![]() |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 21029327)
I can prove that I am a citizen. Can you?
Now, I'd show none of that to a CBP agent at an internal checkpoint mind you because I think they are rubbish, supreme court notwithstanding (seperate but equal anyone? they don't always get it right). Most people probably do not have docs that do however. |
Originally Posted by SeriouslyLost
(Post 20975863)
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 20975391)
Why don't we just throw people in uniforms and send them out to work.
In order to get these bad apples out on streets faster, their training academy was reduced from 20 weeks to 12, and the results have been particulary "impressive" if you like negatives. Check out the videos in thread: https://www.checkpointforums.org/for...ine-valley.78/ Americans should be able to travel freely WITHIN their own country without having to deal with these criminal thugs and their abuse. Unfortunately, I can travel a lot more freely and safer from such abuse elsewhere, e.g. Europe, Singapore, Australia, ..., than in my own country. I applaud anyone who resists this tyranny as it happens rather than playing the role of compliant sheep who quickly forget the transgressions until the next incident, when they once again enable "sheep mode". |
Originally Posted by cestmoi123
(Post 21029187)
Under the proposal you've laid down, there'd be nothing stopping CBP from grabbing you in front of your house, dumping you across the border, and taking all your stuff, because they believe you're an illegal immigrant. That shouldn't be a problem for you, though, since clearly due process before confiscation and deportation isn't needed.
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 21033609)
I don't know exactly what they have available in that case but given DHS has collected enough information to determine who we are at airports why would this information not be available to other DHS agencies?
Originally Posted by FlyingHoustonian
(Post 21033782)
Well, my pilot's licenses list citizenship
|
Originally Posted by felipegarcia
(Post 21030620)
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.
I've literally spent years of my life overseas, traveling freely except for actual border crossings where the delays are almost always quick & perfunctory. Only in Amerika (and perhaps a few backwater dictatorships where we don't vacation) today do we have to deal with this "Papieren, bitte!" nonsense. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 21029327)
I can prove that I am a citizen. Can you?
|
Originally Posted by MikeMpls
(Post 21033889)
That's pretty much what the border patrol has done -- large numbers were hired without background checks, with the result that approximately 2,000 have been arrested on criminal charges and there have roughly 150 corruption cases in the Border Patrol in recent years.
In order to get these bad apples out on streets faster, their training academy was reduced from 20 weeks to 12, and the results have been particulary "impressive" if you like negatives. Check out the videos in thread: https://www.checkpointforums.org/for...ine-valley.78/ Americans should be able to travel freely WITHIN their own country without having to deal with these criminal thugs and their abuse. Unfortunately, I can travel a lot more freely and safer from such abuse elsewhere, e.g. Europe, Singapore, Australia, ..., than in my own country. I applaud anyone who resists this tyranny as it happens rather than playing the role of compliant sheep who quickly forget the transgressions until the next incident, when they once again enable "sheep mode". Border Patrol and OFO have had mass hiring's in the past. No one was hired without a background check. The practice that was used, which by the way I don't happen to agree with, was provisional clearances were given after basic computer database checks were done with negative derogatory information found. This allowed the candidate to be hired and begin training while the rest of the background was completed. The Border Patrol academy was not shortened to 12 weeks from 20 weeks. The format of the academy was changed. The 20 weeks of training included various law training, firearms training, defensive tactics, physical pt, driving training, and Spanish language training. These classes were given in 2 to 4 hour blocks all through the academy. The academy then changed the format and removed all the Spanish language training from the basic academy. Those candidates that could not test out of the Spanish language portion of the training had to stay for the Spanish language instruction. This Spanish language training comprised 40 work days of instruction. The basic academy comprises 58 work days of instruction. Put the two together and you are just under 20 weeks 19.6 to be exact. http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/careers/c...bp_academy.xml Border Patrol in particular and law enforcement in general are not any different than any other profession. There will be good practitioners of any profession and there will be bad practitioners of any profession. Most other professions do not have the public baiting them with the intention of videotaping the result. It would be interesting indeed to see what the results would be if this behavior was encountered in other professions FB |
Originally Posted by lovely15
(Post 21034109)
Sure, and if they fingerprint me, they can see my citizenship through GE. But most people don't have fingerprints in the system - and since they aren't looking for citizenship at the airport but merely identification, I'm not sure what the comparison is. Identification is a lot easier to prove than citizenship.
And unless you got it post 9/11 (2003 or so?), it doesn't prove anything - you declared citizenship on an 8710 and never had to prove it. Means nothing, although I suppose CBP doesn't know that. FB |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 21034284)
Most other professions do not have the public baiting them with the intention of videotaping the result.
|
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 21034305)
Just for the record, CBP does know that. CBP is very familiar with pilot licenses as it is one of the documents that it is required to check during a private aircraft inspection and ramp inspections.
FB What is the point of checking them then? Besides harassment, of course. |
Originally Posted by lovely15
(Post 21034308)
Most other professions don't stomp on people's civil liberties and right to travel unimpeded.
Let’s make sure that the analogies are at least correct. When I am talking about other professions not being videotaped and baited, I am talking about topics that those professions should be aware of. For example, in the medical field, I do not see video cameras being used to catch doctors or nurses in purposefully contrived situations making mistakes. Yet medical errors kill, maim, and otherwise hurt millions of people every year. That is just the medication errors that are not even touching wrong site surgeries, botched procedures, or infections do to staff mistakes. Yet, no public outcry, no video cameras. I detest the hyperbole that happens frequently here. However, those medical error numbers equate to two 737’s crashing every day for a year. Yet, no public outcry, no video cameras over the shoulders of nurses and doctors. Why? Because it is not exciting, it is not going to result in an argument or physical confrontation so in turn is not going to increase ratings or subscriptions. When you say civil liberties, I agree the Law Enforcement officer should get it right. However, these are human beings who make mistakes that why when you are talking civil liberties kind of lawsuits (because that is the correct place to deal with such issues not roadside or in a checkpoint) there is a good faith measure that is used to account for human mistakes. If the officer is purposefully and personally, violating civil liberties I am right there with you in disciplining that officer either civilly or criminally but you and I don't make that determination the courts do. When you say the right to travel unimpeded, I have to assume you are talking BP checkpoints and TSA checkpoints, correct me if I have made a wrong assumption. In that case, I don't believe the individual officer is the place to take that up with. The courts have decided that these practices are legal and constitutional. If you don't agree, the place to take that up with is your elected representative. FB |
Originally Posted by lovely15
(Post 21034320)
Sorry, I missed this one. So you are saying CBP is aware that a pilot's license does not prove citizenship?
What is the point of checking them then? Besides harassment, of course. In order to operate that aircraft anywhere in the United States, there is a Federal law that says you must be in possession of a pilot’s license. In addition, in order to be able to determine citizenship you must have at least a passing knowledge of not only the documents that you come into contact regularly that do prove citizenship you must also have a passing knowledge of documents that you come into contact regularly that do not prove citizenship. You do realize that just the act of enforcing a law does not constitute harassment. FB |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 21034501)
I would suggest that before you make comments like that you do a little research. The public baits Law Enforcement on topics that we can all agree that the Law Enforcement officer should be aware of such a civil liberties and the right to travel unimpeded.
Let’s make sure that the analogies are at least correct. When I am talking about other professions not being videotaped and baited, I am talking about topics that those professions should be aware of. For example, in the medical field, I do not see video cameras being used to catch doctors or nurses in purposefully contrived situations making mistakes. Yet medical errors kill, maim, and otherwise hurt millions of people every year. That is just the medication errors that are not even touching wrong site surgeries, botched procedures, or infections do to staff mistakes. Yet, no public outcry, no video cameras. I detest the hyperbole that happens frequently here. However, those medical error numbers equate to two 737’s crashing every day for a year. Yet, no public outcry, no video cameras over the shoulders of nurses and doctors. Why? Because it is not exciting, it is not going to result in an argument or physical confrontation so in turn is not going to increase ratings or subscriptions. When you say civil liberties, I agree the Law Enforcement officer should get it right. However, these are human beings who make mistakes that why when you are talking civil liberties kind of lawsuits (because that is the correct place to deal with such issues not roadside or in a checkpoint) there is a good faith measure that is used to account for human mistakes. If the officer is purposefully and personally, violating civil liberties I am right there with you in disciplining that officer either civilly or criminally but you and I don't make that determination the courts do. When you say the right to travel unimpeded, I have to assume you are talking BP checkpoints and TSA checkpoints, correct me if I have made a wrong assumption. In that case, I don't believe the individual officer is the place to take that up with. The courts have decided that these practices are legal and constitutional. If you don't agree, the place to take that up with is your elected representative. FB Look, it appears you like sheep, and that's fine. But in my OP, which seems to have been forgotten, I wanted to cooperate. I was a sheep back then. It still didn't matter. I was detained, harassed, and threatened. You go through that and tell me it wouldn't piss you off and make you less likely to cooperate in the future. And you're telling me they may have gotten it wrong? As far as writing representatives, these are the same people who passed the Patriot Act, so you can see where their loyalties lie - and they aren't with the American people. |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 21034549)
You do realize that just the act of enforcing a law does not constitute harassment.
FB |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 21034284)
OK, let’s again try to convey accurate information. I don't have arrest or convictions numbers in my head but I did post a report full of those numbers up thread.
Border Patrol and OFO have had mass hiring's in the past. No one was hired without a background check. The practice that was used, which by the way I don't happen to agree with, was provisional clearances were given after basic computer database checks were done with negative derogatory information found. This allowed the candidate to be hired and begin training while the rest of the background was completed. The Border Patrol academy was not shortened to 12 weeks from 20 weeks. The format of the academy was changed. The 20 weeks of training included various law training, firearms training, defensive tactics, physical pt, driving training, and Spanish language training. These classes were given in 2 to 4 hour blocks all through the academy. The academy then changed the format and removed all the Spanish language training from the basic academy. Those candidates that could not test out of the Spanish language portion of the training had to stay for the Spanish language instruction. This Spanish language training comprised 40 work days of instruction. The basic academy comprises 58 work days of instruction. Put the two together and you are just under 20 weeks 19.6 to be exact. http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/careers/c...bp_academy.xml Border Patrol in particular and law enforcement in general are not any different than any other profession. There will be good practitioners of any profession and there will be bad practitioners of any profession. Most other professions do not have the public baiting them with the intention of videotaping the result. It would be interesting indeed to see what the results would be if this behavior was encountered in other professions FB As far as being video/audio recorded just why does that bother any LEO if they aren't doing anything wrong? If you have nothing to hide I see no problem. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:46 am. |
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.