Upset
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Got A Tattoo? You May Get Deported to El Salvador.

ICE’s focus on tattoos is part of a long tradition of profiling
Lawyers for multiple deported migrants say tattoos were incorrectly used to label their clients members of a violent Venezuelan gang. Sadly we've seen this all before.

April 23, 2025, 5:00 AM CDT / Updated April 23, 2025, 7:03 AM CDT
By Karla Ostolaza, managing director of The Bronx Defenders' immigration practice.

Two crowns over the words “Mom” and “Dad.” A Michael Jordan “Jumpman” figure. A pocket watch that marks the time of a daughter’s birth. These are a few of the tattoos that some lawyers for deported migrants say were used by federal immigration authorities to label their clients members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and justify their enforced disappearances to a notoriously brutal mega-prison in El Salvador.

And yet, in recent weeks, expert after expert has argued that tattoos are not a reliable predictor of Tren de Aragua gang affiliation. Sociologist Roberto Briceño León, who has been studying violence in Venezuela for 30 years, summarized the trouble with recent reports of tattoo targeting succinctly: “Venezuelan gangs don’t identify themselves with tattoos.” Real life, it turns out, typically does not resemble a low-budget crime flick.

Sadly, using certain visual and cultural signifiers to stigmatize people as criminals is not new. In my decadelong career as a public defender, I’ve witnessed many iterations of the strategy. During the first Trump administration, I represented teenagers on Long Island who were accused of being in gangs because of their tattoos, for wearing NBA apparel and for sporting Nike Cortez sneakers (which you might recognize as Forrest Gump’s shoe of choice). I distinctly remember coming home one day after meeting someone labeled a member of MS-13 because he wore Chicago Bulls apparel, only to turn on the television and see Miley Cyrus wearing the exact same clothes in a music video.

Today, the Trump administration is again citing Bulls apparel, in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man wrongfully deported to El Salvador. Abrego Garcia has never been charged with or convicted of a crime in the U.S., and his family and lawyers deny any gang membership, but police in 2019 advised an immigration judge that Abrego Garcia “displayed traits associated with MS-13 gang culture” based on factors including his tattoos and clothing.

Police claim they use intelligence gathering to compile and update their understanding of gang tattoo iconography. But this, too, is a squishy concept that varies depending on many factors. And the intelligence gathering process itself is far from foolproof. Earlier this month, a white British man discovered a tattoo paying homage to his daughter was being cited by the Department of Homeland Security as a possible Tren De Aragua identifier.

Indeed, I would argue tattoos, gang allegations and other proxies have long allowed law enforcement to engage in policing that is seemingly race-neutral on its surface but ultimately race-based in practice. Body art becomes a socially acceptable pretext for ethnic and racial profiling.

Thus, one of the main problems with identifying gang members by tattoos is not the potential for mistakes. Rather, tattoo misidentification is better understood as a powerful weapon that can neutralize public empathy and scrutiny by cloaking race-based attacks in race-neutral excuses.

That is why the use of tattoos and clothing can also be connected to other infamous examples of racial profiling, like “stop-and-frisk,” which at its height resulted in hundreds of thousands of Black and Latino New Yorkers’ being accosted by police every year. After a New York court forced the NYPD to abandon the program, the police department created Operation Crew Cut, a “war on gangs” initiative powered by a database that criminal justice activists said marked teenagers as targets for surveillance and harassment. Tellingly, tattoos were one reason a person might be included in the database. More than 20,000 people were added to the database in a 10-year period — according to an analysis by CUNY Law Professor Babe Howell, 99% were not white.

Such pretexts are necessary because the underlying policies, when laid bare, are not always broadly popular. Mass deportations and enforced disappearances require convincing the public that certain people are disposable and undeserving. Alleged gang affiliations and criminal records serve as more palatable and convincing justifications when ethnicity alone is not enough.

The cruelty of President Donald Trump’s deportations is a brutal escalation of an already brutal system. And while the majority of Republicans still approve of his immigration policies, more Americans now disapprove than approve of the way he is handling the campaign issue, according to the most recent Reuters/Ipsos poll. These numbers offer some hope. Recognizing the mutual humanity in another person is only natural; it takes an enormous amount of effort to undo this basic human instinct.

The lesson is this: Our immigration and criminal legal systems are not designed to bring about justice and safety. Where there is specious pretext, there are human beings being violently ripped away from their families and homes and sentenced to indefinite captivity. As the dragnet grows, we need to reconsider what makes it possible to see some communities as disposable. And we must resist the dehumanization that enables abuse and false justifications. Otherwise, the scope of who is deemed disposable will continue to expand.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
FloorGenAdm · 51-55, M
[media=https://youtu.be/LR8Kr5-xla0]
@FloorGenAdm 5th Amendment due process?

I'm not gonna watch 70+ minutes of a talking head who wants to beat around the bush when we both know that the issue here is due process.

"If he is a gang member, you have to prove it in court. If he is a domestic abuser, you have to prove it in court," an attorney for the 29-year-old El Salvador native told ABC News. "If you want to revoke his withholding grant, the government is capable of doing that – but you have to prove it in court."
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues
[image/video - please log in to see this content]
[image/video - please log in to see this content]
[image/video - please log in to see this content]
@sunsporter1649 "If he is a gang member, you have to prove it in court. If he is a domestic abuser, you have to prove it in court," an attorney for the 29-year-old El Salvador native told ABC News. "If you want to revoke his withholding grant, the government is capable of doing that – but you have to prove it in court."
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues Two courts already did that, the song is "Hit the road, Jack, and don't you come back no mo, no mo, no mo, no mo...."
@sunsporter1649 Show us where a court ruled that he was a gang member. I'll wait.

Show us where a court revoked his withholding grant. I'll wait.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@sunsporter1649 DUUUDE!!!

How do you know what they are guilty of without due process?? Either we abide by the Constitution - all of it - or we don't. No picking and choosing. You want to reserve American freedoms only for people who look and talk like you, and that's SAD. You don't want to live in a nation of laws, and that's SAD.

Show us where a court ruled that Garcia was a gang member. I'll wait.

Show us where a court revoked Garcia's withholding grant. I'll wait.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues Illegal aliens, by definition, are criminals and subject to deportation .

What about those deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S. Code Sec. 1182, who are barred from even entering the country without any hearing whatsoever, just an executive determination that they do not meet the criteria for entry into the U.S. For example, under 8 U.S. Code Sec. 1225(c) it states that inadmissible aliens can be immediately removed: “If an immigration officer or an immigration judge suspects that an arriving alien may be inadmissible under subparagraph (A) (other than clause (ii)), (B), or (C) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title, the officer or judge shall—(A)order the alien removed, subject to review under paragraph (2); (B)report the order of removal to the Attorney General; and (C)not conduct any further inquiry or hearing until ordered by the Attorney General.”

And 8 U.S. Code Sec. 1225(c) provides the Attorney General can remove the alien without a hearing: “The Attorney General shall review orders issued … If the Attorney General… is satisfied on the basis of confidential information that the alien is inadmissible under subparagraph (A) (other than clause (ii)), (B), or (C) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title, and … after consulting with appropriate security agencies of the United States Government, concludes that disclosure of the information would be prejudicial to the public interest, safety, or security, the Attorney General may order the alien removed without further inquiry or hearing by an immigration judge.”
JSul3 · 70-79
@sunsporter1649 Unless seeking asylum.....then they must have their claim by a judge.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@JSul3 Can't read, eh?
@sunsporter1649 You left out asylum. AGAIN. I've explained this to you. Why are you always ignoring pertinent parts of the law???

8 USC §1158. Asylum
(a) Authority to apply for asylum
(1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues What about those deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S. Code Sec. 1182, who are barred from even entering the country without any hearing whatsoever, just an executive determination that they do not meet the criteria for entry into the U.S. For example, under 8 U.S. Code Sec. 1225(c) it states that inadmissible aliens can be immediately removed: “If an immigration officer or an immigration judge suspects that an arriving alien may be inadmissible under subparagraph (A) (other than clause (ii)), (B), or (C) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title, the officer or judge shall—(A)order the alien removed, subject to review under paragraph (2); (B)report the order of removal to the Attorney General; and (C)not conduct any further inquiry or hearing until ordered by the Attorney General.”

And 8 U.S. Code Sec. 1225(c) provides the Attorney General can remove the alien without a hearing: “The Attorney General shall review orders issued … If the Attorney General… is satisfied on the basis of confidential information that the alien is inadmissible under subparagraph (A) (other than clause (ii)), (B), or (C) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title, and … after consulting with appropriate security agencies of the United States Government, concludes that disclosure of the information would be prejudicial to the public interest, safety, or security, the Attorney General may order the alien removed without further inquiry or hearing by an immigration judge.”
@sunsporter1649 Those deemed inadmissible are turned away at the borders. Those offered a shot at asylum get due process. BTW, if ICE grabs someone who they think has entered illegally, how do they find the truth? In a hearing before a judge, that's how. Due process dude. I know you hate that part of the Constitution, but due process doesn't care about your feelings.

P.S. Show us where a court ruled that Garcia was a gang member. I'll wait.
Show us where a court revoked Garcia's withholding grant. I'll wait.

8 USC §1158. Asylum
(a) Authority to apply for asylum
(1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues What about those deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S. Code Sec. 1182, who are barred from even entering the country without any hearing whatsoever, just an executive determination that they do not meet the criteria for entry into the U.S. For example, under 8 U.S. Code Sec. 1225(c) it states that inadmissible aliens can be immediately removed: “If an immigration officer or an immigration judge suspects that an arriving alien may be inadmissible under subparagraph (A) (other than clause (ii)), (B), or (C) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title, the officer or judge shall—(A)order the alien removed, subject to review under paragraph (2); (B)report the order of removal to the Attorney General; and (C)not conduct any further inquiry or hearing until ordered by the Attorney General.”

And 8 U.S. Code Sec. 1225(c) provides the Attorney General can remove the alien without a hearing: “The Attorney General shall review orders issued … If the Attorney General… is satisfied on the basis of confidential information that the alien is inadmissible under subparagraph (A) (other than clause (ii)), (B), or (C) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title, and … after consulting with appropriate security agencies of the United States Government, concludes that disclosure of the information would be prejudicial to the public interest, safety, or security, the Attorney General may order the alien removed without further inquiry or hearing by an immigration judge.”.
@sunsporter1649 I already answered your question about those deemed inadmissible, ijit. Try reading my answer this time.

Those deemed inadmissible are turned away at the borders. Those offered a shot at asylum get due process. BTW, if ICE grabs someone who they think has entered illegally, how do they find the truth? In a hearing before a judge, that's how. Due process dude. I know you hate that part of the Constitution, but due process doesn't care about your feelings.

P.S. Show us where a court ruled that Garcia was a gang member. I'll wait.
Show us where a court revoked Garcia's withholding grant. I'll wait.

8 USC §1158. Asylum
(a) Authority to apply for asylum
(1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@sunsporter1649 How do you know if a person is "illegal" without a court finding, sunstroke?? You always duck that question!! Due process dude. I know you hate that part of the Constitution, but due process doesn't care about your feelings.

Show us where a court ruled that Garcia was a gang member. I'll wait.

Show us where a court revoked Garcia's withholding grant. I'll wait.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues What about those deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S. Code Sec. 1182, who are barred from even entering the country without any hearing whatsoever, just an executive determination that they do not meet the criteria for entry into the U.S. For example, under 8 U.S. Code Sec. 1225(c) it states that inadmissible aliens can be immediately removed: “If an immigration officer or an immigration judge suspects that an arriving alien may be inadmissible under subparagraph (A) (other than clause (ii)), (B), or (C) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title, the officer or judge shall—(A)order the alien removed, subject to review under paragraph (2); (B)report the order of removal to the Attorney General; and (C)not conduct any further inquiry or hearing until ordered by the Attorney General.”

And 8 U.S. Code Sec. 1225(c) provides the Attorney General can remove the alien without a hearing: “The Attorney General shall review orders issued … If the Attorney General… is satisfied on the basis of confidential information that the alien is inadmissible under subparagraph (A) (other than clause (ii)), (B), or (C) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title, and … after consulting with appropriate security agencies of the United States Government, concludes that disclosure of the information would be prejudicial to the public interest, safety, or security, the Attorney General may order the alien removed without further inquiry or hearing by an immigration judge.”
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@sunsporter1649 How do you know if a person is "illegal" without a court finding, sunstroke?? You always duck that question!! Due process dude. I know you hate that part of the Constitution, but due process doesn't care about your feelings.

Show us where a court ruled that Garcia was a gang member. I'll wait.

Show us where a court revoked Garcia's withholding grant. I'll wait.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment