Refusing to cooperate with Border Patrol

[Tennesseahawk]

We cannot possibly know the accuracy of this statement.

I couldn't blame him.

 

[Humble2drive]

Don't let them across in the first place.

Now that's stating the obvious.

There are an estimated 12-20 million illegal aliens here in the United States. There are approximately 3,000 additional illegals added to the US population each and every day. How can even the most inept Border Patrol organization, on their worst day, allow that many illegals to come across undetected?

The topic of this thread was specific to Mexican illegal immigrants entering the U.S.from the southern border. You provided no reference to your numbers but it seems that you are using the total number of estimated illegal aliens in the U.S.. That includes those from other countries who have entered through the northern border, air and sea as well as those that entered with legal visas and remained.
Presenting those total numbers into a discussion that was specifically focused on one border bolsters your point regarding incompetence but may create a false picture of the level of incompetence on our southern border which may or may not contribute to the need for expanded efforts within our borders.
Incompetence is incompetence.

If they can't be more vigilant and competent at the border than that, then no amount of interior vigilance 20 or 50 miles inside the border will rectify that incompetence, particularly when that interior vigilance must, by necessity, violate the rights of US citizens.

Even the most vigilant and competent Border Patrol on our southern border could never stop 100 percent of illegals from crossing and some extent of interior vigilance can always be justified. Not to "rectify" those missed at the border but to at least move closer toward that impossible 100 percent.
Do you really believe that it is a necessity to violate citizens rights to do so? Limiting stops to strict probable cause would be within the scope of law as it is with any LEO anywhere in the U.S..
The current practice of stopping anyone (regardless of cause) to answer a couple of questions is not done out of necessity and seems ineffective anyway.

BTW - As it most often goes with all things government, the blame for the incompetence is better placed on the politicians in charge rather than the actual agency.
The political solution has been to increase the number of officers. The numbers have increased during the Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations.
To accomplish those political promises they simply lowered the standards,test scores and training time. The result is a large number of incompetent officers.

 

[Humble2drive]

There's no other possibility. If you have a right to something or to not do it, and you choose to, you have waived that right, simple as that. That goes for letting someone go ahead of you when you have the right-of-way, or answering questions put to you by the police when you don't have to, etc.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. You are waiving your right in that specific situation but retaining the right to make a new decision involving a new situation on a case by case basis when asked.
Even you, an often over zealous defender of our constitutional rights, waives them temporarily at Border checks because you are "against illegal Mexicans stealing our oxygen".
I understand now. Thank you for your patience.

 

[Turtle]

The topic of this thread was specific to Mexican illegal immigrants entering the U.S.from the southern border.

Actually it's not. The topic is that of refusing to cooperate with the Border Patrol with regard to freedom of movement within the United States, as well as the other First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. "Mexican" and "southern border" are assumptions, although certainly not unreasonable or unwarranted assumptions, but they are assumptions nonetheless. The word "Mexican" in any variation wasn't mentioned until Post #48 in the thread, which could hardly be considered a defining post of the thread, and the phrase "southern border" wasn't mentioned until Post #62, by you. Illegals from Mexico do make up a little more than half the illegals here, but the rest are from elsewhere, mostly from Central American countries, India, China, Korea and the Philippines.

While these "border" checkpoints 25-75 miles interior of the border are most numerously located along the southern border (32 permanent checkpoints and 39 "tactical" checkpoints that relocate every 14 days to a different spot), the same types of non-permanent "tactical" interior border checkpoints exist in several locations along the northern border, most being just under 100 miles inside the border, in Maine, Vermont, New York, Michigan, North Dakota, Montana and Washington. The same Constitution and governing judicial rulings apply to all of these checkpoints, regardless of geography.

You provided no reference to your numbers but it seems that you are using the total number of estimated illegal aliens in the U.S.. That includes those from other countries who have entered through the northern border, air and sea as well as those that entered with legal visas and remained.

The references are from the Department of Homeland Security,the US Census Bureau, and the Government Accounting Office (GAO), but those estimates on the low end (12 million) are for those who have entered the country illegally, and do not, in fact, include those who entered legally with visas and have remained past the expiration date, while the higher end of the estimates (20 million) include all illegals residing in the country regardless of their legal status upon entry.

Presenting those total numbers into a discussion that was specifically focused on one border bolsters your point regarding incompetence but may create a false picture of the level of incompetence on our southern border which may or may not contribute to the need for expanded efforts within our borders.
Incompetence is incompetence.

I suppose it could paint a false picture of incompetence on the southern border, but only if one assumes that illegal immigration is all about Mexicans at the southern border, and that these checkpoints only exist at the southern border, and that the same Constitutional freedoms do not exist at the northern border or at other transportation hubs involving trains, buses and air and sea ports. As Lawrence noted in Post #11, "Freedom of movement within the United States, is a serious issue of liberty," whether it's just a little bit north of the southern border or anywhere else within the interior of the country.

Even the most vigilant and competent Border Patrol on our southern border could never stop 100 percent of illegals from crossing and some extent of interior vigilance can always be justified. Not to "rectify" those missed at the border but to at least move closer toward that impossible 100 percent.

I disagree in principle. Perhaps not 100 percent, but a vigilant and competent Border Patrol can do far better than they are doing now. The goal of the DHS isn't even 100 percent. The GAO rightly and correctly ripped the DHS a new one by questioning why the stated goal of DHS “is to detect and apprehend 30% of major illegal activity at the border," with "major illegal activity" being defined as illegal immigration, illegal smuggling, and terrorist activities." The GAO pointedly asked why 70% of illegal activity is conceded at the actual border.

Think about that for a second. The Department of Homeland Security, those who are charged with protecting the Homeland has, as their goal, to detect and apprehend a mere 30 percent of the major illegal activity at the border. They think 3 out of 10 is a success. Do they think they are playing baseball?!?

Do you really believe that it is a necessity to violate citizens rights to do so? Limiting stops to strict probable cause would be within the scope of law as it is with any LEO anywhere in the U.S.

Yes, it is a violation of citizens' rights to stop them, because freedom of movement absent probable cause is a guaranteed right. Of course, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Border Patrol agents may stop a vehicle at fixed checkpoints for brief questioning of its occupants even if there is no reason to believe that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens, and has given agents wide discretion to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for additional brief questioning. The two important points here are "brief questioning" and the fact that the Court has never ruled that anyone be compelled to answer any questions regardless of brevity. Any "brief questioning" must be non-intrusive and reasonable so as to not infringe on privacy. Asking if you are a US citizen and whether or not there are other people traveling with you are both non-intrusive and reasonable, and it's why most people will voluntarily answer such questions. However, if any questions become invasive and prying, such as, where you are going or where you are coming from, or why you are traveling, all bets are off. Requiring answers to those types of questions is a straight-up violation of rights, yet those questions are often asked, anyway.

The current practice of stopping anyone (regardless of cause) to answer a couple of questions is not done out of necessity and seems ineffective anyway.

According to the GAO it's incredibly ineffective. The GAO busted the DHS for incorrectly reporting inflated numbers of interdictions both at the border and at interior checkpoints, but while the inflated numbers were embarrassing, the actual numbers are pathetic. The GAO report slammed the Border Patrol for its ineffective non-border checkpoints vs. actual border crossings.

“There were 705,000 interdictions at actual border crossings in 2008; however, there were only 17,000 interdictions at internal non-border checkpoints. This 17,000 figure represents 2.4% of interdictions, but it took 4% of agents to accomplish this goal.”

The GAO analysis further states regarding the Tucson sector that, “Actual border interdictions numbered 320,000, but internal non-border checkpoint interdictions numbered 1,800. This means the number of interdictions per agent at the actual border was 116, but the number of interdicitons per agent at internal non-border checkpoints was only 8."

BTW - As it most often goes with all things government, the blame for the incompetence is better placed on the politicians in charge rather than the actual agency.

Possibly, but the agency's goal is 30% and they can't even hit that target with the threefold increase in the number of agents since 2007. In 2008, the height of detection and interdiction at the border and at the interior checkpoints, they had 705,000 at the border and 17,000 at interior checkpoints. If that's 30 percent, even at 50 percent, the math suddenly comes in alignment with the higher end estimates of illegals getting through, and the only way I can describe it is gross incompetence.

They've got thousands of agents at interior checkpoints and on roving patrols in their pretty little SUVs. If they take those agents and put them on the border to keep illegals out in the first place, there would be no need for interior checkpoints and roving patrols. It's like The Fence along the southern border. People will climb the fence, so you put guards there to prevent that. Well, if you have guards there, you don't need the fence.

 

[AMonger]

Yes, that makes perfect sense. You are waiving your right in that specific situation but retaining the right to make a new decision involving a new situation on a case by case basis when asked.
Even you, an often over zealous defender of our constitutional rights,

No such thing. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

waives them temporarily at Border checks because you are "against illegal Mexicans stealing our oxygen".

But the point remains: waive rights for thee but not for me. I can waive only my own rights; and you, yours. If I choose not to waive them next week, or the guys in the video choose never to waive them, it's admirable to defend them in the face of tyranny, not "a-hole-ish."

And the period at the end of your last sentence goes inside the quotation mark.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

No such thing. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
But the point remains: waive rights for thee but not for me. I can waive only my own rights; and you, yours. If I choose not to waive them next week, or the guys in the video choose never to waive them, it's admirable to defend them in the face of tyranny, not "a-hole-ish."

While I agree with your quote on extremism, people do need to use caution when excercising this freedom. You want people to embrace what you're doing, not conclude that your actions are "a-holery." The reason a lot of libertarian, classical liberals, constitutionalists, and the like, get trashed, is because we are loud and in your face. Some people think we need to be, because we are vastly outnumbered. We will stay outnumbered until we can convince a larger audience. And you do that by being more human (humane) in your approach.

And the period at the end of your last sentence goes inside the quotation mark.

I didn't know that. Thanks! I even used it in my last paragraph.

 

[layoutshooter]

We are getting "loud and in your face" because are rights ARE being threatened on a daily basis. Not only in the halls of congress but at State levels and on the streets. People are being detained, sometimes ticketed and even arrested for the crime of carrying a gun, which IS an ABSOLUTE right. We are being stopped on the streets, for "ID" checks. I once had a cop ask me for my SS number. How scary and evil is that? Why not just have our "ID" number tattooed on our fore heads? It may very well be that the time HAS come to get in their faces, if only to attempt to put off what will have to come next IF we want to retain our rights and freedoms.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

We are getting "loud and in your face" because are rights ARE being threatened on a daily basis. Not only in the halls of congress but at State levels and on the streets. People are being detained, sometimes ticketed and even arrested for the crime of carrying a gun, which IS an ABSOLUTE right. We are being stopped on the streets, for "ID" checks. I once had a cop ask me for my SS number. How scary and evil is that? Why not just have our "ID" number tattooed on our fore heads? It may very well be that the time HAS come to get in their faces, if only to attempt to put off what will have to come next IF we want to retain our rights and freedoms.

I get all that. I'm talking about getting people to listen to us. How many people will actually listen to a libertarian? Ron Paul was their best at getting people to listen. He was frank, but not in your face; calm, and not condescending. If you look at the Freemen videos on youtube, you'll see what I mean. The young ones come across as people who just want to slap authority in the face... the guy in this video included. In order to reach a larger audience, it has to be defiance with dignity, IMO.

 

[xiggi]

And the period at the end of your last sentence goes inside the quotation mark.

I waive my right to use proper grammer and punctuation.

Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123

 

[layoutshooter]

I get all that. I'm talking about getting people to listen to us. How many people will actually listen to a libertarian? Ron Paul was their best at getting people to listen. He was frank, but not in your face; calm, and not condescending. If you look at the Freemen videos on youtube, you'll see what I mean. The young ones come across as people who just want to slap authority in the face... the guy in this video included. In order to reach a larger audience, it has to be defiance with dignity, IMO.

The "Sheeple" are not going to listen, to Ron Paul, or anyone else for that matter. There is no reaching the "larger audience". You may try if you wish, but it will do no good. Far too many are too dependent, too "educated" to believe that the government is their "friend" and would never do anything to hurt them. As long as they have their freebies, beer (or other drug of choice) and TV, they are happy. The idea that they have "RIGHTS" that are not controlled for them or granted to them by the government is a foreign idea. It is going to take "in your face", or a fight, to regain our freedoms. We allowed it to go on too long and it has gone too far.

 

[AMonger]

I waive my right to use proper grammer and punctuation.

Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123

It's grammar. Clever, though.

 

[layoutshooter]

Grammar is nothing more than man made rules about the use of language. It is subject to change without notice.

RIGHTS are endowed upon us by our Creator and therefor are NOT subject to change by either man nor government.

RIGHTS are IMPORTANT, grammar is a convenience.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Grammar is nothing more than man made rules about the use of language. It is subject to change without notice.

RIGHTS are endowed upon us by our Creator and therefor are NOT subject to change by either man nor government.

RIGHTS are IMPORTANT, grammar is a convenience.

Grammar is one of those standards that keep us a 1st world nation. When you lower your standards, by supporting crappy education, allowing 3rd world invaders in, and not holding people accountable, pretty soon, we'll be another 3rd world country. Grammar, logic, manners, cleanliness, politeness, are all indicators of a civilized society. Ours are on the decline.

For you to advocate for personal responsibility, but not think grammar is important... you might as well just be friends with your children.

You know something... I always used to think Bush's verbal faux pas were cute... more human. No, they were below average for an American elected to be our leader. They told us grammar isn't important. They told us you could have ignorance in the highest house in the land... someone who didn't care enough to make himself better... to carry his speech properly. We elected a public buffoon... and now we've elected another.

 

[layoutshooter]

Grammar is one of those standards that keep us a 1st world nation. When you lower your standards, by supporting crappy education, allowing 3rd world invaders in, and not holding people accountable, pretty soon, we'll be another 3rd world country. Grammar, logic, manners, cleanliness, politeness, are all indicators of a civilized society. Ours are on the decline.

For you to advocate for personal responsibility, but not think grammar is important... you might as well just be friends with your children.

I was just poking fun at the need to pick on other's mistakes and/or misspellings.

Grammar, however, DOES change with time, it has always done so. Word usage changes. Words go into, and out of, fashion, or "style" so to speak.

Even usage and grammar within the same 'language' is often different. We, and the English, both speak "English", BUT, the language spoken there is very much different than the language spoken here.

Sometimes it just are how it are.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

I was just poking fun at the need to pick on other's mistakes and/or misspellings.

Grammar, however, DOES change with time, it has always done so. Word usage changes. Words go into, and out of, fashion, or "style" so to speak.

Even usage and grammar within the same 'language' is often different. We, and the English, both speak "English", BUT, the language spoken there is very much different than the language spoken here.

Sometimes it just are how it are.

I know I use semi-colons and commas incorrectly, sometimes. I'm not saying I'm perfect. But I like seeing that someone else gives a crap to attempt to keep standards higher than where they are. I know that grammar, words, rules change. I'm not at odds with that, as long as the standards don't fall. When I see some of the garbage that passes for an A in a college English course; or what people get for a resume, it makes my toes curl.

I was just thinking of what it would end up like, if everyone was allowed to speak whatever they liked, and we were just supposed to decipher it. We'd have a mix of Mexican, ebonics, English, and urban dictionary trash, as a language. We have a language like that in the world... it's Tagolog. Jamaican is another one. Creole is another. Chinese is made up of over 200 dialects. Do we need that here, just because we become too lazy to work on our grammar? Watch Blade Runner. The cityspeak is exactly what I'm talking about.

To me, it's no different than a cashier having to use a calculator, when the register goes down, to figure out change for a dollar. Technology might raise our standard of living, but it's lowering our standards of civilization.

 

[layoutshooter]

Language is alive. It ebbs and flows, it changes. It joins with others. It always has.

A young man goes to war, deep in the jungles of Vietnam. He comes back and his speech has changed. New words and "sayings" have become his norm. He is faced with "BOOCOO" problems or a "world of hurt".

Yes, we will have English laced with Spanish, French, etc etc etc. Some of the results will be good, some not. Some languages live, some have died, even if the people's that spoke them survive.

Standards ARE important, BUT, picking on the pickers is too!

 

[Humble2drive]

If I choose not to waive them next week, or the guys in the video choose never to waive them, it's admirable to defend them in the face of tyranny, not "a-hole-ish."

You appear to be willing to make the choice "not to waive them" next time.
That begs the question. Will you make that admirable decision?
The reason I ask is because you stated in the O.P. that: "This guy has the biggest cajones ever . . ."
How do yours measure up?

 

[Tennesseahawk]

You appear to be willing to make the choice "not to waive them" next time.
That begs the question. Will you make that admirable decision?
The reason I ask is because you stated in the O.P. that: "This guy has the biggest cajones ever . . ."
How do yours measure up?

I can tell you how I felt, after I walked the walk. It felt good to have the power, when dealing with a LEO. To know that they can't do anything unless you give them cause or permission, I felt like a human being talking to other human beings. I felt on level with them. My confidence will be higher next time.

 

[jaminjim]

Grammar is one of those standards that keep us a 1st world nation. When you lower your standards, by supporting crappy education, allowing 3rd world invaders in, and not holding people accountable, pretty soon, we'll be another 3rd world country. Grammar, logic, manners, cleanliness, politeness, are all indicators of a civilized society. Ours are on the decline.

For you to advocate for personal responsibility, but not think grammar is important... you might as well just be friends with your children.

You know something... I always used to think Bush's verbal faux pas were cute... more human. No, they were below average for an American elected to be our leader. They told us grammar isn't important. They told us you could have ignorance in the highest house in the land... someone who didn't care enough to make himself better... to carry his speech properly. We elected a public buffoon... and now we've elected another.

Been in a truck stop lately?

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Been in a truck stop lately?

Lately? As long as I've been driving, truckers have been on the trashier side of humanity.

Have you been to Detroit lately?

I'm guilty of breaking a few of those from time to time. Belching at the dining room table doesn't help. Now, our whole family does it. LOL But for the most part, I instruct my kids how to behave and speak. They are responding, tho it takes some work.