Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Posted by: kwflatbed

Ignoring Patrick policy, groups say

By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff | June 3, 2007

State Police in Western Massachusetts are enforcing immigration laws despite what immigrant advocates say is Governor Deval Patrick's clear policy that immigration is not the business of local officers.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, one of the groups that brought the situation to the attention of the Patrick administration in a recent meeting, says the practice is routine in the Berkshires.
According to the ACLU, troopers from the Lee Barracks in Berkshire County have targeted drivers who appear to be Brazilian, and have quizzed them and their passengers on their immigration status after stopping them for speeding, expired inspection stickers, and other routine offenses.
In at least two of those cases, they held drivers whom they believed to be illegal immigrants and turned them over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
Attorneys and other activists say that the troopers are disregarding a policy Patrick set in January, when he rescinded an agreement made with federal authorities by his predecessor, Mitt Romney, that would have allowed some specially trained state troopers to arrest and detain illegal immigrants without consulting federal authorities.

Full story: http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...ers_us_status/

---

Posted by: bbelichick

In a nutshell, a bunch of lies.

Drivers being arrested because they are driving without a license, and the ACLU / Immigrants Rights groups calling it "immigration enforcement".

---

Posted by: Nachtwächter

The important question is, if I am hit by an unlicensed illegal who can I sue?

---

Posted by: Wolfman

So let's make sure we all understand this...

• You can't stop someone if they're black/hispanic/gay/blind/deaf since that would be discriminatory profiling.
• If someone runs you can't chase them becasue it's safer to "radio on ahead" for the next guy to not chase them.
• You can't check to see if an unfamiliar driver license is forged since that would be tantamount to enforcing immigration laws.
• You can't shoot someone who threatens life or safety since that would be an excessive display of force.

Sounds like police work is just getting easier and easier. Show up, punch in, read a good book, retire.

---

Posted by: nirtallica

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfman So let's make sure we all understand this... You can't stop someone if they're black/hispanic/gay/blind/deaf since that would be discriminatory profiling. If someone runs you can't chase them becasue it's safer to "radio on ahead" for the next guy to not chase them. You can't check to see if an unfamiliar driver license is forged since that would be tantamount to enforcing immigration laws. You can't shoot someone who threatens life or safety since that would be an excessive display of force. Sounds like police work is just getting easier and easier. Show up, punch in, read a good book, retire.

Or get a netflix account and watch movies on th MDT!

---

Posted by: chief801

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfman So let's make sure we all understand this... You can't stop someone if they're black/hispanic/gay/blind/deaf since that would be discriminatory profiling. If someone runs you can't chase them becasue it's safer to "radio on ahead" for the next guy to not chase them. You can't check to see if an unfamiliar driver license is forged since that would be tantamount to enforcing immigration laws. You can't shoot someone who threatens life or safety since that would be an excessive display of force. Sounds like police work is just getting easier and easier. Show up, punch in, read a good book, retire.

We absolutely can do all of the aforementioned! We just have to do it correctly.
1) can be done as long as its not the only reason for the stop
2) can be done as long as the amount of risk to the general public due to the chase is proportionate to the threat the offender poses if not apprehended
3)again, can be done as long as the stop is not based on immigration issues
4)again, use of force has to be proportionate to the threat posed

It is easy to say, "Screw it, I'm not going to do anything". Take the high road and do the right thing. Every knee-jerk reaction by politicians to handcuff our ability to do our jobs can be directly attributed to the inappropriate actions taken by one, or a few officers. The overwhelming majority of good cops are stuck with these restrictions because of the misguided few.

Look at the history of policing. It is cyclical. Everytime there has been an increase in immigration that disrupts a homogenous society it is eventually met with some sort of increased law enforcement once the voting public tires of the existing social conditions. This holds true regardless of the country involved or the time period in question. The pendulum will eventually swing back the other way for a while until things are good again. Then people will want less policing as it will appear to be heavy handed for existing conditions. And so it goes...over and over...

We will see an increase in law enforcement spending with the latest increases in violent crime rates and crime moving from an inner city minority issue into suburbia interupting Ward and June Cleaver's dinner parties.

A prime example is the 1960's. Police were expected to use all means at their disposal to quell social unrest based on race issues. Once middle class kids were getting maced and struck with batons on campuses, only then was police brutality seriously addressed. Like it or not boys, we have to play the hand the voting public deals us, hence the separation between the legislative and executive branches. Damn, I'm no that friggin soap box again

---

Posted by: USMCTrooper


1- Routine offenses such as driving without a license; driving without an inspection sticker; driving without registrations??....laws that a majority of citizens ROUTINELY obey?
2-"collaborating with immigration authorities" Whether its people or product, law enforcement should be collaborating everyday. If you stop someone with 80 cartons of untaxed cigarettes, would you collaborate with the ATF? If you seized 7 kilos from a vehicle, would you collaborate with the DEA? Illegal acts are illegals acts-period.

3-Here is what the Federal "regulations" actually say (and they are laws by the way) after being decided by the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals:

The City of New York prohibits its employees from voluntarily providing federal immigration authorities with information concerning the immigration status of any alien. In 1996, Congress passed Section 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 ("Welfare Reform Act"), NO. 104-193. 110 Stat. 2105 (19961, andSection 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 Immigration Reform Act"), Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996). These Sections prohibit state and local governments from limiting their employees in the voluntary provision of information about the immigration status of aliens to the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS"). The City and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (collectively, "the City") appeal from Judge Koeltl's dismissal of their action challenging the facial constitutionality of those enactments. We hold that both Sections survive the City's facial challenge and therefore affirm.

Section 642 of the Immigration

Reform Act provides: (a) IN GENERAL.-- Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any
government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
(b) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT ENTITIES.-
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect
to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2) Maintaining such information. (3) Exchanging such information with any
other Federal, State, or local government entity. c) OBLIGATION TO RESPOND TOINQUIRIES.--The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

4-Of course it’s right for the Police to check your identity. Here’s another shocker: someone driving on a foreign license can only do so for up to one year from (are you ready for this?) their legal entry into the United States. They must also be from a country recognized by International Treaty. How are you going to know this if you don’t ask? Is the ACLU going to push the Governor for a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy now???? Let’s just throw MGL right out the window instead.

“One thing about the huddled masses……you need a ticket to get in”

---

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser