The corporate media recently obtained a leaked Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memorandum changing the agency’s policy on forcibly entering the home of an alien who has been ordered to be deported by an immigration judge. Discussions of the Minneapolis protests eclipsed coverage of the memo, but as one might expect, the chattering class has been experiencing a slow-motion meltdown over DHS taking immigration enforcement seriously.

According to the talking heads, civil rights in the United States will now evaporate. We can look forward to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents busting into our homes to arrest us for removing the tag on our mattresses that says, “Do Not Remove by Law.”

However, such claims are utter nonsense. They are premised on the media’s deceptive implication that ICE is deliberately depriving aliens of due process. But the fact is, 99% of the claims currently circulating in the media regarding aliens and judicial warrants are prime examples of what U.S. Army Lieutenant General Russel Honoré famously referred to as “stuck on stupid.”

In Ekiu v. United States, the Supreme Court clearly stated that regarding the admission and deportation of foreigners, “the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law.”

That means when ICE follows the procedures set forth by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), aliens are being given all the due process they are owed. And regarding the arrest of immigration violators, Congress has explicitly stated in 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a) and 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) that an administrative—not a judicial—warrant suffices to protect an alien’s significantly limited right to be at liberty in the U.S.

An administrative warrant is a document issued by an executive branch agency, based on a statute authorizing a civil (as opposed to criminal) inspection, search, or seizure. Administrative warrants are premised on two cases, Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States and United States v. Biswell, which held that at certain times the government’s oversight interest outweighs an individual’s Fourth Amendment interests (for example, the manufacture and sale of firearms). In those areas, government searches and seizures are inherently reasonable; any individual Fourth Amendment interests are protected by the statute authorizing the nature and scope of the search or seizure; and no judicial warrant is necessary.

Immigration is an area where the government has strong oversight, as laid out in Colonnade and Biswell. In fact, in Arizona v. United States the Supreme Court described immigration control using language identical to that employed in those two cases, referring to the INA as “an integrated scheme of regulation.”

Generally, the authorities cannot forcibly enter private premises under an administrative warrant. However, there are exceptions. For instance, in situations involving imminent danger to health or safety, forced entry may be permissible based on an administrative warrant alone.

In the case of aliens who have been ordered to be removed from the U.S., the claim that ICE needs a judicial warrant for forcible entry is preposterous.

For one, there is no legal mechanism permitting a federal judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of a migrant found removable pursuant to a civil violation of the INA. That power is limited to circumstances where it is necessary to compel compliance with federal court orders or ensure a party’s appearance at hearings. Since federal district courts do not have jurisdiction over the civil deportation of immigration violators, federal judges do not have the authority to issue a warrant ensuring compliance with an administrative order of removal.

Moreover, the absurdity doctrine is a legal principle holding that courts should interpret the law to avoid illogical outcomes. Requiring ICE to seek a judicial warrant to enforce an order of removal is nonsensical. When apprehending individuals who have been ordered removed but have not departed the United States, ICE acts on the strength of both an immigration judge’s order and an administrative arrest warrant signed by an ICE supervisor. It makes absolutely no sense that an immigration judge has the power to authorize ICE to forcibly remove aliens from the United States, but that ICE, relying on the same order, cannot forcibly remove fugitive aliens from their lodgings. That’s why the Supreme Court in Abel v. United States flatly recognized that there is “overwhelming historical legislative recognition of the propriety of administrative arrest for deportable aliens.”

The bogus nature of the media’s civil rights claims is illustrated by the fact that the judicial warrant proponents seemingly want to put more restrictions on ICE than on the foreign criminals ICE is trying to remove. If the U.S. wishes to maintain its sovereignty, preserve its national security, and ensure public safety, we simply cannot afford to be stuck on that kind of stupid.