|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 21029327)
I can prove that I am a citizen. Can you?
Personally, I don't fancy adopting the Old World ethno-nationalist ways of requiring people to have proof of citizenship and/or identity in order to travel domestically or otherwise participate in normal domestic life. |
Originally Posted by chollie
(Post 21029862)
To address just one point, BD: I've been told that popping the trunk is so the agent can ensure that there are no illegals inside.
Why they would upend a five-gallon un-lidded bucket full of emergency gear inside that trunk, I have no idea. Illegal infant? Given the border control functionaries are involved in a combination of immigration and customs functions, the searching for violations of immigration and customs laws ends up joined together in a few ways at least. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 21029327)
I can prove that I am a citizen. Can you?
|
Originally Posted by cestmoi123
(Post 21030126)
At all times? When you're mowing your lawn? I don't carry my passport on a day to day basis.
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 21030182)
I have a passport card on my person at all times.
FB |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 21029662)
The Supreme Court and I disagree with you on the topic of checkpoints. My opinion doesn't matter so much. However, the Supreme Court's does matter a lot and carries much more weight than yours or mine. That is not to say the individual agents have never acted inappropriately while operating these checkpoints.
In addition, I am not limiting my comments to CBP's enforcement strategy. My comments apply to Immigration Enforcement strategy in general. This encompasses all the agencies that have a hand in Immigration Enforcement. You are quite clear in your assessment of CBP strategy. However, as I said before the devil is in the details. You are ignoring the details. It is quite easy to comment that "all these enforcement officers are ignoring their oaths etc etc" Yet, you don't address the very real obstacles to enforcement. You also cannot explain them away by stating "just send them all back they don't belong here to begin with” The existing laws, regulations, and constitutional protections have to be followed. If your solution can't be executed under the existing laws, regulations and constitutional protections, it really is not a viable solution. Now if you want to change the laws, regulations, and constitutional protections so that your solutions will work, get some support together and have at it and I wish you luck. However, the rest of us have to work within the boundaries that we are given. As to your suggesting that all personnel be put on the actual border, that would be a exercise that would be doomed to fail. The Military have realized decades ago that you do not defend real estate by massing all your personnel on a front line. They have realized that a more effective approach is to defend in depth using technology, transportation routes, and geographically formed chokepoints. That is exactly the how the BP checkpoints are utilized. Heck, even sporting teams such as soccer and football understand this concept and have secondary defensive players and formations. We would have a much better and effective Immigration Enforcement Strategy if we could find a way to enforce the laws that are already on the books. Look at it from this perspective. You truly believe that the BP checkpoints are illegal. I don't agree. However, I respect that it is your opinion but it doesn't change what is legal and the legal practice of executing those checkpoints. There is a very large and growing portion of the population that is not of the opinion that our Immigration Laws are legal, fair or in some cases constitutional. As a result, the enforcement of those Immigration laws has become a very political animal that does not compare to any other type of law enforcement. This is the result of elected officials making these issues key parts of reelection. This means considerations that should never have entered into the equation many times end up at the heart of the debate. For example, there is very little question that robbing a bank is illegal in all circumstances. It really doesn't matter if the guy that robbed the bank is just trying to get money to feed his wife and three kids. There is no question that if the guy is found guilty that he will be separated from his wife and three kids for 20 plus years (just an example may not reflect an actual sentence) because he is in prison. No real public outcry about separating the family nor how the family is going to support themselves while dad is in prison However, the same guy illegally sneaks into the country. In the process of living illegally in the country he starts a family as in those same three kids. He is now caught living and working illegally in the country. He has his day in court and is found removable. It is not looked at the same. There are all kinds of public outcry about separating the family. How is the family going to support itself after the deportation? This public attitude effects how elected representatives go about their business. How elected representatives go about their business effects enforcement when that enforcement is turned into a political tool. If you don't agree with this type of situation, the solution is to take it up with the elected representatives not the Law Enforcement organization. This situation only gets worst the longer it continues. You end up with elected representatives coming up with executive orders that are contrary to regulations or law makers not supporting funding requests not because the funds don't exist but because they don't believe or agree with the law in play. A reference to what you call a lack of resources “excuse”. This is a very real obstacle. If the elected representatives are not going to pay for detention space what is the LEO to do? Pay for it out of his pocket? I don’t have that kind of money. Your response really can’t be set up tents or just send them back because that is not a realistic solution. The law does not allow those types of solutions to the problem. I happy to discuss these topics forever if someone is interested. The topic interests me greatly. However, the discussions usually fall into two camps. The discussion that centers on perfect world, utopia, and things should work this way kinda discussion. The other one is the practical discussion. This is how it really works, these are the real considerations, and these are possible solutions that are going to have a real effect. I am happy to have either type of discussion as long as all the participants have an understanding of which type of discussion is occurring. Your comments, in my opinion fall in the first type of discussion. As an afterthought kind of question, you are aware the Customs and Border Protection as an agency and Border Patrol agents, and Office of Field Operations Officers are not only limited to immigration control correct? They are responsible for the enforcement of much more than that and have been for literally decades. FB Would I be legally required to answer any questions asked by the federal employee? Would refusal to answer questions create suspicion? |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 21030236)
Not everyone does nor is there any law that requires that of a US Citizen. How does that fit into the scenario discussion? Are we going to add a law that requires a US Citizen be able to document his or her citizenship on demand? There are many perceived pros to that but there are many perceived cons as well. I have to say it would make my job easier.
FB Around here about 70% (my estimation) of lawns crews are illegal as well many in the construction trades. Now these people can't work without SSN# and employers violate the law if they hire them. These people are paid sub standard wages, have no employee protections and can't rat out the crooked employers. A robost guedt worker program would fix these problems. With that said someone who entered the country illegally should never be offered citizenship. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 21030302)
I'm not saying everyone should have an identity card. I am saying that there are means of determining citizenship.
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 21030302)
I'm not saying everyone should have an identity card. I am saying that there are means of determining citizenship.
Around here about 70% (my estimation) of lawns crews are illegal as well many in the construction trades. Now these people can't work without SSN# and employers violate the law if they hire them. These people are paid sub standard wages, have no employee protections and can't rat out the crooked employers. A robost guedt worker program would fix these problems. With that said someone who entered the country illegally should never be offered citizenship. |
I've never had an issue when traveling between El Centro and Prescott, usually involves the checkpoint on CA-78 and sometimes one on I-10 right after entering Arizona, also once on the I-8 checkpoint between Yuma and AZ-85.
I'm not a citizen and I always carry my docs when crossing state lines, I have an AZ DL which most places accept as proof of legalness, and in fact, two friends were able to use theirs instead of having to dig through their bags at the CA-78 checkpoint. I do travel with citizens sometimes and all they've had to do is say that they are citizens. Also, a friend from India was going through that CA-78 checkpoint and had nothing on him other than the DL (apparently this ended up being a last minute trip while already being out of town), so they had to stop while CBP looked him up in the system based on name/DOB, only cost them about half an hour and that was it, the whole group claims they were treated pretty good. Also, a friend mentioned that in NM all F-1 students have to have their passport and I-20 with them at all times, else you can get jailed for like 24 hours and fined, I have never researched into this, nor I've had the need to go to NM and find out. Funny, because NM has no problem with given illegals drivers licenses (that doesn't infuriate me, but the fact that they get treated better than me does, a folded I-20 and passport is just a nuisance to carry 24/7) |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 21030241)
At one of the inland checkpoints can CBP inspect inside my vehicle without some degree of suspicion being developed?
Would I be legally required to answer any questions asked by the federal employee? Would refusal to answer questions create suspicion? The only question that was addressed by the court was the question concerning citizenship. The court has ruled that the requirement to stop at a Border Patrol checkpoint is a reasonable seizure to determine citizenship and/or immigration status. Refusal to answer questions alone cannot be the articulable fact that would be reasonable suspicion. The act of refusing to answer questions cannot be the sole reason to detain you (see the above paragraph concerning citizenship) That being said. An officer more than likely will take the refusal to answer basic questions as out of the ordinary. The officer will probably take a far closer look at you and your vehicle. This will happen in a matter of seconds to maybe in a couple of minutes and that would be on the outside. This would not be considered a detention in addition to the original detention as long as it doesn't extend what would be considered reasonable amount time for the initial detention. FB |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 21031099)
CBP can look inside your vehicle from the outside just as any Law Enforcement officer can at a traffic stop. At a Border Patrol checkpoint, CBP needs consent or probable cause to search your vehicle. If the CBP agent sees something in plain view in your vehicle when he looks inside from the outside depending on what it is he sees that could become probable cause to search.
The only question that was addressed by the court was the question concerning citizenship. The court has ruled that the requirement to stop at a Border Patrol checkpoint is a reasonable seizure to determine citizenship and/or immigration status. Refusal to answer questions alone cannot be the articulable fact that would be reasonable suspicion. The act of refusing to answer questions cannot be the sole reason to detain you (see the above paragraph concerning citizenship) That being said. An officer more than likely will take the refusal to answer basic questions as out of the ordinary. The officer will probably take a far closer look at you and your vehicle. This will happen in a matter of seconds to maybe in a couple of minutes and that would be on the outside. This would not be considered a detention in addition to the original detention as long as it doesn't extend what would be considered reasonable amount time for the initial detention. FB At an inland CBP checkpoint, 1, A CBP employee can not enter the vehicle without cause or permission. 2, Not answering questions does not develope cause of suspicion. 3, Questions do not have to be answered but may cause a longer reasonable detention. Exactly how long is reasonable? Edit to add In one video I have seen the CBP employee says all that is required is "mere suspicion". So what is the standard? |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 21031419)
To paraphrase,
At an inland CBP checkpoint, 1, A CBP employee can not enter the vehicle without cause or permission. 2, Not answering questions does not develope cause of suspicion. 3, Questions do not have to be answered but may cause a longer reasonable detention. Exactly how long is reasonable? Edit to add In one video I have seen the CBP employee says all that is required is "mere suspicion". So what is the standard? As to exactly how long is reasonable? There is no exactly. The courts have purposefully left reasonable undefined. It is measured again by a totality of the circumstances on a case by case basis. What may be reasonable in one case can be ruled unreasonable in another because of a change in the details or circumstances. Someone else asked a question about that term mere suspicion and I answered it up thread a ways. I have only had limited exposure to that term in some training material. It was used to describe a set of circumstances in Border Search authority that would be in play at a POE. It should not be used in the context of a Border Patrol checkpoint. I have not seen the video that has been referenced. However, if the term mere suspicion was used to justify a search of a vehicle at a Border Patrol checkpoint I would have to say that the agent was either outright mistaken or using the wrong terminology when they meant probable cause. I have witnessed the terms reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and several other similar terms used interchangeably even in law enforcement circles. It is incorrect and is an error. FB |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 21030302)
I'm not saying everyone should have an identity card. I am saying that there are means of determining citizenship.
|
Originally Posted by lovely15
(Post 21033379)
What means of determining citizenship does CBP have at an internal checkpoint when drive and passengers aren't carrying a passport or other citizenship docs? DL? Accent? Rental car agreement? NONE of these allow for determination of citizenship.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:55 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.