Is a warrant required if there’s already a deposition to remove an illegal alien? Can they go into the person’s house?

1. What the question is actually asking — “deposition” vs. orders and warrants

The phrase “deposition to remove an illegal alien” is not a standard legal trigger for enforcement in the sources reviewed, which instead describe final orders of removal, administrative warrants (Forms I‑200/I‑205), and judicial warrants; reporting and agency materials focus on final orders of removal and administrative removal warrants as the typical basis for interior arrests rather than any document called a “deposition” ^{[1] [5] [6]}. If the user meant “final order of removal” or other administrative immigration process outcomes, the sources provide guidance; if “deposition” means something else, the reporting here does not define that term and cannot confirm it substitutes for a judicial warrant ^{[1] [4]}.

2. Can ICE arrest without a judicial warrant? Yes — administrative warrants and statutory authority

ICE and the underlying statutes authorize immigration officers to arrest and detain aliens under administrative authority; administrative removal warrants (I‑205) and other ICE-issued warrants do not require a detached magistrate in the same way criminal search warrants do, and ICE training and statutory summaries explain that ICE routinely uses administrative warrants in day-to-day enforcement ^{[1] [2] [7]}. The federal statutes cited by analysts and agencies — including 8 U.S.C. provisions governing arrest and removal — provide the statutory backbone for arrests without judicial criminal warrants ^{[8] [9]}.

3. Can ICE enter a home on an administrative warrant? The guidance and the controversy

Historically, ICE guidance and many legal commentators have said administrative warrants generally do not authorize forced entry into private residences or non‑public areas without consent or a judicial warrant, except in exigent circumstances like active pursuit or immediate danger ^{[4] [6] [7]}. In 2025 an internal ICE memo explicitly told agents they may rely on administrative removal warrants to arrest people in their residences if the person has a final order of removal, instructing officers to knock, announce, and, if refused, use only “necessary and reasonable” force and avoid certain hours — a sharp reversal that prompted news coverage and legal concern ^{[3] [5]}. News outlets report that the memo triggered disputes between the agency’s new legal view and long‑standing Fourth Amendment norms and prior agency practice ^{[3] [5] [4]}.

4. Legal limits, exceptions, and open questions — courts and statutes matter

Statutes and regulations still include limitations: DHS regulations have been read to bar inspection entry into non‑public areas of a residence without judicial warrant or consent in many contexts, and courts have split or dodged definitive rulings about whether administrative warrants alone suffice to force entry into homes ^{[1] [7] [10]}. Reporting and legal analyses note that exceptions (exigent circumstances, hot pursuit, or consent) can permit warrantless entry, that officers can secure telephonic warrants in exigent situations, and that courts may later evaluate the reasonableness of entries under the Fourth Amendment — so authority to enter without a judge is neither absolute nor uniformly settled ^{[11] [7] [10]}.

5. Practical takeaway: what enforcement looks like on the ground

Practically, ICE routinely arrests people using administrative warrants and often conducts “knock and talks” at homes and worksites; whether agents may break into a house on an I‑205 alone depends on the interplay of the particular memo, statutory authority, consent, exigency, and evolving court rulings — the recent internal memo expanded ICE’s view but has been met with legal challenges and public controversy, and major outlets report that most immigration arrests remain governed by administrative warrants that traditionally did not permit forcible entry into homes absent additional authority ^{[2] [3] [4]}.

6. What reporting does not resolve and where to look next

The sources reviewed do not resolve every legal question: they show ICE’s changed internal guidance and the statutory framework, but they do not present a final Supreme Court ruling or settled nationwide rule answering whether an administrative warrant plus a final order always permits forced home entry; readers should consult recent judicial opinions and official DHS/ICE rulemaking for binding law in a specific jurisdiction ^{[3] [10] [7]}.