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: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday September 16 2017, @03:34AM (2 children)
Apparently AC claims to be aware of such details [soylentnews.org], although I suspect he/she is less knowledgeable about it than you are.
A fair point. My reference to the US Code was a backhanded way of saying "Citation needed" as another AC did explicitly [soylentnews.org].
But that's not the law. It's possible that insurers might include a re3quirement to maintain business records, including guest names in their policy T&Cs, but why would they care? As such, it seems unlikely. However, since I don't own a hotel, I have no direct knowledge one way or another.
I think it more likely that hotels keep business records for a certain period of time so they can identify discrepancies and have documentation to respond to audits.
Again, that's not "the law," nor is it a government mandate, as original AC claimed.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday September 18 2017, @02:44AM (1 child)
When a government requires a business to carry insurance, it in effect delegates lawmaking to the insurers, as breach of the policy terminates coverage and makes the business's continued operation a crime.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday September 18 2017, @04:25AM
That's a stretch. A pretty big one too. What's more, insurance (at least in the US) is regulated by the several states. As such, there's likely little uniformity with respect to insurance policy terms and conditions.
Beyond that, requiring insurance coverage is likely an administrative regulation which has the force of law (but violations are almost certainly civil torts and not crimes), but the Ts & Cs of an insurance policy (whether or not purchasing such a policy is required by regulations) most certainly do not have the force of law.
If you have any actual *evidence* to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr