Amid surge in deportations, ethicist makes case for protecting undocumented immigrants

[rambot]

They're encouraging healthcare institutions to make sure they have policies to keep law enforcement officers out, and wanting to educate employees on how to teach undocumented people how to "protect themselves" (which I'm assuming means "avoid detection", yes?)

The thing he's describing is an oxymoron.

"We're working within the law by helping people circumnavigate the parts of the law we disagree with"


Would that rationale fly for any other aspects of law & law enforcement with regards to policy initiatives and directives?

For example, if you voted for a particular leader specifically because of a certain policy initiative of, for instance, reducing and targeting weapons sales online. If a particular ISP declared their philosophical objection to that law, and started talking about how they're going to leverage their "elevated privileges" to help run cover for people in violation (like preemptively deleting logs, denying law enforcement access to servers, intentionally implementing weak record-keeping policies as to minimize paper trails to make LEO's jobs more difficult, etc...)

What would your reaction on that be?

To me, that's basically more of the "even if we lose, we win" ploys. Where one can attempt to negate election consequences by setting up artificial policy roadblocks. "We lost, but we're going to pull a bunch of special exclusive levers, that only we have access to, in order to make sure the winners can't do anything"

Do you believe that these folks should be protected in as much as the law allows?



And as a sidebar:
From the article:

He said that working within the law, they should ensure they have policies in place to keep enforcement officers out of spaces they legally may be stopped from entering.

My bolds....quotes directly from article.
Your paraphrase:

"We're working within the law by helping people circumnavigate the parts of the law we disagree with"

It's not so much "because we disagree with it" but more so because "why shouldn't they get the protection that the law affords them"?

 

[wing2000]

They're encouraging healthcare institutions to make sure they have policies to keep law enforcement officers out, and wanting to educate employees on how to teach undocumented people how to "protect themselves" (which I'm assuming means "avoid detection", yes?)

The thing he's describing is an oxymoron.

"We're working within the law by helping people circumnavigate the parts of the law we disagree with"

They are encouraging Catholic Healthcare institutions.


He said that working within the law, they should ensure they have policies in place to keep enforcement officers out of spaces they legally may be stopped from entering.

If in fact, there is a legal basis for denying entry of immigration officers to a Catholic Health Care facility, I don't see the issue.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Do you believe that these folks should be protected in as much as the law allows?

It's not so much "because we disagree with it" but more so because "why shouldn't they get the protection that the law affords them"?

The particular protection provision in question was a departmental policy guideline directive of the Obama administration was it not?

It's since been rescinded.

DHS Rescinds and Supersedes Guidelines for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas | Immigration Policy Tracking Project

DHS rescinded a prior memorandum, "Guidelines for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas" (Oct. 27, 2021), which superseded and rescinded prior ICE and CBP guidance on so-called sensitive locations.The new memorandum directs law enforcement to use their discretion "with a healthy dose of...

immpolicytracking.org

The "sensitive locations" policy was formalized by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on October 24, 2011, through a memorandum titled Enforcement Actions at or Focused on Sensitive Locations (ICE Policy No. 10029.2). This policy designated certain areas—such as schools, hospitals, places of worship, and sites of public demonstrations—as locations where immigration enforcement actions would generally be avoided, except under exigent circumstances or with prior approval from senior officials

However, as of January 20, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rescinded this policy. The new directive emphasizes officer discretion and removes the previous restrictions on enforcement actions at these locations.



So legally speaking, what is the basis for these special protections?

There were documented cases of people taking advantage of the previous directive's "sanctuary status" of certain "sensitive locations" to avoid apprehension.


Would that fly for any other sort of legal infraction? For example, if I committed some sort of offense and the police were looking for me, I can just live in the basement of a church for 5 months, treating it like "base" in a game of tag?

 

[rambot]

The particular protection provision in question was a departmental policy guideline directive of the Obama administration was it not?

It's since been rescinded.

DHS Rescinds and Supersedes Guidelines for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas | Immigration Policy Tracking Project

DHS rescinded a prior memorandum, "Guidelines for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas" (Oct. 27, 2021), which superseded and rescinded prior ICE and CBP guidance on so-called sensitive locations.The new memorandum directs law enforcement to use their discretion "with a healthy dose of...

immpolicytracking.org

The "sensitive locations" policy was formalized by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on October 24, 2011, through a memorandum titled Enforcement Actions at or Focused on Sensitive Locations (ICE Policy No. 10029.2). This policy designated certain areas—such as schools, hospitals, places of worship, and sites of public demonstrations—as locations where immigration enforcement actions would generally be avoided, except under exigent circumstances or with prior approval from senior officials

However, as of January 20, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rescinded this policy. The new directive emphasizes officer discretion and removes the previous restrictions on enforcement actions at these locations.



So legally speaking, what is the basis for these special protections?

I cannot say what information health professionals are giving these individuals so I can't say they are breaking the law.
According to what you lay out here, I suppose it does seem that there are no longer any "safe places".

There were documented cases of people taking advantage of the previous directive's "sanctuary status" of certain "sensitive locations" to avoid apprehension.
Would that fly for any other sort of legal infraction? For example, if I committed some sort of offense and the police were looking for me, I can just live in the basement of a church for 5 months, treating it like "base" in a game of tag?

I think, for me, it's a bit of a matter of perception. An illegal immigrant simply existing has 0 impact on me or the health safety and well being in my community. Someone who has commited a legal infraction that impacts those things, I would very MUCH have a problem with them hiding anywhere.

But as I said, their infraction poses no danger so their freedom, also poses no danger to me. And so them staying in a church basement, looks to me, like an act of mercy by that church. The fact that if they go home, their safety is, in a real sense, often in jeopardy and it's a no brainer choice for me personally.
But it's all a matter of perception. I am going to support the oppressed.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think, for me, it's a bit of a matter of perception. An illegal immigrant simply existing has 0 impact on me or the health safety and well being in my community. Someone who has commited a legal infraction that impacts those things, I would very MUCH have a problem with them hiding anywhere.

But as I said, their infraction poses no danger so their freedom, also poses no danger to me. And so them staying in a church basement, looks to me, like an act of mercy by that church.

...but that's not a hard fast rule.

ICE reported that among 7.4 million non-detained in the U.S, 435,719 had criminal convictions in their home countries, and another 226,847 had pending criminal charges.
(and keeping in mind, that could potentially be an undercount since I would imagine that not every country does the "open book" data exchange with US enforcement agencies)

So, the assertion that it's a case of "simply existing" isn't entirely a fair characterization of the situation in terms of risk factors.

Plus, a church or hospital wouldn't have any insight with regards whether or not one of the people they're giving sanctuary to falls within that subset...which is another drawback of more "blanket-style" sanctuary policies.


That's the pitfall of someone who's a "medical ethicist" evaluating this issue. They're going to be looking at it through the very narrow lenses of medical privacy, and removing any barriers that may make someone avoid seeking medical care.

I'd liken to the way an "online privacy/internet freedom advocate" would look at the "dark web". Through a lens that could be described as "principled to a fault"

 

[rambot]

...but that's not a hard fast rule.

ICE reported that among 7.4 million non-detained in the U.S, 435,719 had criminal convictions in their home countries, and another 226,847 had pending criminal charges.
(and keeping in mind, that could potentially be an undercount since I would imagine that not every country does the "open book" data exchange with US enforcement agencies)

So, the assertion that it's a case of "simply existing" isn't entirely a fair characterization of the situation in terms of risk factors.

I would agree that 92% is not an "ENTIRELY" fair characterization..... but it is pretty darn close.

Plus, a church or hospital wouldn't have any insight with regards whether or not one of the people they're giving sanctuary to falls within that subset...which is another drawback of more "blanket-style" sanctuary policies.

I don't know if you're aware but Christians are ACTUALLY called to protect even dangerous people and ne'er do wells etc. So I would not be at ALL Surprised to hear that churches would protect people, regardless of it. Frankly, I'd argue we are called to do just that.

That's the pitfall of someone who's a "medical ethicist" evaluating this issue. They're going to be looking at it through the very narrow lenses of medical privacy, and removing any barriers that may make someone avoid seeking medical care.

...So their job? I'm not sure what's unethical about it.
I'm pretty sure we are all mature enough to recognize that ethics and morality are something that exist outside of the legal system. What would be unethical about ensuring their patients receive the best care possible? And yes, why WOULDN'T that include taking steps at minimizing the stress those individuals are experience (as stress has an extraordinary impacts on our health as well as our healing).


A criminal hurt at the scene of a crime still gets medical treatment and support. Should a random person not receive support in case they fall within the 8% who have been charged?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

A criminal hurt at the scene of a crime still gets medical treatment and support. Should they not receive support in case they fall within the 8% who have been charged?

They do, but are hospital systems taking special precautions to conceal their presence there, or giving them "tips and tricks" as to how to protect themselves with regards to how to avoid the fuzz?

Typically, if a criminal is hurt at the scene of a crime in the scenario you describe, the protocol is:
For minor, non-life-threatening injuries, officers will usually accompany the suspect to the ER, maintaining custody at all times.

If not yet formally arrested, but there's sufficient cause, an officer will stay with the suspect to prevent escape and ensure public safety.

Once the suspect is medically stable, they are formally processed (if not already) and either:

• Booked into jail from the hospital
• Transferred to a correctional medical facility
• Held under guard at the hospital if follow-up treatment is needed

If tripped and fell and broke my arm while running out of a store with stolen goods. Do you think the officers would be told to leave the facility premises once I arrived at the hospital, and then be given zero notice as to when the hospital is planning on releasing me?


There's a thin line between "respecting medical privacy" vs "aiding arrest evasion under the guise of medical privacy"

..So their job? I'm not sure what's unethical about it.
I'm pretty sure we are all mature enough to recognize that ethics and morality are something that exist outside of the legal system. What would be unethical about ensuring their patients receive the best care possible? And yes, why WOULDN'T that include taking steps at minimizing the stress those individuals are experience (as stress has an extraordinary impacts on our health as well as our healing).

But their job shouldn't be used as a basis for how public policy is approached or enforced.

The example I used before, someone who's an internet privacy specialist/advocate etc...

I wouldn't want someone in that position to be the "torch bearer" with regards to setting the tone for how we approach going after cybercrime.

Because, quite frankly, those "internet privacy purists" would rather let 1000 silk roads operate than to let one person's communications be inadvertently intercepted by the NSA if they had their druthers.

I'd also argue that the medical ethicist in question is conflating some personal ethics with medical ethics.

I didn't see any calls to deny someone medical care; this really centers around whether or not ICE agents should be able to pick up people due to be arrested from the hospital upon discharge via a transfer of custody.

"Someone wanting to avoid arrest could be discouraged from seeking healthcare if they know the cops may be waiting there" shouldn't be twisted into a "medical privacy" issue.


That'd be like saying that Law Enforcement shouldn't be allowed to have a presence at grocery stores (where they know certain people they're looking for are likely to be) because that could deter someone from going there to buy food -- thereby making it a "food security" issue, and thus "so the only ethical thing to do is to prevent police from making arrests in grocery stores, because it's unethical to do anything that would be a barrier to someone buying food"


Fear of arrest by going to a place deterring people from going there, shouldn't be misconstrued as "denying someone the service the place offers"

Illegally entering a country or failing to check in with authorities on a schedule or overstaying one's visa are not risk-free lifestyles.

 

[rambot]

They do, but are hospital systems taking special precautions to conceal their presence there, or giving them "tips and tricks" as to how to protect themselves with regards to how to avoid the fuzz?

Extra-legal advice? Not according to them.

Typically, if a criminal is hurt at the scene of a crime in the scenario you describe, the protocol is:
For minor, non-life-threatening injuries, officers will usually accompany the suspect to the ER, maintaining custody at all times.

If not yet formally arrested, but there's sufficient cause, an officer will stay with the suspect to prevent escape and ensure public safety.

Once the suspect is medically stable, they are formally processed (if not already) and either:

• Booked into jail from the hospital
• Transferred to a correctional medical facility
• Held under guard at the hospital if follow-up treatment is needed

If the hospital is unaware of the legal status of a citizen are they required to report it somewhere?

There's a thin line between "respecting medical privacy" vs "aiding arrest evasion under the guise of medical privacy"

And it's been made abundantly clear Republicans don't really have much interest in respecting medical privacy.

But their job shouldn't be used as a basis for how public policy is approached or enforced.

I'm not necessarily arguing that; just saying that health professionals still maintain that right.

The example I used before, someone who's an internet privacy specialist/advocate etc...

I wouldn't want someone in that position to be the "torch bearer" with regards to setting the tone for how we approach going after cybercrime.

Because, quite frankly, those "internet privacy purists" would rather let 1000 silk roads operate than to let one person's communications be inadvertently intercepted by the NSA if they had their druthers.

I'd also argue that the medical ethicist in question is conflating some personal ethics with medical ethics.

I didn't see any calls to deny someone medical care; this really centers around whether or not ICE agents should be able to pick up people due to be arrested from the hospital upon discharge via a transfer of custody.

"Someone wanting to avoid arrest could be discouraged from seeking healthcare if they know the cops may be waiting there" shouldn't be twisted into a "medical privacy" issue.

I disagree. Why is it anyone's business?

That'd be like saying that Law Enforcement shouldn't be allowed to have a presence at grocery stores (where they know certain people they're looking for are likely to be) because that could deter someone from going there to buy food -- thereby making it a "food security" issue, and thus "so the only ethical thing to do is to prevent police from making arrests in grocery stores, because it's unethical to do anything that would be a barrier to someone buying food".

Not your best analogy. There is not a presumption that my buying underripe mangos should be a protected privacy issue.

Fear of arrest by going to a place deterring people from going there, shouldn't be misconstrued as "denying someone the service the place offers"

Sorry, I don't quite undersatnd this sentence.

Illegally entering a country or failing to check in with authorities on a schedule or overstaying one's visa are not risk-free lifestyles.

Is there a reason to deny them a day in court?

 

[Hans Blaster]

They're encouraging healthcare institutions to make sure they have policies to keep law enforcement officers out, and wanting to educate employees on how to teach undocumented people how to "protect themselves" (which I'm assuming means "avoid detection", yes?)

These aren't regular "law enforcement officiers" (you know, cops) they are immigration officers. There is no public safety issue here.

The thing he's describing is an oxymoron.

"We're working within the law by helping people circumnavigate the parts of the law we disagree with"

No, he's talking about the obligation to rat people out. (There is none.)

Would that rationale fly for any other aspects of law & law enforcement with regards to policy initiatives and directives?

For example, if you voted for a particular leader specifically because of a certain policy initiative of, for instance, reducing and targeting weapons sales online. If a particular ISP declared their philosophical objection to that law, and started talking about how they're going to leverage their "elevated privileges" to help run cover for people in violation (like preemptively deleting logs, denying law enforcement access to servers, intentionally implementing weak record-keeping policies as to minimize paper trails to make LEO's jobs more difficult, etc...)

What? Try sticking to something relevant. Your example is utterly unrelated to the topic.

What would your reaction on that be?

To me, that's basically more of the "even if we lose, we win" ploys. Where one can attempt to negate election consequences by setting up artificial policy roadblocks. "We lost, but we're going to pull a bunch of special exclusive levers, that only we have access to, in order to make sure the winners can't do anything"

Even regular cops do not have free reign to go anywhere they want. They can't enter your house unless they have a judicial warrant. Immigration officers don't even have the "hot pursuit" or "imminent danger" excuses to violate that general rule. (If there was "imminent danger" regular cops could enter to deal with that and arrest people (if needed) for crimes.)

If ICE had evidence that an alien with a removal order is in a location, they can go to a judge (immigration?) and get a judicial warrant to enter that place, including the hospital. There was nothing in that article about refusing to comply with judicial warrants.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Extra-legal advice? Not according to them.

If the hospital is unaware of the legal status of a citizen are they required to report it somewhere?

The article mentions recommendations to hospitals to have policies that keep ICE agents out of the building, teaching undocumented immigrants how to "protect themselves" (that's what I want more clarification on...protect themselves from what? arrest?), and having hospital staff leverage wallet cards, buttons and QR codes that they can provide and display to let undocumented immigrants know "we're cool and we won't snitch"

And it's been made abundantly clear Republicans don't really have much interest in respecting medical privacy.

And it seems that some on the opposing team want to expand medical privacy so that it casts such a wide net that it can be used as a form of arrest evasion.

Last year (and I'll see if I can find it), the ACLU went as far as claiming that Airport bag searches and body scanners/searches should be banned on the grounds that it could reveal something (medically) about the person that they didn't want to be known by anyone else.

I disagree. Why is it anyone's business?

Their medical records aren't anyone's business. However, a person being wanted by ICE (who they've been wanting to get ahold of) being in a certain building, is their business.

Not your best analogy. There is not a presumption that my buying underripe mangos should be a protected privacy issue.

There's not any presumption that ICE is going to go pouring through a person's lab results either. I don't think ICE is particularly concerned about the results of a strep throat test, or what class of antibiotics they were given a prescription for.

It's simply a case of "we're looking for this person, and we believe them to be at this building" so in that regard, it's very similar to picking someone up at a grocery store.

Sorry, I don't quite undersatnd this sentence.

Sorry, I worded that clumsily.

What I mean is, an enforcement provision that could make someone afraid to be in a certain place, doesn't mean that person is being denied whatever service that place has to offer, it just means there will be consequences if they go there.

For example.

If there's a person who's wanted for a drug charge, and the police know what church they normally go to, and have been keeping an eye on it trying to find them. That person being afraid to show up at church because of that doesn't mean that person is being "denied the right to attend church service". They can still go, it just means the authorities could very well arrest them afterwards if they do.

Is there a reason to deny them a day in court?

Actually, in many cases, ICE is picking them up specifically because they DID have their "day in court" scheduled, and they opted not to show up for it.

FY 2018: 25% of immigration court cases resulted in in absentia removal orders due to the respondent's failure to appear.

FY 2017: Among individuals released pending trial, 43% failed to appear in court.

FY 2023: A record 159,379 in absentia removal orders were issued for individuals who did not attend their hearings.

Current Year (First Quarter): 42,714 in absentia removal orders were issued, indicating a potential annual total of approximately 170,000 if the trend continues.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The article mentions recommendations to hospitals to have policies that keep ICE agents out of the building, teaching undocumented immigrants how to "protect themselves" (that's what I want more clarification on...protect themselves from what? arrest?), and having hospital staff leverage wallet cards, buttons and QR codes that they can provide and display to let undocumented immigrants know "we're cool and we won't snitch"

ICE agents offer no value to the hospital only disruption. They are not protectors or keepers of the peace. Why should they want such persons inside their facilities?

As for the rest, that is just "know your rights" training we should all take to heart. Remember the first rule: "Don't talk to cops."

 

[ThatRobGuy]

ICE agents offer no value to the hospital only disruption. They are not protectors or keepers of the peace. Why should they want such persons inside their facilities?

As for the rest, that is just "know your rights" training we should all take to heart. Remember the first rule: "Don't talk to cops."

You could say the same about any building/business/facility (medical-related or not)

Someone getting taken into custody is always a "disrupting event" with respect to what kind of activities/business usually happen in a facility.


Trying to leverage medical privacy sentiments to apply to this scenario, I would say, is a bastardization of HIPAA/privacy provisions and what they were intended to protect.

For instance, if someone came into a hospital with a sprained ankle, and the person forgot they had their firearm on them (hospitals are no-go zones for ccw holders), should the hospital staff employ the "I saw nothing, I say nothing", tell them "you got to make sure you hide that better", specifically avoid reporting it to law enforcement in the name of "it's medical privacy issue because it happened to occur in a hospital"?


Medical privacy provisions being leveraged as a means of hiding information that has nothing to do with healthcare or medical matters are a misuse of what those laws were intended to protect.

And it puts those privacy laws in jeopardy and makes them an easy target for the party that wants to roll them back.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You could say the same about any building/business/facility (medical-related or not)

Correct. I don't allow cops in the private places I own either.

Someone getting taken into custody is always a "disrupting event" with respect to what kind of activities/business usually happen in a facility.


Trying to leverage medical privacy sentiments to apply to this scenario, I would say, is a bastardization of HIPAA/privacy provisions and what they were intended to protect.

For instance, if someone came into a hospital with a sprained ankle, and the person forgot they had their firearm on them (hospitals are no-go zones for ccw holders), should the hospital staff employ the "I saw nothing, I say nothing", tell them "you got to make sure you hide that better", specifically avoid reporting it to law enforcement in the name of "it's medical privacy issue because it happened to occur in a hospital"?

Hospitals have security officers for those things. I think we have a poster here who does that work.

Medical privacy provisions being leveraged as a means of hiding information that has nothing to do with healthcare or medical matters are a misuse of what those laws were intended to protect.

And it puts those privacy laws in jeopardy and makes them an easy target for the party that wants to roll them back.

The privacy laws only encode what is guaranteed by constitutional rights. Preemptively giving away some rights to those who would threaten to take them away to appease them doesn't. It only encourages them to take them all. Don't surrender your rights in advance. Stand up for them.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Hospitals have security officers for those things. I think we have a poster here who does that work.

In this context, it's a distinction without a difference.

If I run afoul of the law, whether the hospital staff keeping that information hidden from an LEO from a different agency, or the Hospital Security team on the basis of "it happened in hospital, therefore it's protected under medical privacy provisions" it's tantamount to the same thing.

The privacy laws only encode what is guaranteed by constitutional rights. Preemptively giving away some rights to those who would threaten to take them away to appease them doesn't. It only encourages them to take them all. Don't surrender your rights in advance. Stand up for them.

Actually, no.

The word privacy isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution (medical or otherwise).

Certain forms of implied privacy were via judicial interpretation (some of which have been upheld, some have been overturned)

Medical privacy laws were intended to protect people from scenarios like
- Employers discriminating against potential applicants based on how much they think the person can impact their group health plan costs based on their preexisting conditions
- Medical history getting leaked that could subject a person to targeted discrimination based on that medical situation (like a person's history regarding STDs, or whether or not they're on birth control, or substance abuse history)
- Billing fraud and identity theft

It wasn't to turn hospitals into "cities of refuge" where people could get partial immunity to legal proceedings by virtue of simply being inside the building.


If the legal proceedings/actions that are taking place are "venue-agnostic" (meaning the same thing could occur in an electronics store vs. a hospital) than it shouldn't be covered under "medical privacy"

For example:
ICE agents going into a hospital and rummaging around through patient records on a fishing expedition would be a violation of medical privacy. (because that type of record access would be exclusive to healthcare and healthcare facilities)

ICE agents waiting in a hospital lobby because they got an informant tip that somebody they were looking for was in the building, and would be leaving that day, is not...because the chain of events and procedure would be identical if you replaced "Hospital" with "Best Buy"

 

[Hans Blaster]

In this context, it's a distinction without a difference.

If I run afoul of the law, whether the hospital staff keeping that information hidden from an LEO from a different agency, or the Hospital Security team on the basis of "it happened in hospital, therefore it's protected under medical privacy provisions" it's tantamount to the same thing.

You were making up some "example" about "what if some patient/family member had a gun" (paraphased). That's what security is for, security issues. It is not relevant. The hospital doesn't monitor for you running illegal pyramid schemes on your tablet in the waiting room either.

Actually, no.

The word privacy isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution (medical or otherwise).

Certain forms of implied privacy were via judicial interpretation (some of which have been upheld, some have been overturned)

Medical privacy laws were intended to protect people from scenarios like
- Employers discriminating against potential applicants based on how much they think the person can impact their group health plan costs based on their preexisting conditions
- Medical history getting leaked that could subject a person to targeted discrimination based on that medical situation (like a person's history regarding STDs, or whether or not they're on birth control, or substance abuse history)
- Billing fraud and identity theft

It wasn't to turn hospitals into "cities of refuge" where people could get partial immunity to legal proceedings by virtue of simply being inside the building.


If the legal proceedings/actions that are taking place are "venue-agnostic" (meaning the same thing could occur in an electronics store vs. a hospital) than it shouldn't be covered under "medical privacy"

For example:
ICE agents going into a hospital and rummaging around through patient records on a fishing expedition would be a violation of medical privacy. (because that type of record access would be exclusive to healthcare and healthcare facilities)

That's why they were encoded.

ICE agents waiting in a hospital lobby because they got an informant tip that somebody they were looking for was in the building, and would be leaving that day, is not...because the chain of events and procedure would be identical if you replaced "Hospital" with "Best Buy"

Hospital lobbies are generally not public places (nor are Best Buys) they are for patients and family (customers).

 

[rambot]

The article mentions recommendations to hospitals to have policies that keep ICE agents out of the building, teaching undocumented immigrants how to "protect themselves" (that's what I want more clarification on...protect themselves from what? arrest?), and having hospital staff leverage wallet cards, buttons and QR codes that they can provide and display to let undocumented immigrants know "we're cool and we won't snitch"

If the button simply says "We do not need to know or want to know your immigration status", you'd be fine with that right?

I mean, a medical facility would have no medical reason to know such a thing.

And it seems that some on the opposing team want to expand medical privacy so that it casts such a wide net that it can be used as a form of arrest evasion.

Their medical records aren't anyone's business. However, a person being wanted by ICE (who they've been wanting to get ahold of) being in a certain building, is their business.

There's not any presumption that ICE is going to go pouring through a person's lab results either. I don't think ICE is particularly concerned about the results of a strep throat test, or what class of antibiotics they were given a prescription for.

How is ICE going to be aware that these people would be in the hospital? Do they just have their workers in every hosptial looking for people?

It's simply a case of "we're looking for this person, and we believe them to be at this building" so in that regard, it's very similar to picking someone up at a grocery store.

1) So they don't know that they are in the building. So how would the hospital be in the wrong to deny them access into the building if that is how they word it?

Sorry, I worded that clumsily.

What I mean is, an enforcement provision that could make someone afraid to be in a certain place, doesn't mean that person is being denied whatever service that place has to offer, it just means there will be consequences if they go there.

For example.

If there's a person who's wanted for a drug charge, and the police know what church they normally go to, and have been keeping an eye on it trying to find them. That person being afraid to show up at church because of that doesn't mean that person is being "denied the right to attend church service". They can still go, it just means the authorities could very well arrest them afterwards if they do.

Actually, in many cases, ICE is picking them up specifically because they DID have their "day in court" scheduled, and they opted not to show up for it.

FY 2018: 25% of immigration court cases resulted in in absentia removal orders due to the respondent's failure to appear.

FY 2017: Among individuals released pending trial, 43% failed to appear in court.

FY 2023: A record 159,379 in absentia removal orders were issued for individuals who did not attend their hearings.

Current Year (First Quarter): 42,714 in absentia removal orders were issued, indicating a potential annual total of approximately 170,000 if the trend continues.

No disrespect but I am beginning to wince at words like "many" and "plenty" when we get into these discussions as I find these words paint a picture that I don't see the same way.
And then those descriptors end up being the justification for holding a position when, frankly, those words may be imprecise.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No disrespect but I am beginning to wince at words like "many" and "plenty" when we get into these discussions as I find these words paint a picture that I don't see the same way.
And then those descriptors end up being the justification for holding a position when, frankly, those words may be imprecise.

That's why I followed it up with stats/percentages.

When ICE is looking for (and apprehending people) to fulfill removal orders, those are due to people who did have their day in court scheduled, but opted to no-show.

43% of individuals opting to ditch their hearings is not an insignificant number. The fact that only a quarter of those immigration court cases end in an absentia removal order (when it's over 40% that aren't even showing up) would indicate that immigration judges are actually being quite lenient for some folks.


I feel like some media outlets/pundits are portraying this as if random people are getting scooped up with no warning, and no events leading up to it.

1. Identification and Apprehension​

• Encounter: An undocumented individual might be identified by immigration authorities (ICE, CBP, or local law enforcement in cooperation with ICE).
• Arrest/Detention: ICE may detain the individual or issue a “Notice to Appear” (NTA) if they are not detained.

---

2. Notice to Appear (NTA)​

• What it is: A legal document that starts the removal process. It lists the government's allegations and charges against the individual.
• Delivery: The NTA is served to the person and filed with an immigration court.

---

3. Master Calendar Hearing​

• Initial hearing: This is a preliminary hearing before an immigration judge.
• What happens:
  • The judge explains the individual’s rights.
  • The person can admit or deny the allegations.
  • They may state their intention to apply for relief (e.g., asylum, cancellation of removal).
  • If they don’t have an attorney, they may ask for time to find one.

---

4. Application for Relief (if applicable)​

• If eligible, the person can apply for relief to stop deportation (e.g., asylum, adjustment of status, cancellation of removal, etc.).
• Forms and evidence must be submitted to the court and ICE.

---

5. Individual Merits Hearing​

• This is a full hearing, like a trial, to determine whether the person should be deported or granted relief.
• The person and their attorney (if they have one) can:
  • Present evidence.
  • Call witnesses.
  • Cross-examine government witnesses.
• The judge makes a decision at or after this hearing.

---

6. Judge’s Decision​

• If the judge orders removal:
  • The person may be deported.
  • They usually have the right to appeal.
• If relief is granted:
  • The person may be allowed to stay legally, depending on the relief type.

---

7. Appeal (if applicable)​

• To BIA: The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is the first appellate level.
• Federal court: After the BIA, a federal circuit court may hear the case.
• Stays of removal may be requested during the appeal.

---

8. Final Removal​

• If all appeals are denied or waived, and there's a final order of removal:
  • ICE arranges deportation.
  • The individual may be detained during this time.
  • In some cases, they are released with a monitoring program (e.g., ankle bracelet).

So, there is procedure behind this, portraying it as "they should have their day in court" is implying that they're not getting that opportunity, when in fact, they're actually getting 3-4 separate opportunities in court.

No-showing hearings, driving without a license, domestic disputes, or committing an infraction while released awaiting a hearing are the most common reasons for a "final removal" taking place.