78°Clear

Purported I.C.E. “Sanctuary City Neighborhood Public Notice” Posted in DC: “If you would like to report illegal aliens…”

by Prince Of Petworth June 1, 2017 at 10:15 am 113 Comments

A reader reports seeing this on a Bus stop in SW this morning. Whether or not this is an official flyer, let us remember the words of Mayor Bowser:

We celebrate our diversity and respect all DC residents no matter their immigration status. We are a sanctuary city because we know that our neighborhoods are safer and stronger when no one is afraid to call on our government for help, and when our police can focus on protecting and serving.”

Update from Mayor Bowser:

  • Steve Parsons

    Fake.

    The Department of Homeland Security is not putting up flyers on light poles.

    Given that they are showing up in SW, I suspect they are being put up by the same person who put the “Trump Won Get Over It” flyers on the cars in SW after the election.

    • L.

      Geez, who has the time for such stunts? Sounds like someone needs to get a job already.

      • CVR

        This literally made me LOL!

  • well

    These are obviously not legit. The crazy person who made them should have done their research about the city gov’s position before stamping their logo at the bottom ;)

    Anyone wanna tear these down after work tonight?

    • well

      Also, I’m pretty sure using the government seal makes this a felony, so if any of these are in proximity to surveillance cameras we should try and get some footage to MPD.

  • northeazy

    This is the double edged sword of federalism. Many love federalism when laws like the ACA are enacted requiring states to comply. Yet, the flip side of the Supremacy Clause for many seems to be the immigration issue. Interesting to think that the same legal constructs that gave us Obamacare also give us ICE.

    • Duponter

      Well, that isn’t an accurate constitutional analysis of the division between federal and state powers as it relates to immigration either.

      And being an immigrant, illegal or otherwise, living in DC or elsewhere, doesn’t negate your constitutional rights. Federal officers don’t get to simply interrogate you based on the color of your skin or a suspected status.

      • northeazy

        Duponter–no one said immigrants do not have constitutional rights. Nor did I suggest someone can be interrogated based on skin color or suspected status. Not sure why you are impugning me like that. I would like to know where did I go wrong with my constitutional analysis? As we know, sanctuary cities are illegal. Immigration falls squarely into the federal realm. As does taxation, which is why the ACA was upheld by SCOTUS. Do you disagree with that?

        • Duponter

          “As we know, sanctuary cities are illegal.” What’s illegal about a local agency deciding it will not participate in what, as you affirm, is a federal activity? Local police forces are not required to investigate the immigration status of people. And the federal government cannot force them to. Calling a city a sanctuary city is not a legal designation of any kind, it is an expression of policy. So yeah, you’re wrong there.

          Your understanding of how federalism works seems limited and while I am a lawyer and could enlighten you, I’ll just put it back on you to do some more research about what you’re speaking about.

      • ParkViewneighbor

        I think you are slightly confused here. Legal immigrants are entitled to a wider set of constitutional rights than illegal ones. Even among legal immigrants, there are discrepancies between visa holders and LPR.
        Illegals don’t have the full scope of protections because well… they aren’t citizens nor legal residents

        • Duponter

          Non-citizens have the rights afforded to every citizen under the Fourth Amendment when on U.S. soil. So no, I’m not wrong.

          It’s strange that a cop would even be able to know the extent of someone’s rights without actually risking violating them if your incorrect view of how the constitution works were true.

          I’m not talking privileges. I’m talking constitutional rights. And the rights protected by the constitution extend to all people on U.S. soil. It’s why we keep detainees in Guantanamo.

          • ParkViewneighbor

            Yes you are wrong buddy. Some rights are for citizens ONLY. That’s why there are mentions of “person” and “citizen” in the constitution

    • Anon X

      Just about everything you say here is inaccurate or not relevant. But, it does reveal the usual sophomoric understanding of federalism and federal powers common among the video gaming, internet troll, bit coin, libertarian set.

      • Bobert

        Heh, that sounds about right. Though if I’m not mistaken, northeazy is a genuine Trump supporter, which renders his misunderstanding relatively impressive.

        • northeazy

          Bobert–I am indeed a genuine Trump supporter. But my views of federalism predate my support for Trump.

      • Cleveland Park runner

        What northeazy espoused isn’t libertarian, so do your research before you castigate it. Thanks.

        • Anon X

          I think you need to do research yourself about the video gaming, internet troll, bit coin libertarian set before casting aspersions. I’m not talking about Cato. I can find fault with the academic libertarians, but thats not who I described. Thanks.

        • northeazy

          Correct. I do not self-identify as Libertarian. But I like Libertarians nonetheless.

      • Brooklyn Brawler

        And I know this guy smh

        • northeazy

          Brooklyn Brawler you know me? I am originally from NYC–was gonna initially use the name Bronx Brawler, but instead wanted to give props to my new hood, Near North East!

          • Brooklyn Brawler

            Absolutely. Searches of your post over time has me 1000% certain I am correct. Howdy neighbor! And definitely knew you were a Trump supporter still shaking my head at that.

      • northeazy

        Anon X–OK what was inaccurate? Are you saying sanctuary cities are legal? Are you stating immigration policy is not the sole prerogative of the executive? Are you saying the ACA wasn’t upheld by SCOTUS because the federal government’s right to levy tax? Because that is what I said. And taken independently, all of those clauses are 100% accurate and frankly indisputable. You take issue that the same thing that gave us Obamacare can also take away sanctuary cities. Live by the sword. Die by the sword.

        • anonabeer

          I don’t think you know what a “sanctuary city” is. That is actually one of the main problems, no one in the Trump administration seems to know what a sanctuary city is either.

        • Anon X

          You’re writing gibberish supported by alternative facts. No wonder you’re a Trump supporter.

        • IsueYou

          Northeasy you have somethings wrong. If you read the entire opinion from the ACA case, you’d know that part of it was struck down because it was too coercive under Congress’s Spending Power from Article I Section 8 clause 1. That exact same reasoning is also the reason why Trump’s EO on sanctuary cities was struck down from the case County of Santa Clara v. Trump. And actually before you even get to the Congressional Spending issue in that case, there is a separation of powers issue because the executive doesn’t have the power to condition federal funding. That power is reserved Congress. This was different from the ACA in which it was an actually act of Congress rather than an EO.

    • ah

      Regardless of the validity of this with respect to states, DC isn’t a state so “federalism” doesn’t get you anywhere here.

      • Anon X

        Sorry, what?

    • Kevin

      Sanctuary Cities are not illegal, no. That was your first mistake.

      But don’t take my word for it. Perhaps you might be swayed by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano?

      “The term “sanctuary cities” is not a legal term, but it has been applied by those in government and the media to describe municipalities that offer expanded social services to the undocumented and decline to help the feds find them — including the case of Chicago’s offering undocumented immigrants money for legal fees to resist federal deportation. As unwise as these expenditures may be by cities that are essentially bankrupt and rely on federal largesse in order to remain in the black, they are not unlawful. Cities and towns are free to expand the availability of social services however they please, taking into account the local political climate.”

      https://www.creators.com/read/judge-napolitano/12/16/are-sanctuary-cities-legal

  • wdc

    Good reminder that the US government pays to staff a hotline which is basically an outlet for jokes about little green men.
    What a shame it would be if that number were to be re-flooded with calls.

  • Bobert

    Pretty sure ICE can’t just post these willy-nilly, right?

  • TriniSoFlo

    federal law supersedes local law when it comes to immigration so good luck with that whole sanctuary concept. If and once the feds decide to fully enforce existing law, game over.

    • Kingman Park

      Exactly. Local law enforcement can choose not to enforce immigration laws, but they have no control over what the Feds do.

    • well

      The day DC comes under marshal law is the day I flee the country because you’re not going to want to be around to see what happens next.

      • dcd

        Oh, come on. Enough with the hyperbole. I’m neither a conservative, libertarian, nor Trumpkin (three different species), but there is no universe in which the federal government enforcing duly enacted laws constitutes **martial** law.

      • Rasputin

        Are you saying that the day federal law enforcement agencies start operating in DC you’l flee? Because there’s a big brutalist building in Penn Quarter I’d like to show you…

    • Arouet

      Feds can’t “decide” to enforce existing law – I assure you, ICE is out doing that every day. They don’t have the resources to round up millions of non-violent undocumented people. For them to “fully” enforce it as such, they would need massive additional resources, which they are not getting, and good riddance.

      • Duponter

        And there is of course the constitutional issues with simply walking up to someone and interrogating them about their legal status. Obviously ICE has the legal power to detain and deport, but they don’t necessarily have the right to do that without probable cause a person is here illegally.

      • Fake and Real

        Although the posters are not likely a DHS product, whoever made them did provide the correct phone number to report illegal activities to DHS/Immigration and Customs Enforcement. So anyone who ‘would like to report illegal aliens’ (as the poster phrases it) has the tools they need. Wouldn’t that give ICE probable cause to investigate, as opposed to walking up to someone and interrogating them about their status?

        • northeazy

          Sort of. If you called the police and said Graham Wellington robbed you at gun point, you then told the police of a very specific crime that you witnessed. So that is probable cause to investigate.

          However, if you said Rory MacDonald was here illegally, and provided no other information, that is not PC in and of itself. But if you said you heard Mr. MacDonald say he was here illegally, or saw his expired Visa, then yes, I think PC would be established.

          • southdiphicult

            Hey, northeazy. Thanks for all your comments on this post and the others today. Maybe give it a rest for a little while, though? And congrats on recently graduating from law school. Being ten years out, I had forgotten how much worthless stuff newly minted lawyers try to regurgitate into polite conversation.

          • Duponter

            Yeesh. Yeah that’s not right. None of that is right. Please stop.

      • Marty

        we exercise “enforcement discretion” all the time. (granted it isn’t for immigration, but federal law and regulations, nonetheless)

    • Tsar of Truxton

      Spoken like someone who doesn’t know what “sanctuary city” means. Sanctuary cities are not saying that the feds can’t conduct immigration operations within their borders. They will just not assist in those operations.

      • TriniSoFlo

        Some sanctuary cities actively refuse to honor active ICE detainer requests, which goes a step beyond not offering assistance.

      • DC_KT

        +1 Trump wants to use local law enforcement to round up and detain undocumented immigrants. Because local police have so much free time to devote to that instead of policing the streets. Sanctuary cities are saying nope, do it yourself.

  • K Conway

    F*ck everything.

  • Girl on a Hill

    These are pretty impressive if in fact they are fake.

    • Girl on a Hill

      Also, if they show up in Cap Hill I will tear them down.

    • Joshua

      I am 100% certain these are fake. When you take a closer look, they don’t look so professional.

  • Anon

    The “sanctuary city” debate is real tricky. I’m all for immigration but if you are here illegally then I’m sorry but you shouldn’t be here. I don’t want to necessarily deport people but they need to go through the same process as every other immigrant who is here legally. It’s really not fair to them or to other citizens in this country. I don’t understand why things like “Sanctuary Cities” exist for something that is blatantly illegal? Anyway, it’s a lose-lose debate at this point me thinks.

    • Leeran

      Take maybe 30 seconds to google it. Sanctuary cities exist so that local law enforcement don’t have to spend their limited time & resources interrogating non-violent populations about their immigration status. This also makes it way more likely that undocumented persons will report crimes when they see or hear about them.

      • Dupont Resident

        Leeran…. the question is why is it ok to protect people breaking the law? Immigration reform needs to happen but we can’t just encourage people to get here any way possible including illegally. Illegal immigration hurts immigrants too. There are huge human trafficking issues that go along with illegal immigration. Let’s provide a path to immigration in a way that’s sustainable for our economy and social programs and protect those immigrating.

        • Anon X

          Its not protecting anyone any more than when local law enforcement doesnt pursue many other federal law breaking activities. We have federal law enforcement for a reason. Expecting local law enforcement to be rabid enforcers of federal law is borne out of the anger and resentment that certain elements feel toward illegal immigrants.

          I swear some people think sanctuary cities means the local police department will get in shoot outs with ICE over deportations.

          It just means they’re not going to do someone else’s job for them. You dont see the FBI giving a lot of speeding tickets on the interstate highways, either… but there’s not a lot of hoopla over that.

          • Dupont Resident

            I mean, it’s a bit more than that. Like, not reporting illegal immigrants reporting to DC public schools among other things like not reporting when an illegal immigrant is taken into custody. Things like this put significant strain on the city and is frustrating to other citizens. It’s not just that they’re not going to get up in arms against ICE it’s that they’re actively refusing to enforce laws. If the laws on the books don’t work or people don’t like them, change the law. But, in my opinion, it’s not up to Mayor Bowser of what laws are enforced and which are not. This is not just that they’re not ‘handing out speeding tickets’.

          • Dupont Resident

            and to respond directly to your assertion, not enforcing immigration laws when they are obviously being broken (not a witch hunt, I think most people would agree that a full out hunt is not the best use of resources), causes other issues that stem back to how to illegal immigrants immigrate….?

          • Anon X

            I think you vastly over estimate the extent to which local governments engage in any sort of reporting or coordination with federal law enforcement regarding laws that are solely federal statutes. It was a big deal when they started coordinating on terrorism!

            Even more, its hard to get states to act on serious health and safety issues, where there is JOINT jurisdiction.

            So, why should they on immigration, when they’re already exercising enforcement discretion in dozens of other areas?

        • navyard

          If you want to start enforcing illegal immigration, why not start with the employers? It’s very easy to identify employers who are paying illegal immigrants. Yet we very rarely see any penalty imposed on them. If you cut off the demand, then immigrants stop coming here illegally. But let’s face it, they’re here because we (the consumers of their goods and services) like the prices we get. And the employers make big bucks hiring them.
          .

          • anon

            navyyard – I hope you don’t like to eat at any restaurants, OR eat any food grown or produced in this country at all, then, because if all the undocumented folks are prevented from doing that work, it just won’t get done by anyone. (Not to mention many other types of work that others just don’t want to do.) That’s a fact.

          • dcd

            @anon – of course the work will get done. But it’ll cost a lot more, and that cost will ultimately be passed along to the consumers. And THAT’S why you don’t see enforcement re employers – because Americans like cheap stuff, whether it be food or otherwise, and don’t want it to go away. That’s the reason Walmart and Target exist and are successful, why corn producers are given massive subsidies, why the US is about to exit the Paris treaty, and for scores of other government policies – to keep prices down. It’s shortsighted and potentially catastrophic, but we as a country and culture aren’t renowned for our long term vision.

          • jcm

            It’s silly to claim that only undocumented people will work in restaurants or picking vegetables. It’s probably accurate to claim that those jobs at the current wages mostly appeal only to undocumented folks, but there’s an easy workaround for that: pay more.

          • DC_KT

            This race to the bottom has to end at some point though. We’ve seen the same thing with airlines arguing that consumers demand rock bottom prices, so they have no choice but to slash service down to prisonlike conditions. Personally I’m willing to pay more to fly airlines that treat me like a human being (pretty much only foreign ones at this point), and if that gets too expensive I’ll just travel less. Same thing with restaurants. It’s not worth it to save a couple of bucks on a meal when the consequence is people having to try to exist on poverty wages. Does this mean some restaurants will have to go out of business? I’m ok with that.

          • wdc

            Look at what happened in Alabama a few years ago, after they cracked down on illegal immigration. Farmers could not, for any amount of money, get laborers for their harvest, and the crops rotted in the fields. Huge economic loss for everyone at every level of the economy– laborers who didn’t get paid and therefore didn’t spend money on taxed goods and services. Farmers who didn’t sell their crops. The city, county, and country that didn’t get to collect taxes on those sales.
            This is well documented. We need immigrants to make this system work.

          • jcm

            @wdc Farmers in Alabama didn’t offer *any* amount of money. For $500 an hour I’d have quit my job and headed down there to pick tomatoes. Farmers in Alabama could only offer wages commensurate with the price of tomatoes, and they had to sell their produce in a market built on the exploitation of desperate Latin Americans. When farmers in Mississippi can pay their workers $6 an hour, farmers in Alabama simply can’t turn a profit paying $18 an hour or whatever.
            .
            I’m pro-immigrant, and not at all interested in turning away or deporting the millions of hardworking people here without papers, but it’s a fiction to claim that you can’t get produce picked without using undocumented migrants. Produce is just going to be much more expensive than it currently is.
            .
            In the 1970’s union citrus and grape pickers in California were starting at $5.25 an hour, which is about $20 an hour in today’s dollars. Minimum wage back then was $2.90 an hour, so they were at 1.8x the minimum. The same ratio today would put them at $16.30 an hour.

          • HaileUnlikely

            Good point jcm. I was going to say the same (albeit without the helpful details you supplied which I was not aware of). I would also note that an unforeseen shock to any system will likely cause that system to struggle mightily and possibly fail under certain definitions of “fail,” however, it would be short-sighted to take that as evidence that said system is incapable of adapting over time.

          • Duponter

            Actually there is a point where the price of tomatoes goes up sufficient to turn consumers to an alternative product than tomatoes. So yeah, at some point a farmer cannot pay anyone enough money to pick tomatoes because the wage would simply drive the price of tomatoes above what a consumer is willing to pay for one. Or the number of consumers diminishes to the point where very few tomatoes are grown and sold. Your hypothetical assumes that people will always buy tomatoes no matter how much they cost. They won’t.

          • anonabeer

            This is a tough issue and JCM raises some good points as does duponter and (almost) everyone else. You also need to consider the cost of imported tomatoes vs. US grown, at some point it no longer makes sense to make the product here. This of course doesn’t mean we should allow people to be taken advantage of and be underpaid to work in terrible conditions.

            “sanctuary cities” on the other hand, not a tough issue. there are a number of very legitimate reasons for the policies (besides basic human decency). Chief among them is that they help local law enforcement. Who is going to come forward as a witness to a crime if they are going to get deported? Not to mention the resources issues.

          • navyard

            anon — others who responded did a great job explaining some of the issues, but I really want to make it clear (if it wasn’t already clear from my last two sentences of my comment Above). Immigrants are great for our economy and I am pro-immigration. My point was, if you want to crack the whip on someone, start with the employers, not with the people who are merely fulfilling a need.

        • Colhi

          Occasionally I see my neighbor illegally park or speed down the streets. Should I be calling the police? Or if I am not taking action am I protecting a law breaker? If I know that a waitress isn’t properly recording her tips on her federal taxes, should I report her? She’s breaking a federal law. We as a society pick and chose which laws are enforced all of the time. Hell, our government provides a time every few years for companies that hide profits overseas to bring it back without penalty. Sanctuary cities exist because some of us recognize that while people immigrate illegally, it is done because of immoral broken immigration laws and horrendous deadly situations overseas – some created by or certainly exasperated by US policy. Legality doesn’t always equal morality

          • Dupont Resident

            @Colhi – – Illegality doesn’t always equal morality – – two wrongs don’t make a right. I learned that here in the bike vs. car forums

      • lizcolleena

        Also, it’s important to note that a huge portion of people here illegally did not come here illegally. They came here on visas that have since expired, and in many instances attempted to have those visas renewed appropriately to no avail for no good reason.

    • Hill Denizen

      Sanctuary cities exist because law enforcement realizes they need to work with communities in order to do their jobs effectively. People won’t report crimes or cooperate with police if they’re worried that doing so would get them or their loved ones deported. That makes EVERYONE less safe. And to your first point, do you think being here illegally is some sort of cakewalk? No one WANTS to be undocumented. They’re undocumented because they have no other choice. There isn’t some orderly line to get into this country. People try to do it the legal way and are told it’s going to be 20 years before they can be reunited with their family or that because they were lied to and taken advantage of by some notario or made an error on some form that they aren’t allowed back in the country for 5 or 10 years or that there’s no path at all for them to migrate even though they are fleeing violence and desperate poverty and have no other way to survive in their home countries. We have an immigration system that hasn’t kept up with social or economic realities. The existing pathways to migrate can’t meet our country’s economic needs and waste resources that could otherwise go to going after people who are actually causing harm.

      • F st NE

        ^^^^^^^^^
        Thiis

    • Duponter

      If people from Latin America has the same access to legally immigrate here as those from Europe, Africa, and Asia, I would maybe agree with this. But they don’t. The United States treats those would be legal immigrants from our own hemisphere much differently than others. We let in far more legally from other parts of the world. So, when faced with near impossible paths to come here legally, what do you think will happen when you share a land border?

      You want to shut down illegal immigration? Start prosecuting the employers letting them work here illegally. Why are we going after people who just want a better life and not the Americans who are illegally giving it to them? I’m so sick of the negative discussion about the immigrant while flatly ignoring the Americans who are the ones breaking the law here.

      If you want to shut out and deport illegal labor, prepare yourself to pay a great deal more for most of the services you use in DC.

      • Anon X

        Unless you’re cuban. Then you go to the front of the line because Castro and shit. But, if you’re Haitian, go fuck yourself. We pick our favorite systemically oppressed impoverished Caribbean islands.

      • TriniSoFlo

        I’m not trying to argue, just trying to understand what you’re saying. The existing immigration process is lengthy and onerous and it’s possible that rules are not applied equitably across all nationalities or races. So the solution is to break the law? I know the law and process probably do need to be changed or adjusted but until then, if you want to move here for a better life, breaking the rules is a valid option? Just trying to understand.

        • wdc

          I think perhaps you don’t realize what many of the immigrants here are running away from. You’ve got this idea that breaking a law demonstrates that a person is bad or lazy for not exploring other, legal options.
          It’s not like a teenaged Honduran kid has the option of sitting in picturesque poverty while peacefully waiting for his turn at the American dream. It’s more like, when you run away from the gang trying to recruit or kill you, remember to sever all contact with everyone in your life, because they will literally torture your grandmother if they think that she might have helped you escape their recruiters.
          It is often, without hyperbole, a choice between dying, and breaking the rules. Or a choice between being forced to commit despicable acts, or breaking some administrative rules. So yes. It’s a valid option, and one that I, as a capital-A American with a dozen generations of Americans who came before me, support wholeheartedly.

          • Anon X

            I think there’s a distinction that needs to be made here between moral/ethical issues and legal ones.

            Conservatives generally believe in a rigid adherence to the law (see civil rights, gay rights, and anything where someone says “I know but the law says _____”), even those they disagree with. Which is why, until recently, there was a lot of compassion for illegal immigrants from the evangelicals and largely how amnesty happened under Reagan. Conservatives, in the last several years, have been taken over by their xenophobic fringe that now believe in the superiority of natural born Americans.

            Liberals, on the other hand, generally believe that if laws are immoral they dont need to be followed and that disobedience is patriotic and justified. However, in the last several years, they too have been taken over by their own intolerant fringe that cares way more about the way things are said and written than anything else.

            Personally, on the immigration issue, I tend to believe that if you get here and aren’t causing trouble you can stay, but you cant be too surprised that if you’re caught there are consequences. Borders are, afterall, arbitrary constructs made by man. They’re basically imaginary and we are all the same. But, then again, I also believe in free trade, free movement of people, and a new world order – so I know I represent my own fringe.

          • Hill Denizen

            And can I just add that being undocumented SUCKS. You either have to work under the table for near nothing or risk using false papers, assuming your employer doesn’t use E-Verify, so you never pay into your retirement and have no hope of getting social security. You have no chance of career advancement and you can’t change jobs.
            You can’t get insurance. In most states you can’t get a driver’s license. You can’t open a bank account or a credit card or buy a house unless you can somehow pay in cash. You’re a prime target for exploitation, because employers, landlords, shady “legal” professionals know you’re desperate and have no other choice. You’re constantly terrified of getting arrested. Trust me, if someone had the choice they wouldn’t choose to be undocumented.

          • Elvis’s Mom

            All of this – and I am also from a family with a long history in this country. Ain’t no reason to go after people whose lives are harder than we can possibly imagine if they have to go back.

          • TriniSoFlo

            A couple of points. I don’t know what the proportion of illegal immigration stems from life or death situations such as what you described(or genocide victims from Rwanda, or sex trafficking from Southeast Asia or any other heart-wrenching situation you can think of) vs regular people just wanting to make some money and send it back home but if there is such a breakdown, I’d love to see it. Point is, every sovereign country has borders and has every right to control/choose who can come through those borders. If you come here illegally and remain in violation of immigration laws(for years, sometimes), why should it be surprising when the law does eventually catch up to you? There needs to be a better process to allow for seasonal labor and a more streamlined process to allow people to become permanent residents and, later, citizens(if they choose). But, it has to be done in a way that does not encourage further illegal immigration down the line. This is why the Gang of 8 bill failed – it wasn’t because of Republican ‘heartlessness’, it was that it did not explicitly tie possible legalization pathways to the securing the border and preventing the need to keep doing this every 15 years.

          • Anon X

            TriniSoFlo:
            I think you need to educate yourself about the people who immigrate here illegally. They’re not “regular” people. Each of them will have a heart wrenching story of poverty and probably violence that basically doesnt exist in this country. These arent middle class people, with stable economic outlooks, risking everything to link up with coyotes and drug mules.

            They’re coming here to avoid violence and for the economic opportunity that we take for granted, not the Medicaid and food stamps, which they likely dont receive.

          • Anonymous

            Anon X:
            Actually, the VAST majority of “illegal” immigrants in this country are visa overstays, NOT people who crossed the border illegally. Sure there are heartwrenching stories of adults and children fleeing poverty and crime in Mexico and Central America. But the majority of people in this country illegally came here legally and stayed without authorization.
            Also, not to be unsympathetic, but there are plenty of communities in this country where American citizens are enmeshed in poverty and violence.

          • Dupont Resident

            Anon X —- did you just say that poverty basically doesn’t exist in America?!?! That is truly sad that you believe that. There are some areas of THIS country that are so far into poverty and where drugs and violence are wrecking havoc.

          • Anon X

            Like I said, the vast majority of illegal immigrants are escaping poverty and violence that doesnt exist in this country. It doesnt matter whether they crossed illegally or overstayed their visas. They’re not going back under their own accord for a reason. “regular” doesnt exist in the same way we think it does.

            There’s a reason that they’d prefer to pick fruit in the scorching sun for minimal pay or hang out at Home Depot waiting for a suburbanite to pay them 20 bucks for a days worth of back breaking work. Its not because they got fed up that their pool cleaner wasnt reilable enough and they had to leave their gated community and come get rich washing dishes.

            Get real. The privilege we enjoy simply by being American citizens is immense. Mexico is relatively affluent. El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua have poverty and violence that make the worst of Chicago and Appalachia look like reasonable situations.

            Like I said, they’re coming here for the opportunity and the freedom from fear, not the sweet medicaid wheelchairs and other “freebies”.

          • HaileUnlikely

            Dupont Resident – My reading of your response to Anon X’s post leads me to believe that you understood his point and are misrepresenting it on purpose.

          • Dupont Resident

            @HaileUnlikely – – purposely misread something? That doesn’t make sense. I read exactly what Anon X wrote. It’s concerning to me that someone can say that there isn’t severe poverty and violence here in the US.

          • Anon X

            Well, to start with, I didnt say that. Which is what I think led Haile to his very appropriate conclusion.

          • textdoc

            Agreed with HaileUnlikely. It seems pretty obvious that Anon X was talking about a level of (or a type of) poverty/violence that doesn’t exist in the U.S. — not claiming that poverty and violence don’t exist in the U.S.
            .
            IIRC, the level of violence in Honduras is stratospherically high — basically at the level of an (undeclared) civil war.

          • HaileUnlikely

            Read the whole sentence. He didn’t say poverty does not exist here. He said stories like theirs basically don’t exist here. (You don’t have to agree with that either, but attacking people for saying something that they didn’t say is lame, even moreso when you know darn well that that’s not what they said or meant)

          • dcd

            As is so often the case (other than when we’re discussing pop-ups), I agree with textdoc and HaileUnlikely.

      • Anonymous

        Historically, it has always been easier for some groups to emigrate to this country than others. Google the Chinese Exclusion Act. I don’t buy the idea that coming to a country illegally is justified if that country makes it harder for your group to enter than other groups. By that logic, everyone from a country other than Cuba is justified in coming here illegally because of the special deal Cubans get – whereby as soon as they touch US soil, they are allowed to stay here.
        I do agree that the best way to stop illegal immigration is to go after employers. The value of some level of illegal immigration to our economy is evidenced by the fact that businesses – particularly agriculture and service industries – are vehemently against stepped up enforcement on their end.

      • Duponter

        I think I’m arguing the unrealistic argument being made to people willing to break the law to come here that they are better served going and getting in line. They aren’t, obviously. If your objective is so slow or curb illegal immigration across a land border, then perhaps you have a policy that is more equitable to those who share that border? Or strengthen your economic ties to them vis-a-vis other countries to make illegal immigration to the US from there less desirable. I’m talking being practical here. Canadians are not clamoring to cross our northern border to come here.

        And perhaps we should rethink our legal immigration policies toward those who live closest to us generally as a moral imperative. I don’t necessarily think the law is just, so I won’t be the first person running to help the government enforce or defend it. I’m not ratting out my neighbors who I know would otherwise never have had a chance to come here in the first place.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t see the sanctuary city issue as being about supporting illegal immigration but rather about the resources a city is willing to devote to policing immigration status. It’s true that if MPD routinely asked immigration status of people it came in contact with, it would have the effect of causing certain populations to avoid calling for police help when it was needed and to avoid providing help to the police. But it would also impose significant costs on the city because of the need to detain anyone found to be in the country illegally pending ICE taking custody of that person. So you’re looking at some segment of police resources, which I’ll wager many if not most DC residents will say aren’t being employed sufficiently already, being siphoned off to detain non-violent immigration offenders. So yes, the debate is tricky.

    • CPT_Doom

      Good, let’s start with the woman who currently is costing the US $500,000 PER DAY for her protection. We know that Melania Kraus (aka “Melania Trump”) lied on her immigration forms by not declaring she had broken the law and worked here w/out a proper visa. That means her citizenship is invalid and she should be deported to Slovenia. Sauce for the goose and all that.

      • Anon X

        she’s clearly the illegal immigrant consuming gross amounts of public resources that I keep hearing about… and here, I thought it was a Mexican with a USF Obamaphone. A week of Melania’s draw down of the US Treasury pays for the entire USF program.

  • Anon. no. 5

    For the millionth freaking time, entering the United States improperly or remaining on an expired visa are not federal crimes, they are civil violations. Although I’m pretty sure impersonating law enforcement is a crime.

    Ignorant hatemongers gonna hatemonger though.

    • Arouet

      It is. As is using federal agency insignia without authorization, especially to intimidate.

    • The sign is correct that 8 U.S.C. Section 1324(a) does provide for criminal, not civil, penalties. (Full text below.) As a practical matter, prosecutions under this provision will likely continue to be very rare due, at a minimum, to resource constraints. But, putting aside that the sign probably didn’t come from ICE, Sessions’s DOJ has the discretion to bring criminal charges for “shielding from detection” an undocumented individual, and that seems to present opportunities for abuse. Not a whole lot that we can do about that by commenting on the internet or otherwise, but I sure hope that all good people with a strong moral compass at DOJ continue in their jobs, despite any reservations they have about the current administration.

      8 U.S. Code § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens. (a) Criminal penalties
      (1) (A) Any person who—
      (i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
      (ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
      (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
      (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
      (v) (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
      (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
      shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

    • Anon X

      Care to provide a citation to this bold assertion? “Entering the United states improperly… [is] not [a] federal crime”. As far as I can tell it is punishable under the criminal code, see: http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-8-aliens-and-nationality/8-usc-sect-1325.html

      As far as I know, unlawful presence, while not punishable under the criminal code is still illegal, with civil penalties including detention and deportation. So while its technically not being prosecuted, it is still “illegal” carrying with it hefty penalties – so its a technical distinction without much of a practical difference when dealing with federal government entities charged with enforcing these laws.

      Additionally, many illegal immigrants engage in numerous other illegal acts to remain, such as eluding capture, willfully concealing or misrepresenting material facts, falsifying documents, etc etc.

      I’m not sure you want to die on the hill of claiming that, in this instance, somehow a civil violation is less severe than a criminal one. They are both violations of the law and they carry with them penalties that can result in detention. In this case, the civil penalties are more severe with less avenue for appeal and bargaining than most civil and criminal penalties.

      So…. what exactly is the point you are making?

      • Anon. no. 5

        I’m making the point that a United States Attorney isn’t going to prosecute you in Article III courts solely for being in the country when you shouldn’t, but an immigration officer will recommend to an immigration judge that you be deported.

        • Anon X

          So?

        • dcd

          That’s not, at all, what you wrote above.

      • artemis

        “As far as I know, unlawful presence, while not punishable under the criminal code is still illegal, with civil penalties including detention and deportation.”

        Aren’t you making the exact same point that Anon. no. 5 did? That unlawful presence is a violation of civil law, not a criminal act.

        • Anon X

          Nope, not even close. Anon 5 was trying to make a technical distinction that doesnt make much practical difference. I was calling that out.

  • MadMax

    On a slightly related note, there’s another “BBQ Without Borders” fundraiser later this month to benefit the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) being held at East Side Yoga in Capitol Hill. I’ll be cooking for it, and we could use a few more BBQ cooks as well. Search for it on Eventbrite or Reddit for more details, or ask PoP for my contact info.

  • artemis

    I hope the people snapping these pictures also pulled the posters down while they were at it.

  • crayons

    I say bring ’em all here. The more the merrier. Hell, I’ll trade our top 1% who feast on everyone else for a ton more immigrants who have a solid work ethic and emphasis on family and community in a heartbeat.

  • Amanda

    Also saw these in Glover Park, Burleith and Georgetown.

  • Malcolm X Park

    I’ll bet these were posted by the same person who is hanging nooses around town. Trumper thumpers are here 4 years at least! (Hopefully less, they are worse than bible thumpers IMO).

  • Duponter

    I’ll just add to everything above that if you do choose to call this number and inform them that someone is potentially undocumented and that undocumented person is not otherwise bothering you, breaking the law, endangering your life, you are a real prick. And I hope you at least have the balls to be open about your actions so I can know clearly who to avoid in my day-to-day life and have the opportunity to shame you publicly for being a terrible person.

  • Victoria Chamberlin

    Jeez if you’re going to make a fake sign, at least look into the typography a little more. Amateurs.

×

Subscribe to our mailing list