cubansammich
Not a Member
I agree but even that seemed to be too much for the agitators in the video.
Refusing to cooperate with Border Patrol
- Thread starter AMonger
- Start date
I agree but even that seemed to be too much for the agitators in the video.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Waive all of your rights that you want--all of YOURS.
Humble2drive
Expert Expediter
Being vigilant in keeping illegal aliens from entering and moving about in our country is a shared responsibility of all citizens. When I answer two simple questions, I do so in the spirit of cooperation with the intent to help those who are charged with a difficult job. The end goal is one that I agree with; therefore, I am in no way "WAVING" my rights. I am choosing to enact my rights to speak up and participate. It works both ways.
Many of us are committed to defending our constitutional rights; however, doing so in a manner that impedes the progress toward a common goal can be considered unproductive.
That said, the exercise in the video did uncover an obvious misunderstanding by many Border Patrol officers regarding the level of authority that they are empowered with. When any LEOs begin to exceed there legal levels of authority and use intimidation and threats to force a citizen to comply then it is time for a reality check. This was provided.
Why not use this vigilance where it belongs; at the border and not 50 miles in.
Humble2drive
Expert Expediter
Are you suggesting that the cut-off point for our vigilance ends at the border?
What do we do about all the ones that made it across? Just hope that nobody picked them up on the other side?
There is no "vigilance" on the border. There has not been for a very long time. It is a farce.
The Demoncrats want the borders, loose, to insure a steady flow of new illegals to push an agenda, hoping for new voters and dependents.
The Rumbunlicans want the borders, loose, to keep a steady flow of cheap labor to drive costs down.
We lose.
The ONLY way to gain control of what is rightfully ours is to get rid of the sitting government. THEY are the SOLE cause of this and all our problems.
The Demoncrats want the borders, loose, to insure a steady flow of new illegals to push an agenda, hoping for new voters and dependents.
The Rumbunlicans want the borders, loose, to keep a steady flow of cheap labor to drive costs down.
We lose.
The ONLY way to gain control of what is rightfully ours is to get rid of the sitting government. THEY are the SOLE cause of this and all our problems.
CBP uses fingerprint and retinal scan technology for cruise ship passengers returning to Galveston Tx. I'd love to see how many invaders they've stopped.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Collectivism rears its ugly head again.
"There's only one fundamental right: the right to do as you **** well please. With it comes the only fundamental responsibility: the responsibility to take the consequences." There are no other responsibilities to which you did not knowingly and willingly agree.
So in short, no, it isn't.
It is your right to waive your rights, and that is indeed what you are doing. Have at it, if it makes you feel better, and as long as it doesn't create any responsibility, real or implied, on the part of others to do the same.
I, myself, am against illegal Mexicans stealing our oxygen, so I have always answered those questions at the border, too, but don't pretend that I or others have the responsibility to do so when we plainly don't. The Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee the right to remain silent "unless we decide otherwise," or, "unless you're within 50 miles of the border." There is no "unless."
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Limiting it to "at the border" limits the violation of our rights. They make sure that you are entitled to those rights by being a citizen here, and at that point, you have the right to proceed unmolested.Are you suggesting that the cut-off point for our vigilance ends at the border?
What do we do about all the ones that made it across? Just hope that nobody picked them up on the other side?
Humble2drive
Expert Expediter
An "invader" is someone who enters by force in order to conquer and pillage. Is that the new term for illegal immigrants now?
An "invader" is someone who enters by force in order to conquer and pillage. Is that the new term for illegal immigrants now?
Yeah it's common around here. I am one
There is more than one definition for invade. Calling those who enter without legal authority is a correct usage of the word.
in·vade(
n-v
d
)v. in·vad·ed, in·vad·ing, in·vades
v.tr.1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: "The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval" (Barbara Goldsmith).
3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: "About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco" (Rachel Carson).
4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.
v.intr.
Or
[h=2]Definition of INVADE[/h]1
: to enter for conquest or plunder
2
: to encroach upon : infringe
3
a : to spread over or into as if invading : permeate <doubtsinvade his mind>
b : to affect injuriously and progressively <gangrene invadeshealthy tissue>
in·vade(
v.tr.1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: "The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval" (Barbara Goldsmith).
3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: "About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco" (Rachel Carson).
4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.
v.intr.
Or
[h=2]Definition of INVADE[/h]1
: to enter for conquest or plunder
2
: to encroach upon : infringe
3
a : to spread over or into as if invading : permeate <doubtsinvade his mind>
b : to affect injuriously and progressively <gangrene invadeshealthy tissue>
Last edited:
Humble2drive
Expert Expediter
Collectivism is completely unrelated to anything I suggested. An individual choosing to cooperate in an effort that happens to contribute to the good of a group is the opposite of putting a groups collective interest above the rights of that individual to make that choice.
You seem to have taken offense at the term "shared responsibility" *as if I am suggesting that all citizens are obligated. If I had anticipated your response I would have chosen a different term because you are correct, it is only a perceived responsibility for people who knowingly and willingly agree.
If you feel the need to state that both you and I are "waiving our rights" by answering some questions then have at it. I don't agree.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Have to agree with AMonger. If you talk to law enforcement, about anything, you are waving your rights. If you slip, and admit to something illegal, they have a duty to arrest you. While, if you keep your trap shut, and don't say anything, they have nada. Similar to my ordeal. The DEA wanted to see in my basement. Since they didn't have a warrant defining specifics of what the agents were to look for, they could arrest me for ANYTHING illegal in my house, since I gave them permission to do their job on my property.
You need to know your rights, and make the police do their job. Don't do it for them.
That is correct. The less you say the better off you are. FAR too many people are MORE than willing to give up rights to avoid confrontation.
Our vigilance? No. The Border Patrol's vigilance? Yes. The Border Patrol has been forced to extend the scope of their vigilance solely due to their own incompetence.
Don't let them across in the first place. 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? 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.What do we do about all the ones that made it across? Just hope that nobody picked them up on the other side?
I can't speak for Scott, but I suggest that our vigilance begins at the border and should be increased at the border.
How about deportation? Jeez there are over 12 million illegal aliens in this country, I rather doubt that the majority of them are hanging out within 10 miles of the border. Why not go a bit further in country and bust down doors. Um, excuse me SenatorWhat do we do about all the ones that made it across? Just hope that nobody picked them up on the other side?
, your maid, nanny, gardener and concubine are illegal aliens and must be deported. Um, ah no, I meant reported. Well I guess reported is kinda strong language. Uh, what I'm saying is, ah, noted. Yeah, noted. I have to note that these people are illegal, but this is just a mental note. Nothing in writing. Um, I think its Wednesday, but I'm a bit forgetful, it could be Friday.Yeah what Turtle said while I was typing!
Last edited:
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
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.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
When some wild-eyed, eight-foot-tall maniac grabs your neck, taps the back of your favorite head up against the barroom wall, looks you crooked in the eye and asks you if ya paid your dues, you just stare that big sucker right back in the eye, and you remember what ol' Jack Burton always says at a time like that: "Have ya paid your dues, Jack?" "Yessir, the check is in the mail."Jack Burton
We cannot possibly know the accuracy of this statement.