Carrying at an INS checkpoint

[Liberty]

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!

I can only speak for myself, as a libertarian. Your assumption that more chaos and anarchy is a bad thing makes it almost impossible to to explain to you what our government is supposed to be tasked with.. And yes you will hear me complain of AIG and the banks, but not the bonuses but the fact that the government should not have bailed them out but let them go bankrupt.

and yes I believe one of the few functions of Government is to protect the borders, but at the borders. We understood how to do it in Korea at the DMZ we can do it it here.

[GlockDA]

Why the H E Double Hockey Sticks is there INS/ICE checkpoints *INSIDE* of the country??

I would go bananas if I got stopped by ICE inside of the country!

Have fun with that. Let me know how it works out for you.

There have been checkpoints on 77 and 281 since I can remember. Try running one and I'm sure you will be followed by armed suburbans that are sitting in the wings waiting to follow those that try to run the checkpoint. They have drug-sniffing dogs nonchalantly smelling every vehicle through the checkpoint. I'm sure there are helicopters in the wings waiting to follow from ground instructions, as well.

I prefer to get through the checkpoint with the least hassle and be on my way.

I was on Arizona state route 90 several weeks ago, between Sierra Vista and I-10, and went through a permanent checkpoint. I'd estimate it to be about 30-40 miles north of the border. I was glad to see some indication the Border Patrol was present in the area and attempting to do something. It was no hassle. Just a quick "pass on through." I felt like thanking the BP agent for being there.

[nitrogen]

Okay, so infringements on your rights are OK as long as they aren't a bother?

So would it be OK for the police to stop everyone to make sure they are wearing their seatbelt, and have insurance?

Would you mind if the police decided to come over and check to make sure you didn't have any wanted felons, or drugs in your house? I'm sure it would not be that big of an inconvenience.

I guess it's just a difference of opinion. I don't think any law enforcement has the right to stop me for no reason, with no probable cause. I'm against sobriety checkpoints for the same reason. I feel that these illegal INS stops, as well as sobriety checkpoints could eventually lead to the type of stops I describe.

[GlockDA]

You make a good point, Nitro, which I generally agree with. My personal preference would be to have all this done AT THE BORDER before it becomes an issue. If the border wasn't such a sieve, there would be much less of any rationale for it.

[PsychDiver]

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?

[dihappy]

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.

[dihappy]

I don't think any law enforcement has the right to stop me for no reason, with no probable cause. I'm against sobriety checkpoints for the same reason. I feel that these illegal INS stops, as well as sobriety checkpoints could eventually lead to the type of stops I describe.

I love sobriety checkpoints, unless im in a hurry :)

I dont know the numbers, but lets say that "sobriety checkpoints" actually save lives. Is it worth your time to go through them? What if we could see the future, or the past, and were to see that a sobriety checkpoint saved a family members life by catching a would be drunk driver?

I know, too many "ifs". I guess im just one who doesnt mind being slightly inconvenienced for the right reasons. Checking my home for drugs without a warrant, now thats not reasonable to me and i doubt it would only take seconds, plus id have to put my dog away, clean up a bit, put on a shirt, etc.

[Liberty]

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.

[PsychDiver]

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.

[Liberty]

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.

[PsychDiver]

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.

[Captain Matt]

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.

The people who caused the financial problems seem to be doing fine now.

It's the honest hard working people who are being hurt by the stimu-bail-pork-bribes.

[Kurt_S]

There's a checkpoint about 20 or so miles south of Alpine in Brewster County. I've passed through it many times on the way back from dove hunts on Elephant Mtn. WMA and from down on some friend's private wasteland in Terlingua Ranch area. The back of a pickup truck or SUV would have all kinds of firearms exposed, and I am always CCW where legal.

I've never been asked any questions about firearms. The only questions we have been asked were if were US citizens. I've never been asked even to produce a TDL. Oh, I think I recall once twice being asked where I was headed or something. And maybe a short conversation about coming home skunked from dove hunting (a good day for me is about 3-4 dove for 2 boxes of shells).

I've also known a few Border Patrol. I haven't met all of them yet but the ones that I shot with at Big Bend Sportsman's range and had a beer with at the Railroad Blues in Alpine didn't seem to be interested in violating anybody's constitutional rights.

[XDJoe]

Absent any reasonable suspicion of wrong doing, I believe they can only ask about your citizenship status.

Every since SCOTUS ruled on UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE (1976) these checkpoint have proliferated. They now go beyond INS asking about citizenship; do some research any you will find many examples that will likely make your blood boil. Any person who cares about preserving the bill of rights should be concerned about the proliferation of these suspicion-less checkpoints. On the surface, these immigration checkpoints seem rather benign, but as with many other examples of our rights deteriorating, these suspicion-less checkpoints lead in small increments to other police/state actions that are a much larger infringement on our rights.

To the degree to which your concerned about your 2A rights, you should be equally concerned about all of the bill of rights, including but no limited to your 4th amendment right:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[stevie_d_64]

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.

But is this the battleground we want to fight on?

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

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

Every single time.

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)...

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???