Checkpoint Nation: "the southwest stop and frisk"

[Winehole23]

Zero tolerance policy is a recipe for the abuse of US citizens at the hands of border enforcement officers:


After more than four hours, the officers called off the search. One of them asked Sandoval to sign some government forms. “She wanted me to give my consent,” Sandoval explained. “She said that if I signed the papers, they would take care of the hospital bill. They would be ‘good guys’ and pay, because it would be expensive.” Sandoval pushed the papers away.https://www.texasobserver.org/checkpoint-nation/

[Winehole23]

Even though CBP has a policy requiring that records be kept of all body cavity searches, the agency said it had nothing to send me when I filed a FOIA request for drug searches that did not result in an arrest, detention or deportation.

[Winehole23]

checkpoints mostly catch US citizens with small amounts of drugs:


CBP’s own data suggests that its interior checkpoints do little to catch what it calls “unauthorized entrants” and instead ensnare U.S. citizens on minor drug charges. (Forty percent of its seizures were 1 ounce or less of marijuana taken from citizens.) From 2013 to 2016, interior checkpoints accounted for only 2 percent of CBP apprehensions of undocumented immigrants. In May, a circuit court judge in New Hampshire threw out charges against 16 people who were arrested for possessing small quantities of drugs at a checkpoint manned by local police and Border Patrol agents, about 90 miles south of the Canadian border. “While the stated purpose of the checkpoints in this matter was screening for immigration violations,” the judge wrote, “the primary purpose of the action was detection and seizure of drugs,” which he ruled unconstitutional.

[Winehole23]

culture of impunity:


CBP operates with less oversight than your local police department despite having one of the largest federal budgets in Washington. The agency doesn’t reveal the names of agents or details of its internal proceedings in fatality or misconduct investigations. Until four years ago, CBP even kept its use-of-force policies secret; they were made public only after a congressional inquiry into a wrongful death resulted in an independent review. CBP hasn’t widely adopted dashboard or body cameras, although it began a six-month pilot project in May. In 2015, the Homeland Security Advisory Council, a panel of law enforcement experts formed by DHS, warned that CBP had no effective process to root out corruption and that its internal affairs office was woefully understaffed. “The true levels of corruption within CBP are not known,” the council warned. “Pockets of corruption could fester within CBP, potentially for years.”

[Winehole23]

even hassled Beto O'Rourke


O’Rourke’s opposition to CBP’s sweeping powers stems in part from his own encounter with border agents. In 2009, he and his 2-year-old son were detained at a checkpoint more than 70 miles from the border while agents pulled his truck apart. “They don’t have to explain why they’re holding you,” he said, “and you’re not given the right to an attorney.” O’Rourke told me that he and his son were held in a cell for close to 30 minutes before they were allowed to leave. “It was a strange feeling to be held against my will and to have my car searched,” he said. “I hadn’t committed any crime. I hadn’t even crossed the border.”

[Winehole23]

coming soon to a Supreme Court near you:


Most recently, a federal judge in Massachusetts rejected the Trump administration’s bid to dismiss a lawsuit filed last year by 11 people who had their laptops and cell phones seized by officers at airports and border crossings around the country. That case will most likely be the next challenge to CBP’s authority to reach the Supreme Court.

[Winehole23]

CBP claims jurisdiction over the entire state of Michigan:


CBP considers the Great Lakes a maritime border, which means that all of Michigan lies within the 100-mile border zone, and anyone can be subjected to a warrantless search at any time.

[baseline bum]

Most free country in the world my ass

[SnakeBoy]

even hassled Beto O'Rourke

fuckin Obama

[baseline bum]

It feels like being in a third world country every time I have to pass through these checkpoints in West Texas. I always want to tell these assholes to fuck off since checkpoints should be unconstitutional, but I'm the right color so when I just don't say shit and show my driver's license that has been it.

[Nathan89]

Agreed this a ridiculous practice to catch illegals. Simply punish employers. Don't give them benefits. Don't reward them with bullshit anchor babies. It's quite easy to solve the problem without these invasive measures.

[Winehole23]

fuckin Obamaabsolutely true. Obama was the one who really ramped it up.

[Winehole23]

It's quite easy to solve the problem without these invasive measures.what is the problem, in your opinion?

[spurraider21]

what is the problem, in your opinion?
libruls

[Winehole23]

duh, obviously

[Nathan89]

what is the problem, in your opinion?

The problem I was discussing in my comment is people illegally entering the country.

[Winehole23]

the obvious solution to that would be some less onerous and costly way of processing them at the border.

the overwhelming majority of migrants keep their court dates, why not let more of them in and establish a paper trail? give them temporary visas, and asylum review hearings.

it would be a lot less expensive than detaining them all.

[Winehole23]

it would also be a lot less cruel for migrants.

cruelty to the stranger is one of the main selling points of the system we have now.

[ElNono]

Don't reward them with bullshit anchor babies. It's quite easy to solve the problem without these invasive measures.

Actually, the anchor baby situation is quite a complicated problem to solve. Probably the most complicated.

[Nathan89]

Actually, the anchor baby situation is quite a complicated problem to solve. Probably the most complicated.

Depends how ruthless you want to be tbh.

European countries don't have birth right citizenship. So moving to that at least would be great first step.

[ElNono]

Depends how ruthless you want to be tbh.

European countries don't have birth right citizenship. So moving to that at least would be great first step.

Europe doesn't have the US Constitution. What would need to change is the 14th Amendment, thus requiring a Constitutional amendment. The bar is very high for that.

[Spurtacular]

Zero tolerance policy is a recipe for the abuse of US citizens at the hands of border enforcement officers:

https://www.texasobserver.org/checkpoint-nation/

Blame the supreme court judges who ruled this kind of stuff is okay.

Standard liberal response: :cry "Judges don't legislate from the bench" :cry

[ElNono]

This is clearly an oversight problem, more than a policy problem. Not to mention the CBP is probably one of the biggest targets of organized crime, thus really susceptible to corruption. That's what makes it even more dangerous.

[Nathan89]

Europe doesn't have the US Constitution. What would need to change is the 14th Amendment, thus requiring a Constitutional amendment. The bar is very high for that.

Well Dems want to copy everything about Europe so I'm not sure who would be in disagreement.

[FrostKing]

Most free country in the world my ass
In my personal experience - Germany has more daily freedoms. You can literally walk the street while sipping on a beer.

But I don't think you will find a nation with more freedom of speech than USA

[ElNono]

Well Dems want to copy everything about Europe so I'm not sure who would be in disagreement.

One thing is what certain people might want, and what's possible at any given political time. I don't think we're at a political moment in the US where a change to the Constitution is feasible.

What Dems or Republicans want is relatively irrelevant if it's not realistically achievable.

[Chris]

The checkpoints will continue until morale improves.

[boutons_deux]

it would also be a lot less cruel for migrants.

cruelty to the stranger is one of the main selling points of the system we have now.

to the stranger, only?

Capitalism that Americans have been brainwashed, by Capitalists, into venerating unquestionably is fundamentally cruel system.

[Winehole23]

we were talking about border enforcement, not capitalism writ large

[Winehole23]

Blame the supreme court judges who ruled this kind of stuff is okay.what ruling(s) are you referring to?

[Winehole23]

The checkpoints will continue until morale improves.there's the sadism I was talking about

[Winehole23]

btw, Spurtacular, it's not like prior rulings have made CBP and ICE invulnerable to legal challenge -- endemic corruption and shoddy practices pretty much ensure the cases will keep coming.

[boutons_deux]

"CBP and ICE invulnerable to legal challenge"

SCOTUS has ruled LE goons are, almost totally, while performing their duties.

human beings who win claims will get paid off in $Ms and the CPB/ICE Schutzstaffel brutality, cruelty, inhumanity will continue unabated.

[RandomGuy]

It feels like being in a third world country every time I have to pass through these checkpoints in West Texas. I always want to tell these assholes to fuck off since checkpoints should be unconstitutional, but I'm the right color so when I just don't say shit and show my driver's license that has been it.

Best! "No Thanks" US Checkpoints VS Law knowing citizens!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KXmciBvCQw

[RandomGuy]

fuckin Obama

Eyup. Never should have allowed this.

[boutons_deux]

Eyup. Never should have allowed this.

yep, obviously the Repugs went along, nary a peep, with Obama's immigrant brutality, as we can see, they have increased it.

[Spurtacular]

what ruling(s) are you referring to?

I don't memorize cases; but I do know the SC has ruled that checkpoints are Constitutional. Obviously, they just threw out the 4th amendment on that one.

[ElNono]

I don't memorize cases; but I do know the SC has ruled that checkpoints are Constitutional. Obviously, they just threw out the 4th amendment on that one.

Natsec exception to control the borders. Goes to immigration. I suppose we can't have it both ways.

[Spurtacular]

Natsec exception to control the borders. Goes to immigration. I suppose we can't have it both ways.

Can have it both ways; Constitution was a document for the citizens by the citizens. Liberties were not extended to people without the buy in.

[ElNono]

Can have it both ways; Constitution was a document for the citizens by the citizens. Liberties were not extended to people without the buy in.

The problem is you have bad citizens doing bad things that hurt other citizens. Somebody (a citizen) drives through with a bomb, and there's no way to search them, you have a serious problem.

It's really no different than the 1st amendment exception on yelling bomb on a crowded area.

Constitutional rights are not absolute, they can be regulated. Obviously, the bar has to be really high and the demonstrable need important. Natsec has largely always cleared that bar.

[Spurtacular]

The problem is you have bad citizens doing bad things that hurt other citizens. Somebody (a citizen) drives through with a bomb, and there's no way to search them, you have a serious problem.

It's really no different than the 1st amendment exception on yelling bomb on a crowded area.

Constitutional rights are not absolute, they can be regulated. Obviously, the bar has to be really high and the demonstrable need important. Natsec has largely always cleared that bar.

That's a silly example. If feds have reason to suspect a bomb, probable cause allows for searches. Non probable cause searches under the pretense of security is a violation of liberty. I would say no searches without probable cause is pretty absolute. Some assholes decided they could rule against the Constitution.

[ElNono]

That's a silly example. If feds have reason to suspect a bomb, probable cause allows for searches. Non probable cause searches under the pretense of security is a violation of liberty. I would say no searches without probable cause is pretty absolute. Some assholes decided they could rule against the Constitution.

The problem is that the government can't go all around the world looking for those assholes to see if they're building a bomb. So there's no way to have probable cause over somebody you know very little or nothing about coming back in.

So here you have two competing interests: one from the person being secure in their persons vs the government interest in providing security to it's citizens. The burden of a non-intrusive search is minimal compared to the benefits of not having mass murder.

That said, don't get me wrong, I do think it's ok to check at the borders, but some of these places are way away from there, and the searches have gone from non-intrusive to very intrusive. When corruption is also rampant, it's a recipe for disaster.

But, as I said, this is an oversight problem, not a legality problem. There should be better oversight and the citizens should have a viable avenue to register and contest abusive behavior. ie: it's ridiculous that cameras are prohibited in these areas. When transparency is lacking, corruption festers.

[Spurtacular]

The problem is that the government can't go all around the world looking for those assholes to see if they're building a bomb. So there's no way to have probable cause over somebody you know very little or nothing about coming back in.

So here you have two competing interests: one from the person being secure in their persons vs the government interest in providing security to it's citizens. The burden of a non-intrusive search is minimal compared to the benefits of not having mass murder.

That said, don't get me wrong, I do think it's ok to check at the borders, but some of these places are way away from there, and the searches have gone from non-intrusive to very intrusive. When corruption is also rampant, it's a recipe for disaster.

But, as I said, this is an oversight problem, not a legality problem. There should be better oversight and the citizens should have a viable avenue to register and contest abusive behavior. ie: it's ridiculous that cameras are prohibited in these areas. When transparency is lacking, corruption festers.

Well, the feds better raid your garage; you could be building a bomb. Here you are talking about it and all. And I'd say when liberty is lacking, corruption festers. Founding Fathers were smart dudes. Don't get me wrong; many were in favor of a fair amount of transparency too; but liberty was always the trump card.

[Winehole23]

I don't memorize casesapparently you prefer to wave at them from afar.

are you afraid your impartiality will be compromised by actually knowing what you are talking about?

[Spurtacular]

apparently you prefer to wave at them from afar.

are you afraid your impartiality will be compromised by actually knowing what you are talking about?

:lmao I told you the basic reality. Don't get throw a tizzy that I won't spoonfeed you the rest, little fella.

[Winehole23]

demands clarification, offers none.

[DMC]

Seems like just an inconvenience to me. I don't see a problem with it. I'll guess when you fly so much you're accustomed to being searched all the time and spending an hour or two in customs now and again.

[ElNono]

Well, the feds better raid your garage; you could be building a bomb. Here you are talking about it and all. And I'd say when liberty is lacking, corruption festers. Founding Fathers were smart dudes. Don't get me wrong; many were in favor of a fair amount of transparency too; but liberty was always the trump card.

The exception is limited in scope to certain amount of miles from the border. Otherwise, it wouldn't be an exception. Unfortunately, one right is not more important than another, this always been like that. Part of the SCOTUS job is to determine how to balance when competing interests are at play.

[ElNono]

The Founding Fathers lived in a different world, that had different needs. While it's true that liberty and freedom is an universal concept, they didn't really tackle freedom for slaves for example (neither did the Bible, which also was written when the world looked different than it does now).

I am also a guy that prefers freedom over searches and a nanny government, even if that has a real, measurable cost in potential human lives. Some people would argue that's the price to pay for freedom. So I am actually sympathetic to your point.

But I also understand where the status quo comes from, how we got there, and how the vast majority of people are knocking at the govnerment's door when some tragic event happens.

[ElNono]

And BTW, you could dismiss the explosive example as unlikely, but a person moving in a bunch of kilos of cocaine into a neighborhood can also have drastic consequences for a lot of citizens. So you don't even need an extreme case to make that point.

[boutons_deux]

"Part of the SCOTUS job is to determine how to balance when competing interests are at play."

the oligarchy's 5-4 SCOTUS whores will ALWAYS, for ensuing DECADES, enable/protect the its own militarized police / surveillance state while screwing citizens

Any concern about stopping mass deaths committed by ASYLUM seekers is BS, since the Repug so-called govt has already enabled diseases and deaths of 10Ks of Americans ruling to increase pollution of air, land, water, and by denying healthcare to Ms of Americans.

The unquestionably biggest threat to American lives is internal, "America is its own worst enemy", from the oligarchy/Repug White Male Supremacists, not external from various shades of non-white asylum seekers, refugees, and by not stopping, eg Sackler family, from slaughtering 100Ks of Americans with opioids.

[ElNono]

You sound upset, boutons, tell us how you really feel...

[Winehole23]

Seems like just an inconvenience to me. I don't see a problem with it. I'll guess when you fly so much you're accustomed to being searched all the time and spending an hour or two in customs now and again.you didn't get a bill for a non-consensual cavity search, so everyone else should zip it.

[DMC]

you didn't get a bill for a non-consensual cavity search, so everyone else should zip it.

Doesn't bother me. I cannot manufacture concern just because it's trending.

[DMC]

"Part of the SCOTUS job is to determine how to balance when competing interests are at play."

the oligarchy's 5-4 SCOTUS whores will ALWAYS, for ensuing DECADES, enable/protect the its own militarized police / surveillance state while screwing citizens

Any concern about stopping mass deaths committed by ASYLUM seekers is BS, since the Repug so-called govt has already enabled diseases and deaths of 10Ks of Americans ruling to increase pollution of air, land, water, and by denying healthcare to Ms of Americans.

The unquestionably biggest threat to American lives is internal, "America is its own worst enemy", from the oligarchy/Repug White Male Supremacists, not external from various shades of non-white asylum seekers, refugees, and by not stopping, eg Sackler family, from slaughtering 100Ks of Americans with opioids.







THEY ARE ALL FUCKING CORPORATE WHORES!!!! GODDAMN REPUG SLIME PIECES OF SHIT!!!11

[Winehole23]

Doesn't bother me. I cannot manufacture concern just because it's trending.

if your comment is just that you don't care, no need to say it twice.

[DMC]

if your comment is just that you don't care, no need to say it twice.

You launched some sort of righteous indignation at me so...

[Winehole23]

I get it, you don't care if BP abuses US citizens because you're not inconvenienced.

[Winehole23]

Great day for for US travelers.

Fuck ICE, tbh.




The district court order puts an end to CBP and ICE’s asserted authority to search and seize travelers’ devices for purposes far afield from the enforcement of immigration and customs laws. Border officers must now demonstrate individualized suspicion of contraband before they can search a traveler’s device.https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-rules-suspicionless-searches-travelers-phones-and-laptops