San Diego teacher detained after refusing to answer BP question
#47
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,336
As I understand it, our local laws allow LE to stop anyone at any time to demand they identify themselves. You have to satisfy the officer's request somehow. Technically, you do not have to show ID - unless the cop claims he doubts your identity, at which point you can be detained if you can't immediately produce an acceptable ID.
#48
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: FRA
Posts: 229
I think the rules in the US apply to citizens. AFAIK, permanent residents and other non-citizens must carry a green card/passport/I94/etc. Here are a couple of links:
http://www.nc-immigration-attorney.c...im-in-the-usa/
https://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2014...carry-with-me/
http://www.nc-immigration-attorney.c...im-in-the-usa/
https://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2014...carry-with-me/
#49
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
I think the rules in the US apply to citizens. AFAIK, permanent residents and other non-citizens must carry a green card/passport/I94/etc. Here are a couple of links:
http://www.nc-immigration-attorney.c...im-in-the-usa/
https://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2014...carry-with-me/
http://www.nc-immigration-attorney.c...im-in-the-usa/
https://www.cilawgroup.com/news/2014...carry-with-me/
#51
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,483
Moderator's Note:
The Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate forum is the place to discuss travel security policy. It is not the place for a general political debate. Political discourse which is not directly related to travel and border security policy belongs in OMNI/PR.
Posts have been deleted or edited.
Thank you for understanding,
TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator
Posts have been deleted or edited.
Thank you for understanding,
TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator
#52
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the Cone of Silence
Programs: UA Gold; AA Dirt; HH Diamond; National Emerald; CONTROL SecretAgent Platinum; KAOS EvilFlyer Gold
Posts: 1,497
By the same logic, there should be a 100-mile zone around the Great Salt Lake too, right?
#53
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,723
Wonder why they decided the zone applies to the region looping around the south of Lake Michigan (Chicago, etc.), since all of Lake Michigan is within the US and is NOT a coastal border (unlike the other Great Lakes)?
By the same logic, there should be a 100-mile zone around the Great Salt Lake too, right?
By the same logic, there should be a 100-mile zone around the Great Salt Lake too, right?
I also suspect, but do not know for certain, that the zone should extend up the Mississippi river since I think there are recognized ports of entry along the river.
I doubt the specific boundaries of the constitution-free zone have ever been tested in court. And I suspect if DHS wanted to, they would claim anywhere within 100 miles of a theoretical air port of entry (i.e., runway) was constitution free.
#54
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
My guess has always been that the 100-miles starts at border or a land/water point of entry and that there are many such ports along the shore of Lake Michigan. If the 100-miles were based on territorial waters and not the actual border, the zones around the coast would extend less than 100 miles inland.
I also suspect, but do not know for certain, that the zone should extend up the Mississippi river since I think there are recognized ports of entry along the river.
I doubt the specific boundaries of the constitution-free zone have ever been tested in court. And I suspect if DHS wanted to, they would claim anywhere within 100 miles of a theoretical air port of entry (i.e., runway) was constitution free.
I also suspect, but do not know for certain, that the zone should extend up the Mississippi river since I think there are recognized ports of entry along the river.
I doubt the specific boundaries of the constitution-free zone have ever been tested in court. And I suspect if DHS wanted to, they would claim anywhere within 100 miles of a theoretical air port of entry (i.e., runway) was constitution free.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception [from footnote 5]
287 (a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 233, 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(3), which provides for warrantless searches of automobiles and other conveyances "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," as authorized by regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General. The Attorney General's regulation, 8 CFR 287.1, defines "reasonable distance" as "within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/287.1
287.1 Definitions.
(a)
(1)External boundary. The term external boundary, as used in section 287(a)(3) of the Act, means the land boundaries and the territorial sea of the United States extending 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law.
(2)Reasonable distance. The term reasonable distance, as used in section 287(a) (3) of the Act, means within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States or any shorter distance which may be fixed by the chief patrol agent for CBP, or the special agent in charge for ICE, or, so far as the power to board and search aircraft is concerned any distance fixed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
(a)
(1)External boundary. The term external boundary, as used in section 287(a)(3) of the Act, means the land boundaries and the territorial sea of the United States extending 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law.
(2)Reasonable distance. The term reasonable distance, as used in section 287(a) (3) of the Act, means within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States or any shorter distance which may be fixed by the chief patrol agent for CBP, or the special agent in charge for ICE, or, so far as the power to board and search aircraft is concerned any distance fixed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
#55
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,330
We are losing site that she was asked a simple question and she refused to answer. I don't see how responding is a violation of privacy or civil rights. Are you a United States Citizen? Yes or no.
I see a person looking for 15 minutes of fame, much like every person with a beef toward United Airlines since the Dao incident.
I see a person looking for 15 minutes of fame, much like every person with a beef toward United Airlines since the Dao incident.
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?" was a pretty simple question, too, but look how many innocent lives were destroyed by it because of paranoia and fanaticism.
I must admit, if stopped at one of these Stassi checkpoints, I would immediately answer (through clenched teeth), "Yes, I am a citizen," and be sent on my merry way with a foul taste in my mouth. But I do not begrudge anyone who pushes back to defend the rights of the individual, because the intended results of such defense would benefit us all.
Personal liberties and individual rights are the foundation upon which this country was founded. They are its entire reason for existing, and they are the entire purpose behind having any sort of government at all. When government starts stripping them away for some purported "greater good" or "societal need" or, worst of all, "compelling government interest," we destroy the very thing that makes our country great in the first place. The greater good comes directly from the individual good - you cannot achieve any greater good when you compromise the individual good. It's like building a house with foundation blocks made of wet newspaper instead of concrete - it may look the same, but it'll wash away completely in the first heavy rain, or burn like a torch from a single spark.
Call me crazy, but I'm far more concerned about a government that tells me I have to surrender the things that keep me safe in order to keep me safe, give up the things which keep me free in order to remain free, than with trespassers, drug smugglers, or even terrorists sneaking in through the southern border. Even if these draconian measures like internal immigration checkpoints and invasive searches as a condition of travel worked, which they never have in all of human history, it would be a Pyrrhic victory at best, because we would have destroyed our country's soul to preserve its borders.
In two hundred years we've gone from "Give me liberty or give me death!" to "Anything for security!" Not an improvement, in my humble opinion. Not an improvement at all.
I, too, am against illegal immigration, but stripping away the rights and freedoms that this country was specifically created to protect is not, nor has it ever been, the solution to any national problem, be it criminality, immigration, or even potential espionage (ask George Takei or any other victim of our WWII US concentration camps what they think of that kind of solution).
Whatever the solution to illegal border crossings may be, it lies AT THE BORDER, not 100 miles away from it.
My guess has always been that the 100-miles starts at border or a land/water point of entry and that there are many such ports along the shore of Lake Michigan. If the 100-miles were based on territorial waters and not the actual border, the zones around the coast would extend less than 100 miles inland.
I also suspect, but do not know for certain, that the zone should extend up the Mississippi river since I think there are recognized ports of entry along the river.
I doubt the specific boundaries of the constitution-free zone have ever been tested in court. And I suspect if DHS wanted to, they would claim anywhere within 100 miles of a theoretical air port of entry (i.e., runway) was constitution free.
I also suspect, but do not know for certain, that the zone should extend up the Mississippi river since I think there are recognized ports of entry along the river.
I doubt the specific boundaries of the constitution-free zone have ever been tested in court. And I suspect if DHS wanted to, they would claim anywhere within 100 miles of a theoretical air port of entry (i.e., runway) was constitution free.
It appears to me that ACLU created the orange zone by offsetting a 100-mile buffer from the land mass edges, which is why the zone bends around Lake Michigan and the Chesapeake Bay; bad news for me if DHS uses a similar outline, since it encompasses virtually my entire home state of Maryland.
If DHS's version of the zone is similar to the ACLU map, they could theoretically set up these Stassi Stops anywhere on I-95, from the Canadian border to Miami, since the entire interstate and most of its subsidiaries (like the I-495 Capital Beltway around DC and the I-695 Baltimore Beltway and the I-295 Jacksonville Beltway) are inside the 100-mile zone on the map.
Even using a more logical 100-mile buffer that starts on the actual border - i.e. at the ocean's edge, with no jogs around the Chesapeake, Lake Michigan, or the Outer Banks, at least 2/3 of the I-95 network would still be within the 100-mile zone.
#56
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: CAK
Posts: 31
I associate it with 'papers, please'. I expect that in foreign dictatorships. I don't expect it and I despise it in my own country.
If it's a pointless trivial exercise, then why are taxpayers footing the bill for this cr*p? What is the ROI on setting up these stops to catch what they failed to catch at the border? 99% harassment of innocent citizens and waste of taxpayers' money, plus it reinforces the growing requirement to identify yourself and produce your documents at any time to any government actor who demands them.
If it's a pointless trivial exercise, then why are taxpayers footing the bill for this cr*p? What is the ROI on setting up these stops to catch what they failed to catch at the border? 99% harassment of innocent citizens and waste of taxpayers' money, plus it reinforces the growing requirement to identify yourself and produce your documents at any time to any government actor who demands them.
GOOD for that teacher making her point known.
#57
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: CAK
Posts: 31
#58
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: jfk area
Programs: AA platinum; 2MM AA, Delta Diamond, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 10,291
Too bad EVEYONE is not as legal minded as the teacher; if CBP were detaining ALL of "us" maybe this nearly facist policy would cease.
PS: The train from San Diego to the border crosses into the "forbidden zone", does CBP ask for riders to prove their citizenship? Or is it only people who drive in the zone?
PS: The train from San Diego to the border crosses into the "forbidden zone", does CBP ask for riders to prove their citizenship? Or is it only people who drive in the zone?
#60
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 574
PS: The train from San Diego to the border crosses into the "forbidden zone", does CBP ask for riders to prove their citizenship? Or is it only people who drive in the zone?
NRR, Your question brings to mind the case of Deborah Davis.
The bus she rode to work crosses the property of the Denver Federal Center, a collection of government offices such as the Veterans Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and part of the National Archives. The Denver Federal Center is not a high security area: it's not Area 51 or NORAD.
One day commuting to work by bus, the bus stopped at the gates of the Denver Federal Center. A security guard got on and demanded that all of the passengers on this public bus produce ID. She refused.
The cops shoved her out of the bus, handcuffed her, threw her into the back seat of a police cruiser.
I think the ACLU took her case and won. The police ID request was little more than an obedience test.
NRR, Your question brings to mind the case of Deborah Davis.
The bus she rode to work crosses the property of the Denver Federal Center, a collection of government offices such as the Veterans Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and part of the National Archives. The Denver Federal Center is not a high security area: it's not Area 51 or NORAD.
One day commuting to work by bus, the bus stopped at the gates of the Denver Federal Center. A security guard got on and demanded that all of the passengers on this public bus produce ID. She refused.
The cops shoved her out of the bus, handcuffed her, threw her into the back seat of a police cruiser.
I think the ACLU took her case and won. The police ID request was little more than an obedience test.
Last edited by yandosan; Jul 29, 2017 at 7:18 am