Visit from dhs

[TBoneTX 45,873]

I had a large post prepared for this thread and then my computer died. Practically everything TBoneTX has been saying here is correct. I'll boil it down

And you did so elegantly, si man. Others may benefit if you reconstruct your large post. Perhaps compose it in Word or as e-mail text (in a message that you never send), "saving" your work frequently, then simply "copy all" & paste it in here. That worked well for me on my old shaky computer, si man.

Love your comment about the Hiibel ruling, si man (talk about boiling down what I was getting at!), and the links to the videos are priceless, si man. Everyone needs to see those.

[buster2209 2]

Now, I normally wouldn't be worried about this at all as I have nothing to hide; but hearing that someone is making up this kind of lies about us is obviously worrying me. Is there anyone who got visited at home, and in that case how did it go? How long it took to hear more from them?

Thank you in advance for reading this!

I haven't read through the entire thread but would just like to answer the part from the OP I quoted above.

It is entirely possible that the authorities made up the 'somebody had reported your husband and yourself as a fake marriage' in order to see your reaction. Government agencies have done FAR worse.

As I think has already been said, it's lawyer time!

[TBoneTX 45,873]

It is entirely possible that the authorities made up the 'somebody had reported your husband and yourself as a fake marriage' in order to see your reaction. Government agencies have done FAR worse.

Si, man. Anyone who doubts this should view the entire 45-minute "BUSTED!" video, the link to which is a couple of posts up.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Well, I really saw no reason to not let them in since we've lived in there for a year and the apartment is clearly inhabited by both of us...

You did the right thing to let them in because you did not have anything to hide. And now maybe they do believe you are cohabitating with your hubby.

What several of the posters are trying to say, is that we have a 4th amendment in our Constitution, which protects us from unlawful search and seizure.

But those same folks will roll over and send in their Census form and give up much personal info because they feel intimidated to do so.

Smart folks that really care about their guarantee of their 4th amendment rights will NOT send in the Census, and then politely challenge the Census Clowns that come around on your private property and DEMAND that you answer their silly questionnaire. Ahh, and then they are trying to violate your 5th amendment right to remain silent.

OP, you are doing ok. Just get an Atty who knows what he is doing, preferably one with a bad comb over, who is a shark.

Peace.

[TBoneTX 45,873]

Smart folks that really care about their guarantee of their 4th amendment rights will NOT send in the Census, and then politely challenge the Census Clowns that come around on your private property and DEMAND that you answer their silly questionnaire. Ahh, and then they are trying to violate your 5th amendment right to remain silent.

The analogy is not entirely correct. Answering the Census (to enumerate the number of citizens) is the law. The ancillary questions, according to attorneys (Google this or consult several ourselves), are not necessarily requirements to answer. Refusing to respond to the Census at all is against the law. In contrast, the Fourth & Fifth Amendments tell us our rights under the law, among which are that we are able to refuse requests for consensual searches, and that we need not answer anything that might incriminate us if we don't wish to. These Amendments restrict the power of government. Watch the "Busted!" video. Edited April 19, 2010 by TBoneTX

[arren 6]

It is entirely possible that the authorities made up the 'somebody had reported your husband and yourself as a fake marriage' in order to see your reaction. Government agencies have done FAR worse.

I considered this possibility (and in fact, when the lawyer I talked to heard that the agent had said such a thing to my sister-in-law, she sounded very surprised)... but then talking to some people in the community in question, I heard that it's not the first time that something like this happens. I don't know, maybe it's just one of those really closed communities that don't like "intruders", or they just don't get along between families... but whatever it is, I wish they left me out of it :/

OP, you are doing ok. Just get an Atty who knows what he is doing, preferably one with a bad comb over, who is a shark.

Thank you I'm seeing one on Tuesday - was recommended by a friend of mine. Hopefully everything goes well! >_<

[Darnell 8,479]

I don't think you need an attorney.

They came in early in the morning, husband gone to work already.

Then they saw yer messy house, yer stuff all over the place (Double PLUSSES for this, btw)

IMO, they saw valid marriage at the domicile - a messy house early in the morning.

Unless you are 'under proceedings to be deported', IMO, you don't need an attorney.

Good Luck, however it turns out.

[SuperDuper! 230]

The analogy is not entirely correct. Answering the Census (to enumerate the number of citizens) is the law. The ancillary questions, according to attorneys (Google this or consult several ourselves), are not necessarily requirements to answer. Refusing to respond to the Census at all is against the law. In contrast, the Fourth & Fifth Amendments tell us our rights under the law, among which are that we are able to refuse requests for consensual searches, and that we need not answer anything that might incriminate us if we don't wish to. These Amendments restrict the power of government. Watch the "Busted!" video.

Sorry, but all that is constitutionally required is to tell how many people are in the household (and gender and ages). If a stranger came to your door without a warrant and demanded to know things about you, then this is unreasonable seizure of your information. Since I do not know how my info will be used, I can take the 5th amendment in order not to incriminate myself. and I encourage all , even the OP to ask the Census Clowns under what constitutional authority they have to DEMAND all the info they are seeking. Peace.

ps they promised in the year 2000 that by answering the census questions, my community would get our "fair share" of gummint resources. Well, all we got were more illegal aliens and higher taxes. I aint buying into this again.

OP, sorry for the digress. Just keep the faith, and persist in your visa journey, and you will indeed be victorious!

Edited April 19, 2010 by Hopp

[Darnell 8,479]

And thanks to everyone who answered. While I can see your point about not letting them in without a warrant, as I said before the option didn't even occurr to me in that moment, and now I can't turn the clock back, as someone else said ^^;

Yer gonna hate this.

Since they are federal officers, operating under the DHS/USCIS guidelines, they don't need a warrant to come in. They do need yer permission, but not a warrant. As an applicant for AOS, you've already given yer permission for a house visit, in the documents you signed prior. Take a look, review them, you'll see the section I'm talking about.

Seriously, I don't think you'll have a problem with USCIS/ICE/FPU. I'd be more interested to find out who 'ratted you out', and YOU can find that out with a FOIA filing after yer green card is approved.

[arren 6]

Seriously, I don't think you'll have a problem with USCIS/ICE/FPU. I'd be more interested to find out who 'ratted you out', and YOU can find that out with a FOIA filing after yer green card is approved.

Thank you! And I'm actually very interested in finding out who did it, so I'll definitel follow your advice

[TBoneTX 45,873]

Sorry, but all that is constitutionally required is to tell how many people are in the household (and gender and ages). If a stranger came to your door without a warrant and demanded to know things about you, then this is unreasonable seizure of your information. Since I do not know how my info will be used, I can take the 5th amendment in order not to incriminate myself. and I encourage all , even the OP to ask the Census Clowns under what constitutional authority they have to DEMAND all the info they are seeking.

I was unclear earlier and also partially misunderstood you. Absolutely, 100%, utterly agreed, peace man -- you & I would do exactly the same in these circumstances, peace man.

[TBoneTX 45,873]

Since they are federal officers, operating under the DHS/USCIS guidelines, they don't need a warrant to come in.

Please cite your source for this claim.

They do need yer permission, but not a warrant.

Consent to enter confers the same as a warrant does.

As an applicant for AOS, you've already given yer permission for a house visit, in the documents you signed prior. Take a look, review them, you'll see the section I'm talking about.

Please reproduce the text. Also, you seem to contradict yourself: If they don't need a warrant to come in, why would they need anyone's permission? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but someone's "consent to search" waives the need for a "search warrant."

I'd be more interested to find out who 'ratted you out', and YOU can find that out with a FOIA filing

Perhaps a good idea; however, the agents could have done this on their own. It's common, and law-"enforcers" ARE permitted to lie to us under any circumstances. See the second two videos that Spoom posted links to, above -- interesting indeed.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

This might help clarify things:

Seaman: Good afternoon. I am John Seaman, a senior legal instructor with the Legal Division at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. In this discussion, we’re talking about administrative warrants, and specifically administrative removal warrants used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to arrest non-citizens who have committed immigration violations. ICE is one of the partner organizations here at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and ICE basic students receive training on Fourth Amendment law from the FLETC Legal Division. In our Fourth Amendment legal training, we cover issues regarding the level of suspicion required to obtain an arrest warrant or a search warrant. This basic Fourth Amendment training, however, is focused on the criminal warrants issued by a judicial officer, typically a magistrate judge. ICE basic students are ultimately being trained to perform ICE enforcement functions that, most often, do not involve judicially issued warrants. In the day to day ICE world, the ICE officer will utilize administrative removal warrants to carry out their duties. There are important differences between a judicially issued warrant and an administrative removal warrant issued by a government agency. I am here today with Jenna Solari, a senior legal instructor with the FLETC Legal Division, to discuss these differences and, hopefully, clear up some common misconceptions.

Jenna, as you know, the Fourth Amendment is made up of two clauses. The first clause tells us that the people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The second clause spells out, if you will, the primary way that the government can demonstrate that its actions are reasonable, that is, to obtain a warrant based on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, that particularly describes the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The result is that before the government may intrude or act in an area or situation where there is an reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a person’s home, a warrant must be obtained, or there must be a recognized exception to the paper warrant requirement. Of course, this warrant requirement contemplates review and authorization from a judicial officer. But what about a non-criminal warrant issued by a government official who is not a judge?

Solari: Well that’s a good question John, ‘cause when I think of the Fourth Amendment and the warrant requirement, I’m usually thinking in terms of a criminal matter and the need to obtain an arrest warrant or a search warrant. But in the ICE context, isn’t it true that many immigration violations don’t involve criminal prosecutions?

Seaman: Yes, that’s correct. It is important to keep in mind that the underlying basis for a non-citizen’s removability may be due to some criminal violation, but the removal warrant used by ICE is not a criminal warrant signed by a federal judge. In fact, the removal warrant used to process the non-citizen’s removal is signed by an ICE official based on a finding that the person is removable from the United States.

Solari: So John, what are the differences between a criminal warrant issued by a federal court and a removal warrant issued by an ICE official?

Seaman: Jenna, the primary difference is that, unlike a criminal warrant issued by the federal court, a removal warrant does not authorize the ICE officer to enter into an REP area to execute the warrant.

Solari: So, what does that mean to an ICE officer who goes out to execute an ICE administrative removal warrant?

Seaman: Basically, what this means is that the ICE officer has the authority to arrest the person named in the warrant, so long as the officer locates the person in a public, non-REP, location. For example, the person is located walking down a public sidewalk.

Solari: Well, what would happen if the ICE officer locates the person in an REP area, such as his or her home?

Seaman: Well, in that case the administrative removal warrant authorizes the ICE officer to arrest the subject, but not to enter into an REP area such as his or her home unless consent to enter is given. If the officer does not have consent to enter, even if the officer knows the person subject to the warrant is inside the home, the officer has no legal authority to enter the home pursuant to that removal warrant.

Solari: Well John in that type of case, what are the ICE officer’s options?

Seaman: If the ICE officer does not obtain consent to enter the home, then that officer must “wait it out” if you will, until the person named in the warrant can be located in a non-REP area.

Solari: So, in comparing the authority and limitations of an administrative removal warrant to a criminal warrant situation, it would seem as though an officer who has an administrative removal warrant has about the same authority as an officer in a criminal matter who has probable cause, but does not have a warrant issued by a federal judge.

Seaman: Jenna, I think that analogy is a good one. If, in a felony criminal matter, officers had probable cause and did not yet have a criminal warrant, those officers could arrest the suspect if the suspect was located in a public or a non-REP place. However, to arrest that same person in his or her home, the officers would have to have either consent to enter the home or a warrant signed by a federal judge.

Solari: Well then it sounds as though it works to the advantage of our ICE officers to try to execute administrative removal warrants in public, in other words, in non-REP areas.

Seaman: Yes, that’s true. It’s not that an arrest cannot be made in a person’s home, but the only way to enter the home to make the arrest pursuant to an administrative removal warrant is to do so with consent. And obviously, since the purpose of the officer is to make the arrest, consent will most often be denied.

Solari: Well thanks for distinguishing the administrative removal warrant from a criminal warrant. It’s pretty clear that ICE officers need to be resourceful and certainly even patient in doing their jobs.

Seaman: Yes they do Jenna. Their job is a very important one and it’s important that they understand the tools they have at their disposal to perform that job. I hope that this Podcast helps to clarify the authority and limitations they have when acting under the authority of an administrative removal warrant.

Solari: Well it certainly does John. Thank you very much for your time and explaining that to us. For those of you who want to hear any more of our Podcasts, you can find them online at www.fletc.gov/legal/podcast

[Spoom 8]

Interesting stuff, Sousuke. If I'm reading that correctly, ICE administrative warrants actually have less power than criminal search or arrest warrants, as they cannot be used to override a person's Fourth Amendment rights. Technically, one could simply sit in one's home and have necessary items brought / delivered to them, and be completely immune. Of course, many people who are being deported already also have criminal charges against them, so it's a moot point for them.

As an applicant for AOS, you've already given yer permission for a house visit, in the documents you signed prior. Take a look, review them, you'll see the section I'm talking about.

I too would like to see a citation for this. I don't remember reading it in the I-485 instructions anywhere when I filed for Adjustment.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Interesting stuff, Sousuke. If I'm reading that correctly, ICE administrative warrants actually have less power than criminal search or arrest warrants, as they cannot be used to override a person's Fourth Amendment rights. Technically, one could simply sit in one's home and have necessary items brought / delivered to them, and be completely immune. Of course, many people who are being deported already also have criminal charges against them, so it's a moot point for them.

I too would like to see a citation for this. I don't remember reading it in the I-485 instructions anywhere when I filed for Adjustment.

Right they have less power. Regarding the I-485 it only requires you to keep an up to date address with USCIS as far as I know but....technically Darnell is correct that ICE believes they do not need a warrant to arrest a non citizen. I know there are quite a few lawsuits on this but I'm not sure where it is heading. IE ICE have broken into people's homes and arrested immigrants without a warrant.

There are a lot of implications for this and I hope that the people win. For instance in some of these situations they are breaking into US citizens homes to grab and arrest a non citizen.