Thank you, it gives me a good perspective on the replys then.

Ok, now I understand a little better. I don't have an answer concerning CBP or Border Patrol sending survival supplies out. I do know that watering stations are maintained by private groups in the desert. CBP does not stake out these stations to apprehend anyone.

There is a legal mechanism in place that does what you suggest in your second paragraph. It does not apply to everyone and some legal variables have to be met in order for it to be used.

For the most part, I agree with what you have written. However, current law and Supreme Court opinions do not support our agency to operate in that manner. Like I have written in the past my opinion doesn't count for much.

How about you run for office? That would be one way to start change.

FB

BLM AND FWS seem to be behind the watering stations. Nothing wrong with using bait to catch things.

I have two pretty good Senators, Cruz and Cornyn plus Hensarling as my Rep. On top of that I'm old and grumpy. I couldn't displace any of those guys. If they want to talk Republic I'll lend a hand.

Here's what I find interesting about some of these youtube checkpoint videos. In some of the videos, the driver refuses to state citizenship, which is probably the driver's right to decline. Then the officer instructs the driver to pull into secondary, and the driver refuses. To me, that is a pretty daring thing to do. The officer directs the driver into secondary again, and the driver refuses, sometimes saying "I don't have to go into secondary because you don't have the authority to detain me." Then, the CBP officers eventually let the driver go on his way.

I wonder if there have been instances at these checkpoints where the driver refuses to drive into secondary, and the CBP officers break the driver's window, pull him out of the car, and then drive his car into secondary for him. Because that's what I would expect to happen to a driver who refuses to pull into secondary (and refuses to get out of the vehicle).

When the officers on these videos allow the drivers to defy their order to pull into secondary and let them drive off, is it because (a) they know they don't have the lawful authority to compel the driver to pull into secondary, or (b) they believe it's a lawful order to pull into secondary, but they don't want to bother with forcing the issue and breaking the guy's window and holding up the line for another 15 minutes?

If it's (a), I'm troubled, because I find myself wondering why they are ordering the person into secondary to begin with if they don't think they have the lawful authority to compel the person to go into secondary. If it's (b), I'm surprised, because I didn't think law enforcement officers usually let people get away with defying their commands like this.

They really shouldn't be directing people into secondary if they know they can't compel compliance with that order. That sort of thing undermines public confidence in the officers and makes members of the public wonder "What else are they directing me to do that they don't have the authority to direct me to do and that they wil back down on if I refuse?" And that then begets more people challenging directives of law enforcement because they don't have confidence that the directives are lawful or enforceable.

By the way, while we are on the subject of youtube videos of law enforcement officers, here is my all time favorite video of a person declining to consent to a search of his vehicle and the officer's response. The title is a bit misleading because there's nothing "illegal" about a request for consent to search a vehicle, but the officer's response is priceless:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rx7PuWWdgA

I've seen that video before. I thought it came out that it was made by the police as their idea of a joke?

My checkpoint experience: driving a 1988 Honda Del Sol. Kinda shabby, I'm probably the third or fourth owner, but it was cheap to buy, very cheap to drive, and fun with the top down.

Stop at the checkpoint, asked for my citizenship, I state it. Agent asks for ID. I give him my DL. He keeps the DL, asks me to pop the trunk.

Now anyone who's ever seen a Del Sol knows that 'trunk' is an awfully generous term, but I thought they were concerned with illegals. I'm legal, but I guess something in my manner (friendly = suspicious, hostile = suspicious, civil = suspicious) made him suspicious. It wouldn't be a comfortable ride, but I guess someone could contort and get in the 'trunk'. I open the trunk. There's nothing in there but a 5-gallon bucket without a lid. In it is my 'road kit' - can of oil, can of spare tire, flares, couple trash bags to kneel on if I have to change a tire, roll of duct tape, couple of basic tools (crescent wrench, pliers, screwdrivers).

Agent upends the bucket in the trunk. ?? To this day, I have no idea why and I certainly wasn't going to ask. Did he suspect I had an illegal infant concealed in the bucket?

That was the end of it. He slammed the trunk, handed me my DL and told me I could proceed.

Yeah, I know (and am not interested in details) that there are SCOTUS decisions supporting these searches and this conduct, and I suspect asking any questions would almost certainly have been suspicious and led to even more scrutiny. I had nothing to hide, but I did have better things to do with my time.

That's hard to believe. The full 5+ minute video shows the officer pulling the guy over and the whole interaction. That would be a lot of trouble for the police to go through to stage a video for what purpose, to make themselves look bad? It looks pretty authentic to me, but you could be right:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixrbmf3ZuUs

Absent examination by CBP forensic video experts, you have no way of knowing if those videos are real or not, or if they tell the whole story.

Perhaps when someone pulls away after having 'stood up' to a CBP officer or asserted non-existent 'rights', he/she is pulled over by the police 100 yards down the road and things get ugly. We have no way of knowing.

As any CBP agent will tell you, everything they do is authorized by SCOTUS decisions. They are not at liberty to disclose the reasons behind much of what they do because it would inform the bad guys as well as honest citizens.

They were real officers, videos were 'pranks'.

http://westvirginia.watchdog.org/338...-watching-too/

Wow. Interesting. Thanks.

Not even to make citizens carry proof.

So, you don't think we need some sort of legal proceeding to determine whether someone actually IS here illegally? Or should CBP just be able to say "hey, we're 100 yards from the border, you're Hispanic, we're deporting you"? How should those deportations take place? Via catapult?

Firmly agree. Speeders are a real danger, contributing to higher accident rates (due to diversity of speeds) and higher fatality rates. So, we should massively increase spending on speed enforcement, with zero tolerance: go 56 in a 55 zone, lose your license. If it creates a problem, lawmakers can adjust the speed limits, right?

There are penalties for traffic laws and they are enforced unlike CBP ignoring the presence of 10 to 20 million illegals, turning their back on the oath they swore to.

The police frequently ignore tens of millions of people going 56-59mph in a 55mph zone.

But the police can enforce those laws if they choose. CBP employees claim they are being prohibited from enforcing the law by their superiors.

Big difference.