Carrying at an INS checkpoint

[stevie_d_64]

Getting back on course...

If I am asked to identify myself by a law enforcement officer...I would actually go so far as to say BP are law enforcement...

I would think that without saying a word in reply to that question, I would already have both my DL and CHL out ready to hand to them (don't say a word), and if they cannot figure it out that they do not hand CHL's out to just anyone...Then we are pretty much done...

That's when I instruct them that I have answered their question (by not saying a word when asked), please return my property (ID's), and if I am not being detained (arrested), am I free to go?

For all intents and purposes, pulling duty like this for the BP must be the bottom of the barrel stuff...

Having to deal with people like us must be a real strain on their sensibilities, and I actually would hate having to make a stand like this...

I want to sarcastically thank my government for drawing the battle lines here, rather than stand up and attack the problem where it really needs to happen...

[boomerang]

Getting back on course...

If I am asked to identify myself by a law enforcement officer...I would actually go so far as to say BP are law enforcement...

I would think that without saying a word in reply to that question, I would already have both my DL and CHL out ready to hand to them (don't say a word), and if they cannot figure it out that they do not hand CHL's out to just anyone...Then we are pretty much done...

They're not peace officers or magistrates in Texas so there's no requirement to show them your CHL but you can if you want to.

I want to sarcastically thank my government for drawing the battle lines here, rather than stand up and attack the problem where it really needs to happen...

If they attacked the problem at the source they wouldn't be able to use the porous border as another lame excuse for antigun laws.

[Liberty]

Getting back on course...

If I am asked to identify myself by a law enforcement officer...I would actually go so far as to say BP are law enforcement...

I would think that without saying a word in reply to that question, I would already have both my DL and CHL out ready to hand to them (don't say a word), and if they cannot figure it out that they do not hand CHL's out to just anyone...Then we are pretty much done...

As Correctly pointed out we are not required to show them our CHLs

I've been through these stops at least a dozen times and they have never asked for an ID, they have have shined flashlights into my kids sleeping faces and waken them though. I've never heard of them asking for "papers please?" not yet anyway.

[PsychDiver]

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"

[srothstein]

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

That is easy. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. The real question here is if that is a reasonable stop or not. Obviously, people in the thread disagree on this point.

The Fourth Amendment, contrary to popular belief, does not forbid all searches without a warrant. It forbids "unreasonable" searches and seizures. What this means is that the court case will be fought on whether or not the specific type of search is reasonable. SCOTUS is the group with the real power to finally decide this, and each of us gets to make only an interim decision. SCOTUS is supposed to look at how the overall population feels to decide what is reasonable. This is why they will change their minds over time on a specific subject.

As a general rule, courts have always upheld as reasonable a customs search or request for information. Usually, this is done at the border. Thanks to the war on drugs, the courts have come up with the concept of a flexible border. This allowed police to make arrests on packages that were shipped from out of the country to a specific address many miles from any border. This same concept is what allows for a border checkpoint inside the US but close to the border.

I personally have some heartburn with this stop when I have not crossed the border. Given the proximity to the border, the length of the stop and the lack of other questions asked, I have not come to a real conclusion on whether or not the checkpoints are reasonable. I don't like them, and would prefer to have a real secure border, but it is also not a significant (to me) infringement yet. If they tried a checkpoint of this type somewhere else, say on IH-35 north of San Antonio, I would have to say it was wrong. But within an hour drive of the main border entries may not be unreasonable.

[PsychDiver]

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.

[GlockDA]

Put agents ON THE BORDER:

http://www.svherald.com/articles/2009/0 ... 894359.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;