“….If you tie a judicial warrant to what ICE is doing, it will never happen….”

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Today:

Aaron Rupar ‪@atrupar.com‬

Rep. Mark Alford: “If you tie a judicial warrant to what ICE is doing, it will never happen”
[….]

1:40 PM · Feb 16, 2026

Some of the responses:

Representative Alford has become an accessory after the fact.

That darn pesky Constitution. It’s almost like it was designed and amended to protect rights and freedoms.

This is like OpenAI saying they can’t make money if they can’t steal.

Another “constitutional conservative” who stopped reading after the Second Amendment

And yet somehow the Obama and Biden administrations were able to make it work. 🤔

Literally making the point he’s missing. That’s pretty talented.

It still staggers me that an American legislator — you know, one of the dudes and dudettes who take the oath to protect and defend the Constitution — just say this sort of heresy on air. ICE’s mission is incompatible with the Constitution. Huh, what’s the “Supreme law of the land “?

Somebody needs to give this guy a copy of the Constitution, with the 4th amendment highlighted.

Hey Alford! Don’t like the need for judicially-authorized warrants based on probable cause for searches & seizures? Take it up with the drafters of the 4th Amendment. Or try to repeal it & see where THAT gets you. What a f’ing moron. Seriously, this comment is disqualifying.

Exhibit #5,464,356, your Honor. In the People vs. The Fascist Regime

So, in plain English, your goal is to break the law.

He is SO CLOSE to figuring this out.

If you tie the Constitution to it, it will be unconstitutional

They seem utterly incapable of grasping the implications of what they’re saying.

“Yeah, that old Bill of Rights just keeps getting in the way of our authoritarianism.”

Then it shouldn’t happen.

This is only complicated because people like this dickbag insist on being fascist fucks.

Maybe Mark Alford should tell us how he’d feel if federal officers kicked down his front door on their own volition just because someone said he was harboring in his house anyone the govt. wanted…even citizens who committed crimes, He disagrees with the 4th amendment? (freedom from illegal searches)

“allegations of abuse of these warrants”? We watched them kick in the door of an elderly man and drag him out in his underwear. They didn’t even have a warrant. These passive voiced questions are bs.

How he qualified, “lied about, an American citizen…”
“Different quarterback”? So it is a game

Once they’ve accustomed us to “no judicial warrants cuz they’s furriners,” it’ll be easier for them to get us to accept no judicial warrants cuz they’s, oh, whatever group is out of favor today, furrin or not.

They’ve talked themselves into this. Now their focus is talking US into it.

One might argue that it should not be happening if it cannot happen within the rule of law.

If it cannot comply with the rule of law, it is an illegal action.

The ‘duh’ is silent by heavily implied.

It’s literally in the fucking constitution.

That means it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

This isn’t difficult to understand, even for this lil guy.

“It” here means: breaking the law and violating the constitution, so yeah…. Sounds good.

The Founders are rolling over in their graves.

So he’s saying their cases are such BS they couldn’t meet the requirements to get a real warrant? And instead of requiring them to meet the minimal Constitutional standard, he just wants to let them have at it, Constitution be damned? Huh.

He isn’t making the statement that he thinks he is.

How very fascist.

“If we can’t do illegal shit we won’t be able to do the shit we’re doing” is a really weird defense.

So judicial warrants (which have been required for a long time and I’m fairly certain follow the laws of the Constitution) are too much trouble to get???

WTF???

In the clip, Alford says that no ICE agents lied about a shooting involving an American citizen, just about a Venezuelan. That is completely false as ICE agents lied about the situation around the shooting of American citizen Marimar Martinez.
[….]

When your best argument is “judges wouldn’t allow us to violate people’s rights” and “they reached a (nonexistent) agreement”, you’re losing.

Alford is full of shit

Funny, I don’t recall the Fourth Amendment saying “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…unless we feel like it.”

That’s pretty the goal when you make something unconstitutional, you ignorant dipstick

Thats how the law works, fuckface.

I’ve heard better arguments from a 4 year old.

You’ll do as you’re told or Tom Homan will eat your cats and dogs

We see what you did there.

It’s amazing how quickly the media has accepted violations of multiple amendments as normal. The entire GOP state media apparatus is pushing this absurdity.

They can be putting immigrants in ovens and the media would still refuse to push back.

Fuck them all. Burn them all to the fucking ground.

Yeah, that’s the point of the fucking constitution! Ever heard of it?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Article 16
Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

International covenant on civil and political rights.
Done at New York December 16, 1966.
Entered into force March 23, 1976; for the United States
September 8, 1992.