DOJ memo: "Reasonable belief' authorizes warrantless entry under Alien Enemy Act

[Oldandtired]

You don’t value American citizens rights. Covid and red flag laws prove you don’t.

[Oldandtired]

Did you protest all those red flag laws the democrat states passed? If not, you already approved warrantless entry.

[PurpnGold]

@Oldandtired

Did you protest all those red flag laws the democrat states passed? If not, you already approved warrantless entry.

Red flag laws? Nothing to do with warrantless entry.

[FloridaYankee]

@peek-a-boo

@FloridaYankee

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me

Not remotely relevant to terrorism. LIBs believe terrorism is much to do about nothing. Thank God Trump is taking it seriously.

It has everything to do with due process. We are responsible for imprisoning people with no due process even if it is in a foreign country. They have certain rights that are not being met.

[peek-a-boo]

@PurpnGold

Red flag laws? Nothing to do with warrantless entry.

DOJ memo says nothing about a warrantless entry. The difference is an administrative warrant versus a judicial warrant. They are both legal, depending on the circumstance.

[peek-a-boo]

@FloridaYankee

It has everything to do with due process. We are responsible for imprisoning people with no due process even if it is in a foreign country. They have certain rights that are not being met.

Terrorists are being afforded the due process outlined in AEA.

[Tguns]

@PurpnGold

Red flag laws? Nothing to do with warrantless entry.

No, it’s just stripping rights without due process.

Edit: let me rephrase that…it’s just stripping rights.

[Tguns]

@peek-a-boo

With the DOJ memo, we are talking only about Tren de Aragua terrorists.

That is concerning to me. POTUS claims “x” is a threat to the country and THAT alleviates the government from restrictions on acting on “x”.

That’s an Obama ideal.

[peek-a-boo]

@Tguns

That is concerning to me. POTUS claims “x” is a threat to the country and THAT alleviates the government from restrictions on acting on “x”.

That’s an Obama ideal.

I’m not following. Could you clarify your comment?

[Tguns]

I’m just going to put this out there:

If you’re truly concerned about keeping your rights, you need to defend ALL of them…not just those you find convenient.

[peek-a-boo]

@Gaius

I am saying if they have a good reason to enter someone’s home
(someone who might just be a Puerto Rican whom they thought was a Dominican) then they should be able to convince a third party of that.

If they cannot convince a third party of that then probably their judgment is clouded and they should not doit.

The DOJ memo specifically targets Tren de Aragua gang members. DHS has already identified persons of interest and they are moving to detain those specific individuals. They would only enter a home, if they had a strong suspicion that specific person of interest was in the home at the time.

Depending on the specific set of circumstances, an administrative warrant would be sufficient. The memo outlines circumstances where a judicial warrant might instead be required.

[Tguns]

@peek-a-boo

I’m not following. Could you clarify your comment?

I’m not going to rehash my argument here ( no offense to you, I’m just too lazy). So, I’ll just say this.

Government does not have the authority to deem something a threat to you, then use that to act with extraordinary power for “your own good”.

And we have seen that all too often over the last few decades.

[peek-a-boo]

@Tguns

I’m just going to put this out there:

If you’re truly concerned about keeping your rights, you need to defend ALL of them…not just those you find convenient.

But we really aren’t talking about anyone giving up their rights. The AEA specifically targets alien enemies of the state. It outlines who they are and how they should be handled. That is exactly what the administration is attempting to do. They aren’t violating our rights.

[peek-a-boo]

@Tguns

Government does not have the authority to deem something a threat to you, then use that to act with extraordinary power for “your own good”.

The Secretary of State was given the authority to designate a foreign organization as a terrorist organization. The SOS was given that power by congress. Within that authority, Rubio designated Tre de Aragua a terrorist organization. The DOJ memo then outlines how they will deal with that terrorist threat using AEA.

Trump’s authority to use the act was challenged. SCOTUS weighed in and said the administration had the authority to use it.

I fail to see the problem. Everything is being done by the book, legally. There are still pending cases, and the administration isn’t defying the judges. They are appealing and waiting for the cases to play out.

[Tguns]

@peek-a-boo

But we really aren’t talking about anyone giving up their rights. The AEA specifically targets alien enemies of the state. It outlines who they are and how they should be handled. That is exactly what the administration is attempting to do. They aren’t violating our rights.

I understand your argument. But to me, the AEA itself is unconstitutional. It invests too much power in POTUS.

[peek-a-boo]

@Tguns

I understand your argument. But to me, the AEA itself is unconstitutional. It invests too much power in POTUS.

The AEA has survived for almost 250 years. It provides emergency relief to a real threat from alien enemy incursions. Trump’s FBI sees Venezuela sponsoring the Tre de Aragua gangs and sending them to our country. That could pose a real threat, and Trump is dealing with it. SCOTUS has weighed in and says Trump is using AEA properly.

[JayJay]

@DougBH

Democrats are willing to go along with deportations of illegal aliens, just not in any manner that would actually make it possible to return more than a small portion of the millions who have been allowed in without any basis for permanent residence.

It’s not a Dem v GOP thing, or shouldn’t be.

No one should be happy with either imprisonment without due process or a warrantless search of someone’s home, which in the past was only ever allowed in an emergency situation (i.e. police trailed suspects from a crime scene to a private residence, and then had strong reason to believe the suspects would dispose of the evidence of a crime).

No one should be happy with expanding the government’s ability to infringe on rights because they were scared into doing it.

Every time in our history when we have done so, it’s been a bad look for us.

Plenty of ways to deport illegals. Only MAGAs are so scared of our imminent collapse that they think all illegals have to be out within 6 months or so.

How are you not understanding any of this?

[JayJay]

@peek-a-boo

@Gaius

Yeah, umm,
even if the DOJ get’s its way on this there is >0 protection for suspects,
but I don’t think it is enough.

Convince at least one third party (in our system that means a judge) that search and/or apprehension is being done on good grounds . . . or don’t do it.

The search is to apprehend a named individual. Either that person is there, or he isn’t. What role would a judge play? In that regard, illegal aliens are detained every day without need for a warrant to detain them.

Within the context of the AEA, there is nothing in the act stating a judge has any role. It is an alien enemies act, designed to swiftly remove a real threat.

Wow amazing that you think the AEA is some all powerful act that gives the President the power to overrule Constitutional amendments.

[WuWei]

@thinkingman

@WuWei

At least we’re not playing the pretense of “reasonable articulable suspicion” anymore.

Cops never understood it. Because they’re stupid.

So now “I believe you are…” is enough! Excellent. Now we can get serious!

this applies to “tren de aragua” members.

[WuWei]

Sure, whatever you say.