In particular, arrest because of race or language spoken is now allowed

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Supposedly the rule they were going with was four pieces of “evidence” for detainment: 1. Race, 2. Language/Accent, 3. Location, 4. Occupation; and the lower court said that’s not enough evidence (although for whatever reason seemed ok with racial discrimination being used with the rest?). They put a hold on ICE doing this, and the SCOTUS blocked the hold, but didn’t technically rule on the procedure itself (yet, anyway).

    Still not good news, just clarifying based on what I heard on an NPR interview earlier. ICE isn’t even following the procedure laid out, as far as I can tell (picking people off the streets lacks location or occupation) and they’ve partially ignored the court ruling anyway. For instance, there’s very clear laws that officials must identify themselves for citizens (with a few exceptions), and you can legally call the police on them if they don’t. Obviously that rule has been largely ignored.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      21 hours ago

      They had sharply reduced random detainments in California, in part due to the injunction. A lot of people are going to be needlessly jailed because of this.

      • taiyang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        I mean it’s basically Stop and Frisk, like they had in NY. It’s just much worse because they don’t even release you immediately. It also always sucks to be profiled by appearance.