Good News: ICE Is Tracking Illegal Aliens Through Massive License Plate Database

ICE should be using every method possible to track down, catch, and deport all illegals

ICE Tracking Immigrants with Huge License Plate Database

ICE is watching you. Or at least there’s a good chance it is, according to a new report from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The nonprofit released documents detailing the existence of a large, privately maintained database tracking license plate numbers and driver location data, which ICE—Immigration and Customs Enforcement—is using to find those who might be in the U.S. illegally.

Maintained by Vigilant Solutions, the system contains billions of location points now available to the agency on a $6.1 million contract.

“ICE has long embraced technology to target immigrants,” writes ACLU attorney Vasudha Talla. “Now it’s taking surveillance to an unprecedented level to target vulnerable communities—and sweeping up everyone else in the process.

The database includes billions of of records, used to track criminals.

More than 9,000 ICE agents have access to the information, raising concerns over the privacy and civil liberty implications—not only for the immigrants tracked by ICE, but also for the millions of drivers whose personal details are at their disposal.

The agency does not use information to find individuals “who have no connection to ICE investigatory or enforcement activities,” ICE spokesman Matthew Bourke tells The Washington Post. But police departments—which can also buy access to the database—have famously abused location data in the past to track acquantainces, lovers, and journalists, among others.

Well, perhaps it has been abused, but, no one has accused anyone in ICE of using it improperly, and if they can use it to catch illegals, great. Why are illegals driving in the first place? Why are states giving them official documents, driver’s licenses, which give them legal status? They shouldn’t be here killing Americans

(Fox10) A 16 year old illegal immigrant who is accused of causing a crash that killed a local woman was back in court Monday, this time with an interpreter.

Domingo Marcos Diego is charged with vehicular homicide and leaving the the accident scene.

The victim was Sonya Jones, a local teacher.

Friends and family members were in court Monday.

Authorities say Marcos Diego crossed the center turn lane on Highway 98 in Semmes last week and ran into Jones’ car head on.

He was denied bond, because, otherwise, ICE could pick him up and deport him. Though they usually let the justice system deal with these types of scumbags.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

14 Responses to “Good News: ICE Is Tracking Illegal Aliens Through Massive License Plate Database”

  1. Kye says:

    An ex-neighbor’s daughter was killed by an unlicensed, uninsured illegal alien driver in an accident in New Jersey some years back. She was eighteen at the time of her murder. He had been previously deported twice. Both times on drug charges. They were waiting for him to kill some innocent American before they locked him up. I imagine by now he’s out somewhere on the street in Jersey selling dope and looking to kill his next American victim. But radical DemComs want them to have sanctuary. The left is a moral vacuum. They care about nothing but power.

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      Those who support sanctuary policies for illegals are accessories to murder.

  2. gitarcarver says:

    While people may be cheering ICE tracking illegal immigrants using the software, the problem is that the data can be used to track you by criminals.

    Because the data is collected automatically by police cars driving around, the data itself is public record and you can ask for the data from your local police department.

    Slowly, you can begin to track people in their cars since most people take the same routes to work, shopping etc.

    That means that criminals can figure out when you are not home. That means that an abuser can track the routes and whereabouts of a person.

    (We wrote about this stuff back in 2015.

    You also may remember a man and his wife who were traveling through the State of Maryland and were stopped because the man had a concealed weapons permit. The wife didn’t know where the gun was and the family was detained while the police searched the vehicle. That stop was based on the license plate returning to the police that the man was had a legal CWP.

    We all may cheer that ICE uses the datebase to get illegal aliens off the streets and out of the country but make no mistake about it – the data being collected is being used by law enforcement against citizens who are doing nothing wrong.

  3. Professor Hale says:

    Which “American Civil Liberty” is being threatened by the US Government tracking foreign citizens illegally in our country?

  4. Kye says:

    I’m not okay with this type of indiscriminate mass collection of data. I think the “American Civil Liberty” that’s being threatened is first the right to privacy and second the presumption of innocents. They should have no right to track anybody without probable cause. Being an illegal alien is probable cause but that does not include everybody else.

    • Professor Hale says:

      Kye. You have no right to privacy. This is a fiction created by political activists trying to safeguard abortion. What you do have is a very limited right to be secure in your papers and person from unreasonable search and seizure by the government. What you do in public is by definition “public”. As the years progress, you should expect LESS privacy because collecting information on you has become so cheap. You don’t even have a limited right to not have other people notice you or your car in public. And according to the ACA, you don’t even have a right to keep your medical records private. It’s not 1965 any more. All your data are belong to us.

      Constitutionally or theoretically, there is no practical difference between a policemen noticing you driving by the same spot alone twice in one day then seeing your car drive by the next day with someone else in it and think, “hmmm, that’s strange”, and having a camera and software do that ten thousand times every day for every car.

      • Kye says:

        Professor Hale, while I know that what you say is correct it is only correct because we have allowed the left to bastardize the intent of the Constitution not only for abortion but to make money. And the term “very limited” did not precede the right to be secure whether in private or public. A line which also was not drawn in the Constitution which intimated you we were to be secure regardless where we were.

        I don’t like the idea leftists get to decide what is and is not in the Constitution. What I do in public IS by definition “public” however my rights from God do not cease to exist because I’m at Third & Vine, nor does the Constitution.

        This is the reason Trump was elected to rid us of this nonsense and get back to the Constitutional Republic our Fathers built. We don’t need to be “watching” everybody’s tags. We need to have the resolve to throw the illegals the hell out the minute they come in.

        • Professor Hale says:

          There is nothing nonsensical about the government using modern technology to accomplish a lawful purpose. That lawful purpose is any number of things including revenue generation, law enforcement, and all those wonderful things in the constitution like free health care. This is not a violation of privacy because no one has a reasonable expectation to privacy while operating a motor vehicle in public. Not even if you have dark tinted windows. All of the courts have held this to be true, even the conservative ones. Those courts have also held that using modern technology to peer into your homes is a violation of privacy. whole-body scanning you at an airport is not a violation. Opening your mail (to include email) is a violation. Reading your mail from your trash can in not a violation. See the difference? you may not like it or agree with it, but it is factually true, true in principle and in practice, constitutionally tested and approved. You have no right to privacy in public. The founders were rational people. They likely never expected the Constitution to last more than 50 years. But it did. And mostly, it hasn’t been replaced, not because people couldn’t think of a better one, but because they COULD think of lots of worse ones and didn’t want to open that box, nor would it have been possible to get the states to agree to ratify a new constitution when they barely agreed to the first one, loaded with temporary compromises, vague language, and intentional loopholes. The founders knew you had no privacy in public. they all jealously guarded their reputations, their public self, from lies and slander and comported themselves publicly according to a strict moral code because they KNEW they has no reasonable expectation to privacy in their public lives. If anything, you should be complaining that people today have no sense of shame and expect to be total asshats in public and not have anyone notice. Some politicians and celebrities go to parties with their friends and do drugs, sex and rock and roll, with total confidence that their friends in the press will never mention it.

          • Kye says:

            If the Founders knew they absolutely had privacy in public which is why they stated we are to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers and effects”. If we were not to expect a certain amount of privacy from government in public they would have lefts “persons” out. We have no expectation of privacy from the press or other people in public but to be Free we must demand a certain level of privacy form government in public.

            Everything you have written is factually correct and everything I’ve written is what the Constitution states. The Constitution does not specifically use the words “right to privacy” but I believe, the Supreme Court notwithstanding, the Founders meant people to have it nonetheless.

          • gitarcarver says:

            “A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.”
            Katz, 389 U. S., at 351–352. A majority of this Court has already recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements. Jones, 565 U.S., at 430 (ALITO, J. concurring in judgment);
            id., at 415 (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring). Prior to the digital age, law enforcement
            might have pursued a suspect for a brief stretch, but doing so “for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken.” Id., at 429 (opinion of ALITO, J.). For that reason, “society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.”

            Carpenter v. U.S.

      • david7134 says:

        I listened to a series of lecture on the Supreme Court and this subject was covered. The key word is papers. That is why you have very limited rights in your tech interactions. If you put all your correspondence on paper, the government is crippled.

        • Kye says:

          Saying the key word is papers is like saying the Founders never expected nor allowed for any progress whatsoever. The intent is “communications” and “thoughts” however they are made. Don’t make excuses for leftists taking your rights.

          They say we can’t pray in school because that amounts to congress establishing a religion. Only problem is, Congress has no business in schools! And while I agree with professor Hale the left pulled the right to privacy out their ass, applying “privacy” to abortion is even more of a stretch. Only the convoluted and morally corrupted mind of a leftist can think like that. But we’re better than that and we don’t have to.

          There is a provision called the ninth amendment which allows for the lawful inclusion of non-enumerated rights but I don’t believe the right to murder a baby is one. Privacy however, may be one. It may not include Constitutional protection to whip out your dick on Broad Street but that does not mean it’s not there. (the right not the dick)

          • Professor Hale says:

            It is also worth noticing that everyone in the USA above the age of 12 has an internet enabled camera with them 24 hours a day. even if you thought you had a right to privacy WRT government action, you certainly don’t have it from everyone else. It would be irrational to expect the government would not have access to publicly available information and use it for their lawful purposes.

  5. Kye says:

    Here are all the women and children being “ripped” from their families.

Pirate's Cove