SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
At least two Motel 6 locations in Phoenix, Arizona reported guest lists to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It was also rumored that ICE paid out $200 for every undocumented immigrant caught. A PR director from Motel 6's parent company confirmed that staff members at the locations were working with ICE without the approval of senior management:
At least two Motel 6 locations in Arizona are reporting their guest lists to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, which has resulted in at least 20 arrests, according to local media.
Phoenix New Times reported on Wednesday that two franchise locations of the motel chain are sending their guest lists to ICE agents "every morning," and possibly receiving $200 per undocumented immigrant caught in the sting.
"We send a report every morning to ICE — all the names of everybody that comes in," one front-desk clerk told the Times. "Every morning at about 5 o'clock, we do the audit and we push a button and it sends it to ICE."
Immigration attorney Denise Aguilar wrote The New Times in an email that some of her clients "have heard (no telling how valid the info is) that ICE is paying $200 per person for the front-desk clerk to report."
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that law enforcement must obtain a warrant to search hotel/motel registries.
Also at The Washington Post, NY Mag, and Vice.
[Ed. Addition] A follow-on story at Phoenix New Times After New Times Story, Motel 6 Says It Will Stop Sharing Guest Lists With ICE raises many interesting questions about the situation, and then was itself updated:
Update, 3:25 p.m.: Motel 6 has issued another statement in response to our story on their practice of sharing guest lists with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement:
"Over the past several days, it was brought to our attention that certain local Motel 6 properties in the Phoenix-area were voluntarily providing daily guest lists to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As previously stated, this was undertaken at the local level without the knowledge of senior management. When we became aware of it, it was discontinued.
Moving forward, to help ensure that this does not occur again, we will be issuing a directive to every one of our more than 1,400 locations nationwide, making clear that they are prohibited from voluntarily providing daily guest lists to ICE.
Additionally, to help ensure that our broader engagement with law enforcement is done in a manner that is respectful of our guests' rights, we will be undertaking a comprehensive review of our current practices and then issue updated, company-wide guidelines.
Protecting the privacy and security of our guests are core values of our company. Motel 6 apologizes for this incident and will continue to work to earn the trust and patronage of our millions of loyal guests."
Related: (Rhode Island) ACLU Statement On "Change" In Motel 6 Policy of Sharing Guest List (2015)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Friday September 15 2017, @12:21PM (12 children)
Imagine: You run a hotel, and you have reason to believe that a wanted criminal just rented a room. So you rent him a room, and give a quiet call to the cops. That's actually how it ought to work, no?
So: You run a hotel, and you have reason to believe that an illegal alien just rented a room. So you rent him a room, and give a quiet call to the cops.
There are only two points of discussion here. First, is an illegal alien a criminal? The answer to that is rather obvious, straight from the word "illegal". Of course they are.
The second question is what kind of "reason to believe" is sufficient. It would clearly be wrong to turn in every person who looks vaguely hispanic. However, in the case of TFA, the gardener checked into the hotel using his Mexican ID card. A Mexican citizen who wants to visit the US needs a visa, which this guy admits that he did not have.
So I'm not seeing the problem here. Seems to me that Motel 6 was doing the right thing.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @01:13PM (1 child)
so how do the 200 dollars fit into your tale?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @03:34PM
That's the reward, just a lot lower than any on a Ten Most Wanted List.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday September 15 2017, @01:46PM (1 child)
So: You run a hotel, and you have reason to believe that an illegal alien just rented a room. So you rent him a room, and give a quiet call to the cops.
Now what if the situation is different? What if it's: you work at a hotel at the front desk, and you have reason to believe an illegal alien just rented a room. Your manager doesn't want you giving a quiet call to ICE, because they'd rather keep the illegal alien there as a paying customer as long as possible, and they don't want you giving their business a bad reputation. But you call it in anyway. Now, can the motel owner fire your ass? Probably, but I'm not sure. And can you get in trouble for sharing confidential company information without authorization by management?
It's really not clear from TFS whether this is a case of some rogue employees acting against their managers' wishes, or a case of some franchisees acting against their corporate parent's wishes. Personally, IMO, if it's the latter, then the chain deserves any black eye it gets. This is the whole problem with franchises: the parent corp doesn't have very good control over the individual franchisees, and quality is all over the map, usually with the franchisees doing the bare minimum to maintain their franchise. If you want your company to maintain a certain reputation, then don't have franchises; own and operate everything directly, like a real corporation.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday September 15 2017, @07:30PM
It was neither. It was SOP at these locations to send the guest list to ICE, and these were corporate owned locations, not franchises.
The managers were acting under their own local authority with no clear directive from corporate headquarters. It wasn't prohibited at the time.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @03:12PM
Fixed that for you
(Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Friday September 15 2017, @04:39PM (2 children)
That's because your blood lust for illegals is clouding your fucking vision dude. They gave away ENTIRE FUCKING REGISTRIES ON A GODDAMNED CRON JOB TO THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT.
Checking APBs, FBI most wanted lists, etc. is just fine. Reporting somebody suspicious, or suspicious activity is just fine. REPORTING ME ALONG WITH IT IS FUCKING NOT!!! That's what happened. If you, or I, were staying there, our privacy was violated as a matter of course just for the possibility of catching somebody else.
You say it's just normal interaction with law enforcement, and that's pants on head retarded. It's more like mass fucking surveillance. There's the problem you can't seem to find.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @05:37AM (1 child)
"If you, or I, were staying there, our privacy was violated"
You actually believe you have privacy ?
You are either willfully ignorant or childishly naive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @06:12PM
True, but irrelevant. People expect privacy, and that expectation is not being met in increasingly blatant ways. Law follows the commons (at least outside of dictatorships).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by ants_in_pants on Friday September 15 2017, @04:47PM
Just because they're a criminal doesn't mean they did anything wrong or should be punished for it.
Also, this isn't just reporting *suspected* individuals, this is reporting *everybody*.
-Love, ants_in_pants
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 15 2017, @07:23PM (2 children)
So you're totally fine with your ISP voluntarily handing a copy of all your internet traffic to the NSA. After all, they're a private entity and they think you might be a terrorist.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday September 15 2017, @07:39PM (1 child)
Fine with it, no. But that's a different question than "is it legal for them to do so?"
We should push for better privacy laws.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @12:04AM
The NSA's mass surveillance is completely unconstitutional. I would argue that this is as well, because once the government starts paying someone to do a job, that person becomes a de facto agent of the government. Or at least that's how it would work if our courts were sane.