Fucking Jack Boots

[brewer]

[edit]

You are comparing apples to oranges. If you are driving and you get pulled over by a cop, chances are you're already doing something illegal (violating a traffic law). That's a valid reason for you to pull over. She was subjected to a Border Patrol checkpoint. Border Patrol agents were not pulling her over because they were behind her and suspected suspicious activity, absolutely not. She wasn't in violation of any laws and the checkpoint was not on a border road or "US Port of Entry" which would reasonably require a person to be subjected to going through a citizenship verification process before they can be on their merry way. No - she was funneled off the main road, which wasn't a border road, with every other driver, to a checkpoint and being held against her will (10 seconds against one's will is 10 seconds too long) and being asked if she was a US citizen. 

[edit]

The CBP did when they violated her 4th Amendment rights. Why don't you ask the ACLU what their opinion is on the matter as well as look at the court cases referenced above, for your convenience. Homework is already done... please go have a read then come back to me and we can continue this debate.

We have road block checks here all of the time where I am required to pull over, all cars can be pulled over, no suspicious activity required. . What, no DUI road block checks where you live?

From what I've read (both my references and yours) they did not violate her 4th amendment rights. You need to read again. At BP checkpoints suspicious activity is not necessary to be asked to pull over.

ACLU has an opinion, it is not the law.

[Joods]

[edit]

You are comparing apples to oranges. If you are driving and you get pulled over by a cop, chances are you're already doing something illegal (violating a traffic law). That's a valid reason for you to pull over. She was subjected to a Border Patrol checkpoint. Border Patrol agents were not pulling her over because they were behind her and suspected suspicious activity, absolutely not. She wasn't in violation of any laws and the checkpoint was not on a border road or "US Port of Entry" which would reasonably require a person to be subjected to going through a citizenship verification process before they can be on their merry way. No - she was funneled off the main road, which wasn't a border road, with every other driver, to a checkpoint and being held against her will (10 seconds against one's will is 10 seconds too long) and being asked if she was a US citizen. 

[edit]

The CBP did when they violated her 4th Amendment rights. Why don't you ask the ACLU what their opinion is on the matter as well as look at the court cases referenced above, for your convenience. Homework is already done... please go have a read then come back to me and we can continue this debate.

We have road block checks here all of the time where I am required to pull over, all cars can be pulled over, no suspicious activity required. . What, no DUI road block checks where you live?

From what I've read (both my references and yours) they did not violate her 4th amendment rights. You need to read again. At BP checkpoints suspicious activity is not necessary to be asked to pull over.

ACLU has an opinion, it is not the law.

Right... because the court cases I cited were all imaginary. Nice to know you bypass everything else I've said, failing miserably to address all of the points that I made.

Furthermore: 

A road block checkpoint is not the same as a border patrol station. Road blocks are meant to temporarily block the road, hence the term "r.o.a.d. b.l.o.c.k.". The station in that woman's video had buildings that were permanent. That is the complete opposite of "temporary". 

You act as if she had a choice. She didn't. If you watched all of her six videos, you would have known that she stated very clearly that that road is the only one that goes to her home and she was being funneled to that station with every other car. 

A DUI checkpoint is not the same thing as a CBP station. They are not checking for the same thing. 


The ACLU frequently fights in courts, with their own lawyers, for the rights of US citizens when their Constitutional rights have been violated. They absolutely aren't the law, but they KNOW the law and they are an organization that contains lawyers who have licenses to practice the law and they do so daily. They are MORE than just an opinion. Nice attempt in trying to downplay the ACLU though. 

[popeyespappy]

Why don't you ask the ACLU what their opinion is on the matter as well as look at the court cases referenced above, for your convenience. Homework is already done... please go have a read then come back to me and we can continue this debate.

From your quoted ACLU text.

The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status.

So according to the ACLU, SCOTUS has ruled that stopping people at these checkpoints to inquire about their citizenship is legal.

What happened to the woman in videos? She (and everyone else on the road at that time) got stopped at a checkpoint and asked about their citizenship. According to the ACLU website SCOTUS says that is legal.

[Joods]

Why don't you ask the ACLU what their opinion is on the matter as well as look at the court cases referenced above, for your convenience. Homework is already done... please go have a read then come back to me and we can continue this debate.

From your quoted ACLU text.

The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status.

So according to the ACLU, SCOTUS has ruled that stopping people at these checkpoints to inquire about their citizenship is legal.

What happened to the woman in videos? She (and everyone else on the road at that time) got stopped at a checkpoint and asked about their citizenship. According to the ACLU website SCOTUS says that is legal.

bold mine*

Since you want to pick out a sentence in the middle of a paragraph that was part of a bulleted list of the Outdated Legal Authority and Lack of Oversight section, here is the entire paragraph, quoted below. 

For example, Border Patrol, according to news reports, operates approximately 170 interior checkpoints throughout the country (the actual number in operation at any given time is not publicly known). The ACLU believes that these checkpoints amount to dragnet, suspicion-less stops that cannot be reconciled with Fourth Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status. Checkpoints cannot be primarily used for drug-search or general law enforcement efforts. In practice, however, Border Patrol agents often do not limit themselves to brief immigration inquiries and regularly conduct criminal investigations and illegal searches at checkpoints. The Border Patrol also frequently pulls over motorists in "roving patrol" stops, often without any suspicion that an immigration violation has occurred.

The SC may have upheld rulings, but the rest of the paragraph is key in realizing that a ruling isn't worth much if CBP agents do whatever they want anyway. Again, bold mine. 

In addition, NOTHING about her stop was brief. An hour and a half is not brief and it's on tape saying a dog was brought out to search her vehicle. 

So what was your point with intentionally leaving a key part of that paragraph out and misrepresenting what I posted?

[chimp3]

Hey! What's the worse thing that can happen letting illegals across the border? They take your good jobs spraying sucker oil? See! You probably don't know what that is! 

Instead we have increased police powers and authoritarian precedents.

[popeyespappy]

From your quoted ACLU text.


So according to the ACLU, SCOTUS has ruled that stopping people at these checkpoints to inquire about their citizenship is legal.

What happened to the woman in videos? She (and everyone else on the road at that time) got stopped at a checkpoint and asked about their citizenship. According to the ACLU website SCOTUS says that is legal.

bold mine*

Since you want to pick out a sentence in the middle of a paragraph that was part of a bulleted list of the Outdated Legal Authority and Lack of Oversight section, here is the entire paragraph, quoted below. 

For example, Border Patrol, according to news reports, operates approximately 170 interior checkpoints throughout the country (the actual number in operation at any given time is not publicly known). The ACLU believes that these checkpoints amount to dragnet, suspicion-less stops that cannot be reconciled with Fourth Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status. Checkpoints cannot be primarily used for drug-search or general law enforcement efforts. In practice, however, Border Patrol agents often do not limit themselves to brief immigration inquiries and regularly conduct criminal investigations and illegal searches at checkpoints. The Border Patrol also frequently pulls over motorists in "roving patrol" stops, often without any suspicion that an immigration violation has occurred.

The SC may have upheld rulings, but the rest of the paragraph is key in realizing that a ruling isn't worth much if CBP agents do whatever they want anyway. Again, bold mine. 

In addition, NOTHING about her stop was brief. An hour and a half is not brief and it's on tape saying a dog was brought out to search her vehicle. 

So what was your point with intentionally leaving a key part of that paragraph out and misrepresenting what I posted?

But that's not what they did here is it? They stopped her at a checkpoint and asked her about her citizenship. Once again, something SCOTUS has said is legal. Even the ACLU agrees that SCOTUS says what happened to this woman is legal.

[Joods]

bold mine*

Since you want to pick out a sentence in the middle of a paragraph that was part of a bulleted list of the Outdated Legal Authority and Lack of Oversight section, here is the entire paragraph, quoted below. 



The SC may have upheld rulings, but the rest of the paragraph is key in realizing that a ruling isn't worth much if CBP agents do whatever they want anyway. Again, bold mine. 

In addition, NOTHING about her stop was brief. An hour and a half is not brief and it's on tape saying a dog was brought out to search her vehicle. 

So what was your point with intentionally leaving a key part of that paragraph out and misrepresenting what I posted?

But that's not what they did here is it? They stopped her at a checkpoint and asked her about her citizenship. Once again, something SCOTUS has said is legal. Even the ACLU agrees that SCOTUS says what happened to this woman is legal.

Keep on continuing to take that out of context because you don't want to have to discuss the reality which is they do things to our own citizens that are illegal and not anywhere close to our actual borders.

[popeyespappy]

I'm not taking anything out of context. I'm staying 100% on point in relation to the OP. You dragged the ACLU into it. I read what you posted from the ACLU site and pointed out that they said SCOTUS has previously ruled that what the border patrol did in this instance is legal.

[Joods]

And yet somehow you miss everything else that was posted to just pick apart that one fucking sentence that you didn't bother including the rest of the paragraph on.

Straw man much?

[Jackalope]

The officers who pulled someone over without probable cause, of course.

What is probable cause at a BP check point? Driving a car maybe? 

Looks like probable cause is for searching the car, not stopping: https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/fil...rights.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...utionality

Mo, the statute is is irrelevant. I am not a authoritarian.

YMMV.