My Encounter with Border Patrol: aka "Does I'd like to talk to a Lawyer really work?"

[Gareth]

I wonder if there exists an unwritten, yet universally recognized departmental/agency policy which deliberately fosters a minimal to moderate level of apprehension among the general public via applied psychology. The old 'good cop/bad cop' act used to mess with the minds of those they're supposed to be respectfully serving in order to keep all the "little people" under control.

I'm not paranoid. I just possess a heightened sense of awareness.

 

[rambone]

Must suck looking over your shoulders all the time and freaking out every time you see a police car or a LEO. Holy Cow!!

It does.

 

[rambone]

I wasn't a d--- at all actually. I didn't hassle anybody and nobody hassled me. That was the whole point of the post. They got what they needed and I got what I needed and everyone went on their way without giving up their rights.

I think by virtue of being stopped at a Federal checkpoint on U.S. soil, your rights were violated. I think the entire scheme is unconstitutional and violates every person who goes through it.

But that said, you did exactly right. You didn't capitulate. You didn't do their slave dance. Their job description is to break the constitution. They won't get any pleasantries from me either. Am I free to go??


You are lucky that you didn't get the treatment that this pastor did at a Border Patrol checkpoint.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY85P1RboMg

 

[octalman]

So, you wanted to prove a point by not answering any questions. Not even about your citizenship. Guess you are then OK with illegal immigrants exercising the same rights?

 

[theweakerbrother]

My freedoms are not prioritized nor are they trumped by promises of security or irrational fears. Freedom is dangerous and I prefer it that way. The citizen never left the country so there is no right to violate his fourth amendment right.

 

[Drail]

People who live in the Southwestern States are getting really sick of this crap. It accomplishes nothing, wastes taxpayer's money and violates the Fourth Amendment. It is simply an attempt at making all of us comply with whatever they dream up.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

People who live in the Southwestern States are getting really sick of this crap. It accomplishes nothing, wastes taxpayer's money and violates the Fourth Amendment. It is simply an attempt at making all of us comply with whatever they dream up.

I am curious about the general attitude towards these sort of stops in the border states. When I lived in SoCal, it was just considered part of living down there and no one seemed to be at all bothered by it (at least among the folks I talked to.) The general attitude was that they really wanted something more done to control the "undocumented international travelers" (this is actually how EMS would refer to them when they brought them to the ER but I digress... ) so the BP stops were OK with them. I can't remember ever hearing anyone being hassled for no reason at one though.

Over the past decade or so, the angst and anger about illegal aliens has grown to such a fever pitch that I would think the folks in border states would be dropping off donuts, coffee and lunch to the BPOs at the stops out of gratitude. Yet you say they're getting sick of the crap. Can you tell me more?

 

[E5RANGER375]

I am curious about the general attitude towards these sort of stops in the border states. When I lived in SoCal, it was just considered part of living down there and no one seemed to be at all bothered by it (at least among the folks I talked to.) The general attitude was that they really wanted something more done to control the "undocumented international travelers" (this is actually how EMS would refer to them when they brought them to the ER but I digress... ) so the BP stops were OK with them. I can't remember ever hearing anyone being hassled for no reason at one though.

Over the past decade or so, the angst and anger about illegal aliens has grown to such a fever pitch that I would think the folks in border states would be dropping off donuts, coffee and lunch to the BPOs at the stops out of gratitude. Yet you say they're getting sick of the crap. Can you tell me more?

the border patrol are lazy most of the time. I still say we put mines all along the southern border or carpet bomb them mother ****ers trying to cross.

 

[roscott]

Freedom is dangerous and I prefer it that way.

Well said.

"Those who would trade freedom for safety deserve neither."

 

[zebov]

So, you wanted to prove a point by not answering any questions. Not even about your citizenship. Guess you are then OK with illegal immigrants exercising the same rights?

Nope, didn't want to prove any sort of point. I simply didn't want to be bothered and didn't want to potentially incriminate myself.

As far as being OK with illegal immigrants exercising those same rights, you bet your butt I'm OK with that! I strongly recommend everyone to exercise those rights.

 

[Indyhd]

As far as being OK with illegal immigrants exercising those same rights, you bet your butt I'm OK with that! I strongly recommend everyone to exercise those rights.[/QUOTE]



This is what I have a problem with. The illegal immigrants don't have any rights here in the United States. They are "illegal" they don't have any rights here.

Is this so hard to understand?

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

They are "illegal" they don't have any rights here.

Is this so hard to understand?

Yes, it is, because I believe it is wrong. The Constitution does not give rights to American citizens. Rights belong to all people. The Constitution simply limits the US governments power to infringe upon them.

 

[octalman]

Rights, priviledge, responsibility confused

Yes, it is, because I believe it is wrong. The Constitution does not give rights to American citizens. Rights belong to all people. The Constitution simply limits the US governments power to infringe upon them.

This argument implies that all people are born with unlimited rights. That is Anarchy. Governments (people) establish laws to maintain an orderly society. Some of your "unlimited" rights may be restricted. I'm sure you would not support the right of all people to take your stuff at any time. Just because capability exists, does not make it a right.

 

[USMC_0311]

This argument implies that all people are born with unlimited rights. That is Anarchy. Governments (people) establish laws to maintain an orderly society. Some of your "unlimited" rights may be restricted. I'm sure you would not support the right of all people to take your stuff at any time. Just because capability exists, does not make it a right.

Lost me on this one, Anarchy really? "unlimited rights" hardly. The same rights as you or I yes.

 

[lashicoN]

(Cracks knuckles)

It seems to me that hiding behind the "I won't answer questions without my lawyer stuff" is good advice for criminals. I think it is poor advice for non criminals. I also think it is a bad influence on one's children.

I have nothing to hide from anyone. Therefore I will answer any questions I am asked. Even though it might be my right to not answer,why wouldn't I? I don't get the paranoid mentality. Just because you are asked a question does not mean you are a target. If you are you will be mirandized. That would be a good time to not answer questions. But whatever.

Sure, J, why wouldn't you?

1. What's your full name?
2. What department do you work for?
3. What's your home address?

You aren't a target, I'm just curious, as I'm sure quite a few of us are. I don't think you're a real cop and I'm asking those three questions so I can verify it for myself.

As for people "hiding" behind their rights, whatever man, you're saying some foolish stuff. I know a guy who had a nice pocket knife lifted off of him by an officer after his DUI. We don't trust strangers, and we don't need to answer their foolish questions. A badge doesn't mean I know you. And just because you have one definitely doesn't mean I trust what you do or say, seeing as how your profession (claimed profession, that is) comes with a license to kill, steal, and lie, all behind the shield of a badge.

So why hassle a productive citizen?

I'd like an answer for this too, since you're so open and have nothing to hide. Why hassle a productive citizen on his way from one state to another? What reason do you guys have?

As far as being OK with illegal immigrants exercising those same rights, you bet your butt I'm OK with that! I strongly recommend everyone to exercise those rights.

This is what I have a problem with. The illegal immigrants don't have any rights here in the United States. They are "illegal" they don't have any rights here.

Is this so hard to understand? [/QUOTE]

LOL yeah, if you're born 10 feet from the United States, you have no rights as a human being, because our government gave all of us those rights as our birthday present.

I'm sure you would not support the right of all people to take your stuff at any time. Just because capability exists, does not make it a right.

Stealing isn't a right. You need to do some reading up on what, exactly, constitutes a right. I'll leave it up to a more reputable user to provide you with a trustworthy link.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

This argument implies that all people are born with unlimited rights. That is Anarchy. Governments (people) establish laws to maintain an orderly society. Some of your "unlimited" rights may be restricted. I'm sure you would not support the right of all people to take your stuff at any time. Just because capability exists, does not make it a right.

It implies no such thing, so you must be going somewhere else with this. I'd love to know where I disagree with your definition of anarchy. Lack of government does not ipso facto mean unlimited rights, so you cannot accurately define anarchy in that way.

Do you not accept the concept of natural rights? Natural Law, which transcends any man-made law, has its own limitations of rights. As Locke wrote, "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions:"

The only legitimate function of government is to defend man's natural rights, to preserve natural law.

 

[finity]

So, you wanted to prove a point by not answering any questions. Not even about your citizenship. Guess you are then OK with illegal immigrants exercising the same rights?

Yes.

If the person is asking the question then how does he know that they are illegal in the first place?

Believe it or not there really are non-white American citizens.

At what point do you think we should draw the line on who gets those Rights?

Are you trying to suggest that it's OK for the non-white community to have their Rights restricted because we have an illegal immigration problem from our southern border?

Even if non-citizens have no Rights, (as you suggest & with which I FULLY disagree) isn't it the proper role of a court to determine who is "iilegal" & who isn't? If the person hasn't legally been determined to be illegal then shouldn't he have all of his Rights intact until he HAS been proven illegal in a court of law? Should we allow cops on the street decide who should have their Rights & who shouldn't? Based simply on the fact that they MIGHT not be a citizen? THAT'S a VERY slippery slope there.

I bet there are European illegal immigrants, too. Should we require EVERY person to provide his citizenship documentation upon demand by the authorities? I think that has been tried (think scary little man with a funny little mustache who killed millions of "undesireables") & it didn't turn out so well for them, either.

The illegal immigrants don't have any rights here in the United States. They are "illegal" they don't have any rights here.

Is this so hard to understand?

Why, yes. Yes it is.

Let's give a little history lesson here:

Please turn your textbooks to July 4, 1776.

Indyhd, could you please read the second paragraph?

(Indyhd, reading):

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — "

Thank you, Indy. I want to stop you right there.

Notice that what you just read DOESN'T say ANYTHING about the Rights that those men signed their lives away to protect being limited IN ANY WAY to ONLY CITIZENS of the US.

It says "ALL MEN", "THEY" & "UNALIENABLE".

Just because a person is unlucky enough to be born into a society whose government isn't restricted by the same documents we are doesn't mean he doesn't have those same Rights.

If you believe that then you HAVE TO believe that the people in THIS country (US) can vote to eliminate the Bill of Rights & we would suddenly have no Rights at all.

So yeah, I want illegals to have the same Rights as me. I want everybody to have the same Rights as me.

I would not be comfortable with torture or indefinite imprisonment without trial or any other potential abuses our government could administer to someone in this country just because they are "illegal".

I AM NOT comfortable with torturing someone, or putting them in prison indefinitely without trial or all the other human Rights abuses our government is guilty of on foreign soil under the excuse that "they have no Rights since they aren't citizens".

Anyone who thinks that it's OK is guilty of violating THE most basic American value that there is.

The Constitution does not give rights to American citizens. Rights belong to all people. The Constitution simply limits the US governments power to infringe upon them.

This.

This argument implies that all people are born with unlimited rights.

We are.

If you live on a deserted island then you can do whatever you want.

You can make any law you want.

But as soon as there is one more person on that island with you then those rights are no longer "unlimited". They are restricted by the limitations imposed on you by the Rights of the other person.

That is Anarchy.

I agree...IF you are talking about the rule of laws that impose no restriction on the actions of people that infringe on the rights of others.

That's not what we are talking about here. I am not claiming that Rights are "unlimited" in a civilized society.

Governments (people) establish laws to maintain an orderly society.

Yes, & ours is limited in what types of laws can be passed so that they don't infringe on any Rights of the minority.

Some of your "unlimited" rights may be restricted.

Only to the extent that you're actions interfere with the rights of others.

I'm sure you would not support the right of all people to take your stuff at any time. Just because capability exists, does not make it a right.

No one is claiming it is except, strangely, you.

You are confusing Rights with laws.

Laws don't create or remove Rights.

I can pass laws all day long that say that I can do anything I want but that doesn't make it a Right.

I can also pass laws all day long that YOU can't do anything I don't want you to do but that doesn't mean you no longer have the Right to do it.

You see, the Rights & laws argument goes both ways.

The same rights as you or I yes.

+1

 

[Hotdoger]

Yes, it is, because I believe it is wrong. The Constitution does not give rights to American citizens. Rights belong to all people. The Constitution simply limits the US governments power to infringe upon them.

So our rights apply to citizens in other countries?

Do armed invaders have the same "rights" as US citizens?

 

[finity]

So our rights apply to citizens in other countries?

While they are in this country? Yes. Absolutely.

While they are in their home country? They should be but we have no control over the Rights their governments infringe on. So the correct answer is: It depends.

Do armed invaders have the same "rights" as US citizens?

Really? That's a serious question?

 

[jbombelli]

So our rights apply to citizens in other countries?

Do armed invaders have the same "rights" as US citizens?

They're not "our" rights. They're held universally by all people. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights simply recognize them. THESE DOCUMENTS DO NOT GRANT THEM. We simply recognize and honor them here (although that's pretty questionable itself these days).

If other governments infringe upon those rights, then it falls upon those people to remedy the situation. That is something we cannot control. Although admittedly we often end up stomping around in other countries in order to help those people recover those rights.


Armed invaders are committing an act of war and violating the sovereignty of another nation, as well as the rights of the people therein. They do NOT have the right to do THAT.

Perhaps you can show us all where the Constitution or Bill of Rights limits the definition of the term "people" to mean only citizens of this country.