Friday, February 10, 2017

ICE in Hudson: The Story Continues

On Thursday evening, the Columbia County Sanctuary Movement released a statement that read in part:
Our legal support network . . . [has] confirmed that there are at least 4 people detained by ICE at Albany County Jail, all of whom were initially detained by ICE on February 6 and 7. This afternoon our legal team was granted access to those detained and were able to confirm that only one individual from Columbia County was among them.
In addition to those detained, we have confirmed that ICE has interrogated at least one other individual in Hudson, taken their passport, and attempted to coerce them into signing a voluntary departure form, which they refused to do without legal representation.
We have received numerous other reports of ICE activities around the county and are working to verify those activities.


  1. I hope now we'll see that the use of the word "dragnet" was not an exaggeration. While all the big news still surrounds the Executive Order banning immigrants from 7 countries, I have since learned that a second EO, signed January 25, according to one reputable source, "greatly expand the class of migrants who will be targeted for priority removal enforcement." This same source had warned that "ICE is likely to become more active at local jails." Thus, the sudden deportation of the California mother of 2 yesterday and the 4 folks detained by ICE mentioned above. This second EO seems much more pernicious than the first in that the latter is simply a "turn-up-the-heat" order to ICE and probably not subject to court review -- or even much affected by sanctuary city protests and laws. I spent time with ICE agents 20 years ago (for a story I was writing) and watched them pull people off the street in NYC -- no probable cause whatsoever -- check for i.d. and if none was produced take them to a federal facility and, in many cases, put them on a plane "home" the next day. It's hard to tell how this EO-inspired crackdown (perhaps a better word than "dragnet") will go, but it's real.

  2. If it's true that a second individual was questioned and knew to defend their rights, then they probably knew to do so, in part, thanks to the Columbia County Sanctuary Movement.

    In such a case, the person would not have been a convicted felon. They'd have more rights than the single person who was taken away from Hudson (whether we like it or not, a previously convicted felon who'd been banished but still returned has less of a due process claim in an actual court).

    If the details of the second case are accurate, which wouldn't have required a disruption of a Federal investigation, then I say well done. In this second case, the leaflet of the sanctuary group provided a good service whether or not the individual involved actually disregarded the nation's immigration laws.