By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Since June, Amtrak Police have arrested nearly 200 people at Penn Station for alleged public lewdness or indecent exposure, prompted by customer complaints and targeting illicit activity in the men’s bathroom. This crackdown has resulted in at least 20 immigrants being taken into ICE custody due to the Amtrak Police Department’s federal status, which requires them to alert ICE if an individual is flagged. Plainclothes officers have been deployed to catch those seeking sexual encounters, leading to arrests based on suspicion of illegal behavior, including prolonged use of urinals, according to reports. While state and city laws restrict NYPD cooperation with ICE, Amtrak, as a federal agency, is obligated to report individuals with ICE detainers.
Read the original article here
Cruising crackdowns in Penn Station bathroom puts at least 20 men in ICE custody, and it’s a situation that raises a lot of eyebrows, doesn’t it? I mean, the initial story sounds straightforward: Amtrak Police, a federal agency, conducting a crackdown in the bathrooms of Penn Station. This wasn’t just a random sweep; these bathrooms are known as “hot spots” for cruising, where men use apps like Sniffies to arrange public sexual encounters. That context is important because it explains the focus of the police action.
So, what happened? The police arrested men for various offenses, the most common of which appears to be public indecency or public lewdness. The core issue, as some see it, is that some of the men arrested were subsequently turned over to ICE. The article doesn’t spell out the exact reasons for this, but it’s clear that some of the men were flagged in the federal system for immigration-related issues, which is the legal justification for ICE involvement.
The reaction is complex, and for good reason. The whole scenario brings up a lot of questions. Why are the federal police so focused on this particular activity? Some find it unsettling that immigration enforcement is mixed with a moral judgment about public sexual activity. There are arguments about the scope of ICE’s authority and whether they should be involved in these types of arrests, especially when the primary offense might be something like public indecency.
Here’s another key aspect: State and city laws ban New York police from turning over people in custody to ICE. But since Amtrak Police is a federal agency, they are legally required to alert ICE if someone is flagged in their system. This is a significant detail, explaining why this situation is playing out the way it is.
The underlying sentiment seems to be one of unease, even anger. Some people are questioning the priorities of law enforcement, with the thought that if they wanted to punish men for public indecency, they would involve the regular police. The concern is that ICE might be used to “disappear” people for their sexuality, which leads to the question of whether these arrests are fair.
The article provides one specific example of a man arrested after allegedly standing at a urinal for a prolonged period. He was detained, allegedly subjected to a homophobic slur, and his public lewdness charge was eventually dropped after he completed a diversion program. The situation paints a picture of potential overreach and raises questions about false arrests. The lack of a clear definition for “a prolonged period” and the eventual dropping of the charge add to the skepticism.
The fact that so many arrests related to a cruising crackdown ended up in ICE involvement is what appears to have raised the most concern. Given that, many people are thinking that some of the arrests were being made because the Feds knew they could find immigrants there.
In addition to that, some see this as a way to further normalize the use of ICE outside of its original scope. Considering the original article, the arrest number saw a jump from 12 in the first five months of the year, to 20 being handed over to ICE after the crackdown began in June.
The entire situation touches on broader themes about the relationship between law enforcement, LGBTQ+ rights, and immigration enforcement. The reaction is a mixture of confusion, anger, and moral outrage, reflecting how a simple police action can tap into so many complex and sensitive issues.