🚨HOLY CRAP. An ICE whistleblower just revealed a secret memo authorizing ICE officers to break into homes without a judicial warrant, which DHS's own legal training materials say is unconstitutional!
ICE then hid the memo from the public, passing it along by word of mouth.
ICE secretly told its officers that any time someone has been ordered removed, ICE can break down their door.
It has been accepted for generations that the only thing which can authorize agents to break into your home is a warrant signed by a judge. No wonder ICE hid this memo!
Chillingly, the whistleblower says that ICE trainers were directed (no paper trail?) to train all of ICE's new recruits that these administrative warrants authorize breaking into peoples' homes, even though DHS's own training materials still make clear that's illegal!
The memo cites no legal authority, only a further secret DHS General Counsel (replaced early on by a Trump loyalist) opinion saying administrative warrants filled out by an ICE officer authorize breaking into homes of people ordered removed. Here's what such a warrant looks like.
This is the Trump administration trashing the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution in pursuit of its mass deportation agenda.
Worse, a footnote to this memo suggest they won't even rule out authorizing home invasions with no judicial warrant for people not even ordered removed!
In short, this secret memo explains SO MUCH of what we've been seeing over the last months, including this raid of a home in Minneapolis where ICE officers presented no judicial warrant before breaking in the door.
Turns out they were secretly told they don't need one!
In a sign of how explosive ICE knew this secret memo would be, one whistleblower says he was only allowed to read the memo and was barred from taking note, and warned that employees had been punished for disagreeing.
At least one ICE instructor resigned rather than teach it!
At a time of unprecedented daily scandals, this this whistleblower complaint, and the memo it reveals for the first time, breaks through for me as beyond the pale.
It's the federal government conspiring in secret to subvert the Fourth Amendment.
Today the Supreme Court hears a case that will decide the fate of over 350,000 people currently living legally in the United States — and impact thousands more who are still in limbo.
So what is Temporary Protected Status and what is the case about? NEW 🧵 on the issue.
Temporary Protected Status was created to deal with the fact that sometimes, due to an outbreak of war, political crisis, or natural disaster, deportation becomes inhumane.
Without a law to address this, presidents responded on an ad hoc basis using inherent executive authority.
Before TPS, Presidents used a thing called "extended voluntary departure" to address these crisis. For example:
- Ford gave EVD to Lebanese in 1976 due to civil war
- Carter gave EVD to Ugandans in 1978 due to civil war
- Reagan gave EVD to Poles in 1981 due to Soviet crackdowns
From FY 2021 through FY 2024, roughly 3.5 million people became U.S. citizens through naturalization. The idea that Biden is somehow personally responsible if any of them later went on to commit crimes is beyond stupid; it's willfully ignorant and deliberately inflammatory.
Neither @nypost or @DHSgov has EVER blamed Trump for any crimes committed by an immigrant who entered the country or got status under Trump. Not once.
It's because they KNOW it's not a good faith argument.
Wait, sorry, so now the Trump admin is attempting to strip green cards from people just because of who their families are?! And people are cheering this on?
People with DACA came here as children. Every one of them has been here for a minimum 19 years. They grew up here. They went to school here. Many speak English with no accent. They are working legally, paying taxes, doing everything right.
Because that's not something a President can do. Only Congress can provide a path to permanent legal status for most DACA recipients. And Congress has sat on its ass for years, even though huge majorities of the American public supports the DREAM Act.
In 2018, the Supreme Court said DACA might be legal if it only protected against deportation, not provided work permits. The 5th Circuit, the most conservative in the country, upheld that version and limited their ruling only to Texas (the plaintiff).
Here I was thinking that what mattered was every single judge who has ruled on the issue, 125+ years of accepted understanding of the 14th, and centuries of common law on the contours of jus soli. But if you have SEVEN law professors, man, WOW.
Less sarcastically, this article has a GLARING flaw: dual citizenship. Many children of U.S. citizens acquire foreign citizenship at birth under jus sanguinis and so would not have an "exclusive" allegiance to the US under this theory. That can't be right.
If "exclusive allegiance" is required, then how could that cover Wong Kim Ark himself, who was a dual national?
Hamburger's answer is that U.S. law at the time did not recognize dual nationality. That's a bizarre answer that raises more questions than it answers.
The overwhelming majority of Americans (polls show over 80%) oppose the deportation of people like this woman. In every previous administration, including Trump's first, this woman would not have been a priority for enforcement.
You can't get a fiancé visa from inside the country, and thanks to failed laws Congress passed 30 years ago, getting a green card through her husband could be either near-impossible or could take 3-5 years minimum. It's not as simple as most people think.
In 1996, Congress said that people wanting to get a green card through a US citizen spouse, who had originally entered illegally, had to leave the US and get a visa, which triggers a 10-year ban on reentry.