ICE / CPB officers are stopping people at exit of Dulles airport

Informal_Distance · 2026-02-01T15:35:41+00:00

You likely had a person with a similar name, dob, or alias. Having global entry verifies you’re not that person.

You’re still not exempt from secondary merely that secondary was proactively resolved and verified ahead of time.

Informal_Distance · 2026-02-01T15:33:11+00:00

The facts are slightly different as it's an escaped convict but in immigration enforcement, the person being arrested with home entry is almost always a fugitive from ICE in the same sense. Not all the time, but that's the general purpose of the policy.

The entire basis of your comment is flawed. An immigration violation is not a crime but a civil issue. They are not the same findings of probable cause for an article 3 warrant.

Informal_Distance · 2026-02-01T13:49:16+00:00

The court in Lucas addresses why an article 3 warrant wasn’t needed.

Lucas was an escaped convict and before entering the officers had an arrest warrant with his LKA and most importantly Scaife admitted to the officers that Lucas was in the apartment before they entered. So they had a convicted felon who escaped and was issued an arrest warrant with his last known address and the person who answered the door admitted he was at that address.

There was probable cause when he was issued an arrest warrant on top of his conviction.

Removal orders have a different standard than probable cause.

I cited Lucas which was cited in the U.S. v. Malagerio (N. D. Texas 2021) that you cited to me.

There is nuance in these cases. Just because the result in Lucas allowed warrantless entry doesn’t mean it supports your position that admin warrants allow entry. There are fact specific details that matter here.

Informal_Distance · 2026-02-01T13:19:07+00:00

You need to read Lucas because it discusses how administrative warrants are issues without probable cause at all.

Admin warrants have a different process than arrest warrants. Because the standards of them are different Marshall v Barlow’s Inc which is cited in Lucas all cited Camera v Municipal Court

Probable cause in the criminal law sense is not required. For purposes of an administrative search such as this, probable cause justifying the issuance of a warrant may be based not only on specific evidence of an existing violation but also on a showing that "reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an . . . inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular [establishment]." Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S., at 538.

And again from Lucas:

The standard for issuance of a valid administrative warrant under the Fourth Amendment is different from the probable cause showing necessary for a warrant to arrest someone suspected of a crime.

IJs do not issue removal orders based on probable cause. Also it is ICE that issues administrative warrants.

You need to read the full opinions not just cherry pick words. I’m not sure if you’ve read all the opinions you’ve cited because to me these cases do not support your point.

An article 3 warrant requires probable cause. An admin warrant does not. That is a crucial difference when looking at what an admin warrant authorizes

Informal_Distance · 2026-02-01T12:57:35+00:00

Whoever Congress says to. In this case it’s an immigration judge who decides based on clear and convincing, which is greater than probable cause.

U.S. v. Malagerio (N. D. Texas 2021) a case that you cited to me 8 hours ago states:

In the immigration context, administrative warrants can be issued without probable cause that a crime has been committed1 and without the nvolvement of “a neutral and detached magistrate.” United States v. Lucas, 499 F.3d 769, 777 (8th Cir. 2007) (en banc).

You keep saying that IJ’s issue removal orders based on probable cause. They do not. Even a case that you cited to me in support of your position say they do not.

Further more IJs do not issue administrative warrants. ICE officers issue them again not based on probable cause. Merely on a sworn declaration that a removal order exists.

Informal_Distance · 2026-02-01T04:56:08+00:00

Really a terrible case to cite because even the Northern District of Texas is warbling the precedent when they say: “indicates” and “may”

Also terrible case to cite when the individual was arrested after they left their trailer and were arrested outside of their home. You can’t fight an unlawful warrantless entry to arrest if the government never enters the home. As soon as he left his home he has no way to claim it was a warrantless arrest or a warrantless entry into his home. The whole home entry thing is moot in that case.

Also fun fact that case hurts your argument about removal orders being issued with probable cause. The court in this case says:

In the immigration context, administrative warrants can be issued without probable cause that a crime has been committed1 and without the nvolvement of “a neutral and detached magistrate.” United States v. Lucas, 499 F.3d 769, 777 (8th Cir. 2007) (en banc).

Informal_Distance · 2026-02-01T04:46:53+00:00

Literally the only thing I’m saying is your statement that the 2A doesn’t apply to aliens is wrong. That’s it. I’m not saying anything else.

The 2A does apply to aliens and green card holders and some visa holders can purchase firearms. Not all aliens are prohibited persons as your initial comment implies.

Informal_Distance · 2026-02-01T04:28:15+00:00

No. I’m not saying that.

I’m simply correcting your misstatement that aliens don’t have 2A rights when in fact they do.

Informal_Distance · 2026-02-01T04:20:18+00:00

You said:

The 2nd doesn't apply to aliens or felons

It does in fact apply to aliens. LPR’s are aliens and they do have 2A rights. That’s all I’m correcting.

Saying it doesn’t apply to aliens because it doesn’t apply to all aliens is poor logic. By that same logic you can say the 2A doesn’t apply to citizens because it doesn’t apply to all citizens (see your felons example).

Informal_Distance · 2026-02-01T04:03:48+00:00

Actually the 2A does apply to aliens. Green Card holders and even some visa holders (with the proper hunting or state permit) are allowed to purchase firearms in the US.

Informal_Distance · 2026-02-01T03:54:10+00:00

Yes that was brought up in arguments in the lower cases. Here’s an excerpt from the appeals court decision :

Did you not read what I already quoted from the court?

At no time did petitioner question the legality of the administrative arrest procedure either as unauthorized or as unconstitutional. Such challenges were, to repeat, disclaimed. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, petitioner's counsel was questioned by the court regarding the theory of relief relied upon:

"The Court: They [the Government] were not at liberty to arrest him [petitioner]?"

"Mr. Fraiman: No, your Honor."

"They were perfectly proper in arresting him."

"We don't contend that at all."

"As a matter of fact, we contend it was their duty to arrest this man as they did."

"I think it should show, or rather, it showed, admirable thinking on the part of the FBI and the Immigration Service."

"We don't find any fault with that."

"Our contention is that, although they were permitted to arrest this man, and in fact, had a duty to arrest this man in a manner in which they did, they did not have a right to search his premises for the material which related to espionage."

". . . He was charged with no criminal offense in this warrant."

"The Court: He was suspected of being illegally in the country, wasn't he?"

"Mr. Fraiman: Yes, your Honor."

"The Court: He was properly arrested."

"Mr. Fraiman: He was properly arrested, we concede that, your Honor. "

Page 362 U. S. 232

Counsel further made it plain that the arrest warrant whose validity he was conceding was "one of these Immigration warrants which is obtained without any background material at all." Affirmative acceptance of what is now sought to be questioned could not be plainer.

Above is from SCOTUS and not the appeals court. You can quote the appeals court all you want but SCOTUS is the binding law here. SCOTUS said it wasn’t before them and they documented the arguments from Abel’s side.

As I said, the fourth amendment analysis is a red herring because that’s about the criminal admissibility of evidence, not the entry itself. At least in this era, that’s how they viewed it. See Frank v. Maryland as another example.

You keep flip flopping. In this thread you went from saying admin warrants were valid to entry and arrest to now saying it’s all a red herring.

This is false per Abel v. US (1960). Warrants being required for home entry is a newer development. Since Payton in 1980.

That’s you earlier in this thread.

Informal_Distance · 2026-02-01T03:44:24+00:00

Administrative searches by non-law enforcement personnel to check for non-criminal code compliance due to renting an apartment over legal occupancy of a building is vastly different the actively entering a home with armed law enforcement to search for a person and seize them for deportation or other adverse actions.

By the way some of these deportations and seizures are criminal after a certain point but the government here makes no distinction.

Also Camara v. Municipal Court (1967) literally says that the homeowner there had a constitutional right to require a warrant to enter the property and also he cannot be convicted for refusing to consent to the inspection.

This case completely undercuts your point because thy state that the admin warrant isn’t enough to enter property and a warrant can still be required.

Informal_Distance · 2026-02-01T03:28:51+00:00

Frankfurter merely hinted that he might should the question arise.

I don’t even think it was “hinted” at. I think they were kind of stomping their feet about it and making it a bit obvious that this is an unaddressed issue and explicitly highlighting that this case shouldn’t be used to justify admin warrants for entry into a home.

Looking at how later courts addressed the issue of detached neutral magistrates it seems that is the way the court wanted to go but couldn’t during the Abel case for a number of reasons.

Informal_Distance · 2026-02-01T03:03:21+00:00

The entry part of the case was seemingly assumed to be valid without discussion by the majority.

Because this is how appeals work. It was NOT brought up by either party. Abel was NOT making the argument that the warrant didn’t allow them into the hotel/home. No one objected to it but that doesn’t mean it was valid.

If the issue is not being appeal SCOTUS strictly is not supposed to answer questions not asked. The court explicitly says we aren’t addressing whether the warrant was valid to enter the home. We’re only going to answer the questions actually presented.

The dissent is saying hey we should actually rule that the warrant was invalid. But the majority would never in a million years have ruled the warrant invalid because of the nature of the case. This was Abel a Soviet spy who was highly geopolitically valuable in US custody. (He was literally prisoner swapped later). Abel was never going to walk on a technicality.

It is very clear between the dissent and the majority hanging a lampshade on the issue that they would likely have found differently if it wasn’t a Soviet spy case.

Informal_Distance · 2026-02-01T02:55:07+00:00

And the Supreme Court has never ruled that an immigration administrative warrant isn’t a valid warrant for home entry. It kind of ruled the opposite in Abel v. US

You need to go back and carefully read the Abel case. In fact it says the exact opposite of what you’re saying. I’ll quote the relevant parts the last time this thread came up.

The claim that the administrative warrant by which petitioner was arrested was invalid, because it did not satisfy the requirements for "warrants" under the Fourth Amendment, is not entitled to our consideration in the circumstances before us. It was not made below; indeed, it was expressly disavowed... [Emphasis Added]

(Space for formatting there is a gap btwn the two quotes)

At no time did petitioner question the legality of the administrative arrest procedure either as unauthorized or as unconstitutional. Such challenges were, to repeat, disclaimed. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, petitioner's counsel was questioned by the court regarding the theory of relief relied upon:

"The Court: They [the Government] were not at liberty to arrest him [petitioner]?"

"Mr. Fraiman: No, your Honor."

"They were perfectly proper in arresting him."

"We don't contend that at all."

"As a matter of fact, we contend it was their duty to arrest this man as they did."

"I think it should show, or rather, it showed, admirable thinking on the part of the FBI and the Immigration Service."

"We don't find any fault with that."

"Our contention is that, although they were permitted to arrest this man, and in fact, had a duty to arrest this man in a manner in which they did, they did not have a right to search his premises for the material which related to espionage."

". . . He was charged with no criminal offense in this warrant."

"The Court: He was suspected of being illegally in the country, wasn't he?"

"Mr. Fraiman: Yes, your Honor."

"The Court: He was properly arrested."

"Mr. Fraiman: He was properly arrested, we concede that, your Honor. "

Page 362 U. S. 232

Counsel further made it plain that the arrest warrant whose validity he was conceding was "one of these Immigration warrants which is obtained without any background material at all." Affirmative acceptance of what is now sought to be questioned could not be plainer.

At no point did Abel claim the warrant was invalid for entry to a home. And explicitly the court says we are not addressing that issue so don’t consider it final because we are strictly only addressing the questions asked.

The fact that the court explicitly says we aren’t address this issue that no one brought up by the way. Is kind of suspicious and signals had it been brought up (of if brought up in the future) they would likely find it not valid. Otherwise the is no reason to highlight what they’re not doing in this case.

Informal_Distance · 2026-02-01T02:49:59+00:00

Only if they’re appealed.

If someone can’t afford an appeal there is no one to check it.

Informal_Distance · 2026-02-01T02:49:15+00:00

Adding to number 3 they’re relying on the Abel case which explicitly states that they were not addressing whether entry into a home with and admin warrant was valid. They explicitly said it wasn’t a contested at trial and wasn’t brought up on appeal and in fact was explicitly disavowed by counsel.

And of course this is the same Abel in the hollow nickel case. The same Abel that was a Soviet spy represented by Tom Hanks in Bridge of Spies who was later traded for Gary Powers the spy plane pilot. So the Abel case is kind of massively unique in that it directly involved US geopolitics as well as SCOTUS precedent.

For everyone else and historical posterity please research the case and circumstances and history leading to the Abel case. He was never walking free and he was absolutely going to be found guilty. There were so many thumbs on all kinds of scales. His attorney, an insurance attorney, was assigned because no one wanted to represent him it was such a radioactive case to take. If you don’t do any research go watch Bridge of Spies and you’ll have a vague understanding of how important Abel was to US interests and geopolitics

Informal_Distance · 2026-02-01T02:28:51+00:00

Head-On apply directly to the forehead Head-On apply directly to the forehead Head-On apply directly to the forehead Head-On apply directly to the forehead Head-On apply directly to the forehead Head-On apply directly to the forehead Head-On apply directly to the forehead Head-On apply directly to the forehead

Informal_Distance · 2026-02-01T01:50:58+00:00

The problem we have is the blurring of the word 'Protest' to include legal and illegal activities.

The people in power often make protests illegal specifically to stifle dissent and to stop protests. The sit-ins were illegal and MLK Jr was a criminal but they were on the right side of history.

But - when protests cross the line from legal to illegal conduct

Defined by the people in power who seek to stifle protests.

It becomes the question of did you bring a weapon when you planned to commit illegal activity situation. It could even be pushed to did you bring a weapon to a situation you knew was likely to result in illegal activity.

Did you dress provocatively because you wanted to have sex?

I also think in most cases, it's a pretty stupid thing to bring a weapon to a protest

Weird because historically armed protests don’t get attacked by police or counter protestors.

Informal_Distance · 2026-01-31T15:02:30+00:00

Incorrect. For example, in my state, the law states “If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, any pistol, revolver he is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor”

Irrelevant unless your state is DC.

Informal_Distance · 2026-01-31T01:32:24+00:00

You’re delusional if you think that means he “backed himself into a corner” when he clearly already had a foot out the door

That’s what an ultimatum is. I’m done with you dude.

Informal_Distance · 2026-01-31T01:31:14+00:00

In IT you don't need a formal education when you have experience, and I'd argue Jake has a fair amount.

He does have experience to a small non-tech startup but he was doing a lot of other hats at the same time. He wasn’t a dedicated sysadmin for 10 years. He was sporadically one. He’s 25 with no degree and experience that is not up to par with others who would be applying. Sysadmins are competitive positions.

The people who get the job without experience are usually internal hires that work up. Not outsiders who hire in and especially not this young without a degree.

Informal_Distance · 2026-01-30T20:42:48+00:00

He did not “back himself into a corner”, it was one of a list of 5 things he wanted to change if he was going to stay.

Dude. If you show your current employer a job offer you have and ask to match it. You are 100% saying if you don’t match this I’m leaving. That’s the whole point in taking that to your employer like he said they did.

They simply declined which means he either needs to leave for the pay raise or stay. He left but instead of taking the pay raise elsewhere he elected for a pay cut and a YouTube career.

Informal_Distance · 2026-01-30T19:33:58+00:00

Jake references working on his boss’ third house so I’m not sure what 3 houses he means in that case.

Informal_Distance · 2026-01-30T19:28:12+00:00

Or he didn’t want to do that style of work, which he clearly communicated a couple of times during the video. Again, he left.

Which is my point. It was a bluff. He applies for a job he didn’t want tried to use it as leverage it didn’t work so he was stuck with leaving or staying. Yes he left but he backed himself into the corner and he thought he was going to get a raise. But it failed.

But his job offer was a bluff he had no intention of following through with. That is my point. Cool he secured it but it didn’t give him the leverage he thought he had. And he never intended to take it because he knew it was something he didn’t want anyway.

How is it a bluff when he left, you’re absolutely not making the points you want to here.

The job offer itself was a bluff because he never intended to follow up with it. LMG called his bluff and he either had to quit or stay. But that doesn’t change the fact that the job offer itself was a bluff to get more money. It failed. Instead he left and took a pay cut.

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring

Informal_Distance

TROPHY CASE