By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article examines the relationship between ICE’s actions and the Third Amendment, which prohibits the government from forcing citizens to house soldiers. The author argues that ICE functions as a paramilitary force, conducting raids and relying on private businesses like hotels for logistical support, particularly lodging agents. They suggest that hotels providing housing for ICE agents are effectively providing infrastructure for an enforcement regime, and therefore, it is relevant to question if this violates the Third Amendment’s intent. The article concludes that private businesses should not be obligated to support state violence and that the government’s outrage at a hotel’s refusal to house ICE agents highlights the erosion of constitutional boundaries regarding government overreach.
Read the original article here
Hotels Should Deploy the 3rd Amendment and Refuse to House ICE Agents
The idea of hotels refusing to house ICE agents has sparked a lot of discussion, and it’s easy to see why. The underlying sentiment is a desire to prevent these agents from utilizing resources within a community, a stance driven by ethical considerations and moral principles. One potential avenue considered, though it presents some legal hurdles, is the invocation of the Third Amendment. However, there’s a strong consensus that the Third Amendment, which prevents the quartering of soldiers in private homes, simply doesn’t apply to hotels. Hotels are businesses, not private residences, and therefore not subject to the same protections under the Third Amendment.
Yet, even without the Third Amendment, the question remains: what can hotels do? The answer, at least in a legal sense, is quite a bit. As private businesses, hotels have the right to refuse service to anyone, as long as it’s not based on protected characteristics like race or religion. The problem is that, typically, these decisions hinge on financial incentives. Many hotel chains have pre-negotiated rates with the government, meaning that they might actually have a contractual obligation to provide rooms for agencies like ICE. This, unfortunately, often overrides ethical considerations in favor of financial gains.
One example that emerged was when a Hilton franchisee attempted to decline reservations from ICE, only to face repercussions from the corporate entity. This demonstrates the power dynamics at play. The corporate entity, prioritizing profit and contract obligations, can pull the plug on franchises that take such a stance. It underscores the challenges of expecting large corporations to act in accordance with social or moral principles when they are facing strong financial incentives. A similar scenario can happen to the government. If they are willing to put up an individual in one facility, then the same can be said about another facility, regardless of the individual’s occupation or affiliations.
So, if legal recourse is limited, what other options exist? One avenue is consumer action. Boycotts and targeted campaigns can be effective. If enough individuals and groups refuse to book rooms or hold events at hotels that house ICE agents, it can affect the bottom line. This can be especially potent when groups and businesses band together. For example, sports teams, unions, and companies can all leverage their collective influence to deter these hotels.
The reaction, however, can be mixed. Some people express concern that this movement could escalate to violence or unlawful action. At the same time, this reflects the intensity of the feelings involved. One viewpoint suggests that it’s important to be careful and stay smart, as passions on all sides can flare.
It’s also worth acknowledging the role of public perception. The 3rd Amendment may not be applicable, but the debate has brought it to the forefront of many people’s minds. It offers an opportunity for a broader conversation about the role of big business and their connection to politics, and the ethics that govern corporate decision-making. People may want to learn more about the details, but it offers a unique point of emphasis within the discussion.
Ultimately, the issue of hotels housing ICE agents is complex. The legal landscape presents challenges, but consumer action and a shift in public sentiment can influence choices made by business. The debate reveals a tension between financial incentives and ethical principles, with corporations needing to make a critical choice of what they value more.