# ICE releases letter claiming they do not need a warrant for arrests - are Gestapo comparisons valid? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 15, 2019, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260 "2019-09-15T10:06:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/41 "2019-09-16T13:15:20Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It seems like an underlying understanding of the law is necessary to have an informed discussion, otherwise you go down the path of misstating obvious facts and grandiose **unreasonable** comparisons to Nazis. (bolding mine) Guys, I think I found the holy grail – **Bone** used the R-word (or a variation on it, anyway)! Maybe we can be friends after all, Mr. **Bone**! We can join together and talk about what we find reasonable, and what we find unreasonable, and bridge our differences, and this eminently _reasonable_ discussion will flower into mutual understanding, affection, and love, to serve as an example to debaters the world over! ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/42 "2019-09-16T13:25:05Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > (bolding mine) > > Guys, I think I found the holy grail – **Bone** used the R-word (or a variation on it, anyway)! > > Maybe we can be friends after all, Mr. **Bone**! We can join together and talk about what we find reasonable, and what we find unreasonable, and bridge our differences, and this eminently _reasonable_ discussion will flower into mutual understanding, affection, and love, to serve as an example to debaters the world over! Nice try, but no. I was using the language that BPC used (my bold): > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > By the time anything is so bad that it can **reasonably be compared** to the Gestapo without scolds less interested in learning the lessons of history than they are in venerating those long dead regardless of the cost complaining that you’re “cheapening the memory”… It’s already way too late. He states that comparisons are unreasonable. I’m stating the position as stipulated, not making an assessment. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/43 "2019-09-16T13:31:29Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Nice try, but no. I was using the language that BPC used (my bold): > > He states that comparisons are unreasonable. I’m stating the position as stipulated, not making an assessment. Don’t resist so much! Just let it happen. Let the _reasonableness_ flow over you. I promise, it’s far better than you imagine! ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/44 "2019-09-16T14:34:30Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > For instance, your first example of the person held for 26 days seems to leave out relevant context There is no context where a US Citizen, who presents his ID, SS card and Birth Cert. to authorities should then be imprisoned for 26 days over a civil immigration violation. People who actually commit crimes, who have actual victims of their actions, and have been found guilty in a court of law frequently spend less time in jail than that. Ultimately, this is the problem with ICE. They act under the rules of law enforcement, their targets are people who commit civil infractions, but the actions they take are comparable to those taken against hardened criminals who represent a danger to society. Imprisonment without bail, and often without legal representation, until they are done processing your case, to their internal satisfaction. It’s the law enforcement equivalent of a blank check. ICE decides who is “probably” illegal. ICE decides to detain them without a right to bail. ICE decides when they are satisfied enough to release them. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/45 "2019-09-16T15:09:46Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > There is no context where a US Citizen, who presents his ID, SS card and Birth Cert. to authorities should then be imprisoned for 26 days over a civil immigration violation. It would be great if these things could resolve quickly. I’d say when there are conflicting documents it would take some time to resolve. 26 days seems too long, but 3-7 doesn’t. I seem to have lost the cite, but my reading was that about 80% of people that claim citizenship are actually determinated to not be citizens, so false claims are not rare. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/46 "2019-09-16T15:38:08Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It would be great if these things could resolve quickly. I’d say when there are conflicting documents it would take some time to resolve. 26 days seems too long, but 3-7 doesn’t. I seem to have lost the cite, but my reading was that about 80% of people that claim citizenship are actually determinated to not be citizens, so false claims are not rare. That’s not my problem, that’s ICE’s problem, one they should attempt to solve without imprisoning American Citizens for multiple weeks because their papers failed to meet ICE’s lofty standards. If they can’t manage it currently, they should scale back their operations so they can both process claims quickly, and not detain people in terrible conditions. BTW, that cite you reference suggests that 20% of people claiming to be citizens are actually American Citizens being wrongly imprisoned. Name some other type of imprisonment where we are OK with 20% of those imprisoned being factually innocent? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/47 "2019-09-16T16:03:52Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > My point was to correct or address misunderstandings of the law, and provide context where it was left out or omitted in a way to be misleading. > > For instance, your first example of the person held for 26 days seems to leave out relevant context - like the fact he was traveling with his brother who was undocumented, the fact that while he had documentation, when ICE reviewed them they discovered there was also documentation that he was a Mexican national (mother filled out travel visas from Mexico). This is no justification for the conditions as described, of course. > > It seems like an underlying understanding of the law is necessary to have an informed discussion, otherwise you go down the path of misstating obvious facts and grandiose unreasonable comparisons to Nazis. How far down the road does this have to go before you find comparisons to Nazis acceptable in your eyes? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/48 "2019-09-16T16:05:44Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It would be great if these things could resolve quickly. I’d say when there are conflicting documents it would take some time to resolve. 26 days seems too long, but 3-7 doesn’t. I seem to have lost the cite, but my reading was that about 80% of people that claim citizenship are actually determinated to not be citizens, so false claims are not rare. Would the number of people that make the claim and the number of people that actually are U.S. citizens be available? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/49 "2019-09-16T16:35:45Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > … Name some other type of imprisonment where we are OK with 20% of those imprisoned being factually innocent? [California, for felony arrests, only 2/3 result in conviction](https://www.fresnocriminalattorney.com/less-70-percent-adult-felony-arrests-result-conviction-california/). I guess you could quibble about whether never charged / charges dismissed / not guilty are “factually innocent” or not, but I’d be surprised if those same quibbles didn’t apply to suspected illegal immigrants. > [@](#): > > In 2015, 242,460 adults in California were arrested for felony offenses. Of those, 162,282 were convicted. Three percent – 7,537 – were later released by police officers. Sixteen percent – 38,733 people – were never prosecuted. In 14 percent of the cases, the 33,908 adults arrested had their cases dismissed or were acquitted. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/50 "2019-09-16T16:40:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > [California, for felony arrests, only 2/3 result in conviction](https://www.fresnocriminalattorney.com/less-70-percent-adult-felony-arrests-result-conviction-california/). I guess you could quibble about whether never charges / charges dismissed / not guilty are “factually innocent” or not, but I’d be surprised if those same quibbles didn’t apply to suspected illegal immigrants. How many of those were actually imprisoned, and of those how many were factually innocent? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/51 "2019-09-16T16:48:05Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > How many of those were actually imprisoned, and of those how many were factually innocent? I suppose you’d have to define your terms a bit better before I could provide you more of an answer. I view an arrest as a form of imprisonment, so I’d say “all of them”, but do you not (view an arrest as a form of imprisonment)? As for “factually innocent”, how are you deciding that? Does a “not guilty” verdict count? What about when the prosecutor drops the charges, or decides to never file them in the first place? Or does “factually innocent” require a [Duke Lacrosse rape hoax style mea culpa on behalf of the prosecutors](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/us/12duke.html)? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/52 "2019-09-16T17:00:03Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > That’s recent. He got out in 2018. “ICE released Watson in November 2011”. [Watson v. United States, 865 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2017)](http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/7eebf587-11f8-4afb-b8ab-73245be85911/1/doc/16-655_complete_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/7eebf587-11f8-4afb-b8ab-73245be85911/1/hilite/) His award for false imprisonment was overturned in 2018. In June I made a thread about Mr. Watson and equitable tolling, “[THREAD=877472]Watson v. United States, a U.S. citizen gets $0 after 3 1/2 years in ICE custody[/THREAD]”. Mr. Watson waited 27 days before being brought before a judge. The rest of the time can be attributed to an error in law on the government’s part, which has since been rectified. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/53 "2019-09-16T17:01:18Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > If ICE can’t arrest someone for, say, walking in the area of a US border carrying a bunch of belongings and being unable to produce any ID or proof of citizenship, then what’s the point of ICE agents? It’s not illegal to carry your possessions in public places, and it’s not illegal to walk without citizenship papers or ID. If ICE can stop an immigrant for being in public without breaking the law, then they can also stop and arrest you, a citizen, for doing it. The only thing protecting you from being singled out is if you happen to be white. It’s a common misconception that Nazi totalitarianism started with gun confiscation. That’s a myth. It started by the state empowering law enforcement to make people prove that they weren’t threats, that their property was theirs, and that they had a right to be in public spaces and go about their business. And of course by also restricting those rights from certain ethnic groups. We haven’t given ICE the sweeping powers that the Nazis did, but we’re letting them arrogate those powers to themselves. You can argue that this isn’t the same as shoving people into the gas chambers, but plenty of Holocaust survivors have observed that where we are now, is how it started back then, and it’s better not to let it get that far. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/54 "2019-09-16T17:05:53Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > The problem I see is not necessarily the “arrest” but the apparent lack of habeas corpus to remove the person from custody. I agree that this is a more important problem. If the detainees were able to quickly get out and sue for false imprisonment, ICE would be forced to be more careful about who they detain. There should be no more than twenty-four hours between the point of apprehension and binding before a judge. If there aren’t enough judges to handle those cases (there aren’t), it is impossible to preserve due process and uphold whatever interpretation of the law calls for so many apprehensions. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/55 "2019-09-16T17:06:51Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > [California, for felony arrests, only 2/3 result in conviction](https://www.fresnocriminalattorney.com/less-70-percent-adult-felony-arrests-result-conviction-california/). I guess you could quibble about whether never charged / charges dismissed / not guilty are “factually innocent” or not, but I’d be surprised if those same quibbles didn’t apply to suspected illegal immigrants. As I said before, these citizens accused of civil violations are treated like accused felons. The felons above are at least offered a bail hearing in front of a judge, and are guaranteed legal representation, guaranteed a trial before a jury of peers, without even quibbling about factually innocent vs. not charged/convicted. Do such niceties or separations of power exist in an ICE detention center? ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/56 "2019-09-16T17:08:05Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > It’s not illegal to carry your possessions in public places, and it’s not illegal to walk without citizenship papers or ID. It’s not illegal to go running at night in a ski mask, but if there’s a jewelry store nearby with broken windows and an alarm going off, I’m not going to fault a cop for seeking to arrest that person. Maybe I’m just bad at examples. Can you think of any situation where ICE would have probable cause for an arrest without a warrant, or do you agree with the OP? ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/57 "2019-09-16T17:24:39Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You may be speaking about how you wish the law to be, but I’m talking about what the law actually is. If someone is observed doing the things I described, they can certainly be detained and arrested. > > If arrested on suspicion of being in the country illegally, the burden is on the person being arrested to demonstrate they are here legally. That determination can’t be made by ICE agents in the field, but it is done after an arrest at an immigration hearing determination (there’s a word for this that escapes me). This is not true. See below. > [@Bone](#): > > In many cases, yes. That is the law. Innocent until proven guilty, or the presumption of innocence applies at trial, in criminal matters. Since immigration is mostly a civil action, it doesn’t apply. There are of course other laws that control where the burden lays, but often times the burden is on the individual to demonstrate their right to be in the country. Here’s the wiki: > > > [@](#): > > > > Burden of proof involving a permanent resident > > Further information: Lawful permanent residents (United States) > > A lawful permanent resident (LPR) is a person “having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such status not having changed.”[52] An LPR can either be an “alien” or a “national of the United States” (American), which requires a case-by-case analysis and depends mainly on the number of continuous years he or she has spent in the United States.[53] “In removal proceedings involving an LPR, the [DHS] bears the burden of proof, which it must meet by adducing clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the facts alleged as grounds for deportation are true.”[8][9] This is to uphold the U.S. Constitution, deter civil disorder, and protect the United States against major lawsuits.[21][22][54] > > > > Burden of proof involving a nonpermanent resident > > In removal proceedings involving a non-LPR, the burden of proof is on the alien to show that he or she “is clearly and beyond doubt entitled to be admitted and is not inadmissible under” the INA.[55] Specifically: > > > > Arriving Aliens: As a general rule, the arriving non-LPR alien bears the legal burden of proof of clear admissibility to the United States.[51][55] > > Aliens Present Without Admission or Parole: This refers to illegal aliens.[7]\*\* In this case, once the prosecution establishes that the respondent is a non-LPR alien, the burden of proof is on the respondent to demonstrate that he or she is in lawful status in the United States\*\*.[51][55] > > Admitted Aliens: This refers to aliens who were admitted by the government. In other words, they lawfully entered the country as opposed to unlawfully. Here, the legal burden of proof of removability falls on the prosecution.[8][51] > > Regardless of the category, if the alien is requesting any form of relief from removal, e.g., cancellation of removal, waiver of inadmissibility, and/or protection under the CAT, the burden of proof for demonstrating eligibility for the relief squarely falls on the alien.[55] > > In the first category, DHS bears the burden. In the second category, the alien bears the burden. > > Now, if a person is actually a citizen, they would be in the first category, however unless they can demonstrate they are in the first category, I would think they fall into the second. The Wiki is a little poor, but you can see from the bolded part (my bolding) that the government bears the burden of first establishing the person’s category. Only after that can the burden shift to the detainee, based on their now-established non-LPR status, to show that they are nevertheless lawfully present. Also, a more general thread response: the law concerning arrests discussed in this thread so far ranges from incorrect to partially correct. So far no one has it completely right. In general, criminal arrest warrants are not required if an officer has probable cause, including under the collective knowledge doctrine\*, and the suspect is in a public place. A warrant is required, except in special circumstances, to arrest a person inside a residence. An officer does not have to have observed the person committing a crime, and it doesn’t have to have just happened, as long as there is probable cause and the suspect is in public when apprehended. ICE does not get, and is not required under present law to get, a criminal arrest warrant from a judge. They do have administrative warrants, which, as the letter mentions, certain ICE officials can issue. There are, obviously, many ways for ICE to have PC to arrest people for being subject to removal. (Having a previous adjudication of removal, information from a source providing PC of unlawful presence, circumstantial evidence, etc.) But, it seems like it would be pretty rare outside of the close vicinity of a border, for there to be PC just by looking at someone. - The collective knowledge doctrine means that members of law enforcement are treated as having collective knowledge of things like PC. So one officer who has PC can, e.g., ask all officers to look for and stop a vehicle with a certain license plate on bank robbery charges, without having to recite the evidence to every officer. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/58 "2019-09-16T17:28:18Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > This is not true. See below. > > The Wiki is a little poor, but you can see from the bolded part (my bolding) that the government bears the burden of first establishing the person’s category. Only after that can the burden shift to the detainee, based on their now-established non-LPR status, to show that they are nevertheless lawfully present. Not seeing the mistake. My first post was more general, with the second having greater detail. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/59 "2019-09-16T17:34:00Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > So how _does_ ICE establish that there is a “crime in progress”? Taking it from that [LA Times piece above](https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-citizens-ice-20180427-htmlstory.html): > > After he was moved to a privately run immigration detention center 85 miles outside Los Angeles in the Mojave Desert, Carrillo’s hope that ICE would quickly remedy its mistake gave way to a sense of despair. > > “Inmates were telling me, ‘You’re not going to see a judge for weeks. In here, you don’t have any rights,’” he said. “I started getting real scared: How long was I going to be in here? How could this be happening?” > > It was not until Carrillo’s fourth day in detention, when an attorney intervened and presented agents with Carrillo’s passport, that ICE corrected its error. Carrillo emerged from custody to find his phone filled with messages from angry clients. Several fired him. > > The dude’s a US citizen. They just snatched him up from a car park and took him to a detention center, and had his lawyer not intervened, nobody can tell how long he would have been stuck there. The article goes on to note: > > Similarly, in three dozen false arrest lawsuits, Americans caught in the ICE dragnet alleged that officers took them into custody on the basis of cursory computer searches. The agents, according to the lawsuits, **often overlooked evidence of citizenship, such as passports, and failed to examine paper files or conduct interviews to confirm the accuracy of their database searches**. > > Emphasis mine. Again, this is an organization that can take you off the streets and make you disappear with little to no oversight, and they do not require a warrant to do so. They make a lot of serious mistakes, are extremely racist, and some people who are definitely US citizens have lost years of their lives fighting this. If you do not see this as a problem, then I have no idea what could possibly wake you from your stupor. I was expecting a quote describing how Mr. Carillo was born in Mexico, had been previously arrested for carrying a concealed weapon and again for sending pornographic material to a minor. Whatever the reason, ICE did not have a record of his citizenship, so Mr. Carillo _appeared_ to be a particularly bad illegal immigrant. ICE is on the record saying Mr. Carillo triggered an “[a]lert generated based on current priority assessment”. The article reads: “Had Carrillo in fact been an immigrant living in the country illegally, his convictions would have made him a priority to be arrested and deported under policies implemented by President Obama under which ICE targeted serious criminals for arrest.” I am neither surprised nor am I disturbed that ICE arrested and detained Mr. Carillo. I would rather they have arrested him sooner, actually. I am disappointed that he had to spend four days in detention instead of one or two at most. I would also strongly prefer for the court to appoint attorneys for everyone apprehended in such cases. Mr. Carillo took a settlement so we will never know for sure if ICE did their due diligence, or if they made a mistake or forgot to record a previous encounter, or some other similar thing. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260/60 "2019-09-16T17:45:57Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > The Wiki is a little poor, but you can see from the bolded part (my bolding) that the government bears the burden of first establishing the person’s category. As I understand it this amounts to, “X was born outside the United States and we do not have a record of X’s citizenship/lawful resident status”? ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ice-releases-letter-claiming-they-do-not-need-a-warrant-for-arrests-are-gestapo-comparisons-valid/840260.md?page=4)