Homeland Security Check Point - Page 6

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 Kerbouchard There has never been a society that stripped it's citizens of their rights in one fail swoop. That isn't the way ...

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 85 of 85

Thread: Homeland Security Check Point

  1. #76
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    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.
    Actually, most oppressive governments do their work very quickly. There was nothing subtle or time consuming about Nazi Germany. Or the slaughter of millions of Vietnamese after we withdrew our support. One of the reasons our system of government is great is that it works interminably slowly.

    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.
    Let's not confuse state laws with Federal laws. That is another argument.

    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.
    I think it is good that citizens are not allowed to own nuclear weapons. Or deadly chemical weapons. Or deadly biological material. There must be reasonable limits and we, as a society, must determine where that line is drawn. We do that through convincing our neighbors that our position is correct. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

    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?
    I can buy a 16 round magazine in Arizona!

    One of the problems is that technology (and resources) has surpassed the point where the individual citizn can compete with military programs. The Founders were wary of a standing military but in today's world it is imperative. Our nation could not possibly survive otherwise. And that means that we will never be able to form a militia to compete with the military.

    Fortunately, the Founders were wise enough to ensure the military would be led by a civilian chosen by the people.

    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.
    I fail to see the step by step measures that infringe on any right. I have seen he assault weapons ban expire. Thatseems like a step in the opposite direction you suggest.

    Certainly, I would prefer to see less internal checkpoints. But until we control the borders there really is no viable alternative than to catch the illegals inland.


  2. #77
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Actually, most oppressive governments do their work very quickly. There was nothing subtle or time consuming about Nazi Germany.
    Here is a good article on how Nazi Germany cloaked it's brutality with legality. Holocaust and the Progression of German anti-Semitism but that's another thread.

    All oppressive govt's cloak their actions in either law, or actions for the 'good of the people', or actions taken under a 'national emergency'. All it takes is for us to let them get away with it.
    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?

  3. #78
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    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...
    I call your quotes and raise you...Alexander Hamilton

    Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.

    Here, sir, the people govern; here they act by their immediate representatives.

    I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.

    In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.

    It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government.

    Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.

    Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.

  4. #79
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    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.
    I'm curious as to why you ignore the citizenship laws in your definition of illegal alien. They're "illegal" because they violated American law by crossing the border. In the vast majority of cases, it's for economic reasons, so these illegal aliens break one law (unlawfully entering the country) with intent to break another (being employed unlawfully). Simplified, and omitting several other examples of common behavior from illegal aliens, where I'm from those two examples are awful criminal of them, and have absolutely nothing to do with taxes. Whether or not you pay taxes has nothing, at all, to do with your status as a legal resident in this country.

    The federal government's JOB (read: their purpose for existing) is to provide a protected nation within whose borders states are to govern themselves. There are several facets to this, but it is absolutely within the powers of the federal government to repel invasions (see Section 8, Clause 15 of the US Constitution). Given the scale of the movement of illegal aliens and their shown effects on US affairs, I would certainly qualify that as an invasion, and the Border Patrol is well within their powers to do what they legally can to keep 'em out, and when they can't to pack 'em up and send 'em home.

    There is nothing in doing this that violates someone's Fourth Amendment rights to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures because they merely pause to ask questions. If you respond in a way that gives them probable cause, the law does not apply and you are detained until they can confirm your citizenship/residency status. If you're good to go, you're released, and if you're not then you're kept and shipped out. Don't act like an idiot, answer candidly, and they'll let you be on your way. What about this is unconstitutional?


    -B

  5. #80
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,365
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    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.
    What's the difference between them and the 50 million welfare babies here legally? One way or another I'm being robbed.

    Clearly I'm going to have to agree to disagree here, but as to the address comment:



    PS...the dog owns the house. I just live in it from time to time. Oh and she was a SPCA rescue pitbull so you can take your best bet on her demeanor to "invaders". For some strange reason she's partial to going after hispanics, particularly the ones on motorcycles and grounds keeping trucks, probably her original handlers(makes for walks around Northern VA interesting)...who would have thought? Oh the Irony!

    Stupid to answer that part of the question...perhaps. But there's two things I trust...1) that the dog will fight to the death, 2) my front sight.
    "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)

  6. #81
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    SD, For simplicity I have bolded the portions of your quote that are applicable(I mean that I like).
    Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.

    Here, sir, the people govern; here they act by their immediate representatives.

    I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.

    In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.

    It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government.

    Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.

    Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
    Our gov't is not controlling itself. It has, so surpassed 'limited' I do not even care to comment on the matter. And most importantly, our gov't no longer acts by our immediate representatives; but by our lobbyists, our men of power, and our 'less evil' of our choices(i.e. representatives).

    No representative gov't has ever stood the test of time. Eventually, those that are being represented, realize they can vote themselves more money and more advantages. And it is usually cloaked in for the greater good, or for security, or to preserve our way of life. You cannot fund a gov't without an enemy. Sometimes you have to create the enemy. As I said earlier, the illegal immigration is easily mitigated. Enforce the employment laws that we currently have. When the jobs dry up, the illegals will leave.

    The path we are currently on is unsustainable.
    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?

  7. #82
    Member Array Erik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    415
    The guy in the video is an ass. As for why he wasn't detained, the professional, well restrained BPA likley reasoned that only a United States Citizen could, and would, be that much of an ass at her check point. Thus her mission was accomplished and she could allow him to leave.had no further need to detain him.

    A lesser agent, or one of of a mind to gather harder evidence of alienage than a mere hunch, might have detained him until his status as a United States citizen could be determined.

    Checkpoints have withstood a fair amount of legal review, as I believe someone already mentioned. As to why they are where they are... Well, after sneaking through the desert for days you have to make yourself to roads eventually. Those roads, and there aren't all that many through out vast stretches of the southwest, lead predictably north along certain routes. You place your checkpoints there. Duh.

    Oh, and federal officers deemd immigration officers can initiate contact with a person anywhere in the United States to determine alienage and violations of immigration law, just like other LEOs can initiate contact to determine violations of whatever laws they are trained in and have sworn to uphold.
    God, country, family.

  8. #83
    Member Array kpaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    33
    Wow!

    It looks like this is a big issue

    I like a lot what the LEO says as it makes a lot of sense-- It looks like the BP lost in the game of verbal judo and teh guy is a real jerk so..

    So some ?

    Does BP have the autority to stop and ask for ID with out PC? What is the PC? Does President Bush and the "in teh interest of nation security" have to do with anything?
    K.Paul
    Semper Fi

  9. #84
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20,045
    I have been probably been through that exact checkpoint many times before. They are, and have been for years, set up between Nogales, where we used to have an office and Tucson. As an Arizonan, I would be mad if they didn't have these checkpoints. I would like to see every car, truck, bicycle or oxcart checked that goes through that area. Not only is it the biggest route for coyotes smuggling illegal aliens into the state, it is also one of the most heavily traveled routes for drug dealers. The incidents on that road at times remind you of something out of Thunderdome.

    Once the "problem" is under control, there will be no need for these checkpoints, but right now, they are necessary. I will add that if you are not from Arizona or you are and don't go out much, you cannot imagine the extent of the illegal alien problem in this state, particularly between the Phoenix Metro area and the border.

    If you drive through or across Arizona, you better be prepared for checkpoints; we have them checking for illegal aliens (from the border to Tucson), drunks (Phoenix & often on the Interstate during holidays), potential terrorists (at Hoover Dam 24/7 since 9/11) and on every Interstate leading into the state (agricultural inspection - you are not allowed to bring citrus into the state).
    Bumper
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

  10. #85
    Member Array Erik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    415
    "Does BP have the autority to stop and ask for ID with out PC?"

    Yes. PC is not the bar LEOs must reach to stop someone and/or ask someone for ID, immigration or other wise. The present administration and post 9/11 policies have nothing to do with it.

    A tad long, even after editing, but this may help some understand what an Immigration Officer may be able to do or not do. Note the portions about the checkpoints and lengths of detention.

    Exerpts of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, August 2004 Volume 73 Number

    Actual Border:
    The state of the law with respect to suspicionless searches conducted at actual, or “true,” U.S. borders is the most straightforward and most easily understood. Such searches have been described as either exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant and probable cause requirements (leaving them subject only to the amendment’s reasonableness standard) or as a species of search wholly outside the Fourth Amendment. A true border search can be made without probable cause, without a warrant, and, indeed, without any articulable suspicion at all. The only limitation on such a search is the Fourth Amendment stricture that it be conducted reasonably.

    Pat Downs and Exposures:
    Pat downs and requests, for example, to raise a skirt to reveal an undergarment may be considered to fall–depending upon the circuit–somewhere between the suspicionless border search and such non-routine border examinations as strip and body cavity searches. Therefore, these may require some level of suspicion, albeit minimal.

    Nonroutine Border:
    Invasive measures designed to reveal the nature of the contents of a container, such as a suitcase or steel drum used for shipping materials, require some level of justification to comply with the Fourth Amendment. For example, drilling into the bottom of a traveler’s bag because it had an unusual bottom is not a routine search and, therefore, requires reasonable suspicion. Similarly, once reasonable suspicion arose, drilling into a vessel to reveal cocaine hidden in a secret compartment was a proper reasonable means of effectuating a border search. Drilling into a metal cylinder arriving at an international airport in the United States, not a routine search, must be based upon reasonable suspicion. Inserting a long, thin metal probe in the drain valve of an electrical transformer awaiting customs clearance has been held proper because the search was based upon reasonable suspicion. In summary, at the border, reasonable suspicion justifies a full-scale search that employs reasonable means.

    However, a nondestructive search taking only 1 to 2 hours at the border that involves only dismantling and reassembly, such as the removal, inspection, and reattachment of a vehicle gas tank (a reversible procedure that does not threaten vehicle safety or operation), requires no suspicion.

    Similar to drilling for purposes of detecting the contents of a container, the relatively low reasonable suspicion standard is the level of proof required for involuntary x-rays, except, perhaps, in the Ninth Circuit. Indeed, it even can be argued that x-rays, particularly at airports, are routine.

    Strip
    When a search more invasive than a routine inspection is conducted at the border, additional requirements are imposed. The degree of invasiveness visited upon the detainee must be weighed. A strip search, for example, requires “‘reasonable’ or ‘real’ suspicion, directed specifically to [the] person[.]”

    Body cavity searches are the most intrusive and personal types of searches. Accordingly, a higher standard sometimes is imposed on the government to conduct such searches, whether they are conducted visually or by way of a physical examination. A visual examination of body cavities generally needs no more than reasonable suspicion, although more is required in the Ninth Circuit—a clear indication or plain suggestion. A physical body cavity inspection at the border also must be based upon reasonable suspicion or, within the Ninth and Fifth Circuits, upon a clear indication that contraband is being hidden in a body cavity.

    Detention at the Border
    Detaining someone at the border for a period longer than that necessary for a routine inspection is justified if based on reasonable suspicion that the would-be entrant, for example, is “smuggling contraband in her alimentary canal.” Once the decision is made to detain someone, the next issue becomes the length of time the person may be detained. There is no “bright-line” solution as each case is judged by its unique set of facts, and a determination whether continued detention is reasonable is reached in light of all of those facts. Courts recognize that the time for which a suspect is held often is lengthened by the suspect’s own behavior, which, in balloon-swallowing cases, can involve refusal to eat, drink, excrete, submit to x-rays, or take laxatives. Many cases begin with detentions that ripen into arrests. When the entire restraint period is considered (periods of detention plus arrest), care must be taken to present the facts to a magistrate judge in a timely fashion. Failing to do so may result in motions for sanctions against the government.

    Functional Equivalent:
    “Under the ‘functional equivalent’ doctrine, routine border searches are constitutionally permissible at places other than actual borders where travelers frequently enter or exit the country.” Examples of functional equivalent borders include airports within the United States where international flights depart or first land and at an “established station near the border, at a point marking the confluence of two or more roads that extend from the border.” Of course, this means that those traveling by vehicle “may be stopped at fixed checkpoints near the border without individualized suspicion even if the stop is based largely on ethnicity.” Additionally, “boats on inland waters with ready access to the sea may be hailed and boarded with no suspicion whatever.” The first point inside the United States where a ship arriving from outside the country docks is another example of a border functional equivalent. The key feature of a border functional equivalent, then, is that it is “the first point at which an entrant may practically be detained.”

    Roving Patrols:
    By statute, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now CBP and/or ICE) has the power to search any vehicle located “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States” without a warrant. A reasonable distance is defined as “within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States.” However, such a yardstick is not necessarily determinative. “It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution.” Despite the statute and regulation, the Supreme Court refused to condone a suspicionless Border Patrol vehicle search 25 air miles north of the border with Mexico that resulted from a roving patrol. Note that a roving patrol does not keep the suspect or suspect conveyance under nearly continuous surveillance from the point where the actual border was crossed. “In the absence of probable cause or consent, the search violated the...Fourth Amendment right to be free of ‘unreasonable searches and seizures.’” The Court continued, quoting from one of its earlier opinions, that “those lawfully within the country, entitled to use the public highways, have a right to free passage without interruption or search unless there is known to a competent official, authorized to search, probable cause for believing that their vehicles are carrying contraband or illegal merchandise.”

    Not only may searches away from the border or its functional/extended equivalent not be conducted absent probable cause or consent, neither may brief stops be effected absent reasonable suspicion. In 1973, the Border Patrol stopped a car below San Clemente, California, and away from the U.S.-Mexican border solely because all three of its occupants “appeared” to be of “Mexican descent.” The government relied on the INS statutory and regulatory to support its position that it had the authority to stop vehicles in the border area solely for the purpose of determining whether the occupants were legally in the United States. As before, the Border Patrol was disappointed before the Supreme Court. Al-though recognizing the serious illegal immigrant problem along the southwest border, the Court nevertheless concluded that “[t]he Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest.” The Court went on to expand its remarks, noting

    [e]xcept at the border and its functional equivalents, officers on roving patrol may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country.

    In sum, away from the actual, functional equivalent, or extended border, traditional Fourth Amendment concepts apply to both searches and seizures. Put differently, so-called roving patrols enjoy no special Fourth Amendment treatment, nor do they fall under any special exception to the reasonableness requirement.
    God, country, family.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

Sponsored 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, 01:29 PM
  2. Homeland security needs?
    By HollowpointHank in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: July 16th, 2008, 05:51 PM
  3. Homeland security discount
    By DetroitMedic in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 7th, 2007, 08:24 PM
  4. Homeland Security to watch web use
    By 4my sons in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 23rd, 2006, 01:10 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.