Arrest of Immigrant in Texas Church was Godless Act
ICE Agent Likely Violated Agency Rules, Leaked Memo Shows
The arrest last fall of an undocumented immigrant in a Texas house of worship by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent has sparked a growing controversy that essentially pits the power of Caesar against the church.
The immigrant, 31-year-old Jose Juan Hernandez, who has lived in the United States since age 6, is not the ideal poster boy for such a moral crusade, given he has been deported three times previously and also has prior state convictions for attempted possession of a controlled substance and driving while intoxicated.
But in this case, it’s not Hernandez’ background, but rather the place of the arrest, a Texas church in Montgomery, Texas, located near Houston, that is fueling the outrage. There is nearly universally acceptance across human cultures that it is taboo to violate the perceived sanctity of a religious ceremony.
In addition, beyond the religious overtones coloring this particular immigration action, it appears that the federal agent who arrested Hernandez may also have violated his own agency’s policies — as outlined in an ICE memo detailing the agency’s procedures for enforcement actions “at or near sensitive community locations.” That memo was recently leaked to Narco News.
Hernandez’ arrest on Oct. 26, 2008, is recounted in recent stories published by the Associated Press and the Houston Chronicle, which broke the story. In the AP story, ICE spokesman Greg Palmore claims that “before the start of the [church] service, the [ICE] agent spoke with Hernandez in the foyer and arrested him.”
Hernandez’ attorney, Rick Soliz, however, contends Palmore’s version of the arrest leaves out important details.
Soliz says the ICE agent did initially approach Hernandez in the church foyer that day, while people were drinking coffee, and “asked my client for his name.” Soliz says Hernandez complied with the ICE agent’s request and, at that point, both of them “recognized each other” because the agent had been involved in apprehending Hernandez in a prior deportation case.
Soliz stresses, though, that it was later that same day, while religious services were underway, that the ICE agent burst into the church, grabbed Hernandez — placing him in a painful martial arts hold — and then dragged him out of the sanctuary and hauled him off to jail. Soliz also insists that a second agent was inside the church sanctuary when Hernandez was “pulled out” of the church service. That second ICE agent, Soliz claims, appeared to be acting as a back-up for the agent who grabbed Hernandez.
“There were no outstanding warrants on my client and that ICE agent could not have known if my client was now in the country legally since he was last deported,” Soliz says. “… ICE now sees public sentiment running against them, so they are circling the wagons and fabricating things.”
Soliz says ICE is attempting to circulate through the media false claims that Hernandez is affiliated with a gang or that he might have been in church on the day of his arrest as part of a plan to take revenge on someone.
“ICE is doing this [fabricating stories] when there were dozens of witnesses in the church that day,” Soliz adds. “What do they do when there aren’t any witnesses? ICE engages in this kind of behavior all the time, but this time they got caught.”
Since his arrest last fall, Hernandez has pled guilty to “illegal reentry into the United States after deportation following conviction for felony,” according to federal court records, and is scheduled to be sentenced in April. He faces a maximum 10-year jail sentence, court records show.
Secret Policies
Soliz says he plans to file a complaint with ICE seeking a full investigation of the way Hernandez’ arrest was carried out in the church.
ICE spokesman Palmore, according to the Houston Chronicle, defends the agent’s actions, indicating that he was fulfilling his “sworn duty to enforce the nation’s laws.”
More from the Chronicle story:
He [Palmore] said the agency has guidelines related to arrests “in sensitive community locations.” Palmore said those guidelines are internal and cannot be made public, but they allow agents to make arrests at churches in specific circumstances.
Law enforcement sources who spoke with Narco News on background claim the ICE agent was off-duty and attending church with his family the day of Hernandez’ arrest, Oct. 26, 2008, [a fact Soliz also confirms]. Those law enforcement sources also claim that after making the arrest, the ICE agent failed to notify in a timely manner his superior of his plan to apprehend Hernandez in a church.
In fact, the sources claim the ICE Special Agent in Charge (SAC) in Houston was not made aware of Hernandez’ arrest until after the event — and only then because someone had placed an anonymous call complaining about the arrest to an ICE 800 number. That complaint made its way to ICE headquarters in Washington, D.C., and it was, according to the sources, ICE headquarters that informed the ICE SAC of the arrest.
This is important because, assuming the law enforcement sources are correct, it means Hernandez’ arrest was not pre-cleared by higher-level officials within ICE, nor were high-level officials timely informed of the incident by the agent who made the arrest.
In addition, according to ICE spokesman Palmore (who also spoke with Narco News), the ICE agent who arrested Hernandez has since been placed on a temporary duty assignment. (Narco News sources say the agent has been reassigned to Vermont.)
Such assignments, called TDYs, typically include, on top of the agent’s regular salary, a per diem to cover meals and hotel costs, law enforcement sources say.
Palmore insists that the TDY assignment for the agent had nothing to do with the arrest at the church.
“TDY assignments are not uncommon,” Palmore says.
He adds that “the enforcement activity [the Oct. 26, 2008, church arrest] is still under review.”
Attorney Mark Conrad, a former supervisory special agent with U.S. Customs (which became part of ICE with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security) says “it is common for the agency to send someone on a TDY assignment when something blows up … and until things cool down.”
Conrad is currently seeking an appointment to one of several Department of Homeland Security (DHS) positions in the Obama administration. He has submitted applications for the top posts at ICE, Customs and Border Protection and the Office of Inspector General.
Conrad adds that he is not privy to all of the facts concerning the arrest of Hernandez at the church in Montgomery, Texas.
But he adds:
I can’t imagine anyone being so stupid as to make an arrest at a church, if there was no immediate threat or other compelling reason.
A Now Public Policy
The ICE memo leaked to Narco News was issued internally to all field office directors and special agents in charge on July 3, 2008, and is signed by Assistant Secretary of ICE Julie Myers — who has since left the agency. The memo’s “subject” line is as follows: Field Guidance on Enforcement Actions or Investigative Activities At or Near Sensitive Community Locations.
The entire memo can be found at this link.
From the ICE memo:
ICE personnel should refrain from conducting enforcement actions or investigative activities at or near sensitive community locations such as schools, places of worship, and funerals or other religious ceremonies, except in limited circumstances as set forth within this memorandum.
… There may be specific situations requiring ICE personnel to act at or near sensitive locations. Such situations would include those involving terrorism-related investigations, matters of public safety, or actions where no enforcement activity is involved, such as requesting information from school officials, retrieving records, or otherwise routine, non-enforcement activity.
Any such case must be raised to the appropriate Headquarters program office prior to any action, or, in exigent circumstances, as soon as practicable. Moreover, personnel are reminded to be cognizant of the impact of their activity, exercise good judgment and act with an appropriate level of compassion in light of the location while exercising their authority in such circumstances.
Based on the wording in that memo, it does not appear the ICE agent who arrested Hernandez was confronting a terrorist threat, nor was Hernandez posing an immediate danger to public safety. In addition, assuming the information provided to Narco News by law enforcement sources is accurate, the ICE agent who arrested Hernandez also failed to notify “the appropriate Headquarters program office” prior to the arrest or to provide that notification in a timely manner after the arrest was carried out.
In fact, one law enforcement source pointed out that it was the ICE agent himself who actually posed the threat to public safety by arresting Hernandez in a church setting. The source points out that the agent could not have known how Hernandez would react, and if he had reacted violently and matters got out of hand, it may have resulted in a hostage situation or other harm to church-goers — including children. The source adds that the ICE agent, if he was intent on detaining Hernandez, should have called for back-up assistance, set up surveillance on the church and waited until Hernandez had left the property to make the arrest.
“He did not have to arrest him [Hernandez] in a church,” the law enforcement source says. “It was an irresponsible act. The agent actually threatened the safety of others because he failed to follow ICE policy.”
If ICE properly investigates this incident, according to the law enforcement source, the ICE agent, or agents, involved could face suspension, possibly even removal, if it is determined they “failed to follow ICE rules, regulations or policies in the performance of duties.” [See ICE memo on offenses and penalties at this link.]
Soliz says he is not very confident, however, that justice will be served in his client’s case, even if such an investigation is carried out, since ICE would essentially “be investigating itself.”
But in this case, kind readers, ICE does not have the final say, at least going forward.
The memo outlining the agency’s internal policy regarding enforcement actions at churches, schools and other sensitive community locations is now public, can be printed out from the Narco News site by going to this link and invoked by those who seek to hold ICE accountable for similar egregious immigration-enforcement activities in the future.
And a reminder to those who might defend ICE’s right to keep secret a policy that affects the public’s interest and general welfare:
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." — Thomas Jefferson
Stay tuned …


Why does Conroy insult atheists?
Submitted on March 2nd, 2009 by Matt Fitt (not verified)Of course, for atheists, ALL acts are "godless" acts, in precisely the same way that they're also "fairy-less" or "leprechaun-less." But, that's not the point.
At its very heart, investigative journalism challenges assumptions and sets aside official Truths, instead searching out its own evidence, following leads and formulating conclusions based upon the best facts available. In this, it is like science.
An investigative journalist should never knowingly perpetuate stereotypes, for it reinforces apathy, ignorance, and intolerance within society. And in so doing, it undermines the profession, because an apathetic populace is generally willing to accept the official story, and thus has little need for investigative journalists.
Respectfully,
Matt Fitt
Santa Cruz, CA
* 10 Myths -- and 10 Truths -- About Atheism
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/10-myths-and-10-truths-about-ath...
Conroy Didn't Insult Anybody
Submitted on March 2nd, 2009 by Al GiordanoMatt - As a fellow atheist, I don't feel the least bit offended by Bill Conroy's playful headline, "Arrest of Immigrant in Texas Church was a Godless Act."
I think it's humorous. As the publisher here at Narco News, when I saw it I wondered whether any religious believers might take offense at it, but not fellow and sister non-believers. That's because I've always associated non-belief and disbelief with things like "having a sense of humor" and not considering anything - not even use of language and choice of words - to be "blasphemous."
Apparently, I was wrong. There is at least one "atheist" out there that objects to others using the word "God" even in a humorous or playful context. But, frankly, it makes me wonder about how comfortable one could be as a non-believer if one objects to other people talking about something we don't believe in. It reminds me of "straight" guys who freak out that gay men exist or that it is said so out loud: their protestations often reveal a kind of expression of their own repressed sexuality. Or the old time racists that screeched about miscegenation when they secretly had a mixed-race love child on the side and in secret. The objection very often reveals, in those cases, somebody repressing something inside of them.
Fundamentalist atheism - to me, anyway - misses the point altogether. It should properly be an oxymoron. One of the main reasons I'm proud to be a non-believer is because non-believers don't generally seek to censor or get all uptight about people with different belief systems expressing them or referencing that other people have them.
Other people - most people in the US and Mexico - do express a belief in some kind of "god" and their belief itself doesn't bother me in the slightest, unless and until they try to impose that belief - or its religious rules - on me or others. Likewise, I know many people who do believe in some kind of higher power (I'm pretty extreme: I believe we humans are just protoplasm seeking survival, pleasure and to create and/or reproduce, without having been consciously planned or invented by any force or power: an accident, with good and bad results, really, is what I think we are, as a species) who don't feel threatened by your or my expressed atheism (or anybody else's agnosticism). To those people - who respect my or your atheism - I think they're just as secure in their belief as I am in my non-belief.
But for an atheist to object to other people mentioning (or capitalizing) the word "god," I really have to wonder how secure you feel in your non-belief if it bothers you that others don't disbelieve as you do.
Believers or non-believers, I'm for free speech. I'm much more concerned with getting the news out there that the US officials went after an undocumented immigrant in a church than I am about whether the word "God" is used to bring attention to that important story. I mean, you might feel offended. But that guy got arrested and faces deportation. Now, who has a right to feel offended?
Al Giordano
Quark Theory
Submitted on March 2nd, 2009 by Bill ConroyMatt, Al is right. The headline was intended to be humorous, in an ironic sense [satirical even]. I figured the folks in that church believed in God, though some may have believed in a god, and I suppose some were just there because of circumstance and could care less about God or gods. But in the main, most were likely there because they believe in God.
Now the ICE agent, if you read the story closely, also was there attending church, presumably as a God believer, yet he was able to switch gears and engage in a "Godless" act, in the sense that you don't play God in God's house [God in the sense of a believer's point of view], the whole taboo thing also mentioned in the story.
I just find that ironic, and a bit of a commentary on the hypocricy inherent in organized religions — which after all are run by flawed mortals. So it seemed to me to be a headline that captured what happened, from the point of view of believers as well as nonbelievers, since a nonbeliever would not be all hung up about the fact that it was a church and believes the world is “Godless” anyway, right?
Isn’t that an essential element of atheism, the absence of belief in a white-beared man running the universe? Would it be inaccurate to describe atheism as “Godless?” Why should that be offensive?
I tease a bit there, since I know why it is, or might be. Words have power, even if you don’t believe in what they mean. So that means everyone has a unique reaction to the word God. Believers because their images of God are diverse, and nonbelievers, possibly because they are often “demonized” by the God hoards.
However, a smart believer or nonbeliever would be cognizant of the taboos in society, whether he/she believes in them or not, and at least respect the beliefs of others where practical — or at least not complain about the consequences of choosing to do otherwise.
And in this case, as the story indicates, a practical solution would have been to wait until the believers were done with their service and to then arrest the guy off church property — where the believers would not be offended.
But in truth, the bigger reason the church arrest was a problem, as pointed out by law enforcers, is the fact that the agent put at risk, unnecessarily, the lives of those believers — and even though they believe in God, I suspect they preferred not to meet their maker that day.
I guess I could have said "Arrest of immigrant in Texas House of Worship was a demonic act," but I think that would have been a bit over the top, and really connotes no sense of irony as far as I can see. And likely would have been equally offensive to you, it seems, since a belief in the devil, by extension, leads to belief in a god or God – or at least is a concession that there is a supreme supernatural being, even if he/she is evil.
So, I guess I was damned if I did or damned if I didn’t — and maybe even the use of that cliché is problematic in your eyes.
But just so you know, I have nothing against atheists, except when they get preachy -- which bothers me as much as when believers proselytize. As for my own belief system, I believe in quarks — the scientific fact, proven by physics, that something can exist and not exist at the same time. I can reconcile existence with that concept.
Now if you will only lighten up, and consider quark theory, you might not get all hung up on word like “God,” which exists for some people yet does not exist for others.
PS: And in that same quark mind-set, I'll shoot down your straw man: Conroy uses the term "godless" as a substitute for "despicable."
It is clear by that statement that you found the ICE agent's actions "despicable." So, you make the leap that it must mean the word "Godless" in the headline is a synonym for "despicable."
But that's your hang-up.
I can gurantee you that some readers [particularly those in the anti-immigrant camp] will think the agent was heroic, and the man arrested "despicable" — such is the prism of mass communications.
So, does that mean if another atheist who read the story viewed the ICE agent as heroic, then they would deem the use of the word "Godless" in the headline as a positive term — as in "Godless" equals heroic atheist?
If another atheist can differ in viewpoint from you, then that means you do not have a monoply on insight, or even on the control of words, and, as a result, might be well advised to examine your own integrity in the wake of representing yourself otherwise.
I'll leave you with an Irish lymric whose answer gave rise to the whole God riddle:
It ate everything that came
And everything that will
And still it'll never get its fill.
Like the graveyard, this argument, ultimately, leads to a dead end.