The federal govt has gone too far

[miketx]

We have had border patrol checks points for decades. All they do is stop you and see if you are a mexican. If you are hispanic you MIGHT have to show ID. My wife never had to show hers at the check point and she's hispanic.

 

[S.J.]

There are a bunch of videos like this on YouTube of people refusing to answer the question.

Welcome to the "Land of the Free." Show your papers at the next checkpoint, please.

Yes, it's very strange, some on the right will probably back it up, some on the left too.

Oh, make no mistake about it. The right loves this kind of shit. They'll wave around their "Don't Tread On Me" flags and scream about their limited government and individual liberties, but when it comes to the authoritarian police state they are the first to drop to their knees and start licking boots.

Your argument ignores the elephant in the room, MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS in our country committing crimes, murder, rape, assault, identify theft, tax fraud, shall I continue? If the illegals were booted out and the borders secure I'd switch sides on this issue.

Exactly! They don't want to admit there is a problem. Fix the damn problem, THEN complain if you're asked for I.D.

Who denied illegal immigration is a problem?

When one fights against all efforts to stop it, they must not see it as a problem (at least not for them).

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yes, it's very strange, some on the right will probably back it up, some on the left too.

Oh, make no mistake about it. The right loves this kind of shit. They'll wave around their "Don't Tread On Me" flags and scream about their limited government and individual liberties, but when it comes to the authoritarian police state they are the first to drop to their knees and start licking boots.

Your argument ignores the elephant in the room, MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS in our country committing crimes, murder, rape, assault, identify theft, tax fraud, shall I continue? If the illegals were booted out and the borders secure I'd switch sides on this issue.

Exactly! They don't want to admit there is a problem. Fix the damn problem, THEN complain if you're asked for I.D.

Who denied illegal immigration is a problem?

When one fights against all efforts to stop it, they must not see it as a problem (at least not for them).

You could blanket the Middle East in nukes to stop ISIS, but not doing so doesn't mean you don't recognize there's a problem.

 

[task0778]

There are those who want state powers to be increased and federal powers to be reduced. Mostly on the right too.

However when the right get power, they often don't pull power back, they simply want to pull taxes for rich people back.

San Diego teacher refuses to answer Border Patrol questions at checkpoint

Here's one example. The Supreme Court, which has been right wing for a long time now, has not replead this law which was passed 7-2, dissenting was a liberal William Brennan and liberal Thurgood Marshall.

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte 428 U.S. 543 (1976)

They ruled that check points could be set up 100 miles from the border and stop people without a warrant for no reason at all. They asked some woman if she was a citizen and then refused to let her go because she refused to answer. I mean, what? Who gives people this power?

The right?

Well then you have the issue of taking people's rights away, or infringing on them once they have broken the law, especially in terms of gun rights. And the right hasn't done anything to change that either. They basically hold all three parts of federal govt, and they aren't changing it.

They'll tell you how much they love guns, freedoms, rights etc to win your votes, but the reality is they don't do anything about it when they're in power, and yet you still vote for them.

Further information, from Wikipedia:

The defendant, Martinez-Fuerte, had agreed to transport two illegal Mexican aliens who had entered the United States through the Port of San Ysidro in San Diego, California. They traveled north and were stopped at a permanent checkpoint on Interstate 5 between Oceanside and San Clemente, then questioned. The two passengers admitted their status and the defendant was charged with two counts of illegally transporting aliens. He moved to have the evidence suppressed, on the grounds that the checkpoint stop had violated the Fourth Amendment. The motion was denied and he was convicted of both counts.

The court ruled 7 to 2 that the internal checkpoints were not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but rather were consistent with the amendment. They went on to say that it would be impracticable for the officers to seek warrants for every vehicle searched and that to do so would eliminate any deterrent towards smuggling and illegal immigration. The court felt that any intrusion to motorists was a minimal one and that the government and public interest outweighed the constitutional rights of the individual.

The court also ruled that the stops were Constitutional even if largely based on apparent Mexican ancestry.

The opinion stated:

"As we have noted earlier, one's expectation of privacy in an automobile and of freedom in its operation are significantly different from the traditional expectation of privacy and freedom in one's residence.

"And the reasonableness of the procedures followed in making these checkpoint stops makes the resulting intrusion on the interests of motorists minimal. On the other hand, the purpose of the stops is legitimate and in the public interest, and the need for this enforcement technique is demonstrated by the records in the cases before us. Accordingly, we hold that the stops and questioning at issue may be made in the absence of any individualized suspicion at reasonably located checkpoints.

What the Court is saying above is that a Border Patrol agent that sends a vehicle to secondary does not violate the Fourth amendment even if he/she lacks probable cause or even reasonable suspicion, as is stated below.

"We further believe that it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to the secondary inspection area at the San Clemente checkpoint on the basis of criteria that would not sustain a roving patrol stop." (ie... the reasonable suspicion (see Terry v. Ohio) requirement of roving patrol)

"Thus, even if it be assumed that such referrals are made largely on the basis of apparent Mexican ancestry, we perceive no constitutional violation. Cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 885-887. As the intrusion here is sufficiently minimal that no particularized reason need exist to justify it, we think it follows that the Border Patrol officers must have wide discretion in selecting the motorists to be diverted for the brief questioning involved. see 428 U. S. 564"

 

[S.J.]

Oh, make no mistake about it. The right loves this kind of shit. They'll wave around their "Don't Tread On Me" flags and scream about their limited government and individual liberties, but when it comes to the authoritarian police state they are the first to drop to their knees and start licking boots.

Your argument ignores the elephant in the room, MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS in our country committing crimes, murder, rape, assault, identify theft, tax fraud, shall I continue? If the illegals were booted out and the borders secure I'd switch sides on this issue.

Exactly! They don't want to admit there is a problem. Fix the damn problem, THEN complain if you're asked for I.D.

Who denied illegal immigration is a problem?

When one fights against all efforts to stop it, they must not see it as a problem (at least not for them).

You could blanket the Middle East in nukes to stop ISIS, but not doing so doesn't mean you don't recognize there's a problem.

Ok, what's your plan then?

 

[BluesLegend]

There are a bunch of videos like this on YouTube of people refusing to answer the question.

Welcome to the "Land of the Free." Show your papers at the next checkpoint, please.

Yes, it's very strange, some on the right will probably back it up, some on the left too.

Oh, make no mistake about it. The right loves this kind of shit. They'll wave around their "Don't Tread On Me" flags and scream about their limited government and individual liberties, but when it comes to the authoritarian police state they are the first to drop to their knees and start licking boots.

Your argument ignores the elephant in the room, MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS in our country committing crimes, murder, rape, assault, identify theft, tax fraud, shall I continue? If the illegals were booted out and the borders secure I'd switch sides on this issue.

That is no reason to detain and question people without cause.

I suppose door to door searches with no warrants in order to find illegals would be OK with you too. Until they came to your door that is

They looked like illegals in a country flooded with illegals how much more cause is needed?

 

[Skull Pilot]

There are a bunch of videos like this on YouTube of people refusing to answer the question.

Welcome to the "Land of the Free." Show your papers at the next checkpoint, please.

Yes, it's very strange, some on the right will probably back it up, some on the left too.

Oh, make no mistake about it. The right loves this kind of shit. They'll wave around their "Don't Tread On Me" flags and scream about their limited government and individual liberties, but when it comes to the authoritarian police state they are the first to drop to their knees and start licking boots.

Your argument ignores the elephant in the room, MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS in our country committing crimes, murder, rape, assault, identify theft, tax fraud, shall I continue? If the illegals were booted out and the borders secure I'd switch sides on this issue.

That is no reason to detain and question people without cause.

I suppose door to door searches with no warrants in order to find illegals would be OK with you too. Until they came to your door that is

They looked like illegals in a country flooded with illegals how much more cause is needed?

really?

What do illegals look like?

What if a cop thought you looked illegal and wanted to enter your home without a warrant you'd be AOK with that right?

 

[BluesLegend]

Yes, it's very strange, some on the right will probably back it up, some on the left too.

Oh, make no mistake about it. The right loves this kind of shit. They'll wave around their "Don't Tread On Me" flags and scream about their limited government and individual liberties, but when it comes to the authoritarian police state they are the first to drop to their knees and start licking boots.

Your argument ignores the elephant in the room, MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS in our country committing crimes, murder, rape, assault, identify theft, tax fraud, shall I continue? If the illegals were booted out and the borders secure I'd switch sides on this issue.

That is no reason to detain and question people without cause.

I suppose door to door searches with no warrants in order to find illegals would be OK with you too. Until they came to your door that is

They looked like illegals in a country flooded with illegals how much more cause is needed?

really?

What do illegals look like?

What if a cop thought you looked illegal and wanted to enter your home without a warrant you'd be AOK with that right?

Mass is training several hundred police officers to spot them, it was in the news today.

 

[BluesLegend]

In related news the House today voted to approve a down payment of $1.6 billion for the border wall. Dem's are livid, the House used a procedural vote that denied angry Democrats an up-or-down vote.