Latest news with #masking
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Contributor: By wearing masks, immigration agents undermine authority and endanger us all
On Tuesday, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander was arrested by several masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at a courthouse in Manhattan as he attempted to steer an individual past immigration authorities. That same day, masked agents outside a Walmart in Pico Rivera detained two individuals — one a target of immigration enforcement, the other a U.S. citizen who tried to intervene. These two scenes from opposite sides of the country illustrate what has become a more common problem: federal agents wearing masks to avoid recognition. On Thursday, masked individuals said to be affiliated with the Department of Homeland Security descended on a Home Depot in Hollywood and on Dodger Stadium. Masking is not good law enforcement practice. It may contradict Homeland Security regulations, while potentially providing cover for some officers to violate constitutional and civil rights. It undermines agents' authority and endangers public safety as well. The federal government has no specific policy banning immigration agents from wearing masks. But the fact that such practice is not illegal does not make it acceptable. Department of Homeland Security regulations require immigration officers to identify themselves during an arrest or, in cases of a warrantless arrest, provide a statement explaining how they identified themselves. The use of masks seems to violate the intent of these directives for identification. ICE agents in masks are becoming disturbingly routine. There were ICE agents in masks at the Los Angeles immigration protests recently, just as there have been at enforcement actions in Minneapolis, Boston, Phoenix and across the country. In March a video of Rumeysa Ozturk, a doctoral student at Tufts University, being detained by masked officers on the street went viral. There seems to be no uniformity in the face coverings immigration agents wear, which has included ski masks, surgical masks, balaclavas and sunglasses. Such inconsistency across a federal workforce flies in the face of sound policing. Masked agents can confuse both bystanders and ICE targets, which risks people interfering with enforcement actions that look more like kidnappings. The International Assn. of Chiefs of Police has warned that the public 'may be intimidated or fearful of officers wearing a face covering, which may heighten their defensive reactions.' Todd Lyons, acting director of ICE, said earlier this month that immigration agents wear masks to protect themselves. "I'm sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks,' he said, 'but I'm not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line, their family on the line, because people don't like what immigration enforcement is.' Yet law enforcement jobs come with an assumption of exactly that risk. Consider that the overwhelming majority of police officers, sheriffs and FBI agents fulfill their duties without concealing their faces. Correction officers who deal with prisoners do not wear masks, nor do judges who administer our laws. Because these public employees have such tremendous power, their roles require full transparency. Besides, ICE agents are increasingly targeting noncriminals, which mitigates the argument that agents require masks for safety. According to the research site Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, about 44% of people in ICE detention as of June 1 have no criminal record. When ICE agents wear masks, there can be unintended consequences. Lately, there has been a spike in people impersonating agents and engaging in harassment, assault and violence. In April, a Florida woman wore a mask as she posed as an ICE agent and attempted to kidnap her ex-boyfriend's wife. Ironically, the Trump administration has a double standard around the idea of people wearing masks. It has demanded that universities bar students from wearing masks during protests. In the aftermath of the Los Angeles immigration protests, the president posted on social media, 'From now on, MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests.' Shouldn't that principle be applied to both sides? True, it makes sense for immigration agents to use face coverings when they are making arrests of a high-profile target or conducting an undercover operation. However, masking should be the exception, not the norm. If ICE agents are conducting their duties anonymously, they open the door to potential civil rights and due process violations. The practice gives impunity to agents to make unlawful arrests, without the possibility of public accountability. Masking can also be seen as a show of intimidation by immigration agents — whether their target is an undocumented migrant or an American citizen, like Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who was arrested outside a New Jersey detention facility in May. Masked ICE agents give the impression of being a secret police force, which is not good for our democracy. Last week, two Democratic lawmakers in California introduced a bill that would bar local, state and federal law enforcement officers in California from wearing masks on duty (with certain exceptions). Although this is a step in the right direction, it remains unclear whether such a state measure could be applied to federal agents. Congress should ban the use of masks by immigration agents. ICE officers should not be allowed to conceal their faces. The public's need for accountability strongly outweighs any rationale for agents' anonymity. Raul A. Reyes is an immigration attorney and contributor to NBC Latino and CNN Opinion. X: @RaulAReyes; Instagram: @raulareyes1 If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
The Guardian
11-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Protesters have a right to wear masks – despite Trump's double standard
Do protesters have a right to hide their faces? Donald Trump, who likes to show and see his own face as often as possible, clearly does not think so. One demand to universities has been that they outlaw masking at demonstrations; in response to protests in California, the US president demanded on social media that anyone wearing a mask be arrested immediately. Never mind the apparent double standard, as Ice agents refuse to take off face coverings and hide their name tags, defying any accountability; there is a widespread sense that standing by one's identity is a crucial part of standing up to unjust power. In fact, that intuition is at the core of civil disobedience. But it is not plausible in our present moment; what's more, there is a long countervailing tradition of validating citizens' right to anonymity. As recently as the mid-1990s, it was affirmed by none other than the supreme court. Lawful protest is categorically different from civil disobedience, though much current commentary conflates them. In civil disobedience, citizens openly – or even, as Martin Luther King Jr put it, 'lovingly' – break the law; they make themselves identifiable to the authorities and are willing to accept punishment (but hope that they will not be treated like ordinary criminals). This strategy serves multiple purposes: it demonstrates moral seriousness, it flags 'highest respect for the law' in general (MLK again) and it counts on a majority coming to see the injustice these loving lawbreakers are flagging – and then change things. To be sure, the requirement to reveal one's identity has not been accepted by all philosophers of civil disobedience: for some, what matters is that whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning were doing the right thing. Their identity was not crucial for the public to comprehend scandalous facts they revealed (in the end, at great personal cost). Past lawful protests, meanwhile, occurred in a different media context. The civil rights movement assumed that its messages about injustice would reach a majority of US citizens – as well as people of good will in Washington DC. After all, activists appealed above the heads of racist governors such as Alabama's George Wallace to the federal government. Today, such assumptions are doubtful. As everyone knows, we no longer live in an age of three large TV networks, which, despite various failings, could be expected faithfully to transmit images of civil rights protesters being brutally treated by southern police. In our deeply distorted, often outright dysfunctional, media landscape, messages are either not transmitted at all (just watch Fox at moments that could be embarrassing for Trump); or they are reframed such that the original message is turned on its head (those peacefully protesting against lawlessness become the law-breakers). Beyond these risks, there is the by now clear and present danger of the Trump administration engaging in personal retribution and making examples of individuals – think of student detentions and deportations. Under such conditions, hiding one's identity is an understandable act of caution, and such caution should not be criminalized. While democracies such as Canada also have anti-masking laws, these aim at rioters and those assembled unlawfully, not people exercising their right to free expression. We are clearly at a moment where protest is beginning to take courage – a point driven home to me when I politely asked some older women holding up posters outside the main gate at Princeton University whether I could take their picture. Several said that I should not show their faces. As in debates about privacy, someone sooner or later will say that anyone who has nothing to hide should not hide their face. But in an age of ubiquitous surveillance, now supplemented with rapidly advancing facial recognition technology, you do not know what will be done with evidence of your presence at a protest. We have a secret ballot because we do not want people to be intimidated, but also because we don't want powerful people – not necessarily always the state; it could be the boss who does not like your vote for democratic socialism – to know about our stances. The supreme court saw this logic three decades ago. It defended the right to stay anonymous of an elderly lady handing out leaflets opposing a school tax levy in Ohio. The court reminded Americans that the authors of the Federalist papers had used pseudonyms; the justices declared anonymity a means 'to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation', going so far as to ennoble it as a 'shield from the tyranny of the majority' (of course, today's protesters are not standing against a real majority – what Trump and Miller are doing is precisely not popular). To be sure, when protest is meant directly to engage others, there is something not right about an asymmetry of the masked speaking to the unmasked: freedom of assembly, among other things, ensures that we can get into each other's faces. Already in the 19th century, revolutionaries hoped that those manning barricades and soldiers would end up talking and fraternizing. Teargas – first used against barricades, even before deployment in war – renders that vision impossible. Today, what risks they take, and, specifically, how much they want to reveal to authorities and fellow citizens, should be up to individuals engaged in lawful protest. Jan-Werner Müller is a Guardian US columnist and a professor of politics at Princeton University
%3Amax_bytes(150000)%3Astrip_icc()%2Ftal-mask-one-off-tout-17b851590fbf4495af20be8663e1cd06.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Travel + Leisure
12-05-2025
- Health
- Travel + Leisure
Why You'll See More Face Masks on Flights This Spring—and If You Should Be Wearing 1 Too, According to Doctors
As frequent travelers, the Travel + Leisure team spends a lot of time in airports and on flights. Needless to say, we're uniquely attuned to travel trends, whether it's popular travel outfits or trending luggage. Recently, we've noticed a trend that's worthy of a little extra attention: masking. The CDC recommends wearing masks when respiratory viruses are going around your community or if you're at risk for severe illness. On recent flights, we've noticed plenty of travelers masking up, and with the rise of reported cases of measles, whooping cough, and even tuberculosis, it begs the question: Are we at increased risk of contracting an illness while traveling, and should we be masking up on flights? I asked two medical experts to weigh in. According to Dr. John Dooley, MD, most healthy individuals don't need to mask up during travel, although there are still risks. 'I don't routinely recommend people wear masks on airplanes, but I have no objection whatsoever if it helps to lessen one's likelihood of picking up a respiratory infection,' Dr. Dooley told me. He adds that if someone on your flight is sick and coughing, there's a 'not insignificant chance' that they'll pass that illness onto others nearby, so masking can provide peace of mind. Plus, Dr. Dooley adds that 'most respiratory infection transmission does not occur on airplanes.' You're more likely to be exposed once you reach your destination—at a restaurant, museum, or large gathering, for example. Dr. Ken Perry, MD, adds that masks may not be as effective as once thought, although they still provide increased protection. Needless to say, it's probably a good idea for vulnerable individuals to mask up. According to Dr. Dooley, for these patients, 'it makes good sense to take the precaution of wearing a mask, however imperfect the degree of protection.' Dr. Perry agrees that extra precautions should be taken for the immunocompromised. He adds that this group includes patients who have had organ transplants and those who are undergoing chemotherapy, since these patients are 'far more likely to be susceptible to any communicable disease.' However, both doctors push back at the idea of taking extra precautions due to reported cases of measles, whooping cough, and tuberculosis. They agree that the risk is low. Nonetheless, travelers can learn more about the health risks associated with various destinations by using the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s travel information guide as a resource. At the end of the day, masks can provide peace of mind during travel. Dr. Perry tells me travel decreases stress and increases beneficial neurotransmitters in the brain. 'The reality is that if a mask allows someone to take a vacation when they would otherwise stay at home, then it is a means to a very beneficial end.' If you're in the market for a mask, whether you're immunocompromised, an anxious traveler, or you just always happen to sit next to a coughing passenger, we've found a CDC-approved mask at Amazon. While there are plenty of counterfeit masks available at Amazon, these N95 masks are approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), a research agency under the CDC. This mask is designed to block 95 percent of airborne particles, and one reviewer writes, 'It's comfortable enough I forget I'm wearing it sometimes.' According to Dr. Perry, masks may be 'more beneficial for the harmful contaminants in the air rather than preventing viral infections.' Consider this mask not just for air travel, but also for visiting highly polluted destinations. In addition to wearing a mask, you can also protect your health during travel by using hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes. Keep reading for more travel essentials at Amazon under $30. Love a great deal? Sign up for our T+L Recommends newsletter and we'll send you our favorite travel products each week.
