World's most annoying SJW at immigration checkpoint

nstassel

NES Member
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
2,256
Likes
3,679
Location
Middlesex County
Which still doesn't make her wrong on this issue.

If I'm a taxpayer traveling on a public road, the state can mind its own damn business. Not mine.
I agree in reality. I am not in favor of a checkpoint within the US borders. I just love how this is now an issue when they've been in effect since 1953.
 

Picton

NES Member
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
8,550
Likes
6,266
Location
MA
I agree in reality. I am not in favor of a checkpoint within the US borders. I just love how this is now an issue when they've been in effect since 1953.
So have police shootings.

But cellphone video has a way of... making things more relevant, let's say. Shining the light on things. Plus, the current security theatre-industrial complex was nowhere near as profound in the past as it is now.

I get that times change. But rights are rights, and she had a right NOT to be hassled on a public way. She had the same right in 1953, too. We just wouldn't have known about it.
 

whacko

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
9,537
Likes
5,079
I agree with her in sentiment only. Those off border checkpoints are bullshit. So are dwi checkpoints.

However she lost me with her crying ass voice and her "my teacher friends" yadayada......who gives a flying f*** that your a teacher? Then her rant about nationalism leading to fascism. Stick to the point you f***ing liberal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpk

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/aclu_border_rights.pdf

Disclaimer...I don't agree with these checkpoints, and personally beleive they violate certainly the intent of the Bill of Rights. My opinion in this matter however does not amount to squat.
This is where paying close attention to the precise wording is very important:

"Border Patrol may stop vehicles at certain checkpoints to: (1) ask a few, limited questions to verify citizenship of the vehicles’ occupants and (2) visually inspect the exterior of a vehicle."

"Agents may send any vehicle to a secondary inspection area for the same purpose: brief questioning and visual inspection."​

What it does NOT say, and what no court to my knowledge has ever ruled, is that you're required to answer those questions, or that you're required to follow their order to move to a secondary checkpoint, in the absence of probable cause.

I believe the reason no court has every ruled on this is because CBP has smart lawyers that know they're in extremely dicey territory here constitutionally, and they make sure they train their officers to reflect that. If they push their luck, they're likely to lose, and there's a good chance they'd also lose their right to have these checkpoints in the first place.

So instead you have the weird nether-world of "they're allowed to ask, but you don't have to answer; they're allowed to order you to secondary, but you don't have to obey; you can't just drive off, but they can't lawfully detain you". Watch some videos on YouTube of people at these checkpoints refusing to obey and you'll see this weird dichotomy play out time and time again. It's not tenable in the long run, but they're trying to preserve their power for as long as possible.
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
4,369
Likes
1,749
So, riddle me this:

Say you're a tourist from a "good" country (Japan, UK, France, etc.) who has entered through conventional/legal means, and you get stopped by these clowns. They ask if you're a US citizen, and you say, "No."

Then what happens? Presumably they'll ask for your passport (which is legal, because bizarrely foreigners are required to carry papers) They look at it and ... what? Do they even stamp passports anymore?

You're legally in the country, you're not breaking any laws. Do they let you go?
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
So, riddle me this:

Say you're a tourist from a "good" country (Japan, UK, France, etc.) who has entered through conventional/legal means, and you get stopped by these clowns. They ask if you're a US citizen, and you say, "No."

Then what happens? Presumably they'll ask for your passport (which is legal, because bizarrely foreigners are required to carry papers) They look at it and ... what? Do they even stamp passports anymore?

You're legally in the country, you're not breaking any laws. Do they let you go?
Yes. Basically, from a constitutional perspective, here's how it works:

  1. No reasonable suspicion = illegal to stop. BUT... SCOTUS has allowed an exception to this rule for checkpoints. At the checkpoints they have a limited right to stop you only to ask a few questions about citizenship and visually inspect the vehicle from the outside.
  2. They ask the questions and inspect the vehicle. You have a constitutional right to remain silent under 5A. Under 5A, remaining silent cannot be construed as reasonable suspicion.
  3. Unless the result of them asking those questions and conducting the inspection has yielded objective evidence that provides reasonable suspicion of lawbreaking, they have exhausted the scope of their lawful authority and have to let you go. Being a lawfully present foreigner is not lawbreaking, so you're free to go.
 

whalerman69

NES Member
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
1,319
Likes
739
I am certain her husband swallowed the barrel of a .357 as opposed to listening to that douche...
 

milktree

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
4,369
Likes
1,749
Yes. Basically, from a constitutional perspective, here's how it works:

  1. No reasonable suspicion = illegal to stop. BUT... SCOTUS has allowed an exception to this rule for checkpoints. At the checkpoints they have a limited right to stop you only to ask a few questions about citizenship and visually inspect the vehicle from the outside.
  2. They ask the questions and inspect the vehicle. You have a constitutional right to remain silent under 5A. Under 5A, remaining silent cannot be construed as reasonable suspicion.
  3. Unless the result of them asking those questions and conducting the inspection has yielded objective evidence that provides reasonable suspicion of lawbreaking, they have exhausted the scope of their lawful authority and have to let you go. Being a lawfully present foreigner is not lawbreaking, so you're free to go.
Specifically, if you *do* answer "no", then what?

They can't arrest you, 'cuz there's nothing in any of your behavior that suggests a law has been broken, right?

So, what if all the people in the country illegally just answered "no"? Could they do anything other than let you go?
 

Boston4567

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
548
Likes
473
Location
Merrimack Valley
Specifically, if you *do* answer "no", then what?

They can't arrest you, 'cuz there's nothing in any of your behavior that suggests a law has been broken, right?

So, what if all the people in the country illegally just answered "no"? Could they do anything other than let you go?
A "no" supplies sufficient justification to lawfully continue the stop until they can ascertain your legal status in the country. If you then refused to answer any questions, they might have probable cause to lawfully detain you.

It's like if you were stopped at a sobriety checkpoint and said yes when they asked if you'd been drinking, then refused to answer any more questions. It's not proof you're under the influence, but it's at least reasonable suspicion, and depending on your overall behavior, it could be probable cause.
 

BrianWilson

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
1,686
Likes
1,338
This is where paying close attention to the precise wording is very important.........................
So instead you have the weird nether-world of "they're allowed to ask, but you don't have to answer; they're allowed to order you to secondary, but you don't have to obey; you can't just drive off, but they can't lawfully detain you".​


Quoted from the ACLU link....."Even though you always have the right to remain silent, if you don’t answer questions to establish your citizenship, officials may detain you longer in order to verify your immigration status."

Seems pretty clear to me, but then I'm not a very learned man either.
 

BrianWilson

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
1,686
Likes
1,338
I guess I just kinda look at it this way. Although I do not like or approve of these checkpoints , if someone, anyone, for any reason, posed the question to me "Are you a citizen of the United States?" I can not for the life of me picture a set of circumstances, any circumstances what so ever, where the response from me would not be "Yes, yes I am."





edited for clarity
 

seanc

NES Member
Rating - 100%
33   0   0
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
Messages
3,764
Likes
520
Location
northbridge, ma
While apparently an unpopular sentiment. I completely support this woman.

We loose our rights all the time because “just saying yes” is the easy answer.

It is just easier to let them do this. And it easier to just let them search your car. And it’s just easier to take off your shoes and your belt.

This is absolutely the same as.. why can’t you just get rid of the full auto? It is perfectly reasonable to register a muffler for your gun. Nobody needs a bump stock. Armor piercing ammo is too Killy and scary....

I am tired of “being reasonable”
 
Last edited:

tuna

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
6,625
Likes
5,611
Location
Western Mass
Didn’t watch the video but I can tell what it is about from the comments.

I’m usually on the side of busting balls just because.
And I don’t tend to do well when told I HAVE to do something.
Since I don’t drink and drive, I’m a real a-hole at sobriety checkpoints.
I’m with the state on this one though.
You don’t want illegals running around? Who else is going to at least try to arrest them, local cops? Please, their mayors want the votes.
Quick question on citizenship and off you go.

This isn’t the hill I want to die on, heck, this isn’t even the damn fight I want. I want to see this actually work, with a bus driving right onto a ferry for a trip to Australia or Antarctica.

And don’t forget, not all illegals are brown. How racist of that lady to think so.
 
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
5,440
Likes
1,496
Location
Western Ma
She did have a point until she went on the whole brown people spiel. I would honestly rather have the border patrol exercise some racial profiling instead of treating everyone exactly the same but I would err on the side of keeping this kind of nonsense at the border where it belongs.

This...very much this.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
4
Likes
8
I'm not sure I get some of the arguments here. OK so you think shes a libtard. So the f*** what? Does that mean she is not afforded the same rights as anyone else? She's smarmy. So? Again I didnt realize that it was one of the litmus tests for having or not having rights, cause I know some real doucebags who are subject to those same rights.

One of the problems we have in this country is the way the politicians and the MSM have us fighting each other on EVERYTHING when in reality the thing that we should be doing, we arent. We should be defending our rights and freedoms, and instead we bend over and give them up, (except for the 2nd because thats more important than all the other ones...... right?)

If people from either end of the spectrum up to and including the middle were to sit down and have a calm, rational, objective conversation (yeah like the nut jobs from either far end of the spectrums will let that happen) we would find that most of the things we are fighting about are minimal compared to the majority of things we all agree on.

To bad most people arent rational.... On either side.
 

swatgig

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
5,001
Likes
4,238
Location
In the shallow end of the gene pool
I guess I just kinda look at it this way. Although I do not like or approve of these checkpoints , if someone, anyone, for any reason, posed the question to me "Are you a citizen of the United States?" I can not for the life of me picture a set of circumstances, any circumstances what so ever, where the response from me would not be "Yes, yes I am."
Even if this group asked you?
1.6133067.3292468386[1].jpg
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
67,066
Likes
23,750
IMHO she should assert her rights if she wants to waste the time, I don't think these stupid checkpoints should exist or anyone should be harassed like that especially without PC for a stop etc. It's pure bullshit, but the supreme court f***ed all that up when they didnt protect 4A with the DUI issue.

That said, from a practical standpoint none of what she did actually matters much. A bunch of jingoservative retards are going to go "why didnt she just anser the queustion they just protechtin ar bordars! mlarc! quack! maga!" And the agents giving a lady a hard time at a checkpoint with the authority to do so... well, they're getting paid by the hour to do that shit. So they really don't care, and probably even think it is amusing (well, at least the ones with more of a sense of humor) So unless her goal is to just tie them up shes spending her own time not theirs... they gettin paid. She's not.

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
14,871
Likes
7,702
Location
Southern NH
Utah v. Strieffhttp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf

Heien v. North Carolina

Kentucky v. King

Florida v. Harris

Davis v. United States

Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte

Michigan v. Fisher

Stanton v. Sims

Some of these are really great. Like getting a drug dog to false alert is still probable cause. Or even searches that have been ruled unconstitutional become constitutional as long as the cop didn't know. Or minor 4A violations aren't a big enough deal to matter and are therefore acceptable. Or that if police themselves create an "exigent circumstances" circumstance themselves, warrantless searches of the wrong locations are good to go.

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte is the applicable SCOTUS case for these border patrol checkpoints.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
578
Likes
106
Location
Not the land of the free but the home of the brave
I think these checkpoints are a precursor to something much worse. When people with large firepower can stop you for zero cause and you don't cooperate it can go south real fast in a bad way. It's reminiscent of totalitarian regimes and the response to the Marathon bombings. What if they want to know if you have any firearms or how much money you are carrying? Why not put them on the border and keep people from coming here illegally and not threaten American citizens?
 
Top Bottom