A Deeply Fractured US

[FSTO]

^^
I do believe we're talking past each other.

 

[Brad Sallows]

^^
I do believe we're talking past each other.

Possibly. I can summarize my position in two sentences. The second statement is pre-eminent.

ICE should not behave the way it is currently behaving.

The way ICE behaves does not derogate from the administration's authority to enforce.

Then a question is whether those who agree with the first statement also agree with the pre-eminence of the second, or are they hoping/contending that failure to meet the first condition de-legitimizes enforcement? That would mean that any enforcement of any law could be de-legitimized simply by forcing authorities to escalate past some threshold.

 

[GR66]

Possibly. I can summarize my position in two sentences. The second statement is pre-eminent.

ICE should not behave the way it is currently behaving.

The way ICE behaves does not derogate from the administration's authority to enforce.

Then a question is whether those who agree with the first statement also agree with the pre-eminence of the second, or are they hoping/contending that failure to meet the first condition de-legitimizes enforcement? That would mean that any enforcement of any law could be de-legitimized simply by forcing authorities to escalate past some threshold.

Is that not already the case? You need justification for a warrant or wiretap. Reasonable grounds for arrest. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Rules on proportionality. Restrictions on entrapment. Obligations on disclosure.

All of these are designed to prevent the State from using unreasonable force or methods against its citizens in their enforcement of the law. If the authorities escalate past these thresholds the enforcement actions are as you say "de-legitimized".

 

[Jarnhamar]

I think what part of the confusion is that ICE goons often use administrative warrants (instead of judicial warrants) for immigration enforcement actions. These suckers are internal DHS/ICE documents that allow agents to question and arrest noncitizens.

ICE needs to have probably cause to make a lawful arrest. For immigration violations (circa 2024 - 2026 USA) probable cause generally comes from evidence the person is removable under immigration law (non white?)

Probable cause standards and contexts differ from criminal arrests because being removable is a civil violation.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Is that not already the case? You need justification for a warrant or wiretap. Reasonable grounds for arrest. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Rules on proportionality. Restrictions on entrapment. Obligations on disclosure.

All of these are designed to prevent the State from using unreasonable force or methods against its citizens in their enforcement of the law. If the authorities escalate past these thresholds the enforcement actions are as you say "de-legitimized".

As a rhetorical flourish, sure; practically, it just means they're subject to challenge in courts, like every other abuse of the past decades.

 

[HavokFour]

On the topic of ICE and warrants to enter homes, the entire thread below is very much worth a read.

Thread by @ReichlinMelnick on Thread Reader App

@ReichlinMelnick: 🚨HOLY CRAP. An ICE whistleblower just revealed a secret memo authorizing ICE officers to break into homes without a judicial warrant, which DHS's own legal training materials say is unconstitutiona...…

threadreaderapp.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/2014095587528884455

Immigration officers assert sweeping power to enter homes without a judge's warrant, memo says

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press reveals that the agency allows immigration officers to forcibly enter homes to make arrests without a judicial warrant.

apnews.com

 

[ytz]

Possibly. I can summarize my position in two sentences. The second statement is pre-eminent.

ICE should not behave the way it is currently behaving.

The way ICE behaves does not derogate from the administration's authority to enforce.

Then a question is whether those who agree with the first statement also agree with the pre-eminence of the second, or are they hoping/contending that failure to meet the first condition de-legitimizes enforcement? That would mean that any enforcement of any law could be de-legitimized simply by forcing authorities to escalate past some threshold.

I would argue the kind of aggression being seen from ICE is performative and tantamount to intimidation rather than mission focused on deportations.

People forget. Obama hired Hohman, the same guy, to ramp up deportations. Obama was called "Deporter-in-Chief" by most of the left and some Republicans and deported more than Trump's first term. But how many clashes did ICE have back then with the average citizen?

 

[suffolkowner]

Can ICE Enter a Home to Make an Arrest With Only an Administrative Warrant?

A tentative take, on both the rights and the remedies.

www.lawfaremedia.org

some thoughts on the legalities involved

 

[QV]

I would argue the kind of aggression being seen from ICE is performative and tantamount to intimidation rather than mission focused on deportations.

People forget. Obama hired Hohman, the same guy, to ramp up deportations. Obama was called "Deporter-in-Chief" by most of the left and some Republicans and deported more than Trump's first term. But how many clashes did ICE have back then with the average citizen?

A factor to consider is the Trump affect. When Obama was deporting loads of people with ICE, media was generally friendly about it. Today with Trump, the media will largely be very hostile. You're seeing the difference on TV.