1. United States
2. Mass.
3. Letter

I can’t say it any better than Robert Hubbell, so I’m just going to quote him: “On Tuesday, Stephen Miller rejected as a “non-starter” a demand by Democrats that ICE obtain judicial warrants based “upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” before entering a home. See Politico, ‘Complete nonstarter’: Administration allies say judicial warrants a red line for White House in DHS funding talks as shutdown looms. (“The judicial warrants are the key operational thing that [deputy chief of staff] Stephen Miller and the crew do not want to budge on.”) “Got that? Complying with the Constitution’s foundational procedural protection is a “non-starter.” More importantly, it is an admission that the current practice of ICE of entering homes without a judicial warrant violates the Constitution. “Democrats must stand firm on this point. Demanding that ICE comply with a protection that was present at the birth of our republic should be “non-negotiable.” If complying with the Constitution is an intolerable burden for ICE, it must be abolished and replaced with an agency that views the Constitution as its charter, not an obstacle. “This point, standing alone, justifies the steadfast refusal to fund DHS until ICE agrees to follow the Constitution. *****To do otherwise would amount to amending the Constitution by fiat.***** (emphasis mine) In that sense, the fight over funding DHS is a defense of the Constitution, as to which there can be no compromise.”