Posted on 02/10/2017 7:31:12 AM PST by markomalley
It's a generally accepted rule in journalism that personal addresses are not to be made public, especially if permission hasn't been granted explicitly.
Though the New York Times didn't exactly publish the personal home addresses of a group of undocumented college students featured in a recent profile, the paper did the next closest thing by disclosing some of their dorm room numbers.
The Times report, titled "Creating a Safe Space for California Dreamers," which was published earlier this month, details the concerns of a group of undocumented students at the University of California, Merced.
The report is well-written, and it's a fascinating read.
But the problem for many, including the story's subjects, is that Times reporter Patricia Leigh Brown included many of the student's dorm room numbers, which is a step below publishing personal home addresses.
"[T]he students say they never agreed to their dorm addresses appearing in the Times, which appear casually among descriptions of the insides of their dorm rooms," Fusion's Jorge Rivas reported, citing UC Merced administrators.
One university administrator, Alejandro S. Delgadillo, told Fusion, "Our students are disappointed that their personal information was published in the article, but they are resilient in the belief that some good will come from this."
Delgadillo added in separate remarks to the Times, "We didn't think she (the reporter) would even use the name of the residence hall. To include the room numbers puts a target on these students. We engage with a great deal of media and never felt that students were at risk by the information that we were sharing. This really violated that."
A spokesperson for the immigrant advocacy group Define American added separately, "By sharing these students' dorm, floor and room numbers, Ms. Brown has provided their exact locations and left them vulnerable to detainment by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or violence by radical white nationalists set on ensuring the removal of all undocumented immigrants from the United States."
Though a Times spokesperson did not respond to the Washington Examiner's request for comment by the time this story was published, the paper's public editor has already touched on the controversy surrounding their UC Merced story.
"It's too bad that an otherwise strong piece was weakened by a decision to describe the students not just by their name, but by what is essentially their home address," wrote the Times' Liz Spayd.
The report's author says she regrets sharing the students' exact whereabouts.
"I am a mother myself and the last thing I'd want to do is jeopardize any student's safety or give them cause for alarm," Brown said. "In hindsight, understanding that the room numbers seem to have caused distress and concern, I, of course, would not have used them. I gave the students the option of not using their full names (none of them took it) and did ask for their room numbers, even double-checking them with some."
Times editors, including education editor Jane Karr and associate managing editor for standard Phil Corbett, continue to defend the decision to publish the dorm numbers.
"Having a room number did not give you more access to the students," Karr said. "It's a secure building."
Spayd remains unconvinced that they needed to include those specific details.
"[T]he dorm numbers were not make-or-break details. Since the students agreed to give their names, and signed a release for the use of their image, then I think The Times is certainly within good journalistic standards to use them," she wrote. "But saying who lives behind which door seems like an unnecessary intrusion that didn't help the students or the story."
I understand FERPA is only for students here legally.
It nice that a broken clock can be right twice a day.
Thanks NYT!
Gave ‘em the same treatment NYS gun owners got from the Democrat-MSM.
Was it just a week or so ago that these people were ready to kill Milo Yiannopoulos just on the possibility that he would mention the names of some undocumented students?
Under the Terrorist in Chief, ICE couldn’t find an illegal in a Mexican protest parade. Can Trump’s ICE find an illegal in their published dorm rooms? ICE is it’s own smelly swamp that needs draining, dredged and refilled with US citizen employees who swear to follow the Constitution, their job duties and their POTUS.
how many illegal alien college students have taken seats that should have gone to LEGAL RESIDENTS?
Exactly right.
ICE only needs to step back and let the liberals - or illegals themselves - reveal just where they are and what they’re up to.
Can save a lot of time, energy and money that way too.
If they are DACA students, ICE can’t deport them.
DACA is still operating as if it were law.
A spokesperson for the immigrant advocacy group Define American added separately, “By sharing these students’ dorm, floor and room numbers, Ms. Brown has provided their exact locations and left them vulnerable to detainment by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or violence by radical white nationalists set on ensuring the removal of all undocumented immigrants from the United States.”
ANd Now the University can be PROSECUTED FOR IMMIGRATION FRAUD!! Throw them ALL IN JAIL.
Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
“Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”
Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):
A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:
• assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
• encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
•knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.
Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.
Recruitment and Employment of Illegal Aliens
It is unlawful to hire an alien, to recruit an alien, or to refer an alien for a fee, knowing the alien is unauthorized to work in the United States. It is equally unlawful to continue to employ an alien knowing that the alien is unauthorized to work. Employers may give preference in recruitment and hiring to a U.S. citizen over an alien with work authorization only where the U.S. citizen is equally or better qualified. It is unlawful to hire an individual for employment in the United States without complying with employment eligibility verification requirements. Requirements include examination of identity documents and completion of Form I-9 for every employee hired. Employers must retain all I-9s, and, with three days’ advance notice, the forms must be made available for inspection. Employment includes any service or labor performed for any type of remuneration within the United States, with the exception of sporadic domestic service by an individual in a private home. Day laborers or other casual workers engaged in any compensated activity (with the above exception) are employees for purposes of immigration law. An employer includes an agent or anyone acting directly or indirectly in the interest of the employer. For purposes of verfication of authorization to work, employer also means an independent contractor, or a contractor other than the person using the alien labor. The use of temporary or short-term contracts cannot be used to circumvent the employment authorization verification requirements. If employment is to be for less than the usual three days allowed for completing the I-9 Form requirement, the form must be completed immediately at the time of hire.
An employer has constructive knowledge that an employee is an illegal unauthorized worker if a reasonable person would infer it from the facts. Constructive knowledge constituting a violation of federal law has been found where (1) the I-9 employment eligibility form has not been properly completed, including supporting documentation, (2) the employer has learned from other individuals, media reports, or any source of information available to the employer that the alien is unauthorized to work, or (3) the employer acts with reckless disregard for the legal consequences of permitting a third party to provide or introduce an illegal alien into the employer’s work force. Knowledge cannot be inferred solely on the basis of an individual’s accent or foreign appearance.
Actual specific knowledge is not required. For example, a newspaper article stating that ballrooms depend on an illegal alien work force of dance hostesses was held by the courts to be a reasonable ground for suspicion that unlawful conduct had occurred.
IT IS ILLEGAL FOR NONPROFIT OR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS to knowingly assist an employer to violate employment sanctions, REGARDLESS OF CLAIMS THAT THEIR CONVICTIONS REQUIRE THEM TO ASSIST ALIENS. Harboring or aiding illegal aliens is not protected by the First Amendment. It is a felony to establish a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of federal immigration law. Violators may be fined or imprisoned for up to five years.
Encouraging and Harboring Illegal Aliens
It is a violation of law for any person to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection in any place, including any building or means of transportation, any alien who is in the United States in violation of law. HARBORING MEANS ANY CONDUCT THAT TENDS TO SUBSTANTIALLY FACILITATE AN ALIEN TO REMAIN IN THE U.S. ILLEGALLY. The sheltering need not be clandestine, and harboring covers aliens arrested outdoors, as well as in a building. This provision includes harboring an alien who entered the U.S. legally but has since lost his legal status.
An employer can be convicted of the felony of harboring illegal aliens who are his employees if he takes actions in reckless disregard of their illegal status, such as ordering them to obtain false documents, altering records, obstructing INS inspections, or taking other actions that facilitate the alien’s illegal employment. Any person who within any 12-month period hires ten or more individuals with actual knowledge that they are illegal aliens or unauthorized workers is guilty of felony harboring. It is also a felony to encourage or induce an alien to come to or reside in the U.S. knowing or recklessly disregarding the fact that the alien’s entry or residence is in violation of the law. This crime applies to any person, rather than just employers of illegal aliens. Courts have ruled that “encouraging” includes counseling illegal aliens to continue working in the U.S. or assisting them to complete applications with false statements or obvious errors. The fact that the alien is a refugee fleeing persecution is not a defense to this felony, since U.S. law and the UN Protocol on Refugees both require that a refugee must report to immigration authorities without delay upon entry to the U.S.
The penalty for felony harboring is a fine and imprisonment for up to five years. The penalty for felony alien smuggling is a fine and up to ten years’ imprisonment. Where the crime causes serious bodily injury or places the life of any person in jeopardy, the penalty is a fine and up to twenty years’ imprisonment. If the criminal smuggling or harboring results in the death of any person, the penalty can include life imprisonment. Convictions for aiding, abetting, or conspiracy to commit alien smuggling or harboring, carry the same penalties. Courts can impose consecutive prison sentences for each alien smuggled or harbored. A court may order a convicted smuggler to pay restitution if the alien smuggled qualifies as a victim under the Victim and Witness Protection Act. Conspiracy to commit crimes of sheltering, harboring, or employing illegal aliens is a separate federal offense punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 or five years’ imprisonment.
Enforcement
A person or entity having knowledge of a violation or potential violation of employer sanctions provisions may submit a signed written complaint to the INS office with jurisdiction over the business or residence of the potential violator, whether an employer, employee, or agent. The complaint must include the names and addresses of both the complainant and the violator, and detailed factual allegations, including date, time, and place of the potential violation, and the specific conduct alleged to be a violation of employer sanctions. By regulation, the INS will only investigate third-party complaints that have a reasonable probability of validity. Designated INS officers and employees, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws, may make an arrest for violation of smuggling or harboring illegal aliens.
State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is no extant federal limitation on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws. Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens. Hispanic appearance alone is not sufficient. Immigration officers and police must have a valid warrant or valid employer’s consent to enter workplaces or residences. Any vehicle used to transport or harbor illegal aliens, or used as a substantial part of an activity that encourages illegal aliens to come to or reside in the U.S. may be seized by an immigration officer and is subject to forfeiture. The forfeiture power covers any conveyances used within the U.S.
RICO — Citizen Recourse
Private persons and entities may initiate civil suits to obtain injunctions and treble damages against enterprises that conspire to or actually violate federal alien smuggling, harboring, or document fraud statutes, under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO). The pattern of racketeering activity is defined as commission of two or more of the listed crimes. A RICO enterprise can be any individual legal entity, or a group of individuals who are not a legal entity but are associated in fact, AND CAN INCLUDE NONPROFIT ASSOCIATIONS.
Tax Crimes
Employers who aid or abet the preparation of false tax returns by failing to pay income or Social Security taxes for illegal alien employees, or who knowingly make payments using false names or Social Security numbers, are subject to IRS criminal and civil sanctions. U.S. nationals who have suffered intentional discrimination because of citizenship or national origin by an employer with more than three employees may file a complaint within 180 days of the discriminatory act with the Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, U.S. Department of Justice. In additon to the federal statutes summarized, state laws and local ordinances controlling fair labor practices, workers compensation, zoning, safe housing and rental property, nuisance, licensing, street vending, and solicitations by contractors may also apply to activities that involve illegal aliens.
The easiest thing for ICE agnets to do, would be to follow these dorks and simply snatch up the illegals after these news people interview them. Or, hold a immigration protest and line up the trucks.
LOL. Reporters can be such stooges. This reminds me of something the Washington Post did when I was a college student at George Washington University back in the 1980s. They did an expose on kids drinking and doing drugs in college and talked to several people I know, who spoke freely about drinking under age and smoking pot. The reporter published the story using their full names and it got back to some of the kids’ parents. What the heck do these reporters thinks sometimes.
The tuition for in-state citizens is far lower than out-of-state citizens. But... the illegals pay in-state tuition as if they were citizens, far lower than out-of-state citizens. That is the crime, how much more out-of-state can you be than to be from Mexico, another country! Additionally, many of them have tuition waived or paid by grants. They get more privileges than citizens! All paid for by American taxpayers. And yes, they take seats that should have gone to citizens, particularly since standards are greatly lowered for illegals (meaning C average versus A+ average of citizens who are rejected for admission).
Granddaughter, born in St Louis USA, raised and graduated high school in Costa Rica got to pay out-of-state tuition for two years at San Diego State. Since she is a US citizen, she did not qualify for benefits that ‘foreign’ students got and of course did not qualify for the in-state tuition that ‘Dreamers’ qualified for. On top of that SDSU delayed granting her in-state tuition for as long as they could even though she lived in San Diego for two years and was paying California taxes for all of that time. Pissed me off.
Another thing that pisses me off is that the illegals are considered “minorities”, yet citizens of Asian heritage are not. A lot of Chinese and Japanese Americans are turned away from U.C. Berkeley and other U.C. campuses despite having A+ averages, because they are “not minorities”. The illegals of latino heritage are considered minorities and given preference despite poor grades. My tax dollars are used for this nonsense. Hoping President Trump pulls federal funding for the U.C. system until they change their policies.
Well, that’s because their cultures value hard work and education so much that they are “over represented” on the UC campuses. So they suffer from what is wrongly called ‘reverse discrimination’. They can’t be a minority because they are successful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.