• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Changing past guidance, ICE says its officers can forcibly enter homes during immigration operations without judicial warrants: 2025 memo

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
45,658
48,465
Los Angeles Area
✟1,079,697.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
An internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement document in May shows that ICE told officers and agents they can forcibly enter homes of people subject to deportation without warrants signed by judges.

The memo, dated May 12, which reads that it is from ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons, was shared with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., by two whistleblowers.

Lyons notes in the document that detaining people “in their residences” based solely on administrative warrants is a change from past procedures.

“Although the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose,” the memo reads.

The group Whistleblower Aid, which is representing the whistleblowers who shared the memo with Congress, said, “This ‘policy’ flies in the face of longstanding federal law enforcement training material and policies, all rooted in constitutional assessments.”
 

Desk trauma

[redacted]
Site Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
23,300
19,212
✟1,532,253.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
A memo does not supersede the Constitution and 100+ years of case law.
Does now. Just like executive orders have replaced that useless debating society on a hill.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
45,658
48,465
Los Angeles Area
✟1,079,697.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
"Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing."

"What the [blazes] are you talking about?" Yossarian shouted at her in bewildered, furious protest. "How did you know it was Catch-22? Who the [blazes] told you it was Catch-22?"

"The soldiers with the hard white hats and clubs. The girls were crying. 'Did we do anything wrong?' they said. The men said no and pushed them away out the door with the ends of their clubs. 'Then why are you chasing us out?' the girls said. 'Catch-22,' the men said. All they kept saying was 'Catch-22, Catch-22.' What does it mean, Catch-22? What is Catch-22?"

"Didn't they show it to you?" Yossarian demanded, stamping about in anger and distress. "Didn't you even make them read it?"

"They don't have to show us Catch-22," the old woman answered. "The law says they don't have to."

"What law says they don't have to?"

"Catch-22."

---

Rutherford County book removals include “Beloved,” a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about the horrors of American slavery that includes depictions of sexual violence, and “Catch-22,” a satirical World War II novel. Both books have been recommended in Advanced Placement literature classes curricula in previous years.

The Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District school board, headquartered in Palmer, Alaska has banned teachers from assigning Tim O'Brien's Vietnam War classic "The Things They Carried" and Joseph Heller's World War II satire "Catch-22" for their high school English classes.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: MotoToTheMax
Upvote 0

BPPLEE

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
17,326
8,065
62
Montgomery
✟286,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
An internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement document in May shows that ICE told officers and agents they can forcibly enter homes of people subject to deportation without warrants signed by judges.

The memo, dated May 12, which reads that it is from ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons, was shared with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., by two whistleblowers.

Lyons notes in the document that detaining people “in their residences” based solely on administrative warrants is a change from past procedures.

“Although the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose,” the memo reads.

The group Whistleblower Aid, which is representing the whistleblowers who shared the memo with Congress, said, “This ‘policy’ flies in the face of longstanding federal law enforcement training material and policies, all rooted in constitutional assessments.”
The way it works in law enforcement is you may enter a home without a warrant if there are exigent circumstances, for instance pursuing a fleeing suspect, if evidence is being destroyed, if someone with a warrant for their arrest is inside or if there is reasonable belief that someone is in danger.
But if you do it you better be right
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
23,484
14,457
Earth
✟275,298.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
The way it works in law enforcement is you may enter a home without a warrant if there are exigent circumstances, for instance pursuing a fleeing suspect, if evidence is being destroyed, if someone with a warrant for their arrest is inside or if there is reasonable belief that someone is in danger.
But if you do it you better be right
If the Administration is willing to back ICE Agents in their uses of force, these piddling, little “process-errors” will slip through mighty big cracks.
The Constitution is dependent upon the President to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.
If they don’t, the mechanisms to get them to do so are rather limited.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
31,152
15,604
Seattle
✟1,239,401.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
The way it works in law enforcement is you may enter a home without a warrant if there are exigent circumstances, for instance pursuing a fleeing suspect, if evidence is being destroyed, if someone with a warrant for their arrest is inside or if there is reasonable belief that someone is in danger.
But if you do it you better be right
To my understanding neither of those is exigent circumstance. Only if evidence might be destroyed or if someone is in imminent danger are valid. Otherwise, get a warrant.
 
Upvote 0

BPPLEE

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
17,326
8,065
62
Montgomery
✟286,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To my understanding neither of those is exigent circumstance. Only if evidence might be destroyed or if someone is in imminent danger are valid. Otherwise, get a warrant.
Yes, exigent circumstances—emergency situations allowing warrantless entry into a home—include the "
hot pursuit" of a fleeing felon and preventing the destruction of evidence or escape. A valid arrest warrant also permits entry if police believe the suspect is inside, though fleeing suspects (especially misdemeanants) require a case-by-case analysis of urgency.
Source: Google
 
Upvote 0