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

ThatRobGuy · 2025-11-12T19:47:21-0600

Hans Blaster said:
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'd argue that they do, they regulate how many illegal aliens are in the country.

But if that's a vague'ish interpretation that doesn't sit well with you...

CBP does have regulatory purview. So if the guys who raided that work site had "CBP" on their vests instead of "ICE", would that change anything about the reaction to it that some progressives were having?

The answer is obviously no, because it's not sincerely a constitutional/procedural objection, it's an ideological objection.

The covid situation proved that progressives don't have any deeply held values about executive agency overreach, they were perfectly happy to let the CDC set rent/eviction policy for landlords (declaring eviction moratoriums) or let debt erasure be "spoken into existence" by executive branch.

So let's not mince words here, if there's a "cause" that progressives see as worthy, they're more than happy to throw constitutionality or procedural concerns out the window if it gets them what they want.

It's not the "power" they're objecting to, it's "who's wielding it" that they have a problem with. If people would just be honest about that, then there could be some sincere political discourse.

As opposed to what we have now, which is "constitutional sticklers when the other team is in power, but a meh, it's for the greater good when my team is in power"

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-12T19:53:46-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
I'd argue that they do, they regulate how many illegal aliens are in the country.

That's not what regulate means.

ThatRobGuy said:
But if that's a vague'ish interpretation that doesn't sit well with you...

Your hackneyed analogies rarely do.

ThatRobGuy said:
CBP does have regulatory purview.

To collect customs duties? To patrol and man the border?

ThatRobGuy said:
So if the guys who raided that work site had "CBP" on their vests instead of "ICE", would that change anything about the reaction to it that some progressives were having?

These are either ICE or joint ICE/CBP operations. Other agencies are operating under ICE operational control. If it said "FBI" on their tactical gear it wouldn't make it an FBI operation. (Another agency that absolutely regulates nothing. See the letter "I".) These are immigration enforcement operations. Two of three of the letters in IcE. (Unless they forgot to pay their Trump Tariffs.)

ThatRobGuy said:
The answer is obviously no, because it's not sincerely a constitutional/procedural objection, it's an ideological objection.

And again you have told me what I am thinking. I shall stop reading here.

ThatRobGuy said:
The covid situation proved that progressives don't have any deeply held values about executive agency overreach, they were perfectly happy to let the CDC set rent/eviction policy for landlords (declaring eviction moratoriums) or let debt erasure be "spoken into existence" by executive branch.

So let's not mince words here, if there's a "cause" that progressives see as worthy, they're more than happy to throw constitutionality or procedural concerns out the window if it gets them what they want.

It's not the "power" they're objecting to, it's "who's wielding it" that they have a problem with. If people would just be honest about that, then there could be some sincere political discourse.

As opposed to what we have now, which is "constitutional sticklers when the other team is in power, but a meh, it's for the greater good when my team is in power"

ThatRobGuy · 2025-11-12T19:59:34-0600

Hans Blaster said:
And again you have told me what I am thinking. I shall stop reading here.

Because it is what people on your side are thinking...

You've yet to state your codified position on the other matters I've brought up... you've only trotted out "reasons" why answering my inquiries would be "beneath you".

You literally have people on your side advocating for communism and socialism, the most anti-constitutional positions on the planet in terms of privacy and personal property rights. You mean to tell me that they somehow have some sort of deep respect for property rights and protections against executive overreach and privacy violations? C'mon....

I'll go on record as saying if someone is defending or supporting an entity that holds the same beliefs as the people responsible for the Stasi, they have no leg to stand on making a 4th amendment claim.

If anyone supports or even marginally defends Antifa, they don't care about due process or private property rights or the 4th amendment...period.

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-12T20:08:59-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
Because it is what people on your side are thinking...

You've yet to state your codified position on the other matters I've brought up... you've only trotted out "reasons" why answering my inquiries would be "beneath you".

I do not know why it is so hard when talking about one aspect of a complex issue to just talk about that aspect. Our interaction today has been on the legality of these actions relative to the 4th amendment. It has not been on the morality of the operations. It hasn't been ideology. It hasn't been on the policy preferences. It hasn't been on the politics.

I can understand when someone mistakes a motive of a poster the first time, but to persist in the face of an explicit statement, well, that's on you.

ThatRobGuy · 2025-11-12T20:24:53-0600

Hans Blaster said:
I do not know why it is so hard when talking about one aspect of a complex issue to just talk about that aspect. Our interaction today has been on the legality of these actions relative to the 4th amendment. It has not been on the morality of the operations. It hasn't been ideology. It hasn't been on the policy preferences. It hasn't been on the politics.

I can understand when someone mistakes a motive of a poster the first time, but to persist in the face of an explicit statement, well, that's on you.

Because the motive is paramount, the motive dictates whether or not the position is a consistently held one vs. one that's held for convenience that'll change the next time the power structure changes.

But in the interest of fairness, I'll ask you outright (you may have posted it a few years ago, I don't know)

When the CDC was declaring eviction moratoriums, did you oppose that?
When the EPA has done warrantless impromptu inspections, that have led to punitive measures, did you oppose that?
When the IRS has pulled bank transaction data to find something (anything) that could be of use to their mission, did you oppose that?
When the FBI has injected informants and agents into extremist groups on both sides (to stir the pot and goad them into extreme actions to have an excuse to arrest them later -- they've done it to both the Proud Boys and BLM, so they're not playing favorites), did you oppose that?

This is a "all or nothing" type situation.

Either the 4th amendment is so sacred that we have to knowingly let criminals off the hook if it's violated, or it's open to prudence and pragmatism.

Gotta pick one.

The "it's okay to bend the rules and go against the norms to get the people we think are bad" routine has drawn a lot political backlash.

Hentenza · 2025-11-12T20:25:59-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
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?

From AI about the EPA

Business's rights: A business has the right to refuse an inspection and require a warrant, but denying access can sometimes lead inspectors to assume the business has something to hide, says FindLaw. Obtaining a warrant can delay entry, but it may also increase the level of scrutiny, notes FindLaw.

The EPA can conduct unannounced inspections but they don’t have arrest powers.

Here is the AI response for the IRS

Current IRS Visit Policy

Advance Contact Required: Most interactions, including audits and collection efforts, begin with an official letter mailed to the taxpayer's address.
Scheduled Meetings: Revenue officers (civil enforcement employees who work on cases involving unpaid taxes or unfiled returns) are generally required to schedule face-to-face meetings in advance using a Letter 725-B, Meeting with Taxpayer – Confirmation.
Verification is Key: All legitimate IRS employees carry two forms of official identification: a serial-numbered pocket commission and a Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) card with a photo. Taxpayers have the right to ask for both and verify the agent's identity by calling the official IRS number at 1-800-829-1040 (for individuals) or 1-800-829-4933 (for businesses).

Exceptions to the Rule
Unannounced visits are now extremely rare but can still occur in a few specific circumstances:

Criminal Investigations: IRS Criminal Investigation (CI) special agents are federal law enforcement officers who investigate serious tax fraud and other financial crimes. They may visit a business or home unannounced as part of their investigation, sometimes with a warrant or subpoena. They will not, however, demand immediate payment.
Serving Legal Documents: A revenue officer may make an unannounced visit if they need to personally serve a summons or subpoena, or when sensitive enforcement activities involving asset seizure are planned.
Repeated Non-Response: In rare situations of severe non-compliance, such as a business owing payroll taxes and ignoring multiple official letters and phone calls, an unannounced visit may occur as a last resort to prompt action.
Excise Fuel Compliance: For pervasively regulated industries like fuel production or storage, authorized employees can conduct unannounced inspections, though they will typically first seek consent from the owner or an employee empowered to grant it.

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-12T22:46:44-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
Because the motive is paramount,

It isn't. It has nothing to do with my posts on this thread in the last 24 hours.

ThatRobGuy said:
the motive dictates whether or not the position is a consistently held one vs. one that's held for convenience that'll change the next time the power structure changes.

But in the interest of fairness, I'll ask you outright (you may have posted it a few years ago, I don't know)

When the CDC was declaring eviction moratoriums, did you oppose that?
When the EPA has done warrantless impromptu inspections, that have led to punitive measures, did you oppose that?
When the IRS has pulled bank transaction data to find something (anything) that could be of use to their mission, did you oppose that?
When the FBI has injected informants and agents into extremist groups on both sides (to stir the pot and goad them into extreme actions to have an excuse to arrest them later -- they've done it to both the Proud Boys and BLM, so they're not playing favorites), did you oppose that?

This is a "all or nothing" type situation.

Either the 4th amendment is so sacred that we have to knowingly let criminals off the hook if it's violated, or it's open to prudence and pragmatism.

Gotta pick one.

The "it's okay to bend the rules and go against the norms to get the people we think are bad" routine has drawn a lot political backlash.

; DR

rjs330 · 2025-11-13T01:25:32-0600

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

Not true, they deported illegals including straight up illegals, those whose visas had expired and those who's visas did not allow them to work.

DaisyDay said:
At what point?

Upon confirmation they were Americans.

DaisyDay said:
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.

It doesn't surprise me at all. Democrats and Rebublicans don't agree on much nor do conservatives and liberals. No not all voted on that issue, but they knew his positions and he was clear on what he was going to do. I didn't vote for him on tariffs. We voters didn't have to agree with everything he proposed to vote for him. I still don't agree with him on everything.

rjs330 · 2025-11-13T01:27:46-0600

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

Why not?

wing2000 · 2025-11-13T06:01:34-0600

rjs330 said:
If its a venue where illegals are present then yes.

Effectively, you're suggesting that you and I, based on our appearance, have more rights than my wife who has been a citizen for over 20 years.

rjs330 said:
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. .

Would you feel the same way if you are detained for an hour, a day or weeks?

rjs330 said:
There are consequences to having sanctuary cities and consequences to citizens supporting such nonsense. You wanted illegals to come there and invited them.

I didn't invite anyone. My wife immigrated legally.

rjs330 said:
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.

Don't be shocked when the US Government comes for you in the future.

Belk · 2025-11-13T09:15:01-0600

rjs330 said:
Why not?

As I explained in my previous post, you can't use 1983 because it is specific to the states. Blevins has been reduced down so it can only be used in specific circumstances regarding someone coming into a house. I suggest Legal Eagles video explaining the nuances. The upside is that you can not sue for a civil rights violation, only put in a tort claim for damages.

DaisyDay · 2025-11-13T09:45:23-0600

rjs330 said:
Not true, they deported illegals including straight up illegals, those whose visas had expired and those who's visas did not allow them to work.

No, you're mistaken. Several hundred of those South Koreans had valid visas and work permits, but were nonetheless shackled and deported. *whose*

rjs330 said:
Upon confirmation they were Americans.

Too bad that "confirmation" took so long with citizens who had their confirmation papers, e.g. a Real Id, on them. Others, for unknown reasons, were held several days before "confirmation" occurred.

rjs330 said:
It doesn't surprise me at all. Democrats and Rebublicans don't agree on much nor do conservatives and liberals.

Sure, but you said "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" without bothering to specify that "Americans" come in many varieties and we don't all agree with what you said "Americans" think. That was my point.

rjs330 said:
No not all voted on that issue, but they knew his positions and he was clear on what he was going to do. I didn't vote for him on tariffs. We voters didn't have to agree with everything he proposed to vote for him. I still don't agree with him on everything.

Then perhaps saying Americans think this or that about Trump is an essentially meaningless appeal to emotion.

DaisyDay · 2025-11-13T10:06:49-0600

American deported:

Man deported to Laos despite US court order blocking his removal, attorneys say

District judge told Ice to keep Alabama man in US while he showed what judge called ‘substantial claim’ to citizenship

www.theguardian.com

Immigration officials have deported a father living in Alabama to Laos despite a federal court order blocking his removal from the US on the grounds he has a claim to citizenship, the man’s attorneys said on Tuesday.

US district judge Shelly Dick last week ordered US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to keep Chanthila “Shawn” Souvannarath, 44, in the United States while he presented what the judge called his “substantial claim of US citizenship”, court records show. He was born in a refugee camp in Thailand but was granted lawful permanent residence in the US before his first birthday, according to court filings.

But Souvannarath on Sunday messaged his wife on WhatsApp and told her he was in Dongmakkhai, Laos, according to a screenshot she shared with the Associated Press. The message ends with “love y’all”.

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

Part of the IT crowd

I march with Sherman

Part of the IT crowd

I march with Sherman

Part of the IT crowd

I will fear no evil for You are with me

I march with Sherman

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

E pluribus unum

Senior Member

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Similar threads