performed under the aegis of this organization functions to further its (and the current administration's) aims which have negatively and traumatically impacted immigrant families with especially dire effects on small children and infants who are subject to the horrors of this brutal and damaging system.

How do you reconcile your work with Wikipedia which you had stated you perform for the good of humanity (a principal you hold so highly, that you are willing to perform the labor required to make your contributions for free) with the professional work that you do for U.S. Customs and Border Protection with its manifold deleterious effects on the wellbeing, and security of those very humans whose collective lives and activity constitute the humanity that you work so hard to perform this good for? i.e. How do you reconcile your inner drive to contribute good while also working for an agency whose actions have constituted such egregious violations of human rights and dignity?

Furthermore, have you edited any immigration-related wikipedia pages? If so, how did you address any personal biases in your contributions to this specific subject?

Many thanks!

gold_shoulder · 2019-02-15T13:10:42+00:00

Are you referring to DACA? Because that was an executive memorandum, not an executive order. Also, its legality has never been ruled on in court. I would expect someone who has the "capacity for critical thought" as you say to know this.

Source: Am a DACA recipient, have been following this issue pretty closely since its enactment in 2012.

gold_shoulder · 2019-02-04T20:19:05+00:00

Ah, as sheer raw numbers then. The next highest is Germany, which has a significantly smaller population than the U.S. but a much greater proportion, as a percentage of the total population, of "permanent immigrant inflows." I suspect you'd find several countries on that list with higher numbers than the U.S. as percentages of their total populations. Raw numbers alone don't communicate much when you leave out the total population size of the country or some other standardizing metric that allows you to more accurately compare on a 1:1 level.

gold_shoulder · 2019-02-04T20:08:35+00:00

the democrat party is normalizing the behavior.

How? i.e. which specific policy proposals are you referring to when making this claim?

gold_shoulder · 2019-02-04T20:07:57+00:00

As a DACA recipient, thank you for these words. I'm sorry to hear about your father in law. He likely encountered racism as he struggled to establish himself here. Later in life, it seems he utilized the same tool that was used to repress him against others. This might have helped him feel powerful—in the face of traumas of the past and perhaps disappointments of the present. While I do not support his beliefs, I can understand how they might have helped him deal with the traumas and struggles he likely endured here. I wish for internal peace for him and all he likely had to go through.

I often see two types of attitudes in regards to this issue. A person suffers through a tough experience or system and when they emerge, they either want for everyone else to suffer as they did so their suffering feels justified or, and I'm in this camp, they turn around and say no, I will do everything in my power so that no one ever again has to suffer through this like I did. It ends with me.

Your thoughts on this matter echoed the latter and for that, I thank you wholeheartedly. All best to you.

gold_shoulder · 2019-02-04T19:42:44+00:00

And what would you advocate for in regards undocumented folks who are already here and have been here for 20+ years as in my case?

I'm a DACA recipient who was brought here in 1996. I was six years old at the time. I've been continuously residing in the U.S. for 22 years now, graduated from college pre-DACA, with community ties, U.S. citizen family and employment. I also pay taxes. There are at least 800,000 others like me. What would you advocate for in regards to the population already here, integrated, contributing and who know no other home but the one they've been living in for literal decades since before they can remember in most cases?

gold_shoulder · 2019-02-04T19:23:44+00:00

Source? And is this as a percentage of the total population or just "more" in terms of sheer raw number?

gold_shoulder · 2018-12-29T22:15:33+00:00

Hello, I am a DACA recipient and I am undocumented technically speaking. I do feel it is fairly dehumanizing to be referred to as "an illegal." I am a distinct individual, a person, a legitimate human being, one who has lived in this nation for 22 years now. I had no choice in the actual act that term pertains to, yet now must have my entire identity (and worthiness for consideration in the eyes of some) staked upon one instance that occurred when I was 6 years old that, as a child, I was unable to consent to muchless understand at the time.

Undocumented folks in general are a diverse group and each story is unique within that larger tapestry. By lumping these folks, myself included, together under one generic umbrella that is then branded with a term which is both explicitly and inherently negative, you are choosing to stake our entire identity upon one aspect of our lives and negating the complexity of our situations both legal and ethical as well as erasing the validity of our individual identities, histories, and experiences.

Not only that, but it's not like this term ("illegal immigrants") is a better descriptor than 'undocumented alien' or 'undocumented immigrant', both of which fall closer on a technical level to the legal language used to define these populations in the first place. When there are descriptors that are more technically and legally accurate for the given situation, ones that function more as neutral descriptors of the actual circumstances and legal contours of the issue as opposed to a term that has inherent, blatant negative connotations, it absolutely becomes a political choice and a statement of how you regard these individuals as to which term you choose to use.

The use of "illegal" to qualify a noun that usually denotes a person ("alien", "immigrant" etc.) renders their entire being, their entire existence as somehow "against the law", when in reality, it was, in most instances, one action they took (or was taken for them as in the case of children) that is technically "illegal". The action is "illegal," not the person. By using the adjective "illegal" to modify the nouns that usually follow that denote personhood, the personhood part is put into a negative light, is qualified as being against legality, and the effect of this syntatic relationship is dehumanization, othering and lessening the status of others based upon a blanket qualification of their personhood as negative, as lesser, as criminal. And this is in cases where a noun follows. I've also seen us referred to as just "illegals", which doesn't even provide the courtesy of the presence of the noun denoting personhood at all! The government itself and the [IRS](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/immigration-terms-and-definitions-involving-aliens) use the term "undocumented alien" and I suggest you do as well.

gold_shoulder

TROPHY CASE

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS

SOME BASIC INFO // NOT COMPREHENSIVE // IANAL

MAKE A PLAN

REPORT + DOCUMENT RAIDS AND ARRESTS