Homeland Security Check Point - Page 5

Homeland Security Check Point

This is a discussion on Homeland Security Check Point within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by SoFloAuthor Whether you agree with the law or not....LEO can stop you anywhere and ask for ID...to that you must comply... That ...

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 85
  1. #61
    Distinguished Member Array kazzaerexys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,838
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFloAuthor View Post
    Whether you agree with the law or not....LEO can stop you anywhere and ask for ID...to that you must comply...
    That turns out not to be the case. There is no law requiring the carrying of ID in this country and there is no law requiring citizens to show their papers. Do a search on Michael Righi. (Yes, Righi is a bit of a butt-head himself but note that, although the officer took him into custody for failing to show a drivers license, he was never charged with that...because there is no such law.)

    Now, SCOTUS has upheld that state statutes can require ID when stopped for "reasonable suspicion" (see Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). But it seems to me that the mere existence of a checkpoint is not, in fact, reasonable suspicion of any particular person being involved in the commission of a crime.

    Furthermore, we are talking border patrol. Those are feds, so state stop-and-identify laws don't seem to be relevant. I could imagine a federal law requiring ID in a federal jurisdiction (like a national park), but this checkpoint wasn't on federal land, was it?
    “What is a moderate interpretation of [the Constitution]? Halfway between what it says and [...] what you want it to say?” —Justice Antonin Scalia

    SIG: P220R SS Elite SAO, P220R SAO, P220R Carry, P226R Navy, P226, P239/.40S&W, P2022/.40S&W; GSR 5", P6.


  2. #62
    VIP Member Array tns0038's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,163
    That guys such a “jerk”…

    She kept her cool a whole lot better than I would of.

    The way I see it by being “polite” she jeopardized our national security. How do we know the vehicle he was in was not car jacked 30 minutes ago, and he is transporting arms and explosives?

    I would of answered “this is US border checkpoint, and if you declare your citizenship, you wont’ be detained.”

    So, I’ll ask you one more time, “what country are you a citizen of?”

    Wrong answer and I would have opened his door and grabbed him by the hair on his head and drug him to the ground; then I would have allowed him to ware some nifty bracelets, and per his request, detained that SOB for three days or longer until someone verified all his credentials.

  3. #63
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Tone deaf? Not really. I simply choose to ignore things that don't infringe on my rights.

    I absolutely agree that we need to BUILD THE FENCE. And I am ordinarily against internal checkpoints. I have written about my disdain for DUI checkpoints because those actually infringe on rights. But the national security issue is so important that the illegal problem must be addressed. Since we don't have a fence and the checkpoints are clearly legal and innocuous, I will defend the Border Patrol policies and virtually any effort that will rid our country of continuing destruction of our culture.

    The only think we are inching closer to is 'Impresse dos para Ingles.' Not to mention an enemy attack on our soil. I can't decide which is worse.
    I find myself in complete agreement with this statement, especially the last part. Press two...


    -B

  4. #64
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,296
    You know...I'm glad I lost power last night before I could click submit. I totally lost my post and train of thought which is a good thing as my post probably would have been deleted. My best non-deletable post at this point will have to be a quote from Harry Binswanger:
    I admire those who broke our rotten, rights-defying anti- immigration laws to come here. These brave people knew it was better to live in America under a stigma, in the semi-shadows, than as "legals" in their native countries.
    Was the guy a jerk and probably could and should have gone about this problem another way...Absolutely. That doesn't however, abdicate our folks in uniform following unconstitutional laws.

    All you "Americans" advocating the violation of not only the 4th Amendment (by following Title 8, section 1357 which grants immigration officers something called "powers without warrant."), but also the concept of individual freedom, should be ashamed of yourselves.

    Ask yourselves why "Illegal" aliens are just that, Illegal. The only reason the US considers them illegal is because they don't "pay" taxes, but yet some of them put their hands in the coffer. So who's really to blame here; the thieves stealing from the thief that stole the results of your hard work/effort, or the original thief?

    Still want to complain about the "Illegals" partaking in our social programs, but don't want to get rid of our social programs(darn you commies)? Fine. Just deny them access to the social programs. WHY oh why does everyone seem to think it's ok to just do random stops and ask for ID just in the name of National Security?

    What's the difference from them making these stops 10, 50 or 400 miles inland of the border? ...hint: NONE! Using your logic, they can stop you anytime they want, without cause, without warrant, and for any myriad of unknown reasons in your own driveway.

    As far as the drugs and human smuggling arguments...weak at best. Why is there a drug problem? If someone wants to fry his brain that's his perogative. The smuggling problem is solved rather easily by solving the first problem I pointed out.

    Sorry, that's about as "Nice" as I can get on this thread. And yes, I'm white, American born/raised, and of Norse/Native American descent.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  5. #65
    VIP Member Array obxned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    OBX, NC
    Posts
    2,655
    Yor, Mr. Citizen, hired these people to do a job for you, and then you turn around and make that job impossible. It would be 'profiling' to only ask nervous-looking hispanic drivers in overcrouded vehicles what country they are from.
    "If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan

  6. #66
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,665

    Profiling isn't the issue

    Quote Originally Posted by obxned View Post
    Yor, Mr. Citizen, hired these people to do a job for you, and then you turn around and make that job impossible. It would be 'profiling' to only ask nervous-looking hispanic drivers in overcrouded vehicles what country they are from.
    I don't see the issue as a profiling problem. Indeed, everyone going past the checkpoint must stop.

    My problem is with the concept of interior checkpoints. I believe that I should have (and was given in our Constitution) a right to travel about this country unmolested and without inquiry by authority--except with reasonable suspicion etc.

    Moreover, I see these interior checkpoints as of very questionable value as compared to:

    a) spending our money on a fence that actually keeps illegals out

    b) spending our money on catching employers and exploiters of illegals

    c) spending our money on active efforts to deport illegals; especially if they break our other laws and thus come to the attention of authorities through their actions.

    I do not want our country to get to the point where we must carry internal passports--even if they are disguised as electronic driver's licenses. A driver's license is just that. It should not be proof of citizenship, legal residence in the US, identity, or anything else of the sort. And this includes its inappropriate use for boarding airlines. That was and is a big time reach in my opinion, and I get no solace from the fact that it is supposed to be lawful because there is "a secret law." (That is what TSA was saying at one time and may still be saying.)

    Folks, if you want to lose your personal freedom, keep quiet about these intrusions. They are too high a price for the modest security gains we get.

  7. #67
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    The illegal immigration problem is easy to solve, and it always has been.

    The first time an employer gets caught give them a fine...say $1000 per person per day. The second time an employer gets caught, suspend his businesses license.

    Or we could just enforce the laws we already have. As long as people who are 'undocumented/guest worker/whatever', are getting paid more than they can make in their native country, they will keep coming over.

    You don't need checkpoints, you already know where they are. Check out any Home Depot or Walmart parking lot at 6 a.m or orchards in the afternoon. Surely I am not the only person in this country that can find illegal workers?

    If you want to set up a worthwhile checkpoint put it in the Home Depot parking lot.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  8. #68
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    Was the guy a jerk and probably could and should have gone about this problem another way...Absolutely. That doesn't however, abdicate our folks in uniform following unconstitutional laws.
    I suppose since you do not accept the authority of the Executive branch, you do not condone lawfully passed legislation by the Legislative branch, and you do not adhere to case law reviewed by the Judicial branch, that you personally should determine what is Constitutional and what is not. And who do we get to question your authority?

    All you "Americans" advocating the violation of not only the 4th Amendment (by following Title 8, section 1357 which grants immigration officers something called "powers without warrant."), but also the concept of individual freedom, should be ashamed of yourselves.
    There is no violation of the Fourth Amendment at a Border Patrol checkpoint. There is no unreasonable search without a warrant.

    Ask yourselves why "Illegal" aliens are just that, Illegal. The only reason the US considers them illegal is because they don't "pay" taxes, but yet some of them put their hands in the coffer. So who's really to blame here; the thieves stealing from the thief that stole the results of your hard work/effort, or the original thief?
    The very first thing these invaders do is break the law. Most subsequently continue to break the law and conspire with others to break even more laws. It has nothing to do with whether they pay taxes. Who is to blame? The illegal aliens.

    Still want to complain about the "Illegals" partaking in our social programs, but don't want to get rid of our social programs(darn you commies)?
    One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

    Just deny them access to the social programs.
    Sounds like a good plan.

    WHY oh why does everyone seem to think it's ok to just do random stops and ask for ID just in the name of National Security?
    Not everyone. Many on this forum are willing to sacrifice national security rather than tell someone their name and citizenship.

    What's the difference from them making these stops 10, 50 or 400 miles inland of the border? ...hint: NONE! Using your logic, they can stop you anytime they want, without cause, without warrant, and for any myriad of unknown reasons in your own driveway.
    The Border Patrol has jurisdiction throughout the United States. They set up checkpoints at places where they have reasonable suspicion that illegals will be found. And right they are. The succcess of the checkpoints is well documented. Sadly, some of these illegals have murdered our Federal agents at checkpoints.

    As far as the drugs and human smuggling arguments...weak at best. Why is there a drug problem?
    It makes no difference why there is a problem. These smugglers illegally cross the border bringing with them tons of illegal drugs. Checkpoints have successfully confiscated millions of dollars worth of drugs just last month alone. Further, human smugglers (called coyotes) have been captured at this checkpoints. In Phoenix this week, a large number of illegals were held hostage by the smugglers. More checkpoints would make this less of a problem.

    Most people outside the southwest do not understand the severity of the problem these invaders cause. They watch Geraldo make excuses and think the prolem is overblown.

    If someone wants to fry his brain that's his perogative. The smuggling problem is solved rather easily by solving the first problem I pointed out.
    It would be his perogative if it didn't affect society as a whole, which it does. And you opinion on the subject does nothing to mitigate the fact that it is still illegal.

    Sorry, that's about as "Nice" as I can get on this thread. And yes, I'm white, American born/raised, and of Norse/Native American descent.
    Oh, you can be 'nicer' than this!

    I ask you a simple question. Would it be alright if you post your address? I can pass it along to some illegals and explain that it would be fine with you if they stayed in your house. Hang out on your couch, eat your food, take your medicine...steal your stuff.

    I suppose you would probably call the police at best to have them removed or maybe you would consider them home invaders and stop the threat. That is exactly what we should do with these country invaders. There is absolutely no difference.

  9. #69
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I suppose since you do not accept the authority of the Executive branch, you do not condone lawfully passed legislation by the Legislative branch, and you do not adhere to case law reviewed by the Judicial branch, that you personally should determine what is Constitutional and what is not. And who do we get to question your authority?
    No, I in no way accept the authority of the Judicial Branch to make and determine 'case law'. I don't recognize 'case law' in any form. It's absurd to say the least. The law was supposed to be written where any citizen could tell if something was illegal or not. Because of lawyer's, judges, and 'case law', that has become impossible. I have a copy of the Constitution. I have a copy of the applicable statutes in my area. Why should I have a copy of every case Tom, Dick or Harry decided upon?

    When and why did we get to the point where a judge and jury cannot read the law and make a decision for themselves? Why have we gotten to the point where 'all the decisions are already made and we just have to find the case that backs it up?' Phooey.

    Come on, SD, you can do better than that...how come some judge's bad decision how many ever years ago can trump the words written in the constitution?
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  10. #70
    Senior Member Array digitalexplr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Jefferson City, MO
    Posts
    914
    Keep in mind that driving is not right- it is a priviledge granted by the state. As such you don't have the same rights in your vehicle as you do in your home. Probable cause for traffice stop very easy since most people can't drive a block without committing some level of traffic violation.

    However, once you are stop you do not have to give the officer permission search your car. Unless incident to arrest or something being plain view a vehicle search requires warrant.

  11. #71
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    No, I in no way accept the authority of the Judicial Branch to make and determine 'case law'. I don't recognize 'case law' in any form. It's absurd to say the least. The law was supposed to be written where any citizen could tell if something was illegal or not. Because of lawyer's, judges, and 'case law', that has become impossible. I have a copy of the Constitution. I have a copy of the applicable statutes in my area. Why should I have a copy of every case Tom, Dick or Harry decided upon?

    When and why did we get to the point where a judge and jury cannot read the law and make a decision for themselves? Why have we gotten to the point where 'all the decisions are already made and we just have to find the case that backs it up?' Phooey.

    Come on, SD, you can do better than that...how come some judge's bad decision how many ever years ago can trump the words written in the constitution?
    Unfortunately, we have nothing with which we disagree in your post. I only brought up the Judicial branch to complete my argument about Packinova's wanting to determine Constitutionality of lawfully passed lefgislation, signed and enforced by the Executive. The Judicial branch was never designed to determine the Constitutionality of laws. Still, their opinions should be considered and their arguments studied.

    I think many dilute the intent (and the protection offered) of the Fourth by extending it to areas it was never intended to cover.

  12. #72
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Unfortunately, we have nothing with which we disagree in your post.
    Oh, come on SD, you don't have to sound so glum...I'm sure I will say lots of stuff that you can disagree with.

    You are a little older than I and you have decided you are going to pick certain battles. I still want to challenge everything. Especially anything that gives 'case law' to an oppressive government.

    There has never been a society that stripped it's citizens of their rights in one fail swoop. That isn't the way big government works. They whittle away. They establish 'case law' that gives them further reaching authority. And then they apply it to further an agenda.

    This is what has eroded the 2nd amendment. It wasn't overnight that they banned high capacity magazines and evil black rifles in the 90's...it was slowly. They made laws that people liked.

    No citizen shall have access to nuclear warheads...everybody was for that one. No citizen shall have access to SCUD misiles..people didn't argue with that.

    No citizen shall own a machine gun without a license...Alright, well, I don't really need a machine gun, so what the heck...

    No citizen shall have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds...Whoa, wait a minute here!...You mean I can't buy a 16 round magazine anymore? Why?

    Well, by the same authority that we restricted machine guns.

    It isn't the drastic measures that scare me. It's the step by step progression that inevitably leads to more laws of the same.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  13. #73
    bae
    bae is offline
    Member Array bae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    San Juan Islands
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Most people outside the southwest do not understand the severity of the problem these invaders cause.
    Or people outside the northern part of the Pacific Northwest.

    My county is in the NW corner of the US. It consists of 743 islands at high tide. Lots of channels, reefs, rocks, fog, and really nasty currents. Right on the border with Canada, where there is a similar group of islands. You can row across. The area has been a hotbed of smuggling people and cargo since the 1800s.

    And people think we can "build a fence" to secure the region....

    Here's the map...

  14. #74
    bae
    bae is offline
    Member Array bae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    San Juan Islands
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    No, I in no way accept the authority of the Judicial Branch to make and determine 'case law'. I don't recognize 'case law' in any form. It's absurd to say the least.
    Google "common law" and get back to us, preferably before you try to pass the bar exam.

    :-)

  15. #75
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by bae View Post
    Google "common law" and get back to us, preferably before you try to pass the bar exam.

    :-)
    I understand the history of common law...I still think it is outdated and repulsive. It also originated under a system of lords, barons and kings...I thought we were a Representative gov't...for the people, by the people, or something like that?

    When people vote on a new ordinance, they are voting on what it says. If a judge wants to fill in the blanks to make it apply to things it didn't address in the first place, it should have to go back to the people for a vote.

    This is a democracy...we don't have a Queen or a King. We have representatives who are supposed to be looking out for us. Not making vague laws so a judge can later interpret it to mean whatever he wants it to mean.

    The system is broken.

    Common law is only supposed to apply where there is not another specific statute that relates in a situation. We have such a document. It's called the Constitution.

    And the faulty court case that allowed all of this was delivered March 2, 1925...

    The Founding Fathers said it much better than I can...Since none of us can say for sure how they would have felt about this, let's hear it in their own words...

    Quote Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin
    "Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
    "... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
    A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Henry
    Give me Liberty or give me death.
    Quote Originally Posted by James Wilson
    Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind.
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Henry
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    Quote Originally Posted by Declaration of Independence
    Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
    And perhaps the most applicable...
    Quote Originally Posted by Declaration of Independence
    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Playmobile Security Check Point
    By njr in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: February 1st, 2009, 12:29 PM
  2. Homeland security needs?
    By HollowpointHank in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: July 16th, 2008, 04:51 PM
  3. Homeland security discount
    By DetroitMedic in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 7th, 2007, 07:24 PM
  4. Homeland Security to watch web use
    By 4my sons in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 23rd, 2006, 12:10 PM

Search tags for this page

any way to avoid the check point on i 10 near el paso

,

defensive carry smugglers coyotes

,
homeland security check police dispatch
,
refuse dhs checkpoint questions
,
what is the easiest check point in texas
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors