How U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) determines who's "illegal"

Diogenes

Nemo me impune lacessit
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) determines citizenship status through a variety of methods and sources.

Here's how they typically proceed:

1. ICE requires individuals to provide proof of citizenship. Acceptable documents include passports, voter ID cards, birth certificates, or naturalization certificates. If someone claims to be a U.S. citizen but cannot immediately prove it with such documentation, they might be detained until their status can be verified.

2. During encounters, ICE officers might interview individuals to gather information about their citizenship or immigration status. This can involve questions about place of birth, family background, and immigration history. If there's a claim of U.S. citizenship, the burden of proof generally falls on the individual to demonstrate they are not an alien, although legally, ICE must establish probable cause that someone is not a U.S. citizen before pursuing further action.

3. ICE has access to various databases, including those from state departments of motor vehicles (DMVs) through networks like Nlets, and criminal justice databases like the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). These databases help in cross-referencing the information provided by individuals against records that might indicate citizenship or immigration status. However, these databases are not always 100% accurate, which can lead to errors in determining citizenship.

4. When someone is arrested by local or state law enforcement, ICE might place an immigration detainer if there's a suspicion of illegal presence. This involves further investigation into the individual's citizenship or immigration status, often leading to interviews in custody. If there's evidence suggesting U.S. citizenship, it should be investigated further, but instances of U.S. citizens being detained due to database errors or miscommunications have been documented.

@Grok
 
And still they argue about it...

Hey, you stupid fucking country bumpkin. When the posse asks you to prove you're here illegally, what do YOU provide?
How did they determine the POS that set the lady on fire in NYC entered illegally?
"Please show us your paper, ma'am."
This is why Democrats lost. No one gives a shit about immigration.
Illegals are not being asked to testify, just provide proof of citizenship.
what's readID sounds like some Elon techno gay shit.
If they can't speak English they just might be illegal.
If they choose not to speak, remove them. No other questions asked.
Magat : Their non white skin of course!
As a starting point, if you don't speak conversational English, you are probably an illegal.
 
Under U.S. law, probable cause is required for a police officer to stop someone and demand proof of U.S. citizenship.

Probable cause means that there must be a reasonable basis for believing that a crime has been or is being committed, or that there is evidence of a crime in the place to be searched.

Simply being present in the U.S. does not, by itself, constitute probable cause for such a demand:

  • Probable Cause: According to the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement officials need probable cause to conduct a search or an arrest. This standard is not met by merely suspecting someone might not be a U.S. citizen without additional evidence suggesting criminal activity related to immigration status or another crime.

  • Stops and Checkpoints: There are exceptions where law enforcement might stop vehicles at checkpoints or during routine traffic stops to check for driver's licenses, which can indirectly lead to questions about immigration status. However, these stops must be conducted in a manner that does not target individuals based solely on their perceived nationality or ethnicity.

  • Immigration Checks: Immigration officials or law enforcement acting on behalf of immigration authorities can sometimes ask for proof of citizenship or immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion of a violation of immigration laws, but this does not equate to probable cause for a stop without additional factors.
In summary, stopping someone solely to demand proof of U.S. citizenship without any reasonable suspicion or probable cause related to criminal activity is not supported under U.S. law. Such actions would likely be seen as unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment unless there are other legal justifications or specific circumstances involved.


@Grok
 
People might continue to argue about a question even after receiving an answer for several reasons:

  1. Disagreement with the Answer:
    • Validity: They might dispute the validity or accuracy of the answer provided.
    • Source: They may not trust the source of the information or the expertise of the person giving the answer.
    • Interpretation: Different interpretations of the same answer can lead to further debate, especially if the answer is nuanced or open to interpretation.
  2. Confirmation Bias:
    • Individuals often look for information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses. If the answer doesn't align with their views, they might argue against it to maintain their current perspective.
  3. Cognitive Dissonance:
    • When someone is presented with information that conflicts with their beliefs or behaviors, it can cause discomfort, leading them to argue to reduce this dissonance.
  4. Emotional Investment:
    • If people are emotionally invested in a particular viewpoint or outcome, they might continue to argue out of passion or attachment to their stance.
  5. Miscommunication or Misunderstanding:
    • Sometimes, the answer might not have been communicated clearly, leading to misunderstandings. Or, the question itself might have been misunderstood, prompting a debate on what was actually asked.
  6. Social or Cultural Context:
    • In some cultures or social settings, arguing might be seen as a form of intellectual engagement or a way to show respect for the topic by exploring it thoroughly.
  7. Desire for Recognition or Validation:
    • People might argue to gain recognition, to show off their knowledge, or to validate their own understanding by engaging with others.
  8. Learning or Teaching:
    • Sometimes, arguing can be a method of learning or teaching. By challenging an answer, one might seek to deepen understanding or clarify concepts for themselves or others.
  9. Entertainment or Habit:
    • For some, arguing can be a form of entertainment or a habit, especially in environments where debate is common or encouraged.

@Grok
 
GgFmbB4WIAAXyf0
 
Back
Top