What's that flunky security guard gonna do?

Hopefully ICE officers are following MAHA guidelines and eating whole nutritious food and not eating the slop that is McDonalds.

I support the right of any business to self-destruct.
FYI I doubt if the franchise owner (company) made this policy.

FarmerFran said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

blacksox said:

---

This is free enterprise. Capitalism. The property owner sets the rules, unless you have a warrant.

---

You don't have the slightest idea what you're babbling about, do you? Why are you defending illegal immigration?

---

Uhh it's perfectly legal to refuse ICE to enter non publicly accessible areas in a workplace. He's right. Just because you want illegal immigrants out doesn't mean you need to accept having your rights trampled on

---

This is all so contradictory....for example .... Isn't it against the law to hire illegal aliens? So if the franchisee hires them aren't they breaking the law?

IF an employee (illegal) used fake documents to get a job, what is the employer's liability?

What right(s) does an illegal alien have?

I have absolutely zero problems with a private business telling federal law enforcement that they cannot search the property without a warrant. I don't understand anyone wanting a private entity to give up their constitutional protections against the government in the name of a political cause.

If an ICE agent can go in there and order a breakfast taco and a coffee, but cannot just walk into the kitchen and start harassing employees without a warrant, then I would actually commend that business, not condemn it.

In Texas, I actually think that the Texas Department of Wildlife can be deputized though, and a game warden could just walk right in to the kitchen on the way to the freezer, and there is nothing anyone can say about it. And, honestly, that really chaps my hide.

This is nothing like the Hilton unless McD is denying service to ICE. That wouldn't be illegal, just unwise. McD shouldn't just allow ICE to run unchecked through their stores, though. That wouldn't be illegal, just also unwise.

CyclingAg82 said:

---

This is all so contradictory....for example .... Isn't it against the law to hire illegal aliens? So if the franchisee hires them aren't they breaking the law?

IF an employee (illegal) used fake documents to get a job, what is the employer's liability?

What right(s) does an illegal alien have?

---

It's not contradictory at all. Don't give up your constitutional protections just because a political cause is popular.


I would absolutely condemn McD's for denying service to ICE, but would absolutely not condemn McD's for standing up for their constitutional protections. These positions are not in conflict.

This isn't about the rights of the workers who are in the kitchen of McD's, whether they are illegal aliens or not. This is about the rights of the owners of the McD's in question. Those owners have a right to refuse unlawful searches under the constitution. It would be short-sighted for anyone to ask McD's to waive those rights due to a political issue. Those rights are important, likely more important than the political issue. I will stand up for McD's rights to exercise those protections.

If McD is hiring illegal aliens, they are breaking the law. If ICE thinks that McD is breaking the law, get probable cause, get a warrant, search the place, and then nail McD's arse to the wall. Prosecute them and all of their employees to the extent of the law, and deport EREBODY!!! But, don't trample on people's constitutional rights in the process.

ICE isn't Gestapo. They aren't brown shirts. There are rules. They follow the rules.

Asking them to follow the rules is silly, but not something to be upset about.

Edited with the bold for clarification.

Do you really think ICE is just randomly checking a McDonald's kitchen for sh#@$ and giggles? All they need is probable cause (co worker busted them) and they can arrest away.

Tell that to a Game Warden...

Kansas Kid said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

So dumb. They think they can put up a sign that says law enforcement can't go in certain places of private property to enforce the law. That's not how law enforcement works.

---

Actually they have a document called the US Constitution that says they very much can stop people from going in certain places of private property without a warrant. That is why when businesses are raided by the police/FBI they show up with a warrant and then they are free to enter those places called for in the warrant.

I see a lot of people on F16 no longer believe in the US Constitution or haven't read and it.

As a reminder
" 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."

---

I can't put up a sign that says "STOP! No DEA allowed behind the counter" at my business and think that has any sort of bearing on if the cops can go behind the counter to search for drugs. First of all, they aren't going to randomly search anywhere. They already have to have a warrant to do so. Second, you just gave them reason to want to get a warrant. If you put up a "No DEA" sign, I know 100% where some drugs are, so use the resources you have to track them down.

All they are doing is saying "please look into who we hire". That is why it is dumb, because they put a target on whomever they were trying to protect.

Squadron7 said:

---

Can you do this for IRS agents? Asking for a friend.

---

While on the subject, can you do this with domestic terrorist demonRats?

McDonald's lost their mojo once the generation that worked with Ray Kroc left. Old school McDonald's, even with Quinlan and Joan, wouldn't have gotten caught up in this nonsense.

waitwhat? said:

---

Looks like a lot of people in this thread didn't bother to actually read the notice.

It doesn't say LEO can't come in and order a Quarter Pounder and fries. It says they can't come in and perform a search without a valid warrant.

Much like the nutritional value of a Big Mac, this is a nothingburger.

---

So the sign is simply letting everyone know the legalities of ICE and LE going into the business when they aren't called in by someone in the restaurant.

Well that's about as mundane as it gets.

Phatbob said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

So dumb. They think they can put up a sign that says law enforcement can't go in certain places of private property to enforce the law. That's not how law enforcement works.

---

Actually they have a document called the US Constitution that says they very much can stop people from going in certain places of private property without a warrant. That is why when businesses are raided by the police/FBI they show up with a warrant and then they are free to enter those places called for in the warrant.

I see a lot of people on F16 no longer believe in the US Constitution or haven't read and it.

As a reminder
" 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."

---

I can't put up a sign that says "STOP! No DEA allowed behind the counter" at my business and think that has any sort of bearing on if the cops can go behind the counter to search for drugs. First of all, they aren't going to randomly search anywhere. They already have to have a warrant to do so. Second, you just gave them reason to want to get a warrant. If you put up a "No DEA" sign, I know 100% where some drugs are, so use the resources you have to track them down.

All they are doing is saying "please look into who we hire". That is why it is dumb, because they put a target on whomever they were trying to protect.

---

The McDonald's franchisee note doesn't say what you are implying. It is saying you can't search in non public places without a judicial warrant as the Fourth Amendment allows them to do. The same with the DEA in your example. I think the note is dumb to put up in the first place for a number of reasons but all it does is state the legal rights the franchisee has under the US Constitution.

If ICE has a judicially issue warrant, by all means, they should go and enforce it under the terms of that warrant and I will 100% that action as well. At times, the Constitution means things don't happen the way we may want them to but that doesn't mean we should just ignore it like third world countries (and sometimes our country) do all the time.

This guy doesn't even like to eat there.....

Kansas Kid said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

So dumb. They think they can put up a sign that says law enforcement can't go in certain places of private property to enforce the law. That's not how law enforcement works.

---

Actually they have a document called the US Constitution that says they very much can stop people from going in certain places of private property without a warrant. That is why when businesses are raided by the police/FBI they show up with a warrant and then they are free to enter those places called for in the warrant.

I see a lot of people on F16 no longer believe in the US Constitution or haven't read and it.

As a reminder
" 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."

---

I can't put up a sign that says "STOP! No DEA allowed behind the counter" at my business and think that has any sort of bearing on if the cops can go behind the counter to search for drugs. First of all, they aren't going to randomly search anywhere. They already have to have a warrant to do so. Second, you just gave them reason to want to get a warrant. If you put up a "No DEA" sign, I know 100% where some drugs are, so use the resources you have to track them down.

All they are doing is saying "please look into who we hire". That is why it is dumb, because they put a target on whomever they were trying to protect.

---

The McDonald's franchisee note doesn't say what you are implying. It is saying you can't search in non public places without a judicial warrant as the Fourth Amendment allows them to do. The same with the DEA in your example. I think the note is dumb to put up in the first place for a number of reasons but all it does is state the legal rights the franchisee has under the US Constitution.

If ICE has a judicially issue warrant, by all means, they should go and enforce it under the terms of that warrant and I will 100% that action as well. At times, the Constitution means things don't happen the way we may want them to but that doesn't mean we should just ignore it like third world countries (and sometimes our country) do all the time.

---

I've noticed this "judicial warrant" term a lot recently...I guess those talking points were disseminated...

BTW, I don't believe an order of removal is called a "judicial warrant". But, it's legal justification for ICE to take someone into custody.

Of course (like one judge recently), the left will flip their **** because it doesn't have the words "Judicial Warrant" printed in 64 pt font at the top of every page and claim it's invalid...

B-1 83 said:

---

FarmerFran said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

blacksox said:

---

This is free enterprise. Capitalism. The property owner sets the rules, unless you have a warrant.

---

You don't have the slightest idea what you're babbling about, do you? Why are you defending illegal immigration?

---

Uhh it's perfectly legal to refuse ICE to enter non publicly accessible areas in a workplace. He's right. Just because you want illegal immigrants out doesn't mean you need to accept having your rights trampled on

---

Nonsense. If they are there to make an arrest that simply isn't true, otherwise any criminal could just park their ass in a "non public access" spot and avoid detention indefinitely .

---

If they have a warrant then sure. ICE doesn't just have authority without a judicial warrant to enter private property and detain someone without a warrant

Again, I am not saying LE has the right to search without a warrant. I am saying a note up on the window doesn't change anything in regards to that. All it does is put a target on their own kitchen, saying "we hire illegals, you should look into us", and making it more likely that they get a warrant to get behind the counter, Constitutionally.

FarmerFran said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

FarmerFran said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

blacksox said:

---

This is free enterprise. Capitalism. The property owner sets the rules, unless you have a warrant.

---

You don't have the slightest idea what you're babbling about, do you? Why are you defending illegal immigration?

---

Uhh it's perfectly legal to refuse ICE to enter non publicly accessible areas in a workplace. He's right. Just because you want illegal immigrants out doesn't mean you need to accept having your rights trampled on

---

Nonsense. If they are there to make an arrest that simply isn't true, otherwise any criminal could just park their ass in a "non public access" spot and avoid detention indefinitely .

---

If they have a warrant then sure. ICE doesn't just have authority without a judicial warrant to enter private property and detain someone without a warrant

---

There's that talking point again...

blacksox said:

---

This is free enterprise. Capitalism. The property owner sets the rules, unless you have a warrant.

---

Yep and people can boycott. Funny you never really have been for free enterprise unless it's this.

Ag with kids said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

So dumb. They think they can put up a sign that says law enforcement can't go in certain places of private property to enforce the law. That's not how law enforcement works.

---

Actually they have a document called the US Constitution that says they very much can stop people from going in certain places of private property without a warrant. That is why when businesses are raided by the police/FBI they show up with a warrant and then they are free to enter those places called for in the warrant.

I see a lot of people on F16 no longer believe in the US Constitution or haven't read and it.

As a reminder
" 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."

---

I can't put up a sign that says "STOP! No DEA allowed behind the counter" at my business and think that has any sort of bearing on if the cops can go behind the counter to search for drugs. First of all, they aren't going to randomly search anywhere. They already have to have a warrant to do so. Second, you just gave them reason to want to get a warrant. If you put up a "No DEA" sign, I know 100% where some drugs are, so use the resources you have to track them down.

All they are doing is saying "please look into who we hire". That is why it is dumb, because they put a target on whomever they were trying to protect.

---

The McDonald's franchisee note doesn't say what you are implying. It is saying you can't search in non public places without a judicial warrant as the Fourth Amendment allows them to do. The same with the DEA in your example. I think the note is dumb to put up in the first place for a number of reasons but all it does is state the legal rights the franchisee has under the US Constitution.

If ICE has a judicially issue warrant, by all means, they should go and enforce it under the terms of that warrant and I will 100% that action as well. At times, the Constitution means things don't happen the way we may want them to but that doesn't mean we should just ignore it like third world countries (and sometimes our country) do all the time.

---

I've noticed this "judicial warrant" term a lot recently...I guess those talking points were disseminated...

BTW, I don't believe an order of removal is called a "judicial warrant". But, it's legal justification for ICE to take someone into custody.

Of course (like one judge recently), the left will flip their **** because it doesn't have the words "Judicial Warrant" printed in 64 pt font at the top of every page and claim it's invalid...

---

There is a major legal difference between and administrative warrant and a judicial warrant. ICE can use the administrative warrant to detain people in public areas but it doesn't allow them to go into private areas.

A judicial warrant is protected by the Fourth Amendment, which requires judicial oversight of searches and seizures. It confirms that the authorities have grounds for invading privacy.

An administrative order is based on the powers of executive bodies. Federal laws and regulations regulate these powers. The document confirms that there are grounds for administrative intervention within the agency. However, the Constitution requires that interference in the private sphere be subject to judicial review. In many cases, ICE is using just the administrative one which is fine by me because most of their arrests are in public places which aren't protected by the fourth amendment. .

Ag with kids said:

---

FarmerFran said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

FarmerFran said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

blacksox said:

---

This is free enterprise. Capitalism. The property owner sets the rules, unless you have a warrant.

---

You don't have the slightest idea what you're babbling about, do you? Why are you defending illegal immigration?

---

Uhh it's perfectly legal to refuse ICE to enter non publicly accessible areas in a workplace. He's right. Just because you want illegal immigrants out doesn't mean you need to accept having your rights trampled on

---

Nonsense. If they are there to make an arrest that simply isn't true, otherwise any criminal could just park their ass in a "non public access" spot and avoid detention indefinitely .

---

If they have a warrant then sure. ICE doesn't just have authority without a judicial warrant to enter private property and detain someone without a warrant

---

There's that talking point again...

---

Turns out referencing a common legal term in a conversation is somewhat common. You're seeing more emphasis on the word Judicial because people don't seem to understand the difference between the difference between a warrant issued by a judge and a deportation order

A warrant is a search for evidence. Any evidence found without a warrant is not eligible for legal consideration and is a constitutional violation.

However, ICE is not looking for evidence. They are enforcing a judicial removal order for an individual, and that is a different thing. If they are attempting to make an arrest of an individual and the individual is believed to be present, I am unsure a warrant is required to execute the arrest. It is much like the pursuit of a criminal fugitive. If the person is commits a crime and flees into private property, the pursuing officer isn't required to get a judicial warrant for each property the fleeting criminal passes into.

it's cool... we'll just leave an agent in the parking lot and wait

Daveintx said:

---

it's cool... we'll just leave an agent in the parking lot and wait

---

And by the bathroom...

FarmerFran said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

FarmerFran said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

blacksox said:

---

This is free enterprise. Capitalism. The property owner sets the rules, unless you have a warrant.

---

You don't have the slightest idea what you're babbling about, do you? Why are you defending illegal immigration?

---

Uhh it's perfectly legal to refuse ICE to enter non publicly accessible areas in a workplace. He's right. Just because you want illegal immigrants out doesn't mean you need to accept having your rights trampled on

---

Nonsense. If they are there to make an arrest that simply isn't true, otherwise any criminal could just park their ass in a "non public access" spot and avoid detention indefinitely .

---

If they have a warrant then sure. ICE doesn't just have authority without a judicial warrant to enter private property and detain someone without a warrant

---

You don't know what you're talking about. All they need is reasonable suspicion.

BusterAg said:

---

CyclingAg82 said:

---

This is all so contradictory....for example .... Isn't it against the law to hire illegal aliens? So if the franchisee hires them aren't they breaking the law?

IF an employee (illegal) used fake documents to get a job, what is the employer's liability?

What right(s) does an illegal alien have?

---

It's not contradictory at all. Don't give up your constitutional protections just because a political cause is popular.


I would absolutely condemn McD's for denying service to ICE, but would absolutely not condemn McD's for standing up for their constitutional protections. These positions are not in conflict.

This isn't about the rights of the workers who are in the kitchen of McD's, whether they are illegal aliens or not. This is about the rights of the owners of the McD's in question. Those owners have a right to refuse unlawful searches under the constitution. It would be short-sighted for anyone to ask McD's to waive those rights due to a political issue. Those rights are important, likely more important than the political issue. I will stand up for McD's rights to exercise those protections.

If McD is hiring illegal aliens, they are breaking the law. If ICE thinks that McD is breaking the law, get probable cause, get a warrant, search the place, and then nail McD's arse to the wall. Prosecute them and all of their employees to the extent of the law, and deport EREBODY!!! But, don't trample on people's constitutional rights in the process.

ICE isn't Gestapo. They aren't brown shirts. There are rules. Follow the rules.

---

I am so tired of the "Gestapo" BS. ICE is following the rules. D******t-ocrats threw the border wide open in clear defiance of Federal Immigration Law. This is the result of what the scofflaws did.

Whose constitutional rights are we talking about?

Phatbob said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

So dumb. They think they can put up a sign that says law enforcement can't go in certain places of private property to enforce the law. That's not how law enforcement works.

---

Actually they have a document called the US Constitution that says they very much can stop people from going in certain places of private property without a warrant. That is why when businesses are raided by the police/FBI they show up with a warrant and then they are free to enter those places called for in the warrant.

I see a lot of people on F16 no longer believe in the US Constitution or haven't read and it.

As a reminder
" 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."

---

I can't put up a sign that says "STOP! No DEA allowed behind the counter" at my business and think that has any sort of bearing on if the cops can go behind the counter to search for drugs. First of all, they aren't going to randomly search anywhere. They already have to have a warrant to do so. Second, you just gave them reason to want to get a warrant. If you put up a "No DEA" sign, I know 100% where some drugs are, so use the resources you have to track them down.

All they are doing is saying "please look into who we hire". That is why it is dumb, because they put a target on whomever they were trying to protect.

---

If McD's wants to virtue signal that they are a business that believes that Fed LEOs need to follow the constitution, I'm really not going to oppose that, even if the target audience is a bunch of dunces that think this is some type of "INSRRECTON!!" message, which it is not.

CyclingAg82 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

CyclingAg82 said:

---

This is all so contradictory....for example .... Isn't it against the law to hire illegal aliens? So if the franchisee hires them aren't they breaking the law?

IF an employee (illegal) used fake documents to get a job, what is the employer's liability?

What right(s) does an illegal alien have?

---

It's not contradictory at all. Don't give up your constitutional protections just because a political cause is popular.


I would absolutely condemn McD's for denying service to ICE, but would absolutely not condemn McD's for standing up for their constitutional protections. These positions are not in conflict.

This isn't about the rights of the workers who are in the kitchen of McD's, whether they are illegal aliens or not. This is about the rights of the owners of the McD's in question. Those owners have a right to refuse unlawful searches under the constitution. It would be short-sighted for anyone to ask McD's to waive those rights due to a political issue. Those rights are important, likely more important than the political issue. I will stand up for McD's rights to exercise those protections.

If McD is hiring illegal aliens, they are breaking the law. If ICE thinks that McD is breaking the law, get probable cause, get a warrant, search the place, and then nail McD's arse to the wall. Prosecute them and all of their employees to the extent of the law, and deport EREBODY!!! But, don't trample on people's constitutional rights in the process.

ICE isn't Gestapo. They aren't brown shirts. There are rules. They follow the rules.

---

I am so tired of the "Gestapo" BS. ICE is following the rules. D******t-ocrats threw the border wide open in clear defiance of Federal Immigration Law. This is the result of what the scofflaws did.

Whose constitutional rights are we talking about?

---

I'm not saying ICE is not following the rules. I am sure that they are. I edited my post with the bold to re-state.

I am saying that a message asking ICE to follow the rules isn't some reason to be upset. Calls for a boycott over these flyers are just supposed to create fake or misdirected outrage.

The owners of that particular establishment have constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure. That is all the sign is asking for. People that are either upset or elated by these signs have been hoodwinked. They are a non-issue.

akm91 said:

---

blacksox said:

---

This is free enterprise. Capitalism. The property owner sets the rules, unless you have a warrant.

---

Actually McDonalds owns the property, the franchisee leases it from McDonalds.

---

This .... The franchisee doesn't set the rules. McD's controls every, single piece of their process/restaurants.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

A warrant is a search for evidence. Any evidence found without a warrant is not eligible for legal consideration and is a constitutional violation.

However, ICE is not looking for evidence. They are enforcing a judicial removal order for an individual, and that is a different thing. If they are attempting to make an arrest of an individual and the individual is believed to be present, I am unsure a warrant is required to execute the arrest. It is much like the pursuit of a criminal fugitive. If the person is commits a crime and flees into private property, the pursuing officer isn't required to get a judicial warrant for each property the fleeting criminal passes into.

---

ICE usually doesn't use or need a judicial order. If they did, it would greatly slow down their efforts. That said, it then limits their ability to arrest people to doing it either in public places or private places where they have been given permission to enter

"ICE does not need judicial warrants to make arrests. Like all other law enforcement officers, ICE officers and agents can initiate consensual encounters and speak with people, briefly detain aliens when they have reasonable suspicion that the aliens are illegally present in the United States, and arrest people they believe are illegal aliens. ICE officers and agents can also detain and search people crossing the border."

https://www.ice.gov/immigration-enforcement-frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=default,keep%20this%20information%20under%20wraps.

Talk about painting a target on yourself…

"Please, ICE, don't investigate and take our illegal kitchen staff, who is present at this easily cordoned location most working hours!"

CyclingAg82 said:

---

What right(s) does an illegal alien have?

---

The right to be removed from this country. Post haste.

blacksox said:

---

This is free enterprise. Capitalism. The property owner sets the rules, unless you have a warrant.

---

Of course, you can harbor an illegal alien and break the law and prevent entry by LEA.

Ever heard of the 4th amendment? If you are pursuing a suspect, you don't need a warrant. If they suspect illegals are working there, they will already have a warrant or wait for the suspects to leave.

FarmerFran said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

FarmerFran said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

blacksox said:

---

This is free enterprise. Capitalism. The property owner sets the rules, unless you have a warrant.

---

You don't have the slightest idea what you're babbling about, do you? Why are you defending illegal immigration?

---

Uhh it's perfectly legal to refuse ICE to enter non publicly accessible areas in a workplace. He's right. Just because you want illegal immigrants out doesn't mean you need to accept having your rights trampled on

---

Nonsense. If they are there to make an arrest that simply isn't true, otherwise any criminal could just park their ass in a "non public access" spot and avoid detention indefinitely .

---

If they have a warrant then sure. ICE doesn't just have authority without a judicial warrant to enter private property and detain someone without a warrant

---

If they are in pursuit or trying to prevent escape, they don;t need a warrant.

Quote:

---

"This is private property, so you can't just break the law because you're a federal agent..."

---