He’s a citizen with a Real ID. ICE detained him anyway. Twice.

[Hans Blaster]

Is that a construction site where they've gotten a tip that the construction company and contractors have been hiring undocumented workers?

Baldwin County man files lawsuit against ICE's construction site raids

A Baldwin County man, a natural-born U.S. citizen, filed a federal lawsuit alleging two construction site raids violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

www.alreporter.com

This article has some additional details showing the company he was doing work for.

https://www.fox10tv.com/2025/02/14/fbi-conducts-illegal-immigrant-raids-dr-horton-developments/

It would appear so... this article from back in February outlines that the FBI was looking into it because evidently this DR Horton development company has a bit of a pattern.

2 different construction sites in one neighborhood were found to have been using ~15 undocumented laborers, and another construction site by DR Horton in a different town a few weeks later was found to be doing the same thing.


So given that both times this guy was stopped and detained for questioning, he was working at a DR Horton site (a company that has a track record of hiring undocumented Mexican laborers), and given that ID-faking is a thing, and more prevalent in the southern states, it's not unreasonable that they'd be interested in vetting him with something more rigorous than just eyeballing his driver's license.

Did they use that tip to get a warrant?

(and most of your "examples" above were not probable cause)

 

[rjs330]

agree that much of the media is not honest - but I view it that the right leaning media is the problem.
They are helping to create a "them" who are different from "us".

No its the left leaning media who is the problem. Not being honest about stuff.

The conservative media hasnt helped create anything. It absolutely is a them, the illegals, and us who are legal.

ICE is the one who has been attacked by the left leaning media simply for doing their job.

And I have to wonder, if a group of masked men, without labeling as ICE or police, jump out of a van and grabs me or my daughter, should I resist what looks like a criminal action or meekly go along?

If that happens then fight. Because ICE doesn't do that. That again is a left wing misrepresentation that is meant to scare people.

ICE officers are going to be masked and look like thugs, and do not provide ID like a badge, why shouldn't I doubt who they are?
More recent photos of agents show they are al least having the word "police" somewhere on their clothing, but many didn't
have any id for months.

If you watch rhem on video they all carry badges and wear marking labeling them as ICE. So they don't look like thugs. Once again scare mongering by the media.

 

[Belk]

Just like I said. When they need a warrant they are obtaining one.

Yes, if they are in areas where illegals are known to be. And of course sanctuary cities would he hot beds of illegals. If you raid a place with illegals then anyone matching the profiles of the illegals are going to be looked at.

This is rhe consequences of allowing 20 million illegals lose in the country.

That does not always appear to be the case.

Recent ICE actions in Chicago have been associated with controversy regarding the use of warrants, with a recent raid sparking a lawsuit and federal investigation
. A federal judge ruled that ICE violated a 2022 settlement that limits warrantless arrests, leading to the extension of that settlement and new rules for agents. The ruling followed a raid on an apartment building where ICE agents arrested dozens of people, some without warrants, after using a helicopter and other force.

“Blank warrant” issue: The judge also took issue with ICE agents using blank forms to fill out warrants at the scene of an arrest, ruling that this was an attempt to circumvent the probable cause requirement.

 

[rjs330]

But they weren't.

Yeah they were.

That is back to "looking brown, must be illegal."

Thats not happening.

Without someone saying something, how do you know where they are known to be".

People are saying things. And they arw investigating.

It is unfortunate that Trump didn't want that bill reforming immigration to pass which would have helped a great deal.

Well thats what the Demicrats said. Im a bit skeptical that the group that belonged to a president who's let so many illegals in instead of keeping them out actually had keeping them.out in mind. No I didn't trust them at all.

 

[rjs330]

An hour is a short time for those that are not detained but it is a long time for someone detained, particularly if you are hand cuffed. Im sure you would not want to spend an hour detained.

Well now else are rhey going to verify my identity. By trust? There is a reason why officers are allowed leeway in the amount of time it takes.

ICE should have direct access to the same system that the border patrol uses. It is part of homeland security. The system contains access to the immigration data base and a portable finger print pad. Also, at least in Texas, real ids are extremely hard to forge. It can happen but is extremely rare. ICE should not default to an id being fake anyway given that, in the example in the OP, they entered a private work place where there is no probable cause that a criminal enterprise was happening.

How do you know they don't. It still takes time to do it. Its not like television.

they entered a private work place where there is no probable cause that a criminal enterprise was happening.

No one said there was a criminal enterprise. But there were illegals. I guess they were right.

If they suspected illegal activity then they should have gotten a warrant through probable cause.

They didn't need one. Why does everyone keep bringing that up?

Did LE get a warrant based on probable cause like most have to do?

ICE didnt need one in the circumstances. And even if they got one that wouldnt have stopped them from picking up the guy. Buy the way how do we know they didn't have one for the raid? They always get one when its required.

 

[rjs330]

Taken to court how, exactly? The only possible action I've been able to find is a tort claim which would not result in a4th amendment ruling against the officer.

Im sure you can take them to court for unlawful search and siezure.

 

[Larniavc]

Are we going to act all shocked as to why they opt to want to have some words with the latter, but don't pay much attention to the former?

The probably would pay more attention to the brown gentleman in America.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Did they use that tip to get a warrant?

(and most of your "examples" above were not probable cause)

If/when this goes to court, I'm assuming that the legal angle that ICE is going to use is that by DR Hortons having a business license, that's an implied consent provision for administrative inspections for compliance and enforcement. (since consent of the business owner is also a mechanism that grants them access to enter a "private" worksite)

There's also the "pain view/public view doctrine"...where if a law enforcement officer is able to see a criminal activity taking place inside a private property from a public vantage point, they're allowed to enter. -- For example, if a cop is walking a beat, and sees crime being committed from the side walk, they don't need a warrant to enter the store and make arrests.


But I'm guessing the legal approach they're going to use is the former. As that's the same type of provision that allows for things like, say, a health inspector from the FDA to come into a restaurant or food plant for a surprise inspection, and shut it down and issue citations on the spot without a judicial warrant.

 

[DaisyDay]

Thanks. Just a quick cursory google search shows that there are quite a few active lawsuits out there.

Yes, including this one: Hundreds of Korean workers detained in Georgia to file lawsuit against ICE - The Korea Times

 

[Hans Blaster]

If/when this goes to court, I'm assuming that the legal angle that ICE is going to use is that by DR Hortons having a business license, that's an implied consent provision for administrative inspections for compliance and enforcement. (since consent of the business owner is also a mechanism that grants them access to enter a "private" worksite)

I'm going to give this one a double LOL.

LOL #1:

DR Hortons (presumably the owner or contractor) having a business license isn't relevant. ICE is a federal agency and the federal government doesn't license businesses nor is ICE in the business policing game. Pretextual searches through administrative law is likely a fourth amendment violation, though the courts may have not yet fully gotten there.

LOL #2:

This will never go to court. ICE will have them all deported to Darfur shortly. The deportation mechanism has disturbingly low levels of due process. This is why they all run from "La Migra", even if they get a hearing it is almost certain to not matter.

There's also the "pain view/public view doctrine"...where if a law enforcement officer is able to see a criminal activity taking place inside a private property from a public vantage point, they're allowed to enter. -- For example, if a cop is walking a beat, and sees crime being committed from the side walk, they don't need a warrant to enter the store and make arrests.

The problem with that doctrine as applied to immigration law is that the "criminal activity" (being in the country illegally) is not visible from a distance. You can not tell by looking at a group of people that any of them are "illegal" the way you can when you see someone commit an act of violence through a store window. This is the broken logic behind the "Kavanaugh stop".

But I'm guessing the legal approach they're going to use is the former. As that's the same type of provision that allows for things like, say, a health inspector from the FDA to come into a restaurant or food plant for a surprise inspection, and shut it down and issue citations on the spot without a judicial warrant.

For violating administrative law...

 

[rjs330]

Would that include a Latino grocery store, church or school?

Should my hispanic wife, who is a naturalized U.S. Citizen, have to carry her passport when she enters a Latino grocery store...just because she looks hispanic and is venues where illegals may be present?

Why should she and other US Citizens be subject to detention based on where they shop, worship or work?

If its a venue where illegals are present then yes. ICE has done a good job so far of hitting these areas and getting illegals. Certainly some Americans have been picked in the process. But they have been verified and released. .There are consequences to having sanctuary cities and consequences to citizens supporting such nonsense. You wanted illegals to come there and invited them. Dont be so shocked when ICE comes to get them. They are going to go where the illegals are and if you are caught in the net so be it. You'll be let go in relatively short order.

All illegals must go. I dont care how long youve been here or if youve married an American or had babies here. You must go. Self deport is the best way. Then work on coming here legally and we'll be happy to have you. There are consequences for letting them in and for inviting them to your city and telling them you'll protect them.

If your hanging with illegals, you should EXPECT that you might get picked up in a sweep. Best advice, stay away from places with illegals or carry your passport if you insist on hanging around illegals.

 

[rjs330]

Yes, including this one: Hundreds of Korean workers detained in Georgia to file lawsuit against ICE - The Korea Times

ICE had a warrant and got a couple hundred illegals there. It came on the heals of an investigation. So once again they were doing their job. Any Anericans were released. Americans better wake up and stop tolerating the blatant violation of immigration laws. Americans stood up and said enough when Trump was elected and we still feel that way. If you are an illegal go home and come here legally. Become an AMERICAN. If you want to come and join us and try to grab the American dream and assimilate into our culture and become a productive American we are happy to have you. And you should be treated like an American. I love what Teddy Roosevelt said.

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

 

[DaisyDay]

ICE had a warrant and got a couple hundred illegals there. It came on the heals of an investigation. So once again they were doing their job.

*heels* Unfortunately, they also arrested, manhandled and deported several hundred South Koreans who had valid work permits, who were not illegal.

Any Anericans were released.

At what point?

Americans better wake up and stop tolerating the blatant violation of immigration laws. Americans stood up and said enough when Trump was elected and we still feel that way. If you are an illegal go home and come here legally. Become an AMERICAN. If you want to come and join us and try to grab the American dream and assimilate into our culture and become a productive American we are happy to have you. And you should be treated like an American. I love what Teddy Roosevelt said.

These South Koreans were not here illegally nor were they working illegally. It may come as a surprise to you but Americans disagree with you on this - you are already aware that trump did not get the majority of votes in 2024 and you may perhaps be aware that not all those who voted for him did so on the immigration issue.

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

That's some mighty fine rhetoric, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny or analysis.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

For violating administrative law...

Right but agents from the FDA going to a meat packing plant or drug manufacturing facility to look for violations can't merely eyeball it either, they can only go off of hunches based on past behaviors and violations or tips for where would be the best place to conduct a "fishing expedition"

They enter a private business without a warrant for a surprise inspection, question who they'd like, collect whichever samples they like, and then take actions, issue fines, force closures, etc...

Likewise, the IRS doesn't get judicial warrants to demand information from banks to do routine bulk audits, they just order it to be handed over, and the only time they have to notify you is if its a targeted audit where they're asking for your info specifically.

Both would be other examples of federal agency "fishing expedition"-style enforcement.

The EPA also has broad searching and enforcement powers that don't require warrants.



I ask this as a hypothetical to people who've voiced objections to ICE's approach for this particular case...

There have been several noted incidents where major environmental violations had been uncovered by the warrantless entry and searching by EPA field agents.

If this had been a story where this construction company in question had long been suspected of environmental violations and secretly dumping toxic materials into secret wastewater pipes that were hidden and bypassed monitoring systems (like Chemetco got caught doing 10 years ago in Illinois), and EPA field agents did a warrantless surprise inspection, and immediately acted upon what they uncovered in the form of their criminal enforcement arm making swift arrests.

Would the people objecting to this story be objecting to EPA's actions on 4th Amendment procedural grounds?


Because it would seem as if a lot of the three-letter federal agencies operate on the "fishing expedition" model, acting as "solutions in search of a problem" for lack of better way to put it.

So are the objections people have to this the idea in general? (meaning you also oppose how the EPA, IRS, FDA, ATF, and DEA do business)

Or is this objection purely based on the social dynamics of a group, perceived to be a marginalized group, being impacted?

 

[Belk]

Im sure you can take them to court for unlawful search and siezure.

As I stated, as a tort claim, not as a civil rights violation.

 

[Hentenza]

Right but agents from the FDA going to a meat packing plant or drug manufacturing facility to look for violations can't merely eyeball it either, they can only go off of hunches based on past behaviors and violations or tips for where would be the best place to conduct a "fishing expedition"

The difference is that having an FDA license grants the FDA the right to do an unannounced inspection. ICE or any other federal law enforcement agency would need an administrative warrant to enter a private business.

The construction site in question is a private business, surrounded by a fence and with do not enter signs. ICE did not have a warrant so they entered illegally to do a “fishing expedition”.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Right but agents from the FDA going to a meat packing plant or drug manufacturing facility to look for violations can't merely eyeball it either, they can only go off of hunches based on past behaviors and violations or tips for where would be the best place to conduct a "fishing expedition"

They enter a private business without a warrant for a surprise inspection, question who they'd like, collect whichever samples they like, and then take actions, issue fines, force closures, etc...

Likewise, the IRS doesn't get judicial warrants to demand information from banks to do routine bulk audits, they just order it to be handed over, and the only time they have to notify you is if its a targeted audit where they're asking for your info specifically.

Both would be other examples of federal agency "fishing expedition"-style enforcement.

The EPA also has broad searching and enforcement powers that don't require warrants.

Regulated businesses. Does ICE regulate the construction business?

I ask this as a hypothetical to people who've voiced objections to ICE's approach for this particular case...

There have been several noted incidents where major environmental violations had been uncovered by the warrantless entry and searching by EPA field agents.

If this had been a story where this construction company in question had long been suspected of environmental violations and secretly dumping toxic materials into secret wastewater pipes that were hidden and bypassed monitoring systems (like Chemetco got caught doing 10 years ago in Illinois), and EPA field agents did a warrantless surprise inspection, and immediately acted upon what they uncovered in the form of their criminal enforcement arm making swift arrests.

Would the people objecting to this story be objecting to EPA's actions on 4th Amendment procedural grounds?


Because it would seem as if a lot of the three-letter federal agencies operate on the "fishing expedition" model, acting as "solutions in search of a problem" for lack of better way to put it.

So are the objections people have to this the idea in general? (meaning you also oppose how the EPA, IRS, FDA, ATF, and DEA do business)

Or is this objection purely based on the social dynamics of a group, perceived to be a marginalized group, being impacted?

I'm not interested in any of your silly hypotheticals.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not interested in any of your silly hypotheticals.

What's silly about it?, it's a real world example of a federal agency that acts in a way that would be "4th amendment questionable" if done by regular executive branch LEOs

Dow Chemical actually tried to sue the EPA when the EPA was using aerial surveillance equipment to get eyes on their plants that were suspected to be "playing loose and fast with the rules" in order to gather info to use against them back in the 80', protesting it on 4th amendment grounds, and the courts ultimately ended up siding with the EPA.

The IRS example is valid as well. If the IRS goes to my bank tomorrow and demands all of the last year's transactions, not based on having any evidence or probably cause, but because they merely want to look for something to use against someone. (IE: Fishing Expedition), that's a 4th amendment violation as well by the standards people are setting in this thread.



I'll just cut to the chase here...the reason why progressives care about the ICE actions, but not about the actions of the EPA or the IRS is for superficial political reasons.

"Evil greedy capitalist corporations that pollute to keep profits high are bad"
"Rich people who find ways to exploit tax loopholes are bad"
-- so 4th amendment be damned in those cases where executive agencies act with impunity to bust them.

But, "enforcing immigration laws is racist, ", therefore, anything the agency in charge of that facet of the law does "needs to be held to the strictest interpretation of constitutional standards on searches and private property rights".


That is the long sort of it... so all anyone has to do is publicly proclaim (no takebacks, and it has to be honest and not hedged with some goading disclaimer to try to make me reply to it)

"EPA and IRS tactics are just as sketchy and overreaching as ICE tactics, but they don't bother me as much because they bust the people I don't like, the reason I oppose ICE is because I feel like they're on the same side as my political opponents",

and I'll gladly exit this thread and not make another single post in this topic lol.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The difference is that having an FDA license grants the FDA the right to do an unannounced inspection. ICE or any other federal law enforcement agency would need an administrative warrant to enter a private business.

The construction site in question is a private business, surrounded by a fence and with do not enter signs. ICE did not have a warrant so they entered illegally to do a “fishing expedition”.

And how about the EPA or the IRS?

They don't need warrants to enter private business property and demand to snoop around do they?

 

[Hans Blaster]

What's silly about it?, it's a real world example of a federal agency that acts in a way that would be "4th amendment questionable" if done by regular executive branch LEOs

Dow Chemical actually tried to sue the EPA when the EPA was using aerial surveillance equipment to get eyes on their plants that were suspected to be "playing loose and fast with the rules" in order to gather info to use against them back in the 80', protesting it on 4th amendment grounds, and the courts ultimately ended up siding with the EPA.

The IRS example is valid as well. If the IRS goes to my bank tomorrow and demands all of the last year's transactions, not based on having any evidence or probably cause, but because they merely want to look for something to use against someone. (IE: Fishing Expedition), that's a 4th amendment violation as well by the standards people are setting in this thread.

What is silly about it? ICE doesn't regulate anything. That's one thing. A thing you have been told about by several posters in several posts. Here's another: The courts aren't exactly "pro 4th amendment rights" even when regular cops (and not regulatory enforcers) are violating it.

I'll just cut to the chase here...the reason why progressives care about the ICE actions, but not about the actions of the EPA or the IRS is for superficial political reasons.

"Evil greedy capitalist corporations that pollute to keep profits high are bad"
"Rich people who find ways to exploit tax loopholes are bad"
-- so 4th amendment be damned in those cases where executive agencies act with impunity to bust them.

But, "enforcing immigration laws is racist, ", therefore, anything the agency in charge of that facet of the law does "needs to be held to the strictest interpretation of constitutional standards on searches and private property rights".


That is the long sort of it... so all anyone has to do is publicly proclaim (no takebacks, and it has to be honest and not hedged with some goading disclaimer to try to make me reply to it)

"EPA and IRS tactics are just as sketchy and overreaching as ICE tactics, but they don't bother me as much because they bust the people I don't like, the reason I oppose ICE is because I feel like they're on the same side as my political opponents",

and I'll gladly exit this thread and not make another single post in this topic lol.

Don't try to tell my why I care. Your assumptions are poor and irrelevant to the actions of ICE. (Plus I stop reading when you tell me why I am taking the position I am taking.)