“Journalists” need to check at least make the effort to check their bias at the door and obtain the full facts before putting out their writings.
The late Rush Limbaugh once observed, “We are losing the language.” Put another way, liberals are redefining what words mean to suit their goals. And liberals in the media, sometimes calling themselves “objective” reporters or journalists, are happy to oblige.
I remember his wisdom reading the Sunday morning edition of the Houston Chronicle. When I first moved to the Bayou City in 1998 it was actually a decent paper, and they appeared to try to be fair in their coverage of issues. Times have changed, and this “article” is a great example of this. Excerpts from the article, emphasis mine:
Matt deGrood
A woman last month flagged down a Houston police officer to tell them about a car crash on Washington Avenue. The officer responded by calling federal immigration authorities on her.
While ICE agents didn’t respond and detain her, as they have in some similar instances, her story is one of at least 22 such cases…Experts say the reports reveal a growing sense of cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration officials and could disincentivize people reporting crimes in the future.
These are not “experts,” but advocates for a certain position on an issue. I personally prefer when someone is honest about their bias, such as a writer on the OP-ED page. I despise the lie of calling oneself impartial when you’re actually an advocate of one side of an issue. But please don’t give an impression of neutrally to back up an argumentative essay.
I believe Mr. deGrood would have benefited by asking police officials, or a cop on the street, what is standard procedure for every investigation. This woman wanted to report an accident, she needs to identify herself. The officer will run her information to verify her identity and check if she is wanted for other criminal matters. I might remind the gentlemen Timothy McVeigh was captured after a traffic stop for an invalid license tag and booked because of a single traffic warrant. Twice in my career I’ve stopped people for traffic violations to find they had open homicide warrants.
If the woman was wanted by immigration authorities (or likely had a common name), the officer has to have their dispatch contact ICE for verification. If not, you might release a wanted person back onto the streets.
“I think from a public safety perspective, this makes little sense,” said Travis Fife, a staff attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project. “… This policy could deter hundreds of thousands of Houstonians who have questionable or no immigration status from doing the community work of keeping the neighborhood safe.”
“Questionable or no immigration status?” In other words, illegal aliens. For those who don’t know, the “Texas Civil Rights Project” is the state version of the American Criminal Lovers Union (ACLU), of course headquartered in Austin.
“The issue of enforcing immigration law by a local officer is a concern because if local law enforcement is given powers and authority of an immigration officer, we have long been worried we’d instantly create a victim class,” said Jay Coons, an assistant professor at Sam Houston State University who retired as a captain at the Harris County Sheriff’s Office in 2018.
Captain Coons, respectfully that is incorrect sir. Peace officers in Texas are not “enforcing” immigration law but responding to the warrants and request for assistance from a federal law enforcement agency. If I pull over someone for running a red light, check him by computer and he has a federal warrant for bank robbery in Louisiana, I must immediately detain him and have the warrant verified. If it comes back confirmed, the prisoner is booked into the local jail or presented to federal authorities.
Am I enforcing federal law by this action? No, I am simply taking into custody a fugitive wanted by an outside agency or magistrate. If a Little Rock AR police officer stops someone for a traffic offense, finds he is wanted out of Harris County TX, verifies the warrant, and books him for pick up later by that agency, is the Little Rock Police Department enforcing Texas law? No, they are responding to a valid warrant outside of their jurisdiction.
Jennefer Canales-Pelaez, Texas policy attorney and strategist with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, said she was upset to learn about the reports, but that they echo much of what her organization has seen on the ground.
“One of the narratives has always been law enforcement trying to partner with the community,” she said. “…They want the community to feel safe to report crimes to them.”
For months now, though, immigration advocates have noticed Houston police cars near the scene of ICE raids, she said. But each time they’ve reached out to ask about whether they were cooperating, they’ve been told they aren’t.
First off, Ms. Canales-Pelaez is not an “immigration advocate,” but a promoter of illegal immigration. Immigrants have status, e.g., are registered with ICE, have a green card, etc. Please, call her what she is, a supporter of foreigners breaking immigration law.
Ms. Canales-Pelaez, it is normal for federal (or state or agencies who are conducting raids inside one jurisdiction) to coordinate with the local police (inside Houston, that will be Houston Police). If a bunch of police or agents force their way into a public housing project to take suspects into custody, someone will call 911. If the local cops don’t know this is an authorized law enforcement action, units will be dispatched to the report of a break in, assault in progress, etc. When the cops arrive, they will be confused on the other law enforcement officers on the scene, which is very dangerous. That is why these issues are organized between the different agencies.
Mr. deGrood, you might want to get this explained to you before you write inaccurately.
But on several traffic stops, police called and ICE agents responded, taking people into custody, records show. And in once instance, police called ICE after stopping a vehicle in connection with an aggravated robbery investigation. An agent responded to the scene and took the driver into custody, whereas typically someone accused of a crime would go through local authorities before being transferred to ICE custody.
Again Mr. deGrood, inaccurate. Did the driver commit the aggravated robbery or not? Many times someone will use a vehicle in a crime, the license plate is recorded in the report as “SUSPICIOUS” and that gives reasonable suspicious to instigate a traffic stop. The cop needs to verify the person driving and if he’s not wanted locally, he’s released. However, if he has a warrant from another agency he’s detained, the warrant verified, and if valid, he’s taken into custody. Got it? Perhaps you should explain this in your narrative to put the statements of these “experts” into context.
Canales-Pelaez said she saw many concerning things in the pages of the reports.
“They’re opening themselves up to a lawsuit for a violation of the Fourth Amendment,” she said. “A lot of the reason cited in the documents for the stop is a routine traffic stop. A person can only be detained during those for as long as there exists reasonable suspicion from the reason for the stop.”
Wrong. I observe a car drive through a stop sign, I don’t have reasonable suspicion but probably cause of a crime committed. I stop the car, explain the infraction to the driver, get their identification and other documents, run the driver to verify their license and for wants or warrants and issue the citation, how long is a reasonable time? Ten-fifteen-twenty minutes is not unreasonable.
However, if someone comes up with a warrant that changes the stop from a traffic infraction to a fugitive investigation. I must detain the driver and verify the warrant. What is reasonable time to detain on that? In my experience forty-five minutes to an hour is not uncommon to verify an out of state or federal warrant, and that’s not unreasonable detention. I would hope a lawyer would know that.
Back to the beginning of this article, I make no attempt to cover my bias in my writing. I’m a conservative with some libertarian traits, and what I write argumentative prose. What I can’t stand is someone claiming objectivity and failing to make at least an actual effort to show it. You want to write opinion pieces, get to the editorial page.
There is a reason journalist are held in general distain by the American public. Recently Katherine Maher, the CEO of taxpayer funded National Public Radio said, with a straight face, “I think our reverence for the truth might become, might have become, a bit of a distraction that is preventing us from finding consensus and getting important things done.” Ms. Maher, it’s not for you to decide what “important things” this nation needs to do. Your job to explain the facts of issues and other matters so the public can make an informed decision. The 4th Estate needs to get away from advocacy and back to fully explaining the facts and trying to being impartial and accurate.
Michael A. Thiac is a retired Army intelligence officer, with over 23 years experience, including serving in the Republic of Korea, Japan, and the Middle East. He is also a retired police patrol sergeant, with over 22 years’ service, and over ten year’s experience in field training of newly assigned officers. He has been published at The American Thinker, PoliceOne.com, and on his personal blog, A Cop’s Watch.
Opinions expressed are his alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of current or former employers.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA