4 ms·

That’s where they will use an “administrative warrant” to arrest someone with a final order of removal. So not citizens’ houses but one where someone is in the

by mc32 9mo ago

That’s where they will use an “administrative warrant” to arrest someone with a final order of removal. So not citizens’ houses but one where someone is in the country illegally with a final order of removal.

tekla 9mo ago
Despite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property. If they find a illegal immigrant on public streets, they can be detained, but still cannot enter a private residence (even if occupied by an illegal immigrant) as it would violate the 4th amendment.
- dragonwriter 9mo ago
  > Despite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property. Even an actual judicial arrest warrant doesn't (legally) allow them to enter private party on suspicion that the target might be there. Search is a separate thing from seizure, and you need a judicial search warrant to search a private residence or the non-public areas of a business for a person, no matter what authority you might have to arrest them should you find them.
  - mc32 9mo ago
    That makes sense. But that raises a separate unrelated question; how do bailbondsmen seem to be able to take their targets in, are they violating the law or are criminals gullible or something else?
    - dragonwriter 9mo ago
      Bail agents can usually enter the home of the subject without additional consent due to clauses in the contract of the bail bond, but not (without the owners consent) homes owned by third parties even if the target is present. Criminals are also frequently gullible. And bail agents are fairly notorious as a group for having a less than scrupulous attention to legal restrictions. So, a mix of things, really.
    - dbarlett 9mo ago
      A single paragraph in Taylor v. Taintor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_v._Taintor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_v._Taintor
water-data-dude 9mo ago
But you're wrong. The memo says they can use an administrative warrant - which is to say, a warrant signed by an immigration official, part of the executive branch - to enter a house and arrest someone. The executive branch is authorizing an executive branch official to enter a home, bypassing the judicial branch. The CRUCIAL thing to note is that ICE gets stuff wrong. Their info is often stale or flat wrong - so even though they say "this is only for illegal immigrants, don't worry about it ;)", it can ABSOLUTELY affect citizens. Note also that, since it's ICE and immigration officials (again: all executive branch) making these determinations, the executive is also deciding whether there's probable cause to think that an illegal immigrant is in a particular house. This damage to due process is ostensibly only aimed at immigrants, but it affects all of us.
- mc32 9mo ago
  I see the issue raised with the process owner being all Executive --but on the other hand due process frequently inadvertently affects non-criminals (i.e. not all suspects are the guilty party in a given case; however many suspects go through a process where they are finally eliminated as a suspect --but that sometimes can carry on for many years as in the Ramsey case and people spend tens of thousand and millions while they are under suspicion (i.e. not cleared of wrongdoing). So due process doesn't guarantee an innocent person is not inadvertently "dragged though mud".
  - bigbadfeline 9mo ago
    > people spend tens of thousand and millions while they are under suspicion (i.e. not cleared of wrongdoing) You managed to hit the nail on the proverbial head... "not cleared of wrongdoing" means "guilty until proven innocent" and turns the promise of the justice system on its head - spending millions to prove innocence is just a mundane consequence of that perversion. > So due process doesn't guarantee an innocent person is not inadvertently "dragged though mud". And, not quite accidentally, it allows to drug anyone though mud regardless of guilt - both purposefully or inadvertently. I've said this before but the type of argument you use is quite common and it boils down to the following fallacy: If something is already happening somewhere, sometimes - it's the right thing to do everywhere and all the time. The fact that the government can excuse and routinely do something while getting away with it doesn't mean that the getting away or the action itself are right or justified. The discussion here is about the compatibility of government's actions with the spirit of the Constitution which doesn't provide an exemption for habituated wrongs.

by mc32 9mo ago

tekla 9mo ago

Despite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property. If they find a illegal immigrant on public streets, they can be detained, but still cannot enter a private residence (even if occupied by an illegal immigrant) as it would violate the 4th amendment.

dragonwriter 9mo ago
> Despite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property. Even an actual judicial arrest warrant doesn't (legally) allow them to enter private party on suspicion that the target might be there. Search is a separate thing from seizure, and you need a judicial search warrant to search a private residence or the non-public areas of a business for a person, no matter what authority you might have to arrest them should you find them.
- mc32 9mo ago
  That makes sense. But that raises a separate unrelated question; how do bailbondsmen seem to be able to take their targets in, are they violating the law or are criminals gullible or something else?
  - dragonwriter 9mo ago
    Bail agents can usually enter the home of the subject without additional consent due to clauses in the contract of the bail bond, but not (without the owners consent) homes owned by third parties even if the target is present. Criminals are also frequently gullible. And bail agents are fairly notorious as a group for having a less than scrupulous attention to legal restrictions. So, a mix of things, really.
  - dbarlett 9mo ago
    A single paragraph in Taylor v. Taintor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_v._Taintor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_v._Taintor

water-data-dude 9mo ago

But you're wrong. The memo says they can use an administrative warrant - which is to say, a warrant signed by an immigration official, part of the executive branch - to enter a house and arrest someone. The executive branch is authorizing an executive branch official to enter a home, bypassing the judicial branch. The CRUCIAL thing to note is that ICE gets stuff wrong. Their info is often stale or flat wrong - so even though they say "this is only for illegal immigrants, don't worry about it ;)", it can ABSOLUTELY affect citizens. Note also that, since it's ICE and immigration officials (again: all executive branch) making these determinations, the executive is also deciding whether there's probable cause to think that an illegal immigrant is in a particular house. This damage to due process is ostensibly only aimed at immigrants, but it affects all of us.

mc32 9mo ago
I see the issue raised with the process owner being all Executive --but on the other hand due process frequently inadvertently affects non-criminals (i.e. not all suspects are the guilty party in a given case; however many suspects go through a process where they are finally eliminated as a suspect --but that sometimes can carry on for many years as in the Ramsey case and people spend tens of thousand and millions while they are under suspicion (i.e. not cleared of wrongdoing). So due process doesn't guarantee an innocent person is not inadvertently "dragged though mud".
- bigbadfeline 9mo ago
  > people spend tens of thousand and millions while they are under suspicion (i.e. not cleared of wrongdoing) You managed to hit the nail on the proverbial head... "not cleared of wrongdoing" means "guilty until proven innocent" and turns the promise of the justice system on its head - spending millions to prove innocence is just a mundane consequence of that perversion. > So due process doesn't guarantee an innocent person is not inadvertently "dragged though mud". And, not quite accidentally, it allows to drug anyone though mud regardless of guilt - both purposefully or inadvertently. I've said this before but the type of argument you use is quite common and it boils down to the following fallacy: If something is already happening somewhere, sometimes - it's the right thing to do everywhere and all the time. The fact that the government can excuse and routinely do something while getting away with it doesn't mean that the getting away or the action itself are right or justified. The discussion here is about the compatibility of government's actions with the spirit of the Constitution which doesn't provide an exemption for habituated wrongs.