It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Nonchalant
Excellent expose on the current state of events in Amerika.
Clearly, it was important for the agents that the US citizen answer the question 'are you an immigrant' than it was for him to be allowed to go without answering. Clearly, this is an infringement of the constitution.
To those in the thread who defend the agents (governments) actions and/or who accuse the citizen of 'provoking' the officers, it is also clear you are those that will be the first to lie down and do as your told when harsher infringements hit your country. And the reason they will is because you allow or make excuses for 'minor' infringements. It is the principal thats important here, not the harshness of what took place. You say its ok to infringe your constitution a little, and in doing so you open a can of worms.
Originally posted by RFBurns
How old are you? They have been doing this along the boarder states for over 60 years friend. No one seems to have a problem answering a simple question, except those who think they are above everyone else and just wants to show their butts on youbloobe videos.
Originally posted by Ian McLean
And you're right that these checkpoints, be they for border security, or agricultural inspection, or what have you, have been around for quite a while, especially in the southwest. That's not the point.
And I know that almost everyone has no problem with an easy question, like "are you a US citizen?". Personally, I don't have a problem answering that, either. That's not the point.
The point, again, is: to what extent do federal authorities have the right to stop everyone at a particular checkpoint, and require them to answer their questions? And what can those questions be? Sure, when it's "are you a US citizen?", it seems harmless,
Originally posted by Ian McLean
but how about these:
Do you know of anyone whom you suspect might be an illegal immigrant?
Do you know of anyone whom you suspect might have or current be employing illegal immigrants?
If so, what are their names?
A little more intrusive, but still no problem to most people.
Originally posted by Ian McLean
The question is, where is the line drawn? What is the controlling legal authority, that prevents officers at such 'checkpoints' from interrogating you on, say, your views about government policy (to determine your 'terrorist threat level', perhaps).
Originally posted by Ian McLean
Note all the 'dancing around' in the video, where what the officer wants is phrased as a 'request', but delivered in the tone of voice as to make it seem an order, complete with the intimidation of the perception of 'color of authority'. Frankly, if I were staffing that checkpoint, and it was my legal duty to ensure that this guy was not an illegal immigrant, I would have had him out of the car and under control while checking his ID, after about 2 minutes of his blathering. That didn't happen.
Originally posted by Ian McLean
The point is, these limits have been spelled out, in Supreme Court decisions. And, it seems as though these officers do not have the authority to compel answers to even simple questions, such as "are you a US citizen?".
Originally posted by Ian McLean
There's no police or secondary federal agency making sure that these 'checkpoints' remain within the law and orders of the Court. It thus falls to citizens to remain vigilant, and make the effort to ensure that legal limitations are respected.
Thank the Constitution for citizens like this.
Originally posted by rcwj75
Hey call it what you want but atleast I served the country that gives me the rights and freedoms we have...
THIS IS NOT A BORDER CHECKPOINT
Originally posted by maria_stardust
These agents were well within their authority to question this person's residency status.
18.7(b) Reasonable Suspicion: Before an inspector may constitutionally detain a person (non-entry related case) the inspector must have reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien and is illegally in the United States.
--Customs and Boarder Protection Field Manual.
The court ruled 7 to 2 that the internal checkpoints were not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but rather were consistent with the amendment. They went on to say that it would be impracticable for the officers to seek warrants for every vehicle searched and that to do so would eliminate any deterrent towards smuggling and illegal immigration. The court felt that any intrusion to motorists was a minimal one and that the government and public interest outweighed the constitutional rights of the individual.
The court also ruled that the stops were Constitutional even if largely based on apparent Mexican ancestry.
However the court added that restrictions still exist: "We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search....And our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. -[A]ny further detention...must be based on consent or probable cause. Our prior cases have limited significantly the reach of this congressional authorization, requiring probable cause for any vehicle search in the interior and reasonable suspicion for inquiry stops."