Two US citizens detained by border patrol for speaking Spanish

It sounds like the crime of "grocery-shopping while brown" got a make-up and is now the crime of "grocery-shopping while speaking Spanish." Two Mexican-American US citizens who have been legally here for decades had an embarrassing moment when a border patrol officer detained them for 45 minutes in the parking lot of a gas station convenience store south of the US-Canada border, with passers by onlooking, for speaking Spanish while waiting in line to pay for eggs and milk.

Maybe this is the real witch hunt...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-them-speak-spanish/?utm_term=.a8239740da8b

Unbeknownst to many, it is estimated that there are 41 million legal Hispanic people in the United States versus 9 million illegal ones (the other 2 million that round up the number of illegal aliens are not Hispanic). So it is more than 4 times more likely that someone is legal rather than illegal, when the person is overheard speaking Spanish. The knee-jerk reaction "Spanish Speaker = must be illegal alien" is therefore statistically misguided. The correct knee-jerk should be "Spanish Speaker = vast odds are that he/she is a legal immigrant or a citizen of the United States." Unfortunately for this population of hardworking, family oriented folks who contribute to the economy and pay taxes (and these two are bilingual and perfectly able to also speak English), that's not what people typically think when they see them.

I'm not for illegal immigration (much the opposite)... but are we evolving into a "show me your papers" police state? Shame...

More productive would be to strongly audit, fine, and throw in jail the bosses, CEOs, and entrepreneurs who offer jobs to illegal aliens. But of course nobody is interested in that (the lobbies wouldn't want it), so, instead, we witch-hunt and harass our legal Hispanic folks. By the way walls wouldn't help that much, either (a 20-foot wall is only good as long are there isn't a 21-foot ladder, small plane, boat, hot-air balloon, tunnel, and checkpoints - the latter are responsible for 50% of the illegal aliens here who come in with valid visas and overstay them; these won't be deterred by a wall; most likely the wall would just result in that percentage increasing). Not to forget that the Mexican drug cartels would make damaging the wall a matter of pride - I can imagine them renting bulldozers and damaging the wall in various remote points).

We should stop harassing people who are legally here and speak Spanish, and start focusing on the job offers. Stop offering jobs, they'll stop coming. Offer jobs, and they will come one way or the other, wall or not.

they should have worn 'white face' and spoken English = in like Flint ..........

GreatNews2night said:

It sounds like the crime of "grocery-shopping while brown" got a make-up and is now the crime of "grocery-shopping while speaking Spanish." Two Mexican-American US citizens who have been legally here for decades had an embarrassing moment when a border patrol officer detained them for 45 minutes in the parking lot of a gas station convenience store south of the US-Canada border, with passers by onlooking, for speaking Spanish while waiting in line to pay for eggs and milk.

Maybe this is the real witch hunt...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-them-speak-spanish/?utm_term=.a8239740da8b

Unbeknownst to many, it is estimated that there are 41 million legal Hispanic people in the United States versus 9 million illegal ones (the other 2 million that round up the number of illegal aliens are not Hispanic). So it is more than 4 times more likely that someone is legal rather than illegal, when the person is overheard speaking Spanish. The knee-jerk reaction "Spanish Speaker = must be illegal alien" is therefore statistically misguided. The correct knee-jerk should be "Spanish Speaker = vast odds are that he/she is a legal immigrant or a citizen of the United States." Unfortunately for this population of hardworking, family oriented folks who contribute to the economy and pay taxes (and these two are bilingual and perfectly able to also speak English), that's not what people typically think when they see them.

I'm not for illegal immigration (much the opposite)... but are we evolving into a "show me your papers" police state? Shame...

More productive would be to strongly audit, fine, and throw in jail the bosses, CEOs, and entrepreneurs who offer jobs to illegal aliens. But of course nobody is interested in that (the lobbies wouldn't want it), so, instead, we witch-hunt and harass our legal Hispanic folks. By the way walls wouldn't help that much, either (a 20-foot wall is only good as long are there isn't a 21-foot ladder, small plane, boat, hot-air balloon, tunnel, and checkpoints - the latter are responsible for 50% of the illegal aliens here who come in with valid visas and overstay them; these won't be deterred by a wall; most likely the wall would just result in that percentage increasing). Not to forget that the Mexican drug cartels would make damaging the wall a matter of pride - I can imagine them renting bulldozers and damaging the wall in various remote points).

We should stop harassing people who are legally here and speak Spanish, and start focusing on the job offers. Stop offering jobs, they'll stop coming. Offer jobs, and they will come one way or the other, wall or not.

Click to expand...

Other than some form of "show me your papers" then how does one determine if a given worker is legal or not?

ttwtt78640 said:

Other than some form of "show me your papers" then how does one determine if a given worker is legal or not?

Click to expand...

Umm, why would anyone have to show papers if they are not doing anything wrong, sorry but being brown and speaking Spanish is not probable cause. Think this has been addressed by the courts.

Casper said:

Umm, why would anyone have to show papers if they are not doing anything wrong, sorry but being brown and speaking Spanish is not probable cause. Think this has been addressed by the courts.

Click to expand...

I ask the question specifically because the post to which I replied suggested that employers of illegal immigrants should be held legally (criminally?) responsible (by ICE?). Having a job or offering goods/services for sale as an entrepreneur is also not probable cause. The question remains - when and/or where would ICE be permitted (required?) to ask for a person's legal status documentation?

ttwtt78640 said:

I ask the question specifically because the post to which I replied suggested that employers of illegal immigrants should be held legally (criminally?) responsible (by ICE?). Having a job or offering goods/services for sale as an entrepreneur is also not probable cause. The question remains - when and/or where would ICE be permitted (required?) to ask for a person's legal status documentation?

Click to expand...

When there is an investigation in play or there is probable cause, in this there was neither.

The point of this story that scares me is Border Patrol's powers to detain/search a person without probable cause, almost anywhere inside the US even when no where near the border, when regular law enforcement cannot.

Casper said:

When there is an investigation in play or there is probable cause, in this there was neither.

Click to expand...

Border patrol don't need PC.

It seems we are quick to assume the ice agent was overreacting, but fail to see that the women were as well. Outrage seems to serve us well these days. The point is not that the Ladies were speaking Spanish, the point is they were speaking Spanish there. They were free to go after some checking. Yes, they were inconvenienced, and yes, they may have been embarrassed, but what are our agents to do?

Casper said:

When there is an investigation in play or there is probable cause, in this there was neither.

Click to expand...

That was my point - stating that employment (alone?) merits immigration status inspection is no more reasonable than saying that speaking a language other than English merits it. The bottom line is that their are millions of illegal immigrants now inside the US and some form of checking is required to identify them for removal. Laws without any enforcement mechanism are useless.

ttwtt78640 said:

That was my point - stating that employment (alone?) merits immigration status inspection is no more reasonable than saying that speaking a language other than English merits it. The bottom line is that their are millions of illegal immigrants now inside the US and some form of checking is required to identify them for removal. Laws without any enforcement mechanism are useless.

Click to expand...

I really do not understand where you are going with this. I am all for requiring busines owners having to verify a person's right to be working here, I have had to do so at every job I have ever worked including contract work. As for simply pulling someone aside and asking to see their papers, that is not what Democracies (Republics included) do, nor should the People stand for it.

Casper said:

I really do not understand where you are going with this. I am all for requiring busines owners having to verify a person's right to be working here, I have had to do so at every job I have ever worked including contract work. As for simply pulling someone aside and asking to see their papers, that is not what Democracies (Republics included) do, nor should the People stand for it.

Click to expand...

OK, so we have solved the illegal employment "magnet" problem by requiring employer use of I-9 forms since 1986.

Like I said before, having a law is only as good as its enforcement.

GreatNews2night said:

It sounds like the crime of "grocery-shopping while brown" got a make-up and is now the crime of "grocery-shopping while speaking Spanish." Two Mexican-American US citizens who have been legally here for decades had an embarrassing moment when a border patrol officer detained them for 45 minutes in the parking lot of a gas station convenience store south of the US-Canada border, with passers by onlooking, for speaking Spanish while waiting in line to pay for eggs and milk.

Maybe this is the real witch hunt...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-them-speak-spanish/?utm_term=.a8239740da8b

Unbeknownst to many, it is estimated that there are 41 million legal Hispanic people in the United States versus 9 million illegal ones (the other 2 million that round up the number of illegal aliens are not Hispanic). So it is more than 4 times more likely that someone is legal rather than illegal, when the person is overheard speaking Spanish. The knee-jerk reaction "Spanish Speaker = must be illegal alien" is therefore statistically misguided. The correct knee-jerk should be "Spanish Speaker = vast odds are that he/she is a legal immigrant or a citizen of the United States." Unfortunately for this population of hardworking, family oriented folks who contribute to the economy and pay taxes (and these two are bilingual and perfectly able to also speak English), that's not what people typically think when they see them.

I'm not for illegal immigration (much the opposite)... but are we evolving into a "show me your papers" police state? Shame...

More productive would be to strongly audit, fine, and throw in jail the bosses, CEOs, and entrepreneurs who offer jobs to illegal aliens. But of course nobody is interested in that (the lobbies wouldn't want it), so, instead, we witch-hunt and harass our legal Hispanic folks. By the way walls wouldn't help that much, either (a 20-foot wall is only good as long are there isn't a 21-foot ladder, small plane, boat, hot-air balloon, tunnel, and checkpoints - the latter are responsible for 50% of the illegal aliens here who come in with valid visas and overstay them; these won't be deterred by a wall; most likely the wall would just result in that percentage increasing). Not to forget that the Mexican drug cartels would make damaging the wall a matter of pride - I can imagine them renting bulldozers and damaging the wall in various remote points).

We should stop harassing people who are legally here and speak Spanish, and start focusing on the job offers. Stop offering jobs, they'll stop coming. Offer jobs, and they will come one way or the other, wall or not.

Click to expand...

I didn't watch the video, so I don't know what the recorded evidence shows, but if it corroborates the statements that one lady gave to the media, I have to think this is a slam dunk case when they file suit.

That agent is going to lose his job.

ttwtt78640 said:

OK, so we have solved the illegal employment "magnet" problem by requiring employer use of I-9 forms since 1986.

Like I said before, having a law is only as good as its enforcement.

Click to expand...

In That we Agree.

We are going to end up just like the old USSR.

ttwtt78640 said:

OK, so we have solved the illegal employment "magnet" problem by requiring employer use of I-9 forms since 1986.

Like I said before, having a law is only as good as its enforcement.

Click to expand...

Or as Brandeis noted, the law will be respected when it is respectable.

OrphanSlug said:

We are going to end up just like the old USSR.

Click to expand...

Very Doubtful, but I see your point.

ttwtt78640 said:

Other than some form of "show me your papers" then how does one determine if a given worker is legal or not?

Click to expand...

These women were not working (although as US citizens they have a full right to do it); they were just grocery-shopping. But sure, when auditing a workplace one would want to see the HR files for each employee and make sure that it's been verified that they are either US citizens, or lawful permanent residents, or have a work permit. These are Department of Labor requirements. What I'd advocate for, would be making of a willful violation of that, a felony, resulting in steep fines, revocation of business license, and jail time. Guaranteed, the illegal alien problem would dwindle in no time. Say, first or even second offense, fines, warnings, probation, tight re-auditing; third violation, jail time. But of course laws will never be passed for this because our "great" representatives posture that they are against illegal immigration when they are running for office, but when elected (and I'm talking about both parties) do square nothing because the lobbies don't want it. The corporations are more than happy with the cheap labor delivered by the illegal aliens, so it's all a bunch of campaign posturing with no action.

Casper said:

I really do not understand where you are going with this. I am all for requiring busines owners having to verify a person's right to be working here, I have had to do so at every job I have ever worked including contract work. As for simply pulling someone aside and asking to see their papers, that is not what Democracies (Republics included) do, nor should the People stand for it.

Click to expand...

You couldn't have said it any better. Me too, US citizen, white, no reason to suspect me from being an illegal alien, but still, if I take a new job I need to give to Human Resources proof of my citizenship and of my right to work. It's part of everything else they do - background check, urine drug screen, etc., and I have no problem with it. These are Department of Labor regulations and employers need to abide by them. Tight auditing and inspection in my opinion would be the most efficient way to curb the illegal immigration problem because if we don't offer them jobs, they won't come. Stopping our own citizens, 49 million of whom are Hispanics, and asking for papers, just based on the fact that they are speaking Spanish, is preposterous, since last I checked, it isn't illegal to speak a foreign language anywhere in the territory of the United States.

Lovebug said:

It seems we are quick to assume the ice agent was overreacting, but fail to see that the women were as well. Outrage seems to serve us well these days. The point is not that the Ladies were speaking Spanish, the point is they were speaking Spanish there. They were free to go after some checking. Yes, they were inconvenienced, and yes, they may have been embarrassed, but what are our agents to do?

Click to expand...

In what way were the women over-reacting? According to the article they remained polite and using a normal tone of voice.
"Speaking Spanish there" - again, I don't see any local laws saying that it is forbidden to speak Spanish, anywhere in the US (including in the northern states), and if there is an attempt to make one, it will be struck down as unconstitutional.

ttwtt78640 said:

OK, so we have solved the illegal employment "magnet" problem by requiring employer use of I-9 forms since 1986.

Like I said before, having a law is only as good as its enforcement.

Click to expand...

Exactly, which is why I'd rather advocate for funds being allocated to hiring more auditors for the Department of Labor than for building some silly wall.

ttwtt78640 said:

Other than some form of "show me your papers" then how does one determine if a given worker is legal or not?

Click to expand...

One of the unintended consequences of fighting illegal immigration is that it demands a Fed. ID for all citizens. Without it, there is no way to ID who is a legal resident and who isn't. I hate the idea that I should have to carry ID that basically says I'm not a criminal, but that's a something unavoidable if we want to the plague of illegal immigration.

faithful_servant said:

One of the unintended consequences of fighting illegal immigration is that it demands a Fed. ID for all citizens. Without it, there is no way to ID who is a legal resident and who isn't. I hate the idea that I should have to carry ID that basically says I'm not a criminal, but that's a something unavoidable if we want to the plague of illegal immigration.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily unavoidable. We don't need to become a "show me your papers" dictatorship-like regime. We need enforcement of labor laws because without jobs they won't come. I think that it would be the most efficient way to stop the problem. We have *existing* job laws but they aren't enforced/audited. At the moment of a candidacy for employment it is reasonable to ask to see that the person is qualified to work under the law. But going around asking people to show papers simply because they are speaking a foreign language without engaging in any other illegal or suspicious behavior (I mean, these women were buying milk and egg and waiting in line to pay for their purchases), in my opinion is preposterous.

GreatNews2night said:

Not necessarily unavoidable. We don't need to become a "show me your papers" dictatorship-like regime. We need enforcement of labor laws because without jobs they won't come. I think that it would be the most efficient way to stop the problem. We have *existing* job laws but they aren't enforced/audited. At the moment of a candidacy for employment it is reasonable to ask to see that the person is qualified to work under the law. But going around asking people to show papers simply because they are speaking a foreign language without engaging in any other illegal or suspicious behavior (I mean, these women were buying milk and egg and waiting in line to pay for their purchases), in my opinion is preposterous.

Click to expand...

I used to have a guy working for me who was raised in an East LA barrio. His was a gang family that kept him very isolated. Art never even heard a word of English until he was about 9 years. He speaks with a noticeable accent, stronger than some of the Mexican immigrants who worked for me. Art had "sketchy" written all over his face and if you were line up 9 random Mexican immigrants and Art and be asked to pick out the one most likely to be an illegal immigrant, you'd pick Art 3/4's of the time. Art carried ID with him any where he went as a result. We already have laws that state that an employer is required to ascertain the legal status of the people they employ, but it's not nearly enough, since we still have a large number of employers hiring illegal immigrants (who should face substantial legal punishment for it). The problem is that if a LEO sees someone who is suspicious in their employment status (hiding in the fields when "Emigre" shows up), there's nothing to stop the illegal immigrant from simply telling the officer that they are legal citizens and unless she has proof to the contrary, she can go away.

BTW - Requiring a Fed. ID card is not creating a dictatorship and your hyperbole does nothing but harm your credibility.

faithful_servant said:

I used to have a guy working for me who was raised in an East LA barrio. His was a gang family that kept him very isolated. Art never even heard a word of English until he was about 9 years. He speaks with a noticeable accent, stronger than some of the Mexican immigrants who worked for me. Art had "sketchy" written all over his face and if you were line up 9 random Mexican immigrants and Art and be asked to pick out the one most likely to be an illegal immigrant, you'd pick Art 3/4's of the time. Art carried ID with him any where he went as a result. We already have laws that state that an employer is required to ascertain the legal status of the people they employ, but it's not nearly enough, since we still have a large number of employers hiring illegal immigrants (who should face substantial legal punishment for it). The problem is that if a LEO sees someone who is suspicious in their employment status (hiding in the fields when "Emigre" shows up), there's nothing to stop the illegal immigrant from simply telling the officer that they are legal citizens and unless she has proof to the contrary, she can go away.

BTW - Requiring a Fed. ID card is not creating a dictatorship and your hyperbole does nothing but harm your credibility.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the hyperbole; you have a point there. And we do thoroughly agree about the main point: "who should face substantial legal punishment for it." Yes, it might be justified, as part of an audit/inspection, to raid a business and see that everybody working there has a right to do it. But the main difference is that then our officers focus on the illegal alien him or herself and do nothing or very little against the business owner.

Look, I'm a bit to the left. I call myself slightly liberal. But I abhor illegal immigration. What part of the word "illegal" some people more to the left than I am, don't seem to understand?

But I have a different solution for it, that's all. Rather than trying to round them up and deport them, which I find that at this point is practically impossible, and even if we do, they sneak back in, I'd combat the problem by nipping it in the bud, that is, by focusing on the labor market.

The day the owner of a farm, the owner of a construction business, the owner of a restaurant, gets dragged to jail handcuffed, with some minimum sentencing guidelines, plus business-disabling fines and revocation of business license, the other farm next mountain over, the next construction company next block over, and the next restaurant next street over, will think twice before offering convenient cheap labor to illegal aliens.

Then, we won't need much of a deportation force. If they can't find employment anywhere they will just leave, and won't come back. With exceptions, of course, but I would bet that the problem would be *significantly* reduced, and much more so than building walls or rounding up people for deportation.

Regarding the national ID, I don't exactly oppose it. There is an ongoing effort on this, the "Real ID" standard, where states will have to comply with federal guidelines for IDs or else the person won't be able to use them to board a plane or enter a federal building.

But while I feel that a work site audit/inspection is fine and people then should have to demonstrate that they are able to work there and the employer is not hiring them underground and illegally, I'd draw the line at going around asking to see people's papers because they are speaking Spanish while waiting to pay for milk and eggs. That's going a bit too far, for my taste, including because it's not even statistically justified since Spanish speakers in the US are much more likely (more than four times more likely) to be legal than not, so what exactly justifies the profiling?

And again, it's moving towards a police state for little gain, because typically the people who get caught and deported, simply return.

No, it's the jobs that need to dry out.

One last thing: while I abhor illegal immigration, I have nothing against the legal kind. They are often hard-working, family-oriented, law-abiding folks. If they aren't (I guess there are legal ones who are criminals) then those who aren't need to be prosecuted just like any other group, and being a criminal in this case has little to do with being an immigrant (in the sense that one doesn't necessarily induce the other). So, it pains me to see the law-abiding legal kind being harassed by police simply for speaking Spanish. That's not cool.

ttwtt78640 said:

Other than some form of "show me your papers" then how does one determine if a given worker is legal or not?

Click to expand...

Are there not millions of American citizens who speak foreign languages to each other?