Each refugee from Hurricane Katrina has been subject to a secret background search by the government. Each compassionate person welcoming these victims into their homes have been given secret background checks.

People going on cruises to the Bahamas or Jamaica are given background searches while they are out at sea.

Can anyone see Big Brother peeking into everything now?



[b]Half Katrina Refugees Have Records[/b]

Thursday, September 22, 2005



MIDDLETOWN, R.I. — After Hurricane Katrina (search) hit New Orleans, federal officials flew Brian Murph and more than 100 other victims to Rhode Island. They were greeted by the governor and cheered by residents.

Then the handcuffs were placed on Murph.

State police did criminal background checks (search) on every refugee and found that more than half had a criminal arrest records — a third for felonies. Murph was the only one with an outstanding arrest warrant, for larceny and other crimes.

Around the nation, state and local authorities are checking refugees' pasts as they are welcomed into homes, schools, houses of worship and housing projects. In some states, half the refugees have rap sheets.

"It's a balancing act," said Kyle Smith, deputy director of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (search). "We don't want to treat them like criminals after they have been traumatized, but we want to make sure they are in no danger nor the families they are housed with."

Civil libertarians call the checks thinly veiled race and class discrimination against people who have suffered already. The checks are made on those evacuated or forced to seek help from charities or others — in other words, people who are often black and poor.

"I think it's happening partly because who these people are and where they came from," said Steve Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island ACLU. "The mere fact that people have past criminal records in and of itself doesn't say anything about harm to the community."

Some state and local governments screened just those refugees evacuated by the federal government. Others screened anyone placed in private homes — and screened the hosts as well.

In South Carolina, state police checked every evacuee flown there by the government. Of 547 people checked, 301 had criminal records, according to Robert Stewart, state Law Enforcement Division Chief.

While most had been law-abiding for years or had committed minor offenses, the group included those convicted of rape or aggravated assault. Two had warrants, but were not held because the states weren't interested in extraditing them.

"This was all done for everyone's protection," Stewart said. "If you're going to be sheltering people, it would be prudent for people taking them in to know what criminal pasts they might have."

The state police in West Virginia said roughly half of the nearly 350 Katrina victims evacuated by the government to that state had criminal records, and 22 percent have a history of committing a violent crime.

In Massachusetts, where about 200 evacuees were flown to a military base on Cape Cod, criminal background checks turned up six sex offenders and one man wanted for rape in Louisiana. Two of the sex offenders have since left the state, said Katie Ford, a spokeswoman for the state public safety office. The rape suspect was being held on $250,000 bail.

In Tennessee, police checked every federal evacuee flown to Knoxville and found outstanding warrants for two people in Louisiana — but Louisiana did not want to extradite them.

In Texas, with more than 300,000 refugees, local officials have run 20,000 criminal background checks on evacuees, as well as the relief workers helping them and people who have opened up their homes.

Most of the checks have found little for police to be concerned about. Philadelphia police found no criminals as of the middle of last week, even though the local ACLU branch objected to the checks themselves.

Several states with thousands of refugees aren't checking criminal backgrounds at all. Missouri has no formal effort to check its 6,000 refugees. Neither has California, which reported about 3,800 refugees earlier this month, or Maryland, Minnesota and Michigan, which together took in several thousand evacuees.

In Middletown, a community just north of Newport, several evacuees shrugged at the prospect of background checks and said they understood the state's desire to learn more about them.

"I would like to know if there's any skeletons in the closet with my neighbors or the community," said one refugee, 38-year-old Carmen Williams.

[size=1]

Well, they check for the safety of others.

I tend to give the government the benefit of the doubt. My wife and I discussed opening our home to victims, and the chance of a criminal being introduced into our home was THE deciding factor. I have 3 children that I don't want to be exposed to that kind of person.
Personally, I have nothing to hide from the government, and I feel a little bit safer knowing that they are protecting myself and others from potential criminal acts.

I have to agree with the feds on this one. Your bringing people that you know nothing about into another state. If they have a history of violent crimes, do you want them sheltered in a home with children or elderly who are only tring to help?

If you look at the numbers of rapes and murders committed In and around N.O. right after the storm, and in particular, right there at the dome. These folks who commited those crimes were evacuated along with the innocent. It was a wise choice on the part of the feds. As for the ACLU whinning about it. How many of them are willing to take a rapist into their home?

AMEN!
if ppl don't have anything to hide they won't care whether or not they have a background check.

Yeah, I don't see where there is anything wrong with this. If that many do indeed have criminal records, it seems the governments fears were for a good reason. Sounds like it was helpful for the citizens.

A back round check is routine for job's, loan's, and housing any way.

Sounds like Standard operating Procedure to me.

I've got nothing wrong with it. The government isn't nearly as bad as most make it out to be.

I respect all of your opinions but what happened to the legal concept of "probable cause?" Is the fact that a person is displace by a natural disaster probable cause to do a background check? Is a person who is compassionate enough to open his home to victims presenting probable cause to an invasion of his privacy? In the cases stated such as job applications, credit, etc., the standard form gives the person's permission for the check and thus probable cause is waived. No matter how valid the idea may be that the government wants to protect those staying in the homes of strangers or those opening their homes to strangers, it cannot be interpreted as probable cause for government intrusion. This is the point. If such intrusions gain blanket approval as appears in the responses here, then it is reasonable to assume that the intrusion would be collectively accepted by the general public. But what is the next step? Will there be investigations into the character and background of your children's friends who sleep over? Will registering into a hotel give sufficient cause for a background check? Apparently so since it is accepted that taking a cruise presents probable cause.

They damn well should be checking the back ground of these people. We are talking about people that could be a threat to the people around them. Some people are taking strangers into their home. They have a right to know. People staying in a relief center have a right to know they are safe from the people around them.

If they are intending to receive government support and my tax dollars...your d@mn right they are...

Absolutely. There were reports of sexual predators opening their homes to families with children. It is the responsibility of our government to protect both the assisting party AND the displaced individuals of this disaster.

I personally would feel more comfortable if we were able to check the background of the parents that our children would be staying at. And yes...I would feel more comfortable knowing the background of any children staying in my home. Example - teenagers that smoke, use drugs, steal, etc... Maybe not a federal investigation, but at least knowing what kind of person is in my house, effecting the development of my kids.

If I were staying in a hotel close to...say...Washington DC...then I would have to say absolutely. The protection of the public is the prime motive...not some sinister conspiricy...simply protecting our own.

Any person entering this country should have a background check done. Once again, to protect the public.

I respect the fact that you have a right to your opinion, but, I disagree...and now you understand my point of view.

Despite what, apparently, popular belief is...the US Government is not 'out to get' anybody. They are just trying to help protect the public the best way that they know how to.

It is not a question of what you want or if you can justify the actions of government agencies doing background checks on disaster victims. It is a question of preserving the intent of the Constitution. By everyone here condoning these actions, you are also endorsing the power of the government to dilute the intent of the founding fathers who believed that a probable cause must exist before personal privacy can be violated.

Normally, I would agree with you. I do not believe in random checks, just for the sake of checking.

I have a woman who comes in several times a week to assist my wife with my care and feeding. Under Oregon Law, she was required to go through a criminal background check. If she takes time off and sends in a temp. That person must also pass the same check. Basic public safety.

In the case of refugees, evacuees what ever you want to call them. How many murders, rapes, robberies and so on and so forth happened within the folks who stayed in N.O. Plus you add the inmates they just released from the jails.

Simple question: Do you want a complete stranger, coming from an area that you know nasty crimes were committed, in your home with your kids? Without some knowledge of who they are.

If I didn't want a stranger to enter my home without some assurance of his character, I should be given the RIGHT to request that a background check be done and perhaps even the person invited into my home would be asked to consent. But to have government powers conduct such investigations without probable cause or mutual consent (being a victim of a hurricane is not probable cause) defies the most fundamental protections intended for Americans.

Probable cause has to do with 'searching' someone. Background checks are a security measure nothing else. Keep in mind a good number of jail inmates escaped during all the commotion....also keep in mind that a good number of the evacuees were homeless people....and homeless people are homeless for a reason...

They did not escape, they were set free.

If the feds waited to get permission and request from home owners, the folks needing shelter would still be waiting.

Common sense dictates that everyone gets checked. No profiling, no harassment.

If anyone else had said that I would have argued with them. Why in the hell did they set them free? Why didn't they 'transfer' them to the Houston Jail?

Over three thousand people were brought to a shelter two blocks from my house. Crime has quadrupled and my own guest house was broken into Thursday at 11:30 AM while I was home. One guy was on the porch serving as the lookout and I could see movement inside but, I didn't know how many were in there so I didn't confront them. They were long gone by the time the police got here, twenty minutes later, with a cool thousand dollars worth of tools. I had a 45 in my right hand and the phone in the other praying they wouldn't try to get into the main house.

So, today we have been putting in extra security and I am currently keeping the guns within close range at all times.

Infuriates me that I've been killing myself trying to help these people.

Sorry to hear that Michelle. That is just horrible...I know that these folks have lost most of their possesions, but somehow they have decided that it is their right to steal to get things back.

They are taking advantage of everyone in the midst of a tragedy; people that are trying to help.

I read an email from a NG soldier that was in New Orleans who had said that many of the people he helped were ungrateful and demanding. Instead of accepting the food that was offered, they demanded burgers and fries, that kind of stuff. Crime was out of control in the Red Cross shelters, and people were busy looting televisions and DVD players instead of food...

It is sickening, and the worst part is that the criminals have now been dispersed to every corner of the country.

I am so far out in the country that it isn't a problem with me, but I can say with confidence that I wouldn't have a problem using a weapon to protect my property...criminals who take advantage of those that are helping them deserve whatever they get...

In my best Mr T voice, "I pity the fool that tries this again."

After seeing what happend after the storm, I have decided to buy a gun. I haven't had one in 10 years, but I will getting an AR-15 within the next couple of weeks.

Someone isn't messing around...

That really sucks Michelle... did you have any insurance on your tools?

All the criminals now spread all out to unknowning small communties... That just sucks. And to think the surrounding areas sent 4 buses down to take people in... thankfully the people down there were all to unwilling to come this far north, this place doesn't need crime.

Yes, we have insurance with a $250 deductable and now more money spent on the extra security.

I am so sorry that happened Michelle. It's ironic that when tragedy strikes in some people it brings out the very best and in others the very worst.

Stay safe, 'k?