TexasCHLforum.com

Srothstein, thank you for the sitation. And I agree - The question is - Is it unreasonable? Not to me. And apparently not to the legislator, courts and government agencies we elected or organized as a free society. If others think it is unreasonable, I am OK with that. What I have a hard time with is what I consider to be an unreasonable response and the use of our forefathers who really were facing unreasonable situations as justification for their petty behavior, rudeness and abuse of power. IMO these guys are tyrants in embrio who mascarade as patriots. I fear them and what our nation would be like if they were in power much more than an INS check point.

stevie_d_64 wrote:
PsychDiver wrote:
And yes some government practices if left to tyrants can lead to further infringement of our rights. ?

You betcha...I do not fear my government, I am concerned about the tyrrany of good intentions.

History helps us understand that it is not the tyrrany of good intentions but the tyrrany of tryants.

But is this the battleground we want to fight on?

Might as well, it is where they are choosing to fight us.

Take another look at the video and tell me who is pushing for a fight?

Can any one tell me where this practice, when performed as specified by government regulation, has violated someones rights?

Every single time.

Please site where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights were it is forbidden to ask someones there immigration status!

You can bet that guy who is putting up such a fuss at an INS checkpoint wouldn't pull that kind of behavior at the security check point at an airport. He won't because he knows that TSA has real authority to arrest him and send him to jail.

Thats because not complying with those instructions has been made a crime, not answering this question is your right, since they fail to equally enforce the same inquiries in sanctuary cities like Houston (ordinance 500-5), when law enforcement is instructed to not inquire to a person immigration status (even with probable cause), why should we, answer a question about our status anywhere else (without probable cause)...

You are absolutely right on this one but the problem is not at the INS check point but in liberal laws in sanctuary cities like Houston that protects illegal aliens so we can be politically correct and to fill the labor demands that caucasian think are below them.

The problem with the INS checkpoints is that they have been given responsibility without authority.

With no accountability for any citizen to achieve immediate recourse when these encounters occur...It becomes more of a playground battle that serves no purpose for either side...The government and its enforcerment agencies are either going to get serious and target the real problem, or get the heck out of our way...Guess when that will happen???

Whether this is an effect approach to our immigration problems needs to be asked. But it is one way of trying to identify illegial aliens. Only those who refuse to answer the questions have made it a playground. However, you are probably right, the question being asked doesn't make much sense since no illegal alien is going to respond with "I am an illegal alien". Lets go back to Thomas Paines article "Common Sense"

Liberty wrote:

PsychDiver wrote: Thomas Paine was arguing against a form of government that included monarchy, aristocracy and government by birthright. In one of his first writings, titled "Common Sense" he argues that as society grows government becomes necessary to enforce the regulations, which over time, turn into laws. He was not antigovernment or laws. He was anti monarchy and aristocracy that used government for their own gain. The title of his 1st pamphlet "Common Sense" says it all.

I am sorry you don't understand my analogy.

I do understand your analogy. For the right cause I would stand on the lap of Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial and shout. But this aint the right cause. And there is nothing heroic about this guy. He knows they have no power and can't do anything and that is not heroic. Thomas Pain spoke at the peril of his life. But Liberty, I do agree with you about the bail out. While life for all of us would have really been hurting if the financial system colapesed, it was the natural result of what was created. And after the pains of it, we would be better off than what is likely to happen after this bail out.

Liberty wrote:

dihappy wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:
Personally, Alex Jones is an idiot...But in a sick and twisted way, he does have a point on this issue...His reasonings to why is what brands him as a fruitloop...

+1

How many times have we told each other to always comply with an officer's request, and that the side of the road is not the place to argue about it?

These "check points" may be questionable, but a simple "yes" to the question about your citizenship and your on your way. No need to be an ass.

I agree that he is a donkey. But the reasoning was to make the recording and make the point. He made a point at a certain risk to himself. I would consider him heroic. But most political heroes are thought of as donkeys by the establishment. Thomas Paine comes to mind, The crown loyalist didn't think much of him. Sometimes being polite is the best way to make a point, other times it takes a cruder approach.

Thomas Paine was arguing against a form of government that included monarchy, aristocracy and government by birthright. In one of his first writings, titled "Common Sense" he argues that as society grows government becomes necessary to enforce the regulations, which over time, turn into laws. He was not antigovernment or laws. He was anti monarchy and aristocracy that used government for their own gain. The title of his 1st pamphlet "Common Sense" says it all.

I don't want government in my life either. And no I don't believe that LE should have the right to stop anyone without some type of probable cause or to enter any house they want to search without a warrant. But what is the real issue here? Are we really freer or safer without having to say "I am an American Citizen?" Are we really so scared that a 20 year old female asking if we are a citizen is a threat to our civil liberties? And yes some government practices if left to tyrants can lead to further infringement of our rights. But is this the battleground we want to fight on? Can any one tell me where this practice, when performed as specified by government regulation, has violated someones rights? You can bet that guy who is putting up such a fuss at an INS checkpoint wouldn't pull that kind of behavior at the security check point at an airport. He won't because he knows that TSA has real authority to arrest him and send him to jail. The problem with the INS checkpoints is that they have been given responsibility without authority. If they had authority to enforce the policies they have been given responsibility for this guy wouldn't be making a fuss with them either. He would be looking for another helpless government official who has been give responsibility and no authority to use his passive-aggressive tactics on in an attempt to provoke a response so he could pounce on them with the laws that he does agree with. It is the governments job to enact laws and policies that help establish a lawful and orderly society. It is the citizens job to act to make sure that those laws are just and upheld. It is a fine balance. But this guy in the video is not about balance. He is about power. And no, dictators do not start with good intentions. They are men or women who seek power and control over others and use government to achieve those purposes. Look at the video again and tell me who is acting to control the situation, who is passive-aggressive, manipulative and uncooperative: the 20 year old border patrol agent or the driver?

I can understand your reaction if it was an issue of rights being violated. But is it? And those who want to compare their actions to those of our forefathers as a justification for total freedom without any accountability are comparing apples to oranges. I think the establishers of the constitution would look at the actions of some who act in the name of patriotism and shudder. As a veteran who served in Iraq during the first gulfwar, I find it offensive to have people claim a right to freedom without any cost for it. With no accountability comes anarchy and chaos. With no laws or rules to govern behavior or investigate possible violations of the laws, we end up with a society that is more corrupt than government. Just take a look at what is happening on the financial front. It was a slackening of the regulations on tracking financial transactions that led to the greed and corruption that caused much of the financial problems we face as a nation. And I bet a lot of you are swearing at the greedy executives who promoted the type of freedom and lack of oversight by government that put us in this position. I can hear some of you ranting about the AIG bonuses. I am not against standing up and speaking up against tyranny or government corruption. But I am also not against any law or regulation that helps us establish a peaceful and orderly society even if it sets some limits on behavior. But one has to be rational about what to stand up for. So I ask, What will be accomplished by putting up such opposition to a INS checkpoint? If it is successful in eliminating them what did we gain? What did we loss? Was it a good trade? I still assert that this effort has little to do with freedom and more to do with exercising a feeling of power and that is scarier than having to stop and give a simple, "I am an American Citizen" answer!

After watching the video I had to think why would anyone want to put up such a fuss at an INS checkpoint? And then the answer came to me - because he could! It was pointless, cost him time, was disrespectful to a young woman who was just trying to do her job and did nothing for advancing freedom or the right to carry. Why fight such a battle when a simple answer would do. This type of mentality uses the laws they like get around others. It is the type of mentality that pulls the trigger instead of avoiding the fight because the letter of the law said he could. Rember, "The letter of the law killeth but the spirit of law gives life." This guy has his ideas of freedom upside down.