Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Immigration Raids Circumventing the Fourth Amendment
Edward Schumacher-Matos writes in today's Washington Post that Immigration and Customs Enforcement teams conducting immigration rates are routinely violating the Fourth Amendment. After discussing a wrong-door immigration raid on a former Marine and his wife in Arizona, Schumacher-Matos explains:
It would be easy to dismiss the episode as isolated, but 100 seven-member teams of ICE agents across the country are regularly making similar house calls, usually in the pre-dawn hours, in SWAT-like raids with shotguns and automatic rifles, sometimes crawling through open windows. In place of search warrants issued by a judge, ICE agents carry administrative warrants issued by one of their own officials that require that they "knock and talk" to gain entry into a home, a policy often abused...
The raids are supposed to be aimed at fugitive illegal immigrants who have committed criminal acts, but it appears they're being used to rope up non-criminal undocumented workers (illegal immigration is a violation of civil law, not criminal law).
The "knock and talk" warrants require the police to get permission before entering. But that didn't happen in the wrong-door example Schumacher-Matos used to lead off his column. And it doesn't appear to be happening elsewhere, either.
The Cardozo study examined 700 arrests between 2006 and 2008 on Long Island and in New Jersey and found that agents said they had not received informed consent to enter the homes in 86 percent of the Long Island cases and 24 percent of the New Jersey ones. Conflicting information in the New Jersey arrest records suggests that the reported consent there was often fabricated or misreported, the Cardozo study says.
Two-thirds of the arrests were happenstance -- they were mostly of Latinos whose only crime was a civil one of working here illegally. "The high percentage of collateral arrests is consistent with allegations that ICE agents are using home raids for purported targets as a pretext to enter homes" and arrest as many people as they can to meet quotas that in 2006 were increased eightfold to 1,000 a year per team, the report said.
Violations were so flagrant on Long Island that local police withdrew their support and accused ICE of being reckless and dangerous, and of undermining a relationship of trust with the Latino community that had been helping to reduce crime. Mounting evidence elsewhere suggests that the raids are out of control nationally.
It looks as if we can add "illegal immigration" to the growing list of issues so critical, they deserve exceptions to the Fourth Amendment.
the innominate one|8.1.09 @ 6:15PM|#
How about a constitutional amendment clearly making the castle doctrine a constitutional right? That would stop a lot of wrong door raids of any kind, I bet.
Anonymous|8.1.09 @ 7:25PM|#
How about a constitutional amendment clearly making the
castle doctrine a constitutional right?
You'd have to convince the courts property rights are worth
protecting, first.
|8.1.09 @ 7:29PM|#
These politicians voted Against the Nathan Deal Amendment, that would Prevent Health Care Benefits to Illegal Aliens. Simply put--it's not their BLOODY MONEY! So what! Do they care if taxpayers have to foot the behemoth bill, for anybody who snubs our laws and enters a sovereign country called America? The nationwide parasites are --CHEAP LABOR--businesses who could care less, because they pile up enormous profits. The corporate hierarchy have been having a field day--FOR DECADES. A foreign national gets hurt, their service manager or whoever the underling is, drives the maimed person and relinquishes any responsibility by dumping them on the emergency hospital entrance way. BINGO! nothing to pay!
|8.1.09 @ 7:30PM|#
It looks as if we can add "illegal immigration" to the
growing list of exemptions to the Fourth Amendment.
Silly Radley, as far as a lot of anti-immigration people are
concerned, wetbacks don't have rights.
How about a constitutional amendment clearly making the castle
doctrine a constitutional right?
And then the pigs will just come in with even more overwhelming
force, for "safety".
Anonymous|8.1.09 @ 8:14PM|#
Anonymous - non sequitur?
I know, for over a century and a half courts have shredded the
Constitution and the rights it's founded on. But I can dream,
right?
qwerty|8.1.09 @ 8:16PM|#
It looks as if we can add "illegal immigration" to the
growing list of exemptions to the Fourth Amendment.
Would that be so terrible? As an example, prisoners are exempt from
the 4th amendment. A warden can search a cell without a warrant. In
addition, people who have escaped from jail are not protected by
the 4th amendment either. For instance, the police can enter their
house and rearrest them without a warrant to enter the house. The
justification is that since they ought to be in jail at that
moment, giving them 4th amendment protection would be a reward for
illegal behavior. The same reasoning can be applied to illegal
immigrants (but not legal immigrants).
Gilbert Martin|8.1.09 @ 8:35PM|#
non-criminal undocumented workers (illegal immigration is a
violation of civil law, not criminal law).
Which still makes the violater a criminal.
|8.1.09 @ 8:54PM|#
For instance, the police can enter their house and rearrest
them without a warrant to enter the house.
Nonsense. Unless the police see the escaped prisoner flee into the
house while in pursuit, they cannot simply enter a house they
suspect is hiding him without a warrant.
The same reasoning can be applied to illegal
immigrants
Wrong again. Even if your reasoning was right, which it isn't, that
would not be true. In the case of the escaped prisoner, there is
the minor difference in that he has actually been, you know,
convicted of a crime.
(but not legal immigrants)
Thanks for making that clear, I'm sure we'd have all been confused
otherwise.
the innominate one|8.1.09 @ 9:03PM|#
Anonymous - what I meant was, a constitutional amendment plainly stating the castle doctrine wouldn't need to rely on convincing the courts of anything. The courts aren't involved in passing or approving amendments.
|8.1.09 @ 9:10PM|#
Just how bad do you have to fuck up in law enforcement for the local P.D. to quit working with you?
|8.1.09 @ 9:26PM|#
Which still makes the violater a criminal.
No it doesn't. Not all violations of the law make you a criminal.
If you get caught for speeding are you a criminal?
If you haven't violated a criminal statute, you're not a
criminal.
Anonymous|8.1.09 @ 9:32PM|#
The courts aren't involved in passing or approving
amendments.
Right; they're involved in ignoring the constitution in order to
convict you of wounding a burgler.
the innominate one|8.1.09 @ 9:46PM|#
John, there's no need to post anonymously, you know. An idiot by any other name is still an idiot.
24AheadDotCom|8.1.09 @ 9:52PM|#
Here's a Radley Balko joke:
* [silence]
* Who's there?
* [silence]
* [blam! blam! blam!]
And, here's a "libertarians who support illegal activity"
joke:
* [silence]
* Who's there?
* "We're a consortium of business groups and we also support
illegal activity because we're corrupt and we want to give you
money to help us make more money. Yes, we're seeking
MassiveSubsidies, we're encouraging illegal activity, we're
encouraging PoliticalCorruption, we're supporting a foreign
government obtaining PoliticalPower inside the U.S. and all the
rest, but we've got a nice check for your group."
* "Come on in!"
<a/|8.1.09 @ 9:53PM|#
Would that be so terrible?
Not really. I wouldn't mind adding a provision allowing us to
deport their sympathizers along with the illegals, either.
|8.1.09 @ 10:11PM|#
There's a surreal aspect to your attempts at comedy that I find intriguing, LoneBoner.
the innominate one|8.1.09 @ 10:12PM|#
Shut the fuck up, LonelyWacker. And no more of your juvenile ad homs, either.
|8.1.09 @ 10:47PM|#
Never forget, illegal immigrants aren't entitled to basic human rights because they aren't humans. Right?
|8.1.09 @ 11:00PM|#
Enough with the LIE that the 'undocumented workers' are not
criminals.
Identity theft is a crime. All workers must provide a SSN. An
'undocumented worker' who gives a false SSN is committing a
crime.
If the criminal did not provide a SSN, then his employer is a
criminal and the 'undocumented' is an active accessory. They are
also committing tax evasion (a crime).
If the 'undocumented worker' is not working, but spunging off the
system, they have to provide a SSN to register for benefits (again
identify theft) not to mention theft of services.
I wish that as much 'civil liberty' knashing of teeth and hand
wringing was spent upon the real victims of the 'undocumented'
criminal's actions -- people whose SSN are used by these people and
those people killed on our highways by illegals who should have
been sent home.
Bingo|8.2.09 @ 1:38AM|#
Oh my god, I saw an ICE team at a gas station the other day at like 1:30AM when I was buying some last minute beers. They were literally decked head-to-toe in SWAT garb, complete with body armor, and grabbing handfuls of energy drinks. These guys act like a bunch of power tripping adrenaline junkies, with about the maturity of a high school football team. Definitely not a group of people that should be wielding arbitrary authority like they do.
|8.2.09 @ 1:59AM|#
Damn, Bingo, you should have fucked with them. If I saw an ICE
team all decked out like that, I would have called them every name
in the book. What could they possibly do? Deport me?
Of course, the possibility of not getting those last minute beers
might persuade me to say nothing. Damn my priorities.
Art-P.O.G.|8.2.09 @ 4:12AM|#
What could they possibly do? Deport me?
We haven't seen your long-form birth certificate. You might be
an IllegalImmigrant.
Oh, and not cool ICE, not cool.
zoltan|8.2.09 @ 5:54AM|#
Not really. I wouldn't mind adding a provision allowing us
to deport their sympathizers along with the illegals,
either.
I was never one for the First Amendment either.
Art-P.O.G.|8.2.09 @ 6:19AM|#
There's a surreal aspect to your attempts at comedy that I find intriguing, LoneBoner.
I can't tell where the punchlines are.
edna|8.2.09 @ 8:41AM|#
I can't tell where the punchlines are.
that's a jonestown joke. wrong thread.
Fluffy|8.2.09 @ 11:22AM|#
Gilbert Martin and the other fucking dumbass who posted the
"Damn right illegal immigrants are criminals!" stuff are too stupid
to realize that by doing so they're undermining the justification
for the practice Radley is attacking.
The ICE is able to conduct these warrantless arrests and searches
precisely because of the argument that this is a civil and not a
criminal violation. If the State agreed with you about illegal
immigrants, they'd need actual judicial warrants.
Personally, I believe that any violation that can result in your
being brought to a jail is a "criminal" violation, and should
require a judicial warrant. The entire "it's a civil violation!"
nonsense is just garbage invented to avoid the 4th amendment and
jury trials and every other constitutional protection persons
accused of a crime are supposed to have in this country.
If the state can take away your liberty or property as a result of
the case, the state should be required to consider the matter part
of criminal law and should be required to supply due process and
all constitutional protections associated with criminal law.
|8.2.09 @ 12:58PM|#
Just how bad do you have to fuck up in law enforcement for
the local P.D. to quit working with you?
[Flashes two thumbs up to BB] Shitloads?
|8.2.09 @ 1:03PM|#
There's a surreal aspect to your attempts at comedy that I find intriguing, LoneBoner.
I can't tell where the punchlines are.
You actually still read the moron's comments? Do you jab
knitting needles into your thighs as well?
BakedPenguin|8.2.09 @ 1:58PM|#
You actually still read the moron's comments?
How many people Googled Miss South Carolina's speech? Granted,
she's at least good looking, but I have to imagine most of them did
so more for the "train wreck" aspect rather than her cuteness.
Xeones|8.2.09 @ 2:12PM|#
I, for one, still read LoneWacko's delicately stale-semen-and-hot-dog-scented crayon scribblings. I find it useful to be reminded that there are truly shitty, hateful people in the world, lest i go through life with glasses too rose-tinted, and through my blissful inaction de facto endorse them should they get hold of any actual influence. Shut the fuck up, LoneWacko.
24AheadDotCom |8.2.09 @ 4:00PM|#
Xeones,
I really wish you would come to my cite more. I wager you would
find us more alike than you think. In fact, I am willing to send
you pictures of me blowing myself if you will come visit my
cite.
Deal?
|8.2.09 @ 4:23PM|#
"The raids are supposed to be aimed at fugitive illegal
immigrants who have committed criminal acts, but it appears they're
being used to rope up non-criminal undocumented workers (illegal
immigration is a violation of civil law, not criminal law)."
That depends. If someone enters the country illegally and are
caught (assuming no amnesty or other issues), the general remedy is
deportation. This is a civi/administrative law violation.
However, if such a person re-enters the country, they can be
charged with illegal re-entry. Many times the decision about
whether to prosecute on such a charge is discretionary. The feds
can leave the matter as an administrative/immigration matter, or
they could charge someone with a federal crime.
If someone has been ordered deported as the result of a previous
criminal offense (which could be as little as yelling at a
significant other - a domestic violence 'offense') and they then
re-enter the country, they would face serious jail time.
That said, Radley's point is a good one - immigration enforcement
is being used to do an end-around on the 4th Amendment. That is a
troubling development.
|8.2.09 @ 4:35PM|#
lest i go through life with glasses too
rose-tinted,
I think you are safe on this one.
|8.2.09 @ 4:59PM|#
i thought the fed was set to hold immigration rates
steady?
for all the people who don't understand why this is wrong, it's
this simple: they don't always get the right effing door! you can
argue all day about whether illegals merit 4th amendment
protection, but there is no question everybody else does!
dumbasses! i hope they kick in your door next!
Bri|8.2.09 @ 8:38PM|#
How about instead of trying to deport them (they'll come back
hell or high water), the IRS forces them to pay taxes just like the
rest of us? And go after the employers such as farmers who are
paying their workers under the table?
That's one viable solution to this problem, and I think it's
win-win.
|8.2.09 @ 8:38PM|#
Identity theft is a crime. All workers must provide a SSN.
Identity theft is a crime. All workers must provide a
SSN.
Wouldn't it be great if there were some other number that
'undocumented workers' could use where an SSN is required? Perhaps
there could be some sort of Individual Taxpayer Identification
Number that would suffice for all purposes of the IRS and others.
It would be even better if these so-called ITINs could be
distinguished from SSNs so someone could not receive government
benefits that require an SSN. They could be used only to pay
taxes.
Then there would be no identity theft, and the collateral damage to
legal residents would be taken care of. That would be great.
Spartacus|8.2.09 @ 8:58PM|#
Hmm, let's see...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized."
Nope, I don't see the word "citizen" or "legal immigrant" in there
anywhere. I guess the argument must be that illegal immigrants
aren't actually "people".
Continuing...
"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in
any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation."
It says "any person" again. I guess those goddamn Messicans aren't
really people after all.
B|8.2.09 @ 9:10PM|#
"...non-criminal undocumented workers..."
Man, spare us the bullshit "it is a civil law" nonsense. If you are
here illegally, it is obvious you are BREAKING THE FUCKING LAW.
Non-criminal undocumented workers? Did you borrow that from the
same Dept. of Euphemisms in the Obama administration that came up
with "man caused disasters"? What is with this site and
intellectual property theft and illegal immigration ? I get so sick
and tired of the rationalizations used on this site to condone the
violation of American law. These fucking people are here illegally.
If they don't like having their asses thrown in jail, don't break
the fucking law.
And we could also do without the stupid fucking assholes on this
site, include the stupid fuck posting directly above me, who play
the fucking race card every time this issue comes up. The same
fuckers who heap scorn on the left for playing the race card every
chance they get also seem to be the same hypocritical fucks who
pull it out of the deck every time ILLEGAL immigration is brought
up.
|8.2.09 @ 9:22PM|#
I get so sick and tired of the rationalizations used on this
site to condone the violation of American law. These fucking people
are here illegally.
I'm curious... Would you have taken the same position in 1855 about
the Fugitive Slave Law?
If not, why not?
If so, is there any law that might be passed that you would think
it would be okay to circumvent?
Elemenope|8.2.09 @ 9:52PM|#
B's ancestors are clearly all Native Americans. I mean, if that
were the case, then he'd have a right to be both morally haughty
and damn pissed.
But woe betide him if his moral high horse has some rotten legs in
the form of illegal immigrants in his family's past....
Paul|8.2.09 @ 11:50PM|#
How about a constitutional amendment clearly making the
castle doctrine a constitutional right? That would stop a lot of
wrong door raids of any kind, I bet.
Combined with a strong second amendment, I'd agree. Without a
strong second amendment, the Castle Doctrine is reduced to you
using harsh words when the bad guys are crawling through your
window.
Elemenope|8.3.09 @ 12:27AM|#
Combined with a strong second amendment, I'd agree. Without
a strong second amendment, the Castle Doctrine is reduced to you
using harsh words when the bad guys are crawling through your
window.
You can also hit them with kitchenware.
Paul|8.3.09 @ 1:17AM|#
You can also hit them with kitchenware.
Whisk them to death? Throw tupperware? Threaten them with a William
Sonoma Deluxe Cherry Pitter...mmmmmenacingly?
Actually, I'm liking the visuals.
Abdul|8.3.09 @ 8:26AM|#
(illegal immigration is a violation of civil law, not
criminal law).
Sorry, Radley, but illegal immigration is a crime. 8 U.S.C. 1325.
As i understand it, this section is rarely enforced because
deportation is the preferred solution, but it's still a crime.
Elemenope|8.3.09 @ 10:40AM|#
Whisk them to death? Throw tupperware? Threaten them with a
William Sonoma Deluxe Cherry Pitter...mmmmmenacingly?
You have to use the heavy pointy bits.
|8.3.09 @ 2:08PM|#
If only Obama knew...
Speaking of which, isn't one his relatives here illegally? Whatever
became of that?
|8.3.09 @ 3:58PM|#
She's still here - Boston, I think. The government should have no trouble finding her since they (we) are paying for her housing. Goose, gander, etc.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245