- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: AP: memo authorizes ICE to enter homes by force without a judicial warrant
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:19 am to Azkiger
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:19 am to Azkiger
quote:
Why didn't you answer my question?
I did, specifically around your framing ("ignoring")
I have people who get arrested here with arrest warrants pending for years that they don't know about. Do you think they were committing crimes daily by not turning themselves in?
1
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:21 am to Azkiger
quote:
Just pointing out double standards.
you're comparing apples to oranges.
The Constitution restricts government actions. It wasn't written to protect individuals from other individuals or punish individuals for misbehaving.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I did, specifically around your framing ("ignoring")
The reframing occurred when you pretended someone choosing to remain on private property (devoid of ANY other context) was relevant to this discussion.
I'm here straightening out your handwaving.
Ill answer the question for you since youre trying to slither out of it.
Yes, it is illegal to ignore a final removal order. So, even if they are "remaining on private property" they are still breaking the law.
This isn't tag.
This post was edited on 1/22/26 at 10:22 am
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The things that MAGA has rejected is getting stunning
Capitalism
Non-interventionism
States' rights
Textualism
....now the 4th Amendment
Stunning but not surprising
They're useful idiots
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:23 am to 4cubbies
quote:
you're comparing apples to oranges.
If the comparison is at the fruit level then the comparison is fine.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:24 am to Azkiger
quote:
The reframing occurred when you pretended someone choosing to remain on private property (devoid of ANY other context) was relevant to this discussion.
It's a central part of a discussion about using admin warrants to violate the 4th Amendment and enter that private property.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The state still has to follow the law in order to serve that warrant, and the person is doing nothing illegal by remaining in a private residence.
You're required to report to ice when you have a removal order.
The illegal knows this the lawyer knows this, the lawyer is advising their client to break the law.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's a central part of a discussion about using admin warrants to violate the 4th Amendment and enter that private property
Who here was arguing its illegal to remain on your property with no other context?
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:30 am to Powerman
Outside of a handful of Libs, you are by far the biggest dumbass on the board. You clutch your pearls every other day. I am sorry Mitt Romney isn’t President
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:38 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Immigration judges are administrative judges.
Liberals are correct that much of immigration is "civil" in nature, not criminal.
The reason for that is largely so immigration enforcement matters can be streamlined. If you made immigration violations criminal then courts would get bogged down - for example, enforcement litigation would be subject to federal evidentiary rules and if the crime was a felony, the accused would have a right to counsel, etc.
We do not want that. Litigation would take months and even years.
So, make the matter civil and you can have administrative enforcement outside the bounds of real (Article III) judges. Immigration judges are not real judges - they are employees of the Attorney General.
The idea that you have the Executive drafting a "warrant" enabling the Executive to enter a private residence is the type of shite we fought the Revolutionary War over. And it is why the early founders wanted a 4th Amendment.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:39 am to JimEverett
I'm not arguing facts, just your og post.
They can search your auto, camp (anything that is within your camp) consent not needed. If your private home is on the private property that you hunt, it gets a little fuzzy at that point however, they will, and have held people in custody up to 72 hours to get the warrant. Once they get that thing, Katy bar the door.
Something as simple as posting a pic on FB or what have you, after you've harvested your game without the tag on it can cause you a massive headache.
Show me a man, I'll find you a crime.
I don't like anymore than you do.
They can search your auto, camp (anything that is within your camp) consent not needed. If your private home is on the private property that you hunt, it gets a little fuzzy at that point however, they will, and have held people in custody up to 72 hours to get the warrant. Once they get that thing, Katy bar the door.
Something as simple as posting a pic on FB or what have you, after you've harvested your game without the tag on it can cause you a massive headache.
quote:
exigent circumstances
Show me a man, I'll find you a crime.
I don't like anymore than you do.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:42 am to FATBOY TIGER
I see. Honestly seems like interesting stuff to me.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:43 am to FATBOY TIGER
I think we can all agree W/F (at the state and federal level) are given way too much ability to intrude on private persons/property.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:46 am to JimEverett
quote:
The idea that you have the Executive drafting a "warrant" enabling the Executive to enter a private residence is the type of shite we fought the Revolutionary War over. And it is why the early founders wanted a 4th Amendment.
Sucks to be put in this position by democrats.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:47 am to JimEverett
quote:
The idea that you have the Executive drafting a "warrant" enabling the Executive to enter a private residence is the type of shite we fought the Revolutionary War over. And it is why the early founders wanted a 4th Amendment.
So if any evidence of a crime were uncovered as part of execution of this administrative warrant , it would be inadmissible in a criminal trial, correct?
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:47 am to Azkiger
quote:
Sucks to be put in this position by democrats.
Emotional-based rhetoric. Nonsense.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Emotional-based rhetoric. Nonsense.
Even after all the instances, it's still interesting how someone as emotionally unstable as yourself can be triggered by a simple statement of irrefutable fact.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:49 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
So if any evidence of a crime were uncovered as part of execution of this administrative warrant , it would be inadmissible in a criminal trial, correct?
Yes.
At least until the Supreme Court upends 250 years of precedent.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Emotional-based rhetoric. Nonsense.
No borders no country.
Thats logical. Not emotional.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:50 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
someone as emotionally unstable as yourself
wtf?
quote:
can be triggered
Again, wtf?
quote:
a simple statement of irrefutable fact.
It's an opinion, not a fact, and it's nothing more than fear porn. Fear is an emotion.
Page 10 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News