Constitutional limits don’t depend on innocence. Even if the target is removable, warrantless home entry is still a Fourth Amendment problem absent consent/exigent circumstances. Payton v. New York is the baseline: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/573/
“If you’re not an illegal alien you’re fine” isn’t how real enforcement works. Mistaken identity and broad neighborhood sweeps predictably hit citizens/legal residents, especially when decisions are made off appearance/location.
The “crime-rate is higher out of the gate” line is definitional sleight-of-hand. Not all undocumented people violated 8 U.S.C. §1325 (improper entry). Many are overstays, and unlawful presence itself is generally a civil violation, not a criminal conviction category comparable to assault/theft. §1325 text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
You can support immigration enforcement and still insist it be done with judicial warrants/consent and without turning civil status issues into “crime stats” rhetoric.
Constitutional limits don’t depend on innocence. Even if the target is removable, warrantless home entry is still a Fourth Amendment problem absent consent/exigent circumstances. Payton v. New York is the baseline: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/573/
“If you’re not an illegal alien you’re fine” isn’t how real enforcement works. Mistaken identity and broad neighborhood sweeps predictably hit citizens/legal residents, especially when decisions are made off appearance/location.
The “crime-rate is higher out of the gate” line is definitional sleight-of-hand. Not all undocumented people violated 8 U.S.C. §1325 (improper entry). Many are overstays, and unlawful presence itself is generally a civil violation, not a criminal conviction category comparable to assault/theft. §1325 text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
You can support immigration enforcement and still insist it be done with judicial warrants/consent and without turning civil status issues into “crime stats” rhetoric.