I cant understand why anyone thinks that illegal activities like having drug sniffing dogs at an immigration check point is okay. It's not okay. It violates the constitution and sets the scene for a police state.
cops and border patrol they get paid to do their jobs,and god bless them, but the mentality of most of them is to make you feel that they are superior of citizens when they have to work for citizens.
@Currahee05GT then you are not a good american. You should turn in or give up the Bill Of Rights. You would do that if you loved the USA. But you dont. Slavery will set us free...
If cops cant do their job without breaking a few laws to do it then it is a sad state of affairs. I go through a BP checkpoint everyday and get my Fourth Ammd pissed on very often
Oh yes, Mary Jane kills. Since you are obviously slow, mary jane is slang parlance for marijuana. Sir, how low is your IQ? 94, or 84, which are both borderline mental retardation. Goddess, people lacking CRITICAL THINKING skills are polluting the gene pool. I believe in eugenics. You need to be TAKEN OUT!
I like this video, finally something different from what the so-called "pastor", who does nothing but create division and hostility, puts out there. KEEP POSTING.
@rstscott is that because the border is the only place you will find criminal aliens? until the border is secure they will need authority to act inside the borders, hombre.
Concerning the 1976 Supreme Court ruling: Every once in a while they get it wrong. This is wrong and an affront to the Constitution we hold dear. Place the border patrol AT THE BORDER.
Most of the BP officers are decent guys genuinely trying to "protect" America. But they are pawns in the failed War on Drugs that has cost the taxpayers billions and incarcerated millions of otherwise- law abiding citizens whose only crime was to possess natural vegetation. Let's move the BP guys to THE BORDER instead of harassing American citizens traveling through America.
The checkpoints are bogus. Granted they might down slow a minuscule amount of drugs or aliens, but they don't accomplish anything. Hell they can't even keep drugs out of the prison system. Even the 911 terrorists came to the US legally, they weren't aliens.
Just legalize drugs, and let a few Mexicans come here legally every year, so they don't have to sneak across.
Huh.... so seizing marijuana that can EASILY be grown in the US and that is only brought in through hte mexican border because of the profit margin... is good? Heck US produces probably 75% of its marijuana, so if they have 2 they can go to a 100%... and stopping 11 people who wanted a better life by cleaning your shitter, taking the jobs that you guys find degrading and unworthy of your perfect little life a good job? I call that fascism.
Keep up the good work! It's a thankless job to where no one will really sees the results of your sacrifice but others of us who have fought for our country understand. HOO YAH border patrol.
SHAME ON YOU MINUTEMANAZ.... nice to know a picture I posted online about two years ago is being put to use. Copyrights my friend..... if The border patrol would have done there job at the borders there is no need to worry about what happends in american land, Another reason y americans are losing jobs to mexicans. ......... Have you noticed the increase in Mexican Americans in the United State Border Patrol agency...... I SMELL CORRUPTION!!!!!! AND IT SMELLS SWEET.
@212121julio If Obama wouldn't have cut BP manpower and start to make an effort to secure our border, if more concerned citizens took an active role in protecting this country then stopping 4 + million immigrants at the border would happen. Do you think these illegal immigrants and the human and drug trafficers just hang out at the border when they cross. There are less border patrol agents for the whole country than NY police officers. Do the math.
So they have a job to do assholes just as we have the illegal jobs that we stupidly take.it is a no win situation either way, so keep doing your job guys and we will do are best to evade no offense. also they get paid and me well you guys seem to not want to allways pay so to the border patrol at least they aint fucking each other over
This guy will get a 6 figure settlement. The people of Yuma County will be jurors and they know how the border patrol treats people at the point. This get settled quick and if not the rev walks with big money for being pulled over with no reason.
The reverend won his case and is now on his way to recieving well into 6 figures just off of settlement offers alone. The people of Yuma County know how they are treated at these checks and would almost always rule in favor of the defendant...especially if the victim was told he had drugs and there were none. The officer also said on camera "pull him over for he's videotaping us".
I completely disagree that we need internal suspicionless border patrol check points. In my opinion, they violate the 4th Amendment of the Federal Constitution and constitute an "illegal search and seizure". I agree that we need border patrol but they should be on the borders doing this, not 1 nor 100 miles inside the border. As a US citizen, I don't want to have to stop at checkpoints inside the US borders. That is not what I want America to be. I want it to be free.
@Pyrometman Freedom isn't free. Sometimes you have to do what's necessary to keep us that way. It is a fact that some of these agents violate the law and something should be done to regulate these operations but it's not practical to only have agents at the border being these people are inventing very creative ways to bypass border checkpoints and evade BP agents. They do need better training and supervision at these points.
@atapm4 When we "do what's necessary to keep us that way" and it is illegal, I have to disagree whether you think it's practical or not. Our government and border patrol need to do the job at the border. We must get creative at finding ways to stop illegal border crossers AT THE BORDER. When our government's tactics involve violating citizens rights, it is wrong. These checkpoints are not consistent with the Constitution and are disrespectful of the intentions of our founding fathers.
@Bearheart776 "These checkpoints are not consistent with the Constitution .." Really?
US vs. Martinez-Fuerte (1976)
1. The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint...away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the stops and questioning may be made...in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. Pp. 428 U. S. 556-564
FUCK THE BORDER PATROL BUNCH OF FUCKING RETARDS WANNA B COPS GO AND SUCK A FCKING DONKEY DICK ALL U SONS OF BITCHES U AINT NEVER GONNA STOP US WE KEEP CROSSING DRUGS AND HI-POWER WEAPONS DAILY MOTHERFUCKERS AND ALL WE DO IS LAUGH AT U DUMB BITCHES SO THIS IS COMING FROM ME .........FUCK YOU AND TRY AND CATCH US
the problem is they hire allot of cannot think outside the box, easy to control semi educated agents, most skipping that part from being lower level military. dont get me wrong,. there is good bp out there, and decent ex soldiers. but sadly too many bad ones get in and follow a book not morale, human rights, or legal rights. power play. as long as u go along, they will shit on you. exercise rights. refuse. theyll prob see how much u know in law but dont let them power play nazi style.
i can tell you that 9 out of 10 busts at a inspection station are tipped to them. then while they tear apart the car with a loaded body, most of the time, dozens of drugs go by in vehicles, trucks, or trains while the agents are occupied. its a show. the agents dont realize they work for a gov who supports drugs. makes income for it for the black projects with mic, nid, acio etc. they hire basic educated people for bp. ppl who cant think out of the box. ppl easy to keep in line
even though there is proof, and evidence that the cia, fbi, dea, atf, marines, and army along with air force support drug trafficking or make income off it in the black agenda, no. laws were made regarding drugs. not even part of const. did you know that when all these drugs were legal, hardly anyone used. once they made them illegal, prices went up, profit, and many started to do it. its a agenda to ram rod bullshit laws onto us all. gov is behind drugs.
@oterotularosa Wow, you are one of the most ignorant people I have come in contact with. Do you also wear an aluminum foil hat to keep the CIA from reading your thoughts? What is your evidence that the U.S. military supports narcotics? Do you have any understanding of why laws are put in place? Do you have ANY understanding of our judicial system? Stay off the PCP, it's messing with you. But, your crazy ideas would make a good novel / movie.
All Americans soon will be giving up all there freedoms and submit to these nazi very soon unless we stop it now. Ask yourself right now " am I realy free ". For every freedom you have in this country if you look I am sure there is a law to tell you not to or how to or tax you, am I wrong? How about we the people take care of the real problems here like education, being responsible, morals, and most of all unity. With out these things America will fall.
We Americans are a funny people. We hate the illegals and we want them out. Yet we don't want to spend to make it happen. We also don't want any checkpoints to help facilitate the process of removal. We advocate the ideals of freedom yet Arizona just passed a law that will limit that freedom.
@fake1009 That's just it... these checkpoints do NOT facilitate removal, The feds DONT want them out, they want MORE illegals! every illegal will be another Democrat vote plain and simple.The Border Patrol and the Federal Government are traitors, and should be dealt with appropriately. See the Constitution for the punishment for Traitors. Years of the War on Drugs has done no good whatsoever, and drugs are more widespread today than they EVER have been! Same goes for illegal aliens!
i read the d.e.a admits that only 1 percent of drugs are seized before reaching our streets.this makes it hard to justify the money and resources we devote to the war on drugs.i am pleased to see what the border patrol captured in this video but,i want to see the agents on the border dealing with aliens.drugs are a secondary function of the patrol and the drugs don't justify violating policies,laws and the constitution.
Sorry, no matter how you want to defend it, these checkpoints are unconstitutional, anti-freedom and anti-american. With your logic of how "good" these checkpoints are, the police should then be allowed to make house to house searches at any time and justify it by showing any illegal drugs or any other illegal activity found. Honestly, does that make any sense??? "What does it matter if you have nothing to hide" is a facist excuse, by the way. Wake up.
wow ur retarded. its way different from police doing a house to house search. because 1. thats a search, a checkpoint is not a search. 2. that requires a warrant or warrant exception, as a checkpoint does not. so basically all you did was prove how un-educated you are and what a dip shit you are
So when you don't agree and have nothing intelligent to say, you resort to name calling. I see. Then I am the one who is to be "retarded" and a "dipshit". i must certainly be uneducated then for I don't see any substance in your comment. I'm sorry, Stupid old me.
A checkpoint is indeed a search. Do they ask you any questions? Do they look into your car? Do they ask everyone in the vehicle for ID? It's also being detained without probable cause. I guess I'm just a retard.
I guess they can just set up checkpoints at every intersection and sidewalk then. They can ask everyone for ID and where they are from, where they are going, etc. Gee, educate me some more, what else can they do that they aren't supposed to be allowed to do??? I'm too retarded to understand when my rights have been violated. DUH! Me so stupid..... Me pay money twice a year to ACLU, i guess it's all been wasted. I'll have them take my name off their wall up in Cleveland, my bad.
The house analogy doesn't work, as you are travelling on an interstate highway through an immigration checkpoint that is strategically located at a "funneled" point where smuggler traffic is heaviest. Are you also mad when they search you at the airport? See U.S. vs. Martinez-Fuerte
An airport is different and you know it. This is being ransomly stopped without me doing anything whatsoever to make anyone think that I am "smuggling". Besides, once past the border, it is no longer smuggling, it has already been "Smuggled". But still, no matter. The act of driving down a road is not cause to detain me and ask questions. No matter how you want to defend it, this activity needs to stop. Period. In spite of the supreme court, it is still unconstitutional.
I disagree. But I enjoy the banter, especially when people like you fly of the handle and start accusing others of "forgetting our fathers' faces" or whatever.
Then you must put no value on lessons learned from the past. Flying off the handle..... I'm not some whacko nut job, I believe in the freedoms given to us in the constitution and I see it being attacked every day with things like this. Those who came before us fought to protect and to defend that constitution and I respect and value their gains. People like me. Right. People like me who actually care about our freedoms and can see when things like this are wrong and stand up against it.
I'm a veteran as well. Ranting about this on YouTube isn't exactly standing up fot it, though. The pastor has it figured out. You need to get a video camera and go humiliate one of those Agents who is looking for loaded vehicles. That's how you stand for freedom, justice, and the American way.
An Immigration Checkpoint is to be at the border. I'm not crossing the border thus I am not suspect of IMMIGRATING! Are you blind to reason and logic or do you just have a thing for heavy handed control of other people? I've had enough of you idiots. Wake up before someone does it for you. Unbelieveable, the stupidity I see out of people like you. What a waste, all the people who fought and died for us just for you to ignore it all.
As I said, see U.S. vs. Martinez-Fuerte. There is this whole big brother conspiracy because it the [yikes] federal government. Nobody bitches about sobriety checkpoints set up by local law enforcement. Do you really think that the people they are checking are not suspected of immigrating? Most checkpoints are set up just past 25 miles from the border to catch the "non-immigrants" who came in with a temporary visa that had a 25-mile limit and decided to truck it on in to the U.S. for life.
With that logic then they may as well go past the 25 miles limit and check everywhere, yes? If someone comes in with a visa, I doubt it will take them past the time the visa expires to get 25 miles in. It's a warrentess search of citizens, plain and simple. It's just dressed up to make us feel "safe". We're waking up, it's just a matter fo time before we take back our country and stop this backwards B.S.
@LaVerdadEntera Funny you should mention that, I don't get mad about airport searches,I get livid. Especially since the introduction of microwaves and xrays or nutsack patdowns. Fuck the federal goverment,they are not your friend. ,,l,,
mimutemanaz: Are you OK with all the entertainment we are giving? If not, just say the word and I'll back out. It's getting pretty repetitive at times...
I have no heard anything which tell me either the case has'nt been heard yet, or YES he has, because if he was not convicted we would have seen and heard about it,
But you may want to check out his ethics and morals before you call him rev.
His day in court was suspended. I've heard his You Tube rants and raves. While preaching in his Tempe Temple, he told one of his parrishoners to, "get the Hell out of my chucrh !" A man of the cloth? Not much.
When you hear him speak, wheter on or off the pulpit, it is hell fire and brimstone all the way. If he is such an expert and authoritarian on BO OPS, why isn't he a BP Chief?
no it was dropped. he won hsi case. as they violated his rights. and also the dogs or k9 they use half time arent for drugs. some are just attack dogs, some bomb dogs, body dogs etc. they use power play. half these people who go for being shit on in a check point never been through one, and just comment on it. they never had been harassed. i use to be like them till i was victim and my other half. for no reason harassed. so i said enough is enough.
1) The BP didn't violate his rights. 2) the BP desn't have neither bomb dogs, nor attack dogs. 2) What is power play. 3) tooo bad you had a bad experience going through a BP Checkpoint. The BP are in it for the long haul. They have lost a number of Agents and, as with any other law enforcement agency, uitlize caution when dealing with the public.
The Department of "Homeland" Security is targeting half the US population as extremists so they can expand the Global "War On Terror" and bring it right into the "homeland".
People who write and think of their country as the "Homeland" tend to think they can redefine torture, ignore international treaties, fund disinformation efforts, launch wars based on hunches and emphasize the power of the executive branch because they consider themselves the only ones who know what's right for the country.
Wrong. An Immigration Officer is authorized in re INA to stop and question anyone as his right to either be or remain in the United States of America. Secs. 235 & 241
You know what, there is NO law that says any person in the US has to answer ANY LEO's questions. They can invoke their right to remain silent at any point and time, however that doesn't mean they won't suffer consequences for doing so. So you really haven't made a statement or even brought forth a legitimate argument this entire exchange. You argue over a statement, which may not be supported by law, but yet supported by action. No, you don't have to answer my questions to prove your citizenship
at a checkpoint. But you WILL be detained and required to go before an IJ to answer my questions THEN although I may not be the one asking them. One way or the other, you're going to have to answer my questions if I so chose to go that route.
So in essence, you DO have to answer my questions whether your response is to me or an IJ doesn't matter, and because there is no law that is specific to requiring you to answer, you in fact do should the agent decide to detain you for that hearing. Find another point to try and argue since all of yours have been blown out of the water please.
"Find another point to try and argue since all of yours have been blown out of the water please. "
I consider it a debate, not an arguement.
The point I was making is that "There is no law that requires a U.S. citizen to answer questions from, or converse at all with agents at this type of checkpoint". I followed up with a real world example in myself as usually do not answer questions at these stops.
Agents can set up roadblocks up to 100 miles from the border, board passenger buses and patrol transportation hubs that are not near the border. The Border Patrol, which is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has set up roadblocks in other northern states, including Vermont, New York and Maine.
This authority, relatively new to the people of Washington, has stirred controversy.
That is because the 100 miles is POLICY that carries the possibility of exemption if the CPA of the sector determines that it is necessary to have a checkpoint set up beyond that mile limit. It's very simple and easy research. Instead of sitting here complaining about how the BP operates, learn the difference between LAW and POLICY and apply that knowledge.
I never said anything about if the checkpoints could be set up or how the BP operates.
You presented a RED HERRING argument: This is commonly used in debates where an unrelated topic is brought up as a distraction point to divert attention from the real topic.
What's there to compromise? You're wrong and haven't a clue of how the law works, I had to cite it FOR YOU. My comments ARE correct when speaking about BOTH, not just one. If the checkpoints were operating illegally, they'd have been shut down already, and agents successfully sued, as well as legislation reflecting as such. So how is it that you still believe that your comments are in any way correct when the law does NOT side with that ridiculous opinion?
And I said that you are apparently incapable to understanding the context in which that statement was made. Reading comprehension tells us that the way that statement was made, I was being more sarcastic than anything. I was making the point that BP apprehends on a daily basis drug and alien smugglers that are AMERICANS, terror suspects, etc...and there are AMERICANS like YOU who think it's too much to determine citizenship and what someone is doing coming from or going to the border.
See above. I have provided the law as it stands. How many times do you want me to say it? I'll type in caps in hopes that gives you a better understanding. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER AN AGENTS QUESTIONS AT A CHECKPOINT, HOWEVER HE DOES NOT HAVE TO LET YOU LEAVE UNTIL YOU DO!!!!!
I've already cited those laws on MANY occasions during this exchange. So why don't YOU present me with FACTS and LAWS that support your view on things, and when you do so..make sure to cite them in their entirety, not just a sliver of them that would appear to support your claims.
It's just like peopl such as you to ignore the entire post and hone in on the one thing they think they can use as ammunition. Here's the post in it's entirety. "Fact is that even though we catch THOUSANDS of pounds of dope everyday preventing it from reaching american streets, we catch terror suspects that are wanted, we catch people smugglers that sell human beings...you'll still say that they serve no purpose because you, an American have to answer an agent that you're an American." = Sarcasm
If the current generation of Americans does not challenge this creeping (and sometimes galloping) expansion of federal powers over the individual through the rationale of border protection, we are not doing our part to keep alive the rights and freedoms that we inherited, and will soon find that we have lost some or all of their right to go about their business, and travel around inside their own country, without interference from the authorities.
No, the past generations were subject to this exact same code of law. INA of 1952 ring a bell? We understand that these powers were granted YEARS ago, and have been acted upon since YEARS ago. It's this current generation that believes they don't have to follow the laws of the land and that every time they are the slightest inconvenienced by law enforcement, it's an infringement on their rights when they don't even know what they are. Fight CONGRESS, not the Border Patrol if you don't like it.
Concerning using CBP (Customs Border Patrol) in Ohio here is a bit of recent past news:
In a series of planned initiatives for the summer, U.S. Border Patrol in a joint effort with the Ohio Highway Patrol, Pennsylvania State Police and New York State Police targeted aggressive driving, impaired driving and speeding.
The first phase of the program was conducted May 13. While these initiatives did not include checkpoints, the gears are in motion to make them easily implemented.
With the move still on to form a North American Union, I do not believe our government is really trying to "protect" us from illegal aliens, but is setting up the infrastructure and laws to bring us closer to a police state.
And, I also do not believe it is necessary to have Customs Border Patrol wielding power as far inland as central Ohio.
Again, these laws have been around for YEARS, older than most of the people posting in this forum. This is no set up, congress gave us authority in 1924, and the 100 mile limit has been instituted by POLICY, not LAW which gave what is now CBP such authority without limits as per the Supreme Court rulings. Thousands of agents are out there while you sleep on the front lines of our borders catching criminals, terrorist, and those who wish to do us harm. You're here upset about that...go figure.
Incorrect again. You really shouldn't debate me over the laws that I enforce. 8 USC 1357 A3 has nothing to do with Martinez Fuerte, Terry v. Ohio, Brignoni-Ponce, Muehler v. Mena, should I keep going? Along with Title 8 and Title 19, Carroll V. US, Maryland v. Buie, US v. Mendoza-Gonzalez. I'll stop now because I've given you too much homework as it is. There are reasons our laws exist, and there are reasons there are 4th Amendment exceptions as well. Read, understand, then come talk to me.
Wow, you either choose not to read or have no understanding. 8 USC 1357 A3 is relevant to the BP's power to search and board and search any vessel, conveyance etc...within 25 miles of the border. Martinez v Fuerte is about setting up checkpoints that impede all traffic flow for the purpose of determining alienage and search for aliens and contraband. We cannot search your vehicle without consent or PC, but we can detain you however long it takes to determine your citizenship. Educate yourself.
No my comment refers to the 25 mile limit of warrantless access to private lands for the purpose of patrolling the border. 8 USC 1357 A3 has NOTHING to do with Martinez v. Fuerte. It is about boarding vessels and conveyances, and patrolling the border, explain to me how it relates to Martinez-Fuerte please.
This video is a response to Anderson and CheckpointUSA, both of who are debating internal checkpoints, not the border itself.
Your earlier statements: "What I see is a person that INTENTIONALLY goes to checkpoints to start crap" and "you, an American have to answer an agent that you're an American. " makes people think you are talking about these checkpoints, not the world.
So my original statement stands. There's no law that says one has to answer questions at this type of checkpoint.
Apparently you don't understand the context of what in which that statement was meant, read again. I agreed, there is no law that you have to answer my questions, but I can detain you until you do. The ONLY reason that people like Anderson are released is because those agents don't feel like dealing with the likes of them. If they come through my checkpoint and ask, I will respond, "yes you are SEIZED, and until you answer my question, you are NOT free to go." Come to Texas...all I ask.
No they don't allow him to leave because of the source you cited. He did not answer their questions, therefore his alienage had not been determined. Determining alienage consist of more than LOOKING at some one, it involves asking them to state their citizenship and their response along with other factors determine how the investigation proceeds. They have a CHOICE to either deal with him or just let the asshole through. They choose the latter, in Texas, he'd be sitting there until he answered.
"in Texas, he'd be sitting there until he answered."
He might, but I never have. Let's see, the last time I went through a Texas checkpoint was last Wednesday. I never answered a single question. I was there less than 30 seconds. I can't remember the last time I answered questions while going through these checkpoints. It's been years a at least.
Why? I think it's because I know my rights, and I leave my attitude out of the equation.
It has nothing to do with you THINKING you know your rights. In what context are you saying do not answer questions? They ask and you remain silent, or they don't ask at all, and exactly what checkpoint are you going through sir?
As far as your comment about being detained for life, you need to read up on US v. Delaney Abi Odofin. He was first encountered June3, 1989 until June 27, 1989 by what is now CBP. It was deemed a reasonable detention and he was arrested once the agents suspicions were confirmed. Granted that's not a lifetime, but it was 24 days, based upon suspicion.
You still haven't proven any grasp of the law as all of your comments are grasping at straws and being defeated by LAW not opinions.
It didn't matter where he was at, the same law that applies to checkpoints applies nationwide. LEARN the LAW, not your opinions, cause they really don't matter when debating facts.
When it comes to the authority that a BP Agent has to question people about their citizenship, that authority can be found in INA 287 and 235. Read it. That authority is nationwide which allows us to question ANYONE about their right to be in or remain in the US.
Martinez-Fuerte is about the legality of checkpoints. Since the the checkpoint has been proven legal, an agents authority to question those arriving at the checkpoint about their right to be in or remain in the US still stands.
Also, don't forget the rest of the reply when I stated after there is no law requiring you answer an agent, that you can be detained until you do. You don't know the law, you grasp at straws, and it proves your weak point. You can't even start debating with me beacuse everything you've said thus far has been found in error by my posting of LAW. Why don't you posty some LAWS that support your view, otherwise it's just another crappy opinion.
"Why don't you posty some LAWS that support your view, "
No problem:
CITE: "...routine stopping...at a permanent checkpoint... for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment" and "any further detention or search must be based on ... consent or probable cause."
All I stated was that there's no law that says one has to answer questions at this type of checkpoint, something you already agree with me about.
Wow...you REALLY like to play on people's words don't you? Here is exactly what he said. "what's going to happen is were going to spend a little more time talking to them and try to figure out what's going on with the situation, and once it's been determined that the situation doesn't require any further investigation, we'll release them." I'm also sure that you've heard the attorney commenting that if they refuse to identify themselves they can be detained for an immigration hearing, yes USC's
and will actually be detained however long it takes to get in front of an IJ for the hearing, hiring an attorney etc...So in other words, one way or the other, REGARDLESS of citizenship, if you fail to prove it at the checkpoint, you can be FORCED to prove it at a hearing in front of a judge. The problem with a lot of agents is their sectors are more worried about the media than they are about doing their jobs. Mine isn't like that. When you come through my checkpoint, you are SEIZED
i doubt at 3am a fed judge will sign a warrent without evidence of pc, warrent a arrest, or allow a persons rights to be violated. bc itll end up on him. i have always refused everything, and know the law. i have no problem. also have a eagle eye, eye witness dash cam. i believe i know what sector you refer too. i refused. and would like to add one agent lost her job after remark she made and was on video. its all power play. drop balls and defend your rights.
I love it when people like you come through and claim to know the law. You cannot even articulate a proper sentence but claim to be educated more than BP Agents. Fact of the matter is, as long as my line of questioning is designed to uncover possible immigration violations, the detention can be extended until I, the BP Agent, is satisfied that you are a USC. Some checkpoints are too busy to deal with people like you so they just let you go...not me.
quasi detention is minimal and they cannot exceed it. granted you did nothing illegal to violate fed laws with immigration and drugs. any conversations are just consent conversations. not required. if you go in acting like i know the law and dont, they will eventually call your bluff. but you show them you been to more school then all 10 of them standing there jacking off, then they dont want to deal with being sued, or court. its all power play to get you to say ok screw me.
The conversation is NOT a consensual encounter, it is a seizure and the conversation is geared for uncovering immigration violations. Refusal to answer questions can be used for sending a person to secondary and extending the detention until the agent satisfied. I have personally held people like you for 3 hours until they gave me proper ID and I could run record checks on them. The refusal to cooperate only interferes with YOUR time, not mine.
also a permanent check point cannot charge one for impeding ( most states statue) traffic if it is off the major highway to that of a off ramp. so refusing secondary is nothing. they are allowed to lie or bend legal matters to get you to comply. but cannot re write. if you exercise rights properly you should go through fine, no issue, not searched, not detained. believe me, they know if you pull up acting like you know law. if you play the part, theyll see how much you know.
I don't know where you got your information, but there is NO BP checkpoint that is NOT on a roadway and it doesn't have to be major. See this is how I know you're a liar and the most uneducated one here. Anytime you refuse to move your vehicle to secondary and remain in primary, you are impeding the flow of traffic. We are in fact allowed to physically remove you from your vehicle and move it ourselves should we do so. The moment you are stopped at a checkpoint, you are detained.
@chamsdropz24: "don't know where you got your information, but there is NO BP checkpoint that is NOT on a roadway and it doesn't have to be major. "
Are you still at marfa sector? The checkpoint south of Marfa is not actually on the roadway itself. That's why there a cones set up to divert traffic off of the roadway and under the awning.
i would love to know exactly who you are and when you work. because i have won cases of people like you and never lost one. i feel they tend to lower requirements and expectations getting power trip power play bimbo's in. most granted are illegal in sense themselves, or the family of them was. i dont got issue with decent agents. but do with bad ones. ones who feel they are gods.
You name one case that you've won against BP agents. Your ability to complete a sentence means you are either poorly educated or a young kid on youtube ruining his mouth like he knows something. Fact is, at the checkpoint, we are given statutory authority to conduct our business. BP Agents have authority that no other LEO's will ever have and we exercise that authority. We are the front lines to protecting America, and people like you only contribute to the obstacles.
You have access to the network. Go find it at work pal. Ah, the spell and grammar police. Who GIVES A FLYING FUCK HOW I SPELL OR RUN ON OR STOP. No it is not uneducated. It is called having a good night out then getting online to fuck with people like you in your 15 dollar hour job or 18 which ever your case is. Ha, the front lines? Is that why allot are being caught up in pay offs, drugs etc? For one its a joke. The fed level runs the drug business.
What about for 2? There are dirty LEO's in every agency and to dumb it down to generalizing an entire force of 20,000..FURTHER shows that your ignorance is one due to the lack of education and understanding.
I am not going to give myself away by blogging my facts. How ever It seems you did. I have worked these fields, Law enforcement, DARPA, and now legal. I do say thank you for choosing a job to indeed catch real criminals. However I speak regarding the ones or those who knowingly harass, intimidate, or abuse people of legal status and who are not criminals. In my opinion it is not a agents business where a 23 year old mother who is obviously no threat to know her life story.
I go online to vent, relax, laugh, joke, etc. Many of us do. Spelling, grammar is not important here. I am sure there are dozens of persons you work with or have that drink a few shots then go online and rant. We all do. All I am saying is in the end god or gods will determine your destiny by the weight on your shoulders and what you have done to others.
There is tons of settlements paid out or cases won. Many still locked from being released and any details. You must know, I never use to think twice of BP. But one time a off duty Asst. chief I knew went through one and was treated as a scum ball, even though he was in a Unmarked unit with gov tags in San Diego. He being a mellow guy did the game and then later did the proper process to deal with it. Since I have watched and noticed more people are treated as animals.
I know many who use cams in vehicles, some for recreation, hobby, life films etc. Most turn it off out of respect for any BP..... until they are treated as dirt when they obey the law. There are good agents, and bad power tripped ones. I sure hope you decide to be a better officer, and person and treat people accordingly as you feel you should be. Most people do not have issues with BP until they are harassed just for having a set of jugs on the chest and a nice skin tone.
I will say to finish off, as I will not post again here as its old..... I do feel people should state if they are a US citizen. I have. But if the agent comes off as power evil Hitler happy then Ill treat him same. The thing is if you would approach people more humane and friendly I bet you'd discover more then coming off as Coach Buzz cut. I do not endorse harassment of any one at points, agents or people. But agree that if a cop films, so can a person. It helps both.
Until you satisfy me by answering my questions. You still haven't answered which checkpoint you go through, because I find it interesting that you claim you've never been asked questions regarding your status. Another thing that proves you know nothing about the law is that each circuit has it's own rulings to follow. What's good for the 9th circuit may not be the law in the 5th circuit. The only time a ruling becomes nationwide is when it comes down from the supreme court. Tired of school yet?
Forgetful?...all you have to do is read your responses sir.
In your reply to minutemanz - "I was not asked a single question."
And again
"I never answered a single question. I was there less than 30 seconds. I can't remember the last time I answered questions while going through these checkpoints. It's been years at least."
I still haven't received and answer as to which checkpoint you go through and whether you're being waved through or simply not answering and giving the agents a hard time?
So again you want to play word games because you were busted. You have seen that the purpose for the checkpoint is to question persons about the immigration STATUS. Further you state that you can't remember the last time you answered a question, which simply means that you either refuse to answer and the agents aren't doing their jobs, or you are invoking your right to remain silent. Marfa Sector is where you'll find me. So which checkpoint do you go through in Marfa Sector?
There you go again, playing on words again. You can't give a straight answer or admit you were lying and wrong. You said that you were never questioned, which means you've never been asked immigration related questions regarding you STATUS, nor have you answered them. So you don't go through a checkpoint in Marfa, so WHICH CHECKPOINT DO YOU GO THROUGH THAT YOU NEVER ANSWER QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR RIGHT TO BE IN OR REMAIN IN THE U.S.???
"You said that you were never questioned, which means you've never been asked immigration related questions regarding you STATUS, nor have you answered them"
I never said I was 'never' questioned.
It is not a play on words, It is not a lie. It is what happened. I may have a saved audio recording or two, since I record all my checkpoint encounter.
Please do no call me a liar again unless you have the facts to back it up.
I'll continue to call you a liar because that''s what you are. You without a DOUBT lied about the contents of that video, you seem to "look over" my questions, you've been deceitful on things...that equates to a liar sir whether you beleive it or not. So maybe you stated that you weren't asked a single question on a stop, that's the smallest of the issues here. My problem is that you're claiming you've not answered questions for years and will no cite the checkpoints where you claim this occurs.
Typical cop-out. You require that everyone else prove their statements, but you're the exception...just like you are at all the checkpoints you go through and never answer questions right? The lie is in your video post, and the proof that you're a liar is in my response underneath it.
You're such an idiot. You also told me what authority agents have, where it comes from, and that Martinez-Fuerte was the only relevant law concerning checkpoints. All of those I proved you wrong. I'm asking YOU to prove your statements by disclosing which checkpoint you go through, and you won't cause you're a liar and I'll expose you further if you did. I don't need to watch the video. YOU made the statement that the agent said if a person refuses to answer their questions, they must be
I cant understand why anyone thinks that illegal activities like having drug sniffing dogs at an immigration check point is okay. It's not okay. It violates the constitution and sets the scene for a police state.
snarky77005 3 months ago
cops and border patrol they get paid to do their jobs,and god bless them, but the mentality of most of them is to make you feel that they are superior of citizens when they have to work for citizens.
gianni8118 7 months ago
I like the Border Patrol & U.S. Marshals (FBI sucks dick but thats another story)
Having Said that I like the 4th ammendment of the constitution. I like freedom of movement within the United States.
Currahee05GT 8 months ago
@Currahee05GT then you are not a good american. You should turn in or give up the Bill Of Rights. You would do that if you loved the USA. But you dont. Slavery will set us free...
If cops cant do their job without breaking a few laws to do it then it is a sad state of affairs. I go through a BP checkpoint everyday and get my Fourth Ammd pissed on very often
bigtimepimpin666 7 months ago
Oh yes, Mary Jane kills. Since you are obviously slow, mary jane is slang parlance for marijuana. Sir, how low is your IQ? 94, or 84, which are both borderline mental retardation. Goddess, people lacking CRITICAL THINKING skills are polluting the gene pool. I believe in eugenics. You need to be TAKEN OUT!
TheHoeDownTV 9 months ago
I like this video, finally something different from what the so-called "pastor", who does nothing but create division and hostility, puts out there. KEEP POSTING.
MeanGreen477 9 months ago
keep em on the fucking border....don't fuck with me and attempt illegal searches within my country....period.
rstscott 9 months ago
@rstscott is that because the border is the only place you will find criminal aliens? until the border is secure they will need authority to act inside the borders, hombre.
m221201r 8 months ago
@m221201r: They have authority to act inside the border, just not as much as some of them think they do.
Pafoofnik1 8 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 hey thanks for the clarification.
m221201r 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Concerning the 1976 Supreme Court ruling: Every once in a while they get it wrong. This is wrong and an affront to the Constitution we hold dear. Place the border patrol AT THE BORDER.
me48073 9 months ago
Most of the BP officers are decent guys genuinely trying to "protect" America. But they are pawns in the failed War on Drugs that has cost the taxpayers billions and incarcerated millions of otherwise- law abiding citizens whose only crime was to possess natural vegetation. Let's move the BP guys to THE BORDER instead of harassing American citizens traveling through America.
me48073 9 months ago
ooooooooooooo, they stopped a bunch of vegetation (I mean cannabis)... now how much did this cost the taxpayers?
me48073 9 months ago
@me48073 LOL same thing I was saying.
TheHoeDownTV 9 months ago
you really need to read the constitution
pattyobrian65 10 months ago
ya better watch that Candain border those fuckers up there are straight loco
TWOhits6 11 months ago
The checkpoints are bogus. Granted they might down slow a minuscule amount of drugs or aliens, but they don't accomplish anything. Hell they can't even keep drugs out of the prison system. Even the 911 terrorists came to the US legally, they weren't aliens.
Just legalize drugs, and let a few Mexicans come here legally every year, so they don't have to sneak across.
studolf 1 year ago
Huh.... so seizing marijuana that can EASILY be grown in the US and that is only brought in through hte mexican border because of the profit margin... is good? Heck US produces probably 75% of its marijuana, so if they have 2 they can go to a 100%... and stopping 11 people who wanted a better life by cleaning your shitter, taking the jobs that you guys find degrading and unworthy of your perfect little life a good job? I call that fascism.
SovietGrim 1 year ago
Keep up the good work! It's a thankless job to where no one will really sees the results of your sacrifice but others of us who have fought for our country understand. HOO YAH border patrol.
atapm4 1 year ago
SHAME ON YOU MINUTEMANAZ.... nice to know a picture I posted online about two years ago is being put to use. Copyrights my friend..... if The border patrol would have done there job at the borders there is no need to worry about what happends in american land, Another reason y americans are losing jobs to mexicans. ......... Have you noticed the increase in Mexican Americans in the United State Border Patrol agency...... I SMELL CORRUPTION!!!!!! AND IT SMELLS SWEET.
212121julio 1 year ago
@212121julio If Obama wouldn't have cut BP manpower and start to make an effort to secure our border, if more concerned citizens took an active role in protecting this country then stopping 4 + million immigrants at the border would happen. Do you think these illegal immigrants and the human and drug trafficers just hang out at the border when they cross. There are less border patrol agents for the whole country than NY police officers. Do the math.
atapm4 1 year ago
So they have a job to do assholes just as we have the illegal jobs that we stupidly take.it is a no win situation either way, so keep doing your job guys and we will do are best to evade no offense. also they get paid and me well you guys seem to not want to allways pay so to the border patrol at least they aint fucking each other over
mrtucson85743 1 year ago
This guy will get a 6 figure settlement. The people of Yuma County will be jurors and they know how the border patrol treats people at the point. This get settled quick and if not the rev walks with big money for being pulled over with no reason.
doylemccurley 1 year ago
The reverend won his case and is now on his way to recieving well into 6 figures just off of settlement offers alone. The people of Yuma County know how they are treated at these checks and would almost always rule in favor of the defendant...especially if the victim was told he had drugs and there were none. The officer also said on camera "pull him over for he's videotaping us".
doylemccurley 1 year ago
I completely disagree that we need internal suspicionless border patrol check points. In my opinion, they violate the 4th Amendment of the Federal Constitution and constitute an "illegal search and seizure". I agree that we need border patrol but they should be on the borders doing this, not 1 nor 100 miles inside the border. As a US citizen, I don't want to have to stop at checkpoints inside the US borders. That is not what I want America to be. I want it to be free.
Pyrometman 1 year ago
@Pyrometman Freedom isn't free. Sometimes you have to do what's necessary to keep us that way. It is a fact that some of these agents violate the law and something should be done to regulate these operations but it's not practical to only have agents at the border being these people are inventing very creative ways to bypass border checkpoints and evade BP agents. They do need better training and supervision at these points.
atapm4 1 year ago
@atapm4 When we "do what's necessary to keep us that way" and it is illegal, I have to disagree whether you think it's practical or not. Our government and border patrol need to do the job at the border. We must get creative at finding ways to stop illegal border crossers AT THE BORDER. When our government's tactics involve violating citizens rights, it is wrong. These checkpoints are not consistent with the Constitution and are disrespectful of the intentions of our founding fathers.
Bearheart776 1 year ago
@Bearheart776 "These checkpoints are not consistent with the Constitution .." Really?
US vs. Martinez-Fuerte (1976)
1. The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint...away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the stops and questioning may be made...in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. Pp. 428 U. S. 556-564
fo694013 10 months ago
Every once in a while they get it wrong. This is wrong and an affront to the Constitution we hold dear. Place the border patrol AT THE BORDER.
me48073 9 months ago
FUCK THE BORDER PATROL BUNCH OF FUCKING RETARDS WANNA B COPS GO AND SUCK A FCKING DONKEY DICK ALL U SONS OF BITCHES U AINT NEVER GONNA STOP US WE KEEP CROSSING DRUGS AND HI-POWER WEAPONS DAILY MOTHERFUCKERS AND ALL WE DO IS LAUGH AT U DUMB BITCHES SO THIS IS COMING FROM ME .........FUCK YOU AND TRY AND CATCH US
saxettwisted 1 year ago
@saxettwisted Boy, are you sum kinda pepper bellied greaseball?
Currahee05GT 2 months ago
the problem is they hire allot of cannot think outside the box, easy to control semi educated agents, most skipping that part from being lower level military. dont get me wrong,. there is good bp out there, and decent ex soldiers. but sadly too many bad ones get in and follow a book not morale, human rights, or legal rights. power play. as long as u go along, they will shit on you. exercise rights. refuse. theyll prob see how much u know in law but dont let them power play nazi style.
oterotularosa 1 year ago
@yeomalt2
i can tell you that 9 out of 10 busts at a inspection station are tipped to them. then while they tear apart the car with a loaded body, most of the time, dozens of drugs go by in vehicles, trucks, or trains while the agents are occupied. its a show. the agents dont realize they work for a gov who supports drugs. makes income for it for the black projects with mic, nid, acio etc. they hire basic educated people for bp. ppl who cant think out of the box. ppl easy to keep in line
oterotularosa 1 year ago
@yeomalt2
even though there is proof, and evidence that the cia, fbi, dea, atf, marines, and army along with air force support drug trafficking or make income off it in the black agenda, no. laws were made regarding drugs. not even part of const. did you know that when all these drugs were legal, hardly anyone used. once they made them illegal, prices went up, profit, and many started to do it. its a agenda to ram rod bullshit laws onto us all. gov is behind drugs.
oterotularosa 1 year ago
@oterotularosa Wow, you are one of the most ignorant people I have come in contact with. Do you also wear an aluminum foil hat to keep the CIA from reading your thoughts? What is your evidence that the U.S. military supports narcotics? Do you have any understanding of why laws are put in place? Do you have ANY understanding of our judicial system? Stay off the PCP, it's messing with you. But, your crazy ideas would make a good novel / movie.
atapm4 1 year ago
All Americans soon will be giving up all there freedoms and submit to these nazi very soon unless we stop it now. Ask yourself right now " am I realy free ". For every freedom you have in this country if you look I am sure there is a law to tell you not to or how to or tax you, am I wrong? How about we the people take care of the real problems here like education, being responsible, morals, and most of all unity. With out these things America will fall.
jmkaudio 1 year ago
We Americans are a funny people. We hate the illegals and we want them out. Yet we don't want to spend to make it happen. We also don't want any checkpoints to help facilitate the process of removal. We advocate the ideals of freedom yet Arizona just passed a law that will limit that freedom.
What the hell do we want.
fake1009 1 year ago
@fake1009 That's just it... these checkpoints do NOT facilitate removal, The feds DONT want them out, they want MORE illegals! every illegal will be another Democrat vote plain and simple.The Border Patrol and the Federal Government are traitors, and should be dealt with appropriately. See the Constitution for the punishment for Traitors. Years of the War on Drugs has done no good whatsoever, and drugs are more widespread today than they EVER have been! Same goes for illegal aliens!
porcupine07 1 year ago
I just play GTA.
TutsuoAikido 1 year ago
i read the d.e.a admits that only 1 percent of drugs are seized before reaching our streets.this makes it hard to justify the money and resources we devote to the war on drugs.i am pleased to see what the border patrol captured in this video but,i want to see the agents on the border dealing with aliens.drugs are a secondary function of the patrol and the drugs don't justify violating policies,laws and the constitution.
ctg18158 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Report landlord who house illegals
"reportlandlords(dot)com"
Report companys who hire illegals
"wehirealeins(dot)com"
Report illegals by calling ICE
1-866-347-2423
Tremleypt 1 year ago
we can sail around these checkpoints in my boat
BPauxNavy 2 years ago
Sorry, no matter how you want to defend it, these checkpoints are unconstitutional, anti-freedom and anti-american. With your logic of how "good" these checkpoints are, the police should then be allowed to make house to house searches at any time and justify it by showing any illegal drugs or any other illegal activity found. Honestly, does that make any sense??? "What does it matter if you have nothing to hide" is a facist excuse, by the way. Wake up.
eatmoresoap 2 years ago
wow ur retarded. its way different from police doing a house to house search. because 1. thats a search, a checkpoint is not a search. 2. that requires a warrant or warrant exception, as a checkpoint does not. so basically all you did was prove how un-educated you are and what a dip shit you are
jordan19872007 2 years ago
So when you don't agree and have nothing intelligent to say, you resort to name calling. I see. Then I am the one who is to be "retarded" and a "dipshit". i must certainly be uneducated then for I don't see any substance in your comment. I'm sorry, Stupid old me.
A checkpoint is indeed a search. Do they ask you any questions? Do they look into your car? Do they ask everyone in the vehicle for ID? It's also being detained without probable cause. I guess I'm just a retard.
eatmoresoap 2 years ago
I guess they can just set up checkpoints at every intersection and sidewalk then. They can ask everyone for ID and where they are from, where they are going, etc. Gee, educate me some more, what else can they do that they aren't supposed to be allowed to do??? I'm too retarded to understand when my rights have been violated. DUH! Me so stupid..... Me pay money twice a year to ACLU, i guess it's all been wasted. I'll have them take my name off their wall up in Cleveland, my bad.
eatmoresoap 2 years ago
@eatmoresoap
The house analogy doesn't work, as you are travelling on an interstate highway through an immigration checkpoint that is strategically located at a "funneled" point where smuggler traffic is heaviest. Are you also mad when they search you at the airport? See U.S. vs. Martinez-Fuerte
LaVerdadEntera 2 years ago
An airport is different and you know it. This is being ransomly stopped without me doing anything whatsoever to make anyone think that I am "smuggling". Besides, once past the border, it is no longer smuggling, it has already been "Smuggled". But still, no matter. The act of driving down a road is not cause to detain me and ask questions. No matter how you want to defend it, this activity needs to stop. Period. In spite of the supreme court, it is still unconstitutional.
eatmoresoap 2 years ago
I disagree. But I enjoy the banter, especially when people like you fly of the handle and start accusing others of "forgetting our fathers' faces" or whatever.
LaVerdadEntera 2 years ago
Then you must put no value on lessons learned from the past. Flying off the handle..... I'm not some whacko nut job, I believe in the freedoms given to us in the constitution and I see it being attacked every day with things like this. Those who came before us fought to protect and to defend that constitution and I respect and value their gains. People like me. Right. People like me who actually care about our freedoms and can see when things like this are wrong and stand up against it.
eatmoresoap 2 years ago
I'm a veteran as well. Ranting about this on YouTube isn't exactly standing up fot it, though. The pastor has it figured out. You need to get a video camera and go humiliate one of those Agents who is looking for loaded vehicles. That's how you stand for freedom, justice, and the American way.
LaVerdadEntera 2 years ago
An Immigration Checkpoint is to be at the border. I'm not crossing the border thus I am not suspect of IMMIGRATING! Are you blind to reason and logic or do you just have a thing for heavy handed control of other people? I've had enough of you idiots. Wake up before someone does it for you. Unbelieveable, the stupidity I see out of people like you. What a waste, all the people who fought and died for us just for you to ignore it all.
eatmoresoap 2 years ago
As I said, see U.S. vs. Martinez-Fuerte. There is this whole big brother conspiracy because it the [yikes] federal government. Nobody bitches about sobriety checkpoints set up by local law enforcement. Do you really think that the people they are checking are not suspected of immigrating? Most checkpoints are set up just past 25 miles from the border to catch the "non-immigrants" who came in with a temporary visa that had a 25-mile limit and decided to truck it on in to the U.S. for life.
LaVerdadEntera 2 years ago
With that logic then they may as well go past the 25 miles limit and check everywhere, yes? If someone comes in with a visa, I doubt it will take them past the time the visa expires to get 25 miles in. It's a warrentess search of citizens, plain and simple. It's just dressed up to make us feel "safe". We're waking up, it's just a matter fo time before we take back our country and stop this backwards B.S.
eatmoresoap 2 years ago
@eatmoresoap
Fight the power brother . . . .
LaVerdadEntera 2 years ago
@LaVerdadEntera Funny you should mention that, I don't get mad about airport searches,I get livid. Especially since the introduction of microwaves and xrays or nutsack patdowns. Fuck the federal goverment,they are not your friend. ,,l,,
Currahee05GT 7 months ago
mimutemanaz: Are you OK with all the entertainment we are giving? If not, just say the word and I'll back out. It's getting pretty repetitive at times...
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
Was Rev. Andersen convicted of impeding at the BP Checkpoint near Weldon, Arizona?
ErnstBecker 2 years ago
I have no heard anything which tell me either the case has'nt been heard yet, or YES he has, because if he was not convicted we would have seen and heard about it,
But you may want to check out his ethics and morals before you call him rev.
minutemanaz 2 years ago
His day in court was suspended. I've heard his You Tube rants and raves. While preaching in his Tempe Temple, he told one of his parrishoners to, "get the Hell out of my chucrh !" A man of the cloth? Not much.
ErnstBecker 2 years ago
I'm guessing that his day in court has been postponed. As per "Rev.", he speaks for himself.
ErnstBecker 2 years ago
You keep calling him "rev" he is a much as a rev is al sharpton.
minutemanaz 2 years ago
Rev Andersen himself stated that only GOD is REV. Just as Jackson and Sharpton there is a scam. That's waht he is all about.
ErnstBecker 2 years ago
@minutemanaz
When you hear him speak, wheter on or off the pulpit, it is hell fire and brimstone all the way. If he is such an expert and authoritarian on BO OPS, why isn't he a BP Chief?
ErnstBecker 1 year ago
@ErnstBecker
no it was dropped. he won hsi case. as they violated his rights. and also the dogs or k9 they use half time arent for drugs. some are just attack dogs, some bomb dogs, body dogs etc. they use power play. half these people who go for being shit on in a check point never been through one, and just comment on it. they never had been harassed. i use to be like them till i was victim and my other half. for no reason harassed. so i said enough is enough.
oterotularosa 1 year ago
@oterotularosa
1) The BP didn't violate his rights. 2) the BP desn't have neither bomb dogs, nor attack dogs. 2) What is power play. 3) tooo bad you had a bad experience going through a BP Checkpoint. The BP are in it for the long haul. They have lost a number of Agents and, as with any other law enforcement agency, uitlize caution when dealing with the public.
ErnstBecker 1 year ago
The Department of "Homeland" Security is targeting half the US population as extremists so they can expand the Global "War On Terror" and bring it right into the "homeland".
People who write and think of their country as the "Homeland" tend to think they can redefine torture, ignore international treaties, fund disinformation efforts, launch wars based on hunches and emphasize the power of the executive branch because they consider themselves the only ones who know what's right for the country.
wilsonpwt 2 years ago
chamsdropz2:
It's becoming obvious that you and I are simply going round and round.
Let me restate my original comment: There's no law that says one has to answer questions at this type of checkpoint.
You are of course free to disbelieve me and comment with your opinions all you want, but my statement stands until you can cite a law that refutes it.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
Wrong. An Immigration Officer is authorized in re INA to stop and question anyone as his right to either be or remain in the United States of America. Secs. 235 & 241
ErnstBecker 2 years ago
Comment removed
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
You are correct.
However, I never said they couldn't stop and question.
My statement stands: There's no law that says one has to answer questions at this type of checkpoint.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
Then stand by for what follows ...........
ErnstBecker 2 years ago
You know what, there is NO law that says any person in the US has to answer ANY LEO's questions. They can invoke their right to remain silent at any point and time, however that doesn't mean they won't suffer consequences for doing so. So you really haven't made a statement or even brought forth a legitimate argument this entire exchange. You argue over a statement, which may not be supported by law, but yet supported by action. No, you don't have to answer my questions to prove your citizenship
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
at a checkpoint. But you WILL be detained and required to go before an IJ to answer my questions THEN although I may not be the one asking them. One way or the other, you're going to have to answer my questions if I so chose to go that route.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
So in essence, you DO have to answer my questions whether your response is to me or an IJ doesn't matter, and because there is no law that is specific to requiring you to answer, you in fact do should the agent decide to detain you for that hearing. Find another point to try and argue since all of yours have been blown out of the water please.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
"Find another point to try and argue since all of yours have been blown out of the water please. "
I consider it a debate, not an arguement.
The point I was making is that "There is no law that requires a U.S. citizen to answer questions from, or converse at all with agents at this type of checkpoint". I followed up with a real world example in myself as usually do not answer questions at these stops.
You agree.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
Agents can set up roadblocks up to 100 miles from the border, board passenger buses and patrol transportation hubs that are not near the border. The Border Patrol, which is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has set up roadblocks in other northern states, including Vermont, New York and Maine.
This authority, relatively new to the people of Washington, has stirred controversy.
wilsonpwt 2 years ago
That is because the 100 miles is POLICY that carries the possibility of exemption if the CPA of the sector determines that it is necessary to have a checkpoint set up beyond that mile limit. It's very simple and easy research. Instead of sitting here complaining about how the BP operates, learn the difference between LAW and POLICY and apply that knowledge.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
(I tried, I really did)
I never said anything about if the checkpoints could be set up or how the BP operates.
You presented a RED HERRING argument: This is commonly used in debates where an unrelated topic is brought up as a distraction point to divert attention from the real topic.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
iT'S THE LAW GOOFY.
ErnstBecker 2 years ago
"iT'S THE LAW GOOFY."
Cite please. You can't expect everyone here to believe you just because you said it's so.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
chamsdropz24:
This is getting pointless.
I'm willing to compromise if you are.
You comments may be correct when they refer to actions at and near borders and functional equivalents.
My comments may be correct when they refer to actions at internal checkpoints.
Fair enough?
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
What's there to compromise? You're wrong and haven't a clue of how the law works, I had to cite it FOR YOU. My comments ARE correct when speaking about BOTH, not just one. If the checkpoints were operating illegally, they'd have been shut down already, and agents successfully sued, as well as legislation reflecting as such. So how is it that you still believe that your comments are in any way correct when the law does NOT side with that ridiculous opinion?
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
I never said checkpoints were operating illegally. Please do not try to deflect ths conversation by accusing me of saying something I never said.
You originally said "you, an American have to answer an agent that you're an American." Please cite the exact law that requires this.
I said here's no law that says one has to answer agents questions at this type of checkpoint.
Please cite the law that refutes my statement.
Thank you.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
And I said that you are apparently incapable to understanding the context in which that statement was made. Reading comprehension tells us that the way that statement was made, I was being more sarcastic than anything. I was making the point that BP apprehends on a daily basis drug and alien smugglers that are AMERICANS, terror suspects, etc...and there are AMERICANS like YOU who think it's too much to determine citizenship and what someone is doing coming from or going to the border.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
So you cannot find the law you alluded to, so now you say you were being sarcastic.
Still waiting for those laws to support you and refute me.
(I gave you an out)
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
See above. I have provided the law as it stands. How many times do you want me to say it? I'll type in caps in hopes that gives you a better understanding. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER AN AGENTS QUESTIONS AT A CHECKPOINT, HOWEVER HE DOES NOT HAVE TO LET YOU LEAVE UNTIL YOU DO!!!!!
Simple enough for the millionth time?
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
I've already cited those laws on MANY occasions during this exchange. So why don't YOU present me with FACTS and LAWS that support your view on things, and when you do so..make sure to cite them in their entirety, not just a sliver of them that would appear to support your claims.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
It's just like peopl such as you to ignore the entire post and hone in on the one thing they think they can use as ammunition. Here's the post in it's entirety. "Fact is that even though we catch THOUSANDS of pounds of dope everyday preventing it from reaching american streets, we catch terror suspects that are wanted, we catch people smugglers that sell human beings...you'll still say that they serve no purpose because you, an American have to answer an agent that you're an American." = Sarcasm
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
Its was the 9th District Court, CHU/SCM, 1975.
ErnstBecker 2 years ago
"Its was the 9th District Court, CHU/SCM, 1975."
What was? What are you talking about?
You need to correctly quote your source so that other people can locate it.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
If the current generation of Americans does not challenge this creeping (and sometimes galloping) expansion of federal powers over the individual through the rationale of border protection, we are not doing our part to keep alive the rights and freedoms that we inherited, and will soon find that we have lost some or all of their right to go about their business, and travel around inside their own country, without interference from the authorities.
wilsonpwt 2 years ago
No, the past generations were subject to this exact same code of law. INA of 1952 ring a bell? We understand that these powers were granted YEARS ago, and have been acted upon since YEARS ago. It's this current generation that believes they don't have to follow the laws of the land and that every time they are the slightest inconvenienced by law enforcement, it's an infringement on their rights when they don't even know what they are. Fight CONGRESS, not the Border Patrol if you don't like it.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
INA has been modified numerous times by the judicial arm.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
Yes it has, more in favor of Border Patrol Agents doing their jobs than tying our hands. Read it.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
What state do you live in?????
minutemanaz 2 years ago
A southern border state. I live within 100 mile sof the border.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
You must support illegal immigration.....or the legalization of drugs.
Or shit both, sorry I should of known.
minutemanaz 2 years ago
"You must support illegal immigration.....or the legalization of drugs.
Or shit both, sorry I should of known. "
Sorry, but you are wrong. Whatever made you say a thing like that about me?
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
Concerning using CBP (Customs Border Patrol) in Ohio here is a bit of recent past news:
In a series of planned initiatives for the summer, U.S. Border Patrol in a joint effort with the Ohio Highway Patrol, Pennsylvania State Police and New York State Police targeted aggressive driving, impaired driving and speeding.
The first phase of the program was conducted May 13. While these initiatives did not include checkpoints, the gears are in motion to make them easily implemented.
wilsonpwt 2 years ago
How many miles inland did Customs Border Patrol have allotted before it was expanded to include two-thirds of the citizens of USSA?
wilsonpwt 2 years ago
2/3 of the people live on the coast, where are our borders....?
minutemanaz 2 years ago
This was your other comment "
"I don't think it is right to stop every-single-automobile along a highway and ask that we prove our innocence."
Have you been through one of these checkpoints?
It doesnt sound like it.........
minutemanaz 2 years ago
"Have you been through one of these checkpoints?
It doesnt sound like it......... "
Yup. Today about 10:30 this morning was the last time. I go through them about every week or so.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
Were you required to "prove anything"?
minutemanaz 2 years ago
I was not asked a single question. My situation is different than most at these types of checkpoints though.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
With the move still on to form a North American Union, I do not believe our government is really trying to "protect" us from illegal aliens, but is setting up the infrastructure and laws to bring us closer to a police state.
And, I also do not believe it is necessary to have Customs Border Patrol wielding power as far inland as central Ohio.
Paul Turner
wilsonpwt 2 years ago
You still didnt answer my question, How many miles would be alright with you.
I agree that Border Patrol has no business in central Ohio, tell me how many Border Patrol check points are in central Ohio.
minutemanaz 2 years ago
Again, these laws have been around for YEARS, older than most of the people posting in this forum. This is no set up, congress gave us authority in 1924, and the 100 mile limit has been instituted by POLICY, not LAW which gave what is now CBP such authority without limits as per the Supreme Court rulings. Thousands of agents are out there while you sleep on the front lines of our borders catching criminals, terrorist, and those who wish to do us harm. You're here upset about that...go figure.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
Your 1924 authority has been restricted by case law and Supreme Court decisions.
The most relevant is United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) which states that agents are allowed to stop vehicles and ask questions.
That's about all that can be done by agents here.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
Incorrect again. You really shouldn't debate me over the laws that I enforce. 8 USC 1357 A3 has nothing to do with Martinez Fuerte, Terry v. Ohio, Brignoni-Ponce, Muehler v. Mena, should I keep going? Along with Title 8 and Title 19, Carroll V. US, Maryland v. Buie, US v. Mendoza-Gonzalez. I'll stop now because I've given you too much homework as it is. There are reasons our laws exist, and there are reasons there are 4th Amendment exceptions as well. Read, understand, then come talk to me.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
"8 USC 1357 A3 has nothing to do with Martinez Fuerte, "
It is the other way around, Fuerte modifies the agents powers at this type of checkpoint.
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 is a Supreme Court decision that directly addresses these types of checkpoints.
I'll believe the Supreme Court when they explicitly require consent or probable cause to search vehicles before I believe someone on the Internet.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
Wow, you either choose not to read or have no understanding. 8 USC 1357 A3 is relevant to the BP's power to search and board and search any vessel, conveyance etc...within 25 miles of the border. Martinez v Fuerte is about setting up checkpoints that impede all traffic flow for the purpose of determining alienage and search for aliens and contraband. We cannot search your vehicle without consent or PC, but we can detain you however long it takes to determine your citizenship. Educate yourself.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
Your comment here agrees with every comment I've made. Thank you.
I could comment on your opinion that you can detain me for life, but I imagine it would fall on jaded ears.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
No my comment refers to the 25 mile limit of warrantless access to private lands for the purpose of patrolling the border. 8 USC 1357 A3 has NOTHING to do with Martinez v. Fuerte. It is about boarding vessels and conveyances, and patrolling the border, explain to me how it relates to Martinez-Fuerte please.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
This video is a response to Anderson and CheckpointUSA, both of who are debating internal checkpoints, not the border itself.
Your earlier statements: "What I see is a person that INTENTIONALLY goes to checkpoints to start crap" and "you, an American have to answer an agent that you're an American. " makes people think you are talking about these checkpoints, not the world.
So my original statement stands. There's no law that says one has to answer questions at this type of checkpoint.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
Apparently you don't understand the context of what in which that statement was meant, read again. I agreed, there is no law that you have to answer my questions, but I can detain you until you do. The ONLY reason that people like Anderson are released is because those agents don't feel like dealing with the likes of them. If they come through my checkpoint and ask, I will respond, "yes you are SEIZED, and until you answer my question, you are NOT free to go." Come to Texas...all I ask.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
"The ONLY reason that people like Anderson are released is because those agents don't feel like dealing with the likes of them. "
Or because the law requires them to at internal checkpoints:
CITE: "[A]ny further detention . . . must be based on consent or probable cause."
SOURCE: 428 U.S. 543 (1976)
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
No they don't allow him to leave because of the source you cited. He did not answer their questions, therefore his alienage had not been determined. Determining alienage consist of more than LOOKING at some one, it involves asking them to state their citizenship and their response along with other factors determine how the investigation proceeds. They have a CHOICE to either deal with him or just let the asshole through. They choose the latter, in Texas, he'd be sitting there until he answered.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
"in Texas, he'd be sitting there until he answered."
He might, but I never have. Let's see, the last time I went through a Texas checkpoint was last Wednesday. I never answered a single question. I was there less than 30 seconds. I can't remember the last time I answered questions while going through these checkpoints. It's been years a at least.
Why? I think it's because I know my rights, and I leave my attitude out of the equation.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
It has nothing to do with you THINKING you know your rights. In what context are you saying do not answer questions? They ask and you remain silent, or they don't ask at all, and exactly what checkpoint are you going through sir?
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
Comment removed
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
As far as your comment about being detained for life, you need to read up on US v. Delaney Abi Odofin. He was first encountered June3, 1989 until June 27, 1989 by what is now CBP. It was deemed a reasonable detention and he was arrested once the agents suspicions were confirmed. Granted that's not a lifetime, but it was 24 days, based upon suspicion.
You still haven't proven any grasp of the law as all of your comments are grasping at straws and being defeated by LAW not opinions.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
Was he detained for 24 days because he refused to answer questions at an internal checkpoint?
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
It didn't matter where he was at, the same law that applies to checkpoints applies nationwide. LEARN the LAW, not your opinions, cause they really don't matter when debating facts.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
"the same law that applies to checkpoints applies nationwide"
The United States Supreme Court, in Fuertes, laid out what can be done at these tyeps of checkpoints.
Still waiting for your cites...
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
When it comes to the authority that a BP Agent has to question people about their citizenship, that authority can be found in INA 287 and 235. Read it. That authority is nationwide which allows us to question ANYONE about their right to be in or remain in the US.
Martinez-Fuerte is about the legality of checkpoints. Since the the checkpoint has been proven legal, an agents authority to question those arriving at the checkpoint about their right to be in or remain in the US still stands.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
That authority is limited by POLICY, not law.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
Learn the law? I'm still waiting for you to even cite the law refuting me. Hard to learn what isn't there.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
Read all 30 of my other responses and stop avoiding the reality that you've been wrong from the start.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
I was wrong from the start?
Let me restate Chandropsz24's original comment: "you, an American have to answer an agent that you're an American.""
Let me restate my original rebuttal: There's no law that says one has to answer questions at this type of checkpoint.
Later...
Chandropz24: "YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER AN AGENTS QUESTIONS AT A CHECKPOINT"
Thank you.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
Also, don't forget the rest of the reply when I stated after there is no law requiring you answer an agent, that you can be detained until you do. You don't know the law, you grasp at straws, and it proves your weak point. You can't even start debating with me beacuse everything you've said thus far has been found in error by my posting of LAW. Why don't you posty some LAWS that support your view, otherwise it's just another crappy opinion.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
"Why don't you posty some LAWS that support your view, "
No problem:
CITE: "...routine stopping...at a permanent checkpoint... for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment" and "any further detention or search must be based on ... consent or probable cause."
All I stated was that there's no law that says one has to answer questions at this type of checkpoint, something you already agree with me about.
So what are we arguing about ?
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
Also:
Here's a video of Border Patrol representatives stating that a person must be released if he refuses to answer questions presented to him:
watch?v=-eJQ1IzS6FE
at 2:50 and 4:10 and 4:47 and 5:15. His statement about presenting his driver's license is not correct.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
Wow...you REALLY like to play on people's words don't you? Here is exactly what he said. "what's going to happen is were going to spend a little more time talking to them and try to figure out what's going on with the situation, and once it's been determined that the situation doesn't require any further investigation, we'll release them." I'm also sure that you've heard the attorney commenting that if they refuse to identify themselves they can be detained for an immigration hearing, yes USC's
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
and will actually be detained however long it takes to get in front of an IJ for the hearing, hiring an attorney etc...So in other words, one way or the other, REGARDLESS of citizenship, if you fail to prove it at the checkpoint, you can be FORCED to prove it at a hearing in front of a judge. The problem with a lot of agents is their sectors are more worried about the media than they are about doing their jobs. Mine isn't like that. When you come through my checkpoint, you are SEIZED
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
What sector do you work in?
minutemanaz 2 years ago
Marfa
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
@chamsdropz24
i doubt at 3am a fed judge will sign a warrent without evidence of pc, warrent a arrest, or allow a persons rights to be violated. bc itll end up on him. i have always refused everything, and know the law. i have no problem. also have a eagle eye, eye witness dash cam. i believe i know what sector you refer too. i refused. and would like to add one agent lost her job after remark she made and was on video. its all power play. drop balls and defend your rights.
oterotularosa 1 year ago
@oterotularosa
I love it when people like you come through and claim to know the law. You cannot even articulate a proper sentence but claim to be educated more than BP Agents. Fact of the matter is, as long as my line of questioning is designed to uncover possible immigration violations, the detention can be extended until I, the BP Agent, is satisfied that you are a USC. Some checkpoints are too busy to deal with people like you so they just let you go...not me.
chamsdropz24 1 year ago
@chamsdropz24
quasi detention is minimal and they cannot exceed it. granted you did nothing illegal to violate fed laws with immigration and drugs. any conversations are just consent conversations. not required. if you go in acting like i know the law and dont, they will eventually call your bluff. but you show them you been to more school then all 10 of them standing there jacking off, then they dont want to deal with being sued, or court. its all power play to get you to say ok screw me.
oterotularosa 1 year ago
@oterotularosa
The conversation is NOT a consensual encounter, it is a seizure and the conversation is geared for uncovering immigration violations. Refusal to answer questions can be used for sending a person to secondary and extending the detention until the agent satisfied. I have personally held people like you for 3 hours until they gave me proper ID and I could run record checks on them. The refusal to cooperate only interferes with YOUR time, not mine.
chamsdropz24 1 year ago
@chamsdropz24
also a permanent check point cannot charge one for impeding ( most states statue) traffic if it is off the major highway to that of a off ramp. so refusing secondary is nothing. they are allowed to lie or bend legal matters to get you to comply. but cannot re write. if you exercise rights properly you should go through fine, no issue, not searched, not detained. believe me, they know if you pull up acting like you know law. if you play the part, theyll see how much you know.
oterotularosa 1 year ago
@oterotularosa
I don't know where you got your information, but there is NO BP checkpoint that is NOT on a roadway and it doesn't have to be major. See this is how I know you're a liar and the most uneducated one here. Anytime you refuse to move your vehicle to secondary and remain in primary, you are impeding the flow of traffic. We are in fact allowed to physically remove you from your vehicle and move it ourselves should we do so. The moment you are stopped at a checkpoint, you are detained.
chamsdropz24 1 year ago
@chamsdropz24: "don't know where you got your information, but there is NO BP checkpoint that is NOT on a roadway and it doesn't have to be major. "
Are you still at marfa sector? The checkpoint south of Marfa is not actually on the roadway itself. That's why there a cones set up to divert traffic off of the roadway and under the awning.
Pafoofnik1 1 year ago
@Pafoofnik1
Really? No...seriously....REALLY?? Sad.
chamsdropz24 1 year ago
@chamsdropz24
i would love to know exactly who you are and when you work. because i have won cases of people like you and never lost one. i feel they tend to lower requirements and expectations getting power trip power play bimbo's in. most granted are illegal in sense themselves, or the family of them was. i dont got issue with decent agents. but do with bad ones. ones who feel they are gods.
oterotularosa 1 year ago
@oterotularosa
You name one case that you've won against BP agents. Your ability to complete a sentence means you are either poorly educated or a young kid on youtube ruining his mouth like he knows something. Fact is, at the checkpoint, we are given statutory authority to conduct our business. BP Agents have authority that no other LEO's will ever have and we exercise that authority. We are the front lines to protecting America, and people like you only contribute to the obstacles.
chamsdropz24 1 year ago
@chamsdropz24
You have access to the network. Go find it at work pal. Ah, the spell and grammar police. Who GIVES A FLYING FUCK HOW I SPELL OR RUN ON OR STOP. No it is not uneducated. It is called having a good night out then getting online to fuck with people like you in your 15 dollar hour job or 18 which ever your case is. Ha, the front lines? Is that why allot are being caught up in pay offs, drugs etc? For one its a joke. The fed level runs the drug business.
oterotularosa 1 year ago
@oterotularosa
What about for 2? There are dirty LEO's in every agency and to dumb it down to generalizing an entire force of 20,000..FURTHER shows that your ignorance is one due to the lack of education and understanding.
chamsdropz24 1 year ago
@chamsdropz24
I am not going to give myself away by blogging my facts. How ever It seems you did. I have worked these fields, Law enforcement, DARPA, and now legal. I do say thank you for choosing a job to indeed catch real criminals. However I speak regarding the ones or those who knowingly harass, intimidate, or abuse people of legal status and who are not criminals. In my opinion it is not a agents business where a 23 year old mother who is obviously no threat to know her life story.
oterotularosa 1 year ago
I go online to vent, relax, laugh, joke, etc. Many of us do. Spelling, grammar is not important here. I am sure there are dozens of persons you work with or have that drink a few shots then go online and rant. We all do. All I am saying is in the end god or gods will determine your destiny by the weight on your shoulders and what you have done to others.
oterotularosa 1 year ago
There is tons of settlements paid out or cases won. Many still locked from being released and any details. You must know, I never use to think twice of BP. But one time a off duty Asst. chief I knew went through one and was treated as a scum ball, even though he was in a Unmarked unit with gov tags in San Diego. He being a mellow guy did the game and then later did the proper process to deal with it. Since I have watched and noticed more people are treated as animals.
oterotularosa 1 year ago
I know many who use cams in vehicles, some for recreation, hobby, life films etc. Most turn it off out of respect for any BP..... until they are treated as dirt when they obey the law. There are good agents, and bad power tripped ones. I sure hope you decide to be a better officer, and person and treat people accordingly as you feel you should be. Most people do not have issues with BP until they are harassed just for having a set of jugs on the chest and a nice skin tone.
oterotularosa 1 year ago
I will say to finish off, as I will not post again here as its old..... I do feel people should state if they are a US citizen. I have. But if the agent comes off as power evil Hitler happy then Ill treat him same. The thing is if you would approach people more humane and friendly I bet you'd discover more then coming off as Coach Buzz cut. I do not endorse harassment of any one at points, agents or people. But agree that if a cop films, so can a person. It helps both.
oterotularosa 1 year ago
Until you satisfy me by answering my questions. You still haven't answered which checkpoint you go through, because I find it interesting that you claim you've never been asked questions regarding your status. Another thing that proves you know nothing about the law is that each circuit has it's own rulings to follow. What's good for the 9th circuit may not be the law in the 5th circuit. The only time a ruling becomes nationwide is when it comes down from the supreme court. Tired of school yet?
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
"Until you satisfy me by answering my questions."
Right....
"you claim you've never been asked questions regarding your status. "
You are a liar. Please quote where I said that.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
Forgetful?...all you have to do is read your responses sir.
In your reply to minutemanz - "I was not asked a single question."
And again
"I never answered a single question. I was there less than 30 seconds. I can't remember the last time I answered questions while going through these checkpoints. It's been years at least."
I still haven't received and answer as to which checkpoint you go through and whether you're being waved through or simply not answering and giving the agents a hard time?
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
My statement is correct, I was not asked a single question during that particular stop. I am usually not asked any questions when I am stopped.
You, however, said: "...you claim you've never been asked questions regarding your status..."
I never said any such thing. I have been asked questions, just not all that often.
Most of the checkpoints I go through are located in Texas. Which checkpoint do you work at?
I have never given an agent "a hard time". I simply follow the law.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
So again you want to play word games because you were busted. You have seen that the purpose for the checkpoint is to question persons about the immigration STATUS. Further you state that you can't remember the last time you answered a question, which simply means that you either refuse to answer and the agents aren't doing their jobs, or you are invoking your right to remain silent. Marfa Sector is where you'll find me. So which checkpoint do you go through in Marfa Sector?
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
"You have seen that the purpose for the checkpoint is to question persons about the immigration STATUS."
I never said it wasn't.
I never said I go through a checkpoint in the Marfa Sector.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
There you go again, playing on words again. You can't give a straight answer or admit you were lying and wrong. You said that you were never questioned, which means you've never been asked immigration related questions regarding you STATUS, nor have you answered them. So you don't go through a checkpoint in Marfa, so WHICH CHECKPOINT DO YOU GO THROUGH THAT YOU NEVER ANSWER QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR RIGHT TO BE IN OR REMAIN IN THE U.S.???
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
"You said that you were never questioned, which means you've never been asked immigration related questions regarding you STATUS, nor have you answered them"
I never said I was 'never' questioned.
It is not a play on words, It is not a lie. It is what happened. I may have a saved audio recording or two, since I record all my checkpoint encounter.
Please do no call me a liar again unless you have the facts to back it up.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
I'll continue to call you a liar because that''s what you are. You without a DOUBT lied about the contents of that video, you seem to "look over" my questions, you've been deceitful on things...that equates to a liar sir whether you beleive it or not. So maybe you stated that you weren't asked a single question on a stop, that's the smallest of the issues here. My problem is that you're claiming you've not answered questions for years and will no cite the checkpoints where you claim this occurs.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
Again I ask you. Please quote the lie you accuse me of and proof that it is a lie.
"My problem is that you're claiming you've not answered questions for years and will no cite the checkpoints where you claim this occurs."
That is your problem then, not mine. I stand by my statement. If you have proof that I am lying, then please present it.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
Typical cop-out. You require that everyone else prove their statements, but you're the exception...just like you are at all the checkpoints you go through and never answer questions right? The lie is in your video post, and the proof that you're a liar is in my response underneath it.
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
I said there is no law that requires me to answer questions.."
How would you like me to prove that the law does not exist? How does one prove a negative? It doesn't matter, you have already agreed with me.
As for the video... Watch it. Yet again ask you to
cite the time stamp that proves people are required to answer questions at this type of checkpoint.
(And round and round we go...)
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
You're such an idiot. You also told me what authority agents have, where it comes from, and that Martinez-Fuerte was the only relevant law concerning checkpoints. All of those I proved you wrong. I'm asking YOU to prove your statements by disclosing which checkpoint you go through, and you won't cause you're a liar and I'll expose you further if you did. I don't need to watch the video. YOU made the statement that the agent said if a person refuses to answer their questions, they must be
chamsdropz24 2 years ago
"You also told me what authority agents have, where it comes from, and that Martinez-Fuerte was the only relevant law concerning checkpoints."
You are lying. I never said Fuerte is the only relevant law concerning checkpoints.
Why do you continue to lye about me?
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago
Again I ask you. Please state the time stamp in that video where the agents say that a person is required to answer questions.
Pafoofnik1 2 years ago