Behind the Masks

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions are taking place across the United States, and not just in urban areas, as we discovered on the South Fork last week.

But the most alarming thing about ICE raids is the aggressive nature, and the lack of transparency. Many ICE agents are making arrests while wearing masks — they will say it’s because agents have been harassed personally when they’re identified by the public. But the masks are symbolic of the entire process, which is markedly different from most police actions.

When agents from New York City swept through gathering places on November 5, in search of “known criminal illegal aliens,” according to an ICE spokesperson (note: we don’t have a name for this spokesperson, so even this is information provided from behind a heavy veil), a dozen people were arrested, “several with criminal convictions, and all in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act,” the spokesman noted.

Pause for a moment here, because it’s important to note: Most violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act are civil offenses, not criminal offenses. Many of the typical offenses, such as overstaying a visa or failing to maintain a visa status, are typically civil offenses. These men and women are subject to deportation — but they are not, by strict definition, criminals.

This is a distinction lost on, or ignored by, the ICE spokesperson, who said, “Violating immigration laws is a crime and carries consequences, which includes arrest, detention, and removal from the United States.” Certain violations are criminal acts, but this is simply too broad a brush to justify ICE arrests as they’re taking place right now in our community.

Of the four detainees named by ICE, two are accused of reentry after being removed, one in 2002 and one in 2010 — if true, that is a felony criminal act. The other allegations against the four men include robbery, endangering the welfare of a child, assault and harassment, and larceny, according to ICE. Their names were provided, so a paper trail can be pursued to see if these allegations of criminal pasts are accurate.

If they are, it can be argued, these are the kinds of arrests that many Americans would say are justified. It suggests — though it doesn’t specify — that they were targeted and might have been the subject of warrants. When President Donald Trump pledged to deport “the worst of the worst,” most people reasonably expected this: warrants, targeted arrests of undocumented immigrants who are actual criminals and who present a danger to society.

Notably, though, the spokesperson said absolutely nothing about the other eight people taken into ICE custody on November 5 — no names, no backgrounds, no justification. Not a word about them.

They were, in essence, “disappeared,” a term often used in authoritarian societies when secret police snatch a person off the street, and nobody, including their families, knows why, or where they end up.

The organization Human Rights Watch has said, simply, “The U.S. government should stop this violent campaign, which violates human rights on a vast scale.” Secret police — what else would you call officers who hide behind masks and often do not identify themselves? — making arrests of men and women off the streets, simply because they’re gathering for coffee or seeking work, is not official action supported by the U.S. Constitution, which protects “people,” not just citizens. These men and women deserve due process, and that process should be transparent to all: If the deportations are justified, they should hold up under intense scrutiny. We don’t hide actions unless we know they won’t.

The issue of immigration policy is a complicated one, and there is plenty of room for outrage and criticism of how it’s been handled by all sides in the past couple of decades. Between “open borders” and “closed borders” is a vast space for compromise that recognizes both international and U.S. law, which protects people seeking asylum, and the need for reasonable restrictions. That means there is lots of room for a wide range of opinions on how the United States should manage its borders.

But there should be no defense of secretive sweeps that terrorize men and women — not to mention their innocent children — who have committed no crime except seeking a better, more productive life in America. We are better than this. Such un-American thuggery cannot be condoned. It must be rejected.