You are familiar with the 4th Amendment? These acts are a clear violation of 4th Amendment rights, rights which extend to both citizens and non-citizens.

▲

scoofy 16 hours ago | parent [-]

>When do ICE agents need a warrant to arrest immigrants?

>A judicial warrant is a legal order authorizing law enforcement’s search, seizure or arrest on private property. Judicial warrants are signed by a judge.

>Immigration agents also use administrative warrants, which carry lower legal weight. Administrative warrants are signed by federal agents such as immigration judges or officers. These warrants allow ICE agents to arrest someone in public places. However, they don’t give officers the right to enter private property.

>Although ICE agents are required to have a judicial warrant to enter a person’s home, they are not required to have a judicial warrant to arrest someone in public spaces, such as the immigration court building.

>"Lander is incorrect that a judicial warrant is required," Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, an immigrant-rights advocacy group, said on X.

>An administrative warrant isn’t always required to arrest someone in public. According to immigration law, agents can arrest an immigrant without a warrant if they have "reason to believe" the immigrant is in the U.S. without authorization and "is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest."

https://api.politifact.com/article/2025/jun/18/Brad-Lander-I...

This goes on:

>Can ICE agents arrest U.S. citizens?

>ICE agents generally can’t arrest U.S. citizens, because they aren’t committing a civil immigration violation. However, an agent may arrest a U.S. citizen on the grounds that they believe the person is in the U.S. illegally. The person would be released after showing proof of citizenship.

>However, Lander wasn’t arrested on immigration grounds, said Alexandra Lopez, a Chicago-based immigration attorney. The agent accused Lander of obstruction.

>"In this scenario they are acting as federal law enforcement agents who are arresting a U.S. citizen on criminal, not immigration, grounds," Lopez said. "ICE claims they were detaining Comptroller Lander in their capacity as federal law enforcement agents, not immigration enforcement agents."

Immigration law is complicated.

I'm not some right-wing nutter. I'm just a lefty that thinks we're definitely shooting ourselves in the foot by really misunderstanding what's actually happening. Nullification of immigration laws is, in fact, a right that states can exercise, but it's overt nullification is absolutely an escalation that undermines public trust because it force the feds to send enforcement officers into a hostile area.

We should fight to win the immigration debate with persuasion, in the legislature. We need to have the law on our side, and we need to have the populace on our side. Right now, we have neither. We're operating a nullification campaign, and unlike the successes of legalizing marijuana, we're losing this one. If we want to keep doing this, that's fine, but I don't want people out there pretending that lawful detentions are kidnappings. It's dumb, it's a bad look, and it kind of doesn't care about the complexities of the predicament we're in.

This is a forum for nerds. I expect people to actually be able to google this shit.

▲

xboxnolifes 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For me, its really simple. ICE agents wouldn't need to be masked and unidentified if what they are doing is okay.

▲

scoofy 5 hours ago | parent [-]

>Cities like Milwaukee require police officers to make their names or officer identification numbers visible. This ensures that if there is an allegation of wrongdoing, the officer can be identified. This also is to guard against impersonators.

>There are exceptions. For instance, Milwaukee police detectives wear "plain clothes," often a dress shirt and pants. And, of course, undercover officers dress in such a way not to be identifiable, by design.

>At the 2024 Republican National Convention, where 4,500 outside officers came to assist, the Milwaukee Police Department was clear that any visible uniform change would be deemed an escalation of force.

>Federal law enforcement, like FBI and ICE, for the most part do not have an official uniform, though during raids they typically wear body armor, windbreakers or other gear with the name of their agency emblazoned on it.

>At times, federal and local law enforcement have covered their faces during raids, most often when they involve gangs or terrorism where there is a risk of retaliation.

>In 2025, ICE officers have increasingly been wearing face coverings. ICE leaders said that's because their officers increasingly are being assaulted and harassed online.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/2025/06/30/why-are...

I agree with you that ICE agents should absolutely show their faces. That said, it's not unprecedented. I also think it's naive to think there would not be retaliation against them personally.

▲

xboxnolifes 4 hours ago | parent [-]

undercover police officers identify themselves when making an arrest.

	▲	scoofy 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>Governing Laws on Officer Identification >The requirement for police officers to provide their name and badge number varies across the United States. While no federal law mandates disclosure, many states and municipalities have their own statutes aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability. These laws often require officers to identify themselves during specific interactions, such as traffic stops or arrests, to ensure citizens can hold law enforcement accountable. https://legalclarity.org/does-a-police-officer-have-to-give-... ICE where uniforms that say "ICE" in big letters. That's identification. Undercover police officers might identify themselves during an arrest, but only as "police." Undercover police officers aren't going to give you their name and badge number if you ask them. >Situations Where Disclosure May Be Withheld >While officers are generally expected to provide their name and badge number, there are situations where disclosure may justifiably be withheld. During undercover operations, revealing an officer’s identity could compromise safety and the operation’s integrity. >In protests or crowd control situations, officers may face security concerns, such as risks of doxxing or harassment. To address this, some departments allow officers to withhold identification while still requiring visible markers, like badge numbers, to maintain accountability without endangering safety. This stuff is trivially googlable.

▲

drewbug01 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You keep saying “nullification”. Can you explain precisely what you mean by that?

Because as far as I’m aware, immigration law is not a concern of the state, and what folks typically mean when they say “nullification” in this context is “the state isn’t doing the fed’s job for them.”

You also brought up warrants to enter private property. What do you make of the incident a few days ago where an agent hopped a fence to arrest someone, without a warrant? Should we just ignore those violations of our rights?

	▲	scoofy 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>Because as far as I’m aware, immigration law is not a concern of the state, and what folks typically mean when they say “nullification” in this context is “the state isn’t doing the fed’s job for them.” It's not just immigration law, it's any federal law. States have the right to ignore federal law if they like. This is called nullification. However, it very, very rarely happens because its inherently undemocratic. It especially rarely happens to the extent that cities and states pass explicit laws that order state law enforcement to ignore federal laws, and even work against the federal government's interests. It's happened recently with marijuana legalization, with success. Where the federal government did some raids, but marijuana legalization is politically popular, so they backed off... and there has even been talk in some years of ending the illegality of marijuana federally. State nullification has been somewhat unsuccessful with illegal immigration. These raids are the result of the federal government going its own way to enforce the law without cooperation of the states. The last time we saw this level of federal enforcement against state objection is after Brown v Board of Education: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine I good comparison to the seriousness of nullification as an act that is inherently an escalation is gun control laws. Suppose some red states wanted to just nullify the National Firearms Act -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act -- The are perfectly in their rights to ignore federal laws and allow firearms dealers to sell unregistered, suppressed, machine guns to felons. The only way neighboring blues states -- obviously outraged that this is happening -- can do anything about this is by seeking federal enforcement, again, which would include raids, arrests, etc. >You also brought up warrants to enter private property. What do you make of the incident a few days ago where an agent hopped a fence to arrest someone, without a warrant? Should we just ignore those violations of our rights? I'm very much not saying ICE is always acting within the law. Like any other policing force, they're going to make mistakes (intentional or otherwise). We should be very angry about those things, especially if they're happening in bad faith. The problem I see is that when we're yelling about actually -- and unfortunately -- legal things then those serious issues are just going to look like background noise. The other serious problem is that all this crying wold literally makes the left look undemocratic. You don't like the law? Fight to change it. Don't just take the ball and go home, and then cry when the neighbors come to your house to get the ball back.