Here's a representative news article about it (WaPo because they were first in the search results): https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2026/01/22/ice-me... (paywall-avoiding: https://archive.is/bsdv9)

They've come up with a memo saying that non-judicial warrants can let them break in. This has historically been very much not allowed.

Edit: As a quick explanation, this is more or less a separation-of-powers thing. The rule has been that for the executive to enter someone's home they need a warrant from a judge, a member of the judicial branch. They now say that an "administrative warrant" is enough, issued by an immigration judge -- but immigration judges are just executive branch employees, so this is saying that the executive can decide on its own when it wants to break into your house.

https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-...

They wrote a memo saying they could.

Just watched this yesterday, YouTube LegalEagles: “Unbelievable ICE Memo Just Leaked”

https://youtu.be/MGr-yWEu0hc

> Source for this claim, besides the usual exemptions that are available to all law enforcement (ie. exigent circumstances)?

Context and discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGr-yWEu0hc

The TL/DR: administrative warrant vs an actual "signed off by a judge" warrant

Source for the exigent circumstances exemption ?

There was an app linked here a few months back that unlocks them from your iphone. I haven't had a chance to try it yet.

It only works Like that because fences are hard to build at 5000 Feet. Remote disabling vehicles is a very different thing.

"Mechanics lien" are a thing, and the government has plenty of machinations to avoid someone from registering their car or updating a registration, which does have case law for being an action prior to taking someone's vehicle as an asset seizure. Civil asset forfeiture also has extensive case law for being used with vehicles.

When it comes to brass text and if the chips are down, your right for vehicle ownership is HEAVILY skewed state-side if they don't want you to have one. Whether it should be or not, and regardless of how much an individual's mobility and freedom is reliant on them owning a car in modern America, it's still a de-facto "privilege" rather than a "right".

I find this a very odd and non compelling argument

Just now many people have a) private land and b) private land in sufficient quantity and state that you can actually drive a car on it?

Just because we were a bad country in the past, does not mean we should continue to be a bad one today.

> Wait till you hear about a kid named Elian Gonzalez from 2000. One of the most famous examples

A brief fact check: Elián González was and is not a US citizen, nor was he the child of US citizens, nor was he arrested by ICE, nor was the raid that resulted in his capture performed without a warrant.

I might wait to hear about him until I encounter someone with more accurate information.

People tend to believe that the direction of progress should be forward, I guess.

Finding some precedents doesn't address the major changes. Do you really dispute there have been major changes in executive branch behavior?

> Wait till you hear about a kid named Elian Gonzalez

Elian's mother died at sea, trying to reach the US from Cuba with Elian. Elian's father sought to bring the child back to Cuba, but an uncle in Miami refused to surrender custody. Obviously, barring something unusual, a father has custody of their child and the INS, courts, and Department of Justice agreed. There was an extensive legal process and also mediation.

It became a partisan political issue and after all that the uncle still refused to surrender Elian. Law enforcement forcibly removed the child and gave custody to the father.

I don't see how that is related to the current warrantless home invasion policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli%C3%A1n_Gonz%C3%A1lez

"BSAB" Fallacy detected.

This is misleading. While there are privately owned tanks, they are all old, and lack any weapons (other than as a battering ram).

They likely could cause a lot of trouble for a local police force, but would not stand up to any infantry force in the world.

So in an actual conflict with the U.S. government, none of those tanks would be more than symbolic. And whole a general gorilla insurrection in the U.S. would be nasty, examples like Wako demonstrate that even mid-sized stands would be severely overwhelmed.

The whole idea that a Second-Amendment rebellion in the U.S., absent the military joining on the side of the rebellion, is just a fantasy.

The US has lost multiple wars to goat herders in pickup trucks with small arms.

As Ukraine has demonstrated, a shaped charge and consumer drone is highly effective against even heavy mechanized armor. ERA doesn't work well for multiple hits, and drones and HMX/RDX are cheap.

Tell your history lesson to a Reaper drone. You can see how modern version of people's insurgency could look like in modern Gaza. This is exactly how would citizens vs. US play out. With Palantir painting the targets on the appropriate backs and declaring anyone in the blast radius as domestic terrorist.

Wanting to discourage motorists being around where a massive group of people are expected to gather is reasonable. It's why streets will close for parades and parties. You're turning something designed to protect protestors into a conspiracy to scuttle a protest

I've walked from the San Jose railway station to "The" Cupertino Hotel. 8.6 miles. I don't recommend it, the sidewalks were not consistently on the same side of the road, the heat was oppressive even in January, and even just the final crossing before the hotel itself was terrifying despite the presence of pedestrian lights. My experiences elsewhere in the US are similarly pedestrian-hostile over what I consider to be short distances.

How will "passengers" being different people to "drivers" help, when most people have their phones on them at all times and can be traced, and it's the vehicle rather than any person in it which may (or may not) have an engine kill-switch?

I wish I had the use for a cargo bike. They're so cool.

Just be aware that newer vehicles often have more things that can and will fail, and parts seem less standardized these days, so you may not be able to keep it running past the expected service lifetime.

Older vehicles (depending on the platform) often use common parts that are shared even across manufacturers. And third party manufacturers keep cranking out new stock for them.

I am hoping that this type of system develops for simple no-frills electric vehicles over time. Although laws like the one mentioned here keep piling up, increasing vehicle complexity and cost of maintenance.

Where I live there is plenty of bike infrastructure. I and many others don't use bike for transportation because of crime. Homeless steal bikes and parts of bikes if they cannot defeat the lock somehow. Recently a cyclists got killed in a "bike-jacking". People even get bikes stolen from their balconies on the 2nd floor. Reign in crime if you want people to use bikes more.

This is true. But it does not negate the comment you are replying to. Once you introduce kids into the mix (esp infants) - this whole narrative falls apart quite quick, ditto for elders/people with disabilities. Bikes, public transport are not a substitute for the vehicle.

I do agree that the vehicle should not be the default transportation even if I do consider myself a "car guy".

> the government has favored the car infrastructure over the last decades

It was a combination of federal push for highways and consumer demand for greater distance and easier travel.

Your situation is very much the exception and not the norm in most of the US, suburban or not.

> that's about it.

Avid cyclist here.

* Extreme Weather: Severe heat, heavy snow, or torrential rain can make biking unsafe or impractical without specialized gear and high physical endurance.

* Accessibility & Mobility Issues: Individuals with certain physical disabilities or chronic health conditions may find traditional cycling impossible. (This also affects an aging population.)

* Time Constraints: For those with "trip-chaining" needs (e.g., daycare drop-off → work → grocery store → gym), the extra time required for cycling can be prohibitive.

* Infrastructure: Older adults are more sensitive to "heavy traffic" and "lack of safe places." Seniors don't stop cycling because they can't do it, but because they don't feel safe in traffic. (Good argument for upgrading roadways.)

* Care-giving: When parents become dependent on their children, often the children need to shuttle their parents around. A parent with dementia who escaped into the neighbourhood can be rapidly collected and ushered home in a car, not so much a bike.

* Theft & Vandalism: I've never had a car stolen. Two locked bikes, on the other hand...

Not in Texas, they're not viable for most uses, the parent commenter is completely correct.

The same is true for many states in the US, perhaps even most of the US.

Depends on where you live. I live in the sticks. 2 hour rides to the store on a windy road isn't really viable.

Moreover, time is a limited resource. Even adding 15 minutes here and there take away time I would have to spend with family, work on a project, etc.

This, from what I can recall seeing about average car trip distance, is actually correct.

(Excluding you rural people, but depending on your city could be true if people had smaller lots and denser less car centric business areas, or more businesses in general)