Permanent internal checkpoints, every *@#! day.

[mswas]

@EJsGirl

What I mean is- if the reason for the stop is to check for legal residency, then ASK ABOUT THAT. Of course, if you just want an excuse to hassle people, then ask about citizenship so that you can then dig deeper with visitors, guest workers, students and the holders of green cards… :rolleyes:

What is stopping every person on that road from saying “Yep- US citizen?” The fear that only white people can answer that way and go unchallenged?

You’re just indulging in speculation. Many of the border patrol guards in Texas are not white.

[Moirai]

Plenty of CA ones aren’t white either- so what?

[Yossarian]

@mswas

You’re just indulging in speculation. Many of the border patrol guards in Texas are not white.

1. Indeed, my experience is that along the Tex-Mex border (however you define it), odds are very good that the Border Patrol agent questioning you is hispanic.

2. Mexican hispanics are “white”.

[Gfactor]

@bubba_jr

Me: Am I free to go sir? (that’s my business, this is a free country right?)
GMSG: You can’t leave until you answer my question! (I can’t be detained for refusal to answer a question, I need a cite for this)

This seems to me to be the crux of your argument. I’d expect you to *have *a cite for it. Still, I’ll help you out:

We have consistently held that a refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure.

Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991)

The case **Bricker **cited, *Martinez-Fuerte * suggests that you can be *detained *for brief questioning:

While the need to make routine checkpoint stops is great, the consequent intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests is quite limited. The stop does intrude to a limited extent on motorists’ right to “free passage without [428 U.S. 543, 558] interruption,” Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 154 (1925), and arguably on their right to personal security. But it involves only a brief detention of travelers during which

  "`[a]ll that is required of the vehicle's occupants is a response to a brief question or two and possibly the production of a document evidencing a right to be in the United States.'" United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra, at 880.

Neither the vehicle nor its occupants are searched, and visual inspection of the vehicle is limited to what can be seen without a search. This objective intrusion - the stop itself, the questioning, and the visual inspection - also existed in roving-patrol stops. But we view checkpoint stops in a different light because the subjective intrusion - the generating of concern or even fright on the part of lawful travelers - is appreciably less in the case of a checkpoint stop. In Ortiz, we noted:

  "[T]he circumstances surrounding a checkpoint stop and search are far less intrusive than those attending a roving-patrol stop. Roving patrols often operate at night on seldom-traveled roads, and their approach may frighten motorists. At traffic checkpoints the motorist can see that other vehicles are being stopped, he can see visible signs of the officers' authority, and he is much less likely to be frightened or annoyed by the intrusion." 422 U.S., at 894-895.

In Brignoni-Ponce, we recognized that Fourth Amendment analysis in this context also must take into account the overall degree of interference with legitimate traffic. 422 U.S., at 882 -883. We concluded there that random roving-patrol stops could not be tolerated because they “would subject the residents of . . . [border] areas to potentially unlimited interference with their use of the highways, solely at the discretion of Border Patrol officers. . . . [They] could stop motorists at random for questioning, day or night, anywhere within 100 air miles of the 2,000-mile border, on a city street, a busy highway, or a desert road . . . .” Ibid. There also was a grave danger that such unreviewable discretion would be abused by some officers in the field. Ibid.

Routine checkpoint stops do not intrude similarly on the motoring public. First, the potential interference with legitimate traffic is minimal. Motorists using these highways are not taken by surprise as they know, or may obtain knowledge of, the location of the checkpoints and will not be stopped elsewhere. Second, checkpoint operations both appear to and actually involve less discretionary enforcement activity. The regularized manner in which established checkpoints are operated is visible evidence, reassuring to law-abiding motorists, that the stops are duly authorized and believed to serve the public interest. The location of a fixed checkpoint is not chosen by officers in the field, but by officials responsible for making overall decisions as to the most effective allocation of limited enforcement resources. We may assume that such officials will be unlikely to locate a checkpoint where it bears arbitrarily or oppressively on motorists as a class. And since field officers may stop only those cars passing the checkpoint, there is less room for abusive or harassing stops of individuals than there was in the case of roving-patrol stops. Moreover, a claim that a particular exercise of discretion in locating or operating a checkpoint is unreasonable is subject to post-stop judicial review.

---

As we have noted earlier, one’s expectation of privacy in an automobile and of freedom in its operation are significantly different from the traditional expectation of privacy and freedom in one’s residence. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S., at 896 n. 2; see Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 590 -591 (1974) (plurality opinion). And the reasonableness of the procedures followed in making these checkpoint stops makes the resulting intrusion on the interests of motorists minimal. On the other hand, the purpose of the stops is legitimate and in the public interest, and the need for this enforcement technique is demonstrated by the records in the cases before us. **Accordingly, we hold that the stops and questioning at issue may be made in the absence of any individualized suspicion at reasonably located checkpoints. **

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=428&invol=543 (Emphasis added.)

It doesn’t spell out the consequences of refusal to answer questions. I assume the Court would follow Bostick.

[mswas]

@Yossarian

1. Indeed, my experience is that along the Tex-Mex border (however you define it), odds are very good that the Border Patrol agent questioning you is hispanic.

2. Mexican hispanics are “white”.

Then the people they are trying to guard against are white.

[Drum_God]

Just a quick post to say that I agree with you bubba, jr. I had to travel through these quite a bit when i lived in the Rio Grande Valley. I have lived in Texas my entire life and I was offended that I had to submit to some kind of examination when traveling entirely within the United States. One time I stopped, and while the agent questioned me, he walked around the car knocking on all the door panels. He also asked to search the trunk. He did so and did not replace the liner behind the back seat. I was not happy. I was rather young and inexperienced at the time. Today, I would not have granted permission to search the trunk and I would have asked him not to pound on my vehicle.

What really amused me was that I was never asked about citizenship when I traveled from the Valley at an airport. As long as I could afford a ticket, I had no problems. So, I always wondered why illegal aliens didn’t just buy a $40 ticket to Houston or San Antonio and skip the hassle at the check points. I know that $40 can be a lot of money, but it’s gotta be cheaper than getting caught.

[Yossarian]

@mswas

Then the people they are trying to guard against are white.

Exactly. It’s white-on-white enforcement. Why can’t we all just get along?

[guizot]

@EJsGirl

Okay, so it’s not about US citizenship, only about legal residency. Why might they be asking if folks are US citizens, then?

I suppose the first question is about citizenship, and if you say, “No, I’m not a citizen, but I’m a legal resident,” then they can ask you to show a green card.

@EjsGirl

And yeah, the San Onofre checkpoint is a joke. It is open perhaps 1 in every 8 times I drive through it, and they never even glance in my big-assed SUV with the tinted back windows, that I could fit a dozen people in. I wonder if it’s because I am a white woman who doesn’t look like a coyote? Probably. I know a nice, respectable, middle-aged white woman, however, who drove a Mexican woman and her children across the border through that exact checkpoint illegally, in order to reunite them with the husband who was working up here. :dubious:

I had a girlfriend from El Salvador who turned out to be undocumented. I asked her how she got in and she said she’d swum in the ocean from Tijuana to Imperial Beach. Then, her pollero wasn’t there, but she met a surfer on the beach who was driving to L.A. and offered to drive her there, and did so without a problem.

@mswas

Well I assume they would ask you further questions if you were not a citizen. They are considerably more dilligent than that in Texas.

It’s probably because the Five is a really busy freeway.

@EJsGirl

What I mean is- if the reason for the stop is to check for legal residency, then ASK ABOUT THAT. Of course, if you just want an excuse to hassle people, then ask about citizenship so that you can then dig deeper with visitors, guest workers, students and the holders of green cards… :rolleyes:

What is stopping every person on that road from saying “Yep- US citizen?” The fear that only white people can answer that way and go unchallenged?

I really don’t know how they operate. My mother’s cousin works for the Border Patrol and he told me that they usually go on gut instinct, because the volume of traffic is so large. If someone is white and speaks with a perfect American English acctent, they they might stop him or her if they think the person might be doing something illegal (not just smuggling undocumented people). If someone has a large vehicle, and obviously doesn’t speak English as a first language, and if they perceive the person as acting nervously, they pursue further.

[Yossarian]

@guizot

I really don’t know how they operate. My mother’s cousin works for the Border Patrol and he told me that they usually go on gut instinct, because the volume of traffic is so large.

From what I understand, this is exactly it. From my experience, the script goes something like this:

Good afternoon border patrol are you all American citizens?
Yes sir we are
Where are you coming from?
Big Bend National Park
Have you been to Mexico?
No sir
How long were you in the park?
Four days
Have a nice day

During this conversation, the questioner is glancing about the car with his eyes. His compadre is parked by the passenger-side window with an eye on me. One flinch, one indication of nervousness, and instead of “have a nice day” you get “I need you to pull off to the side, sir.”

I’ve also been through the checkpoint plenty of times with people with permanent resident status (Mexican, British, and Chineese citizens) and never had a BP agent think twice; their priority is clearly (to me) drugs, not illegals.

[Waffle_Decider]

@bubba_jr

For those of you that have never been through one of these, there are some videos on Youtube. Do a search for CheckpointUSA. That guy won’t even answer if he’s an American citizen, I think its funny since I deal with it all the time. There are some other good ones also.

I think this guy is just being an ass for refusing to even answer if he’s an American citizen. It would be reasonable for him to refuse to answer any follow up questions after declaring that he is a US citizen, but right now he is just wasting everyone’s time.

[Martini_Enfield]

So how do these checkpoints deal with people who aren’t US Citizens, aren’t legal residents, but are legally in the country on holiday or for work or whatever?

[sailor]

@Waffle_Decider

I think this guy is just being an ass for refusing to even answer if he’s an American citizen. It would be reasonable for him to refuse to answer any follow up questions after declaring that he is a US citizen, but right now he is just wasting everyone’s time.

The whole thing is beyond stupid if they do not require any proof.

• American?
• SI!
• Continue por favor.

[Waffle_Decider]

@Martini_Enfield

So how do these checkpoints deal with people who aren’t US Citizens, aren’t legal residents, but are legally in the country on holiday or for work or whatever?

All non-US citizens are required to carry proof of their status in the US with them (e.g. green card, unexpired I-94, etc). So, “papers please”.

But as has been pointed out, since US citizens are not required to carry any papers with them, this whole exercise is kind of pointless.

[Yossarian]

They are only ostensibly checking for residency–the reality is this: since you’ve been near the border they’re looking for reasonable suspicion to search you for drugs (or whatever). It’s much like the “random” roadblocks that are set up here on certain nights (Dec 31-Jan 1, Mar 17, Oct 31, etc.) to check for insurance, seatbelts, or whatever–if someone gets busted, it’s probably for driving drunk.

These sorts of roadblocks aren’t uncommon; near the border they just stand out because they are more-or-less permanent. Here’s a registry of common roadblocks in the USA and Canada:

http://www.roadblock.org/registry.htm

[Chief_Pedant]

I travel frequently, and frequently across borders.

I prefer a checkpoint procedure which looks for suspicious people over looking for documents or looking for weapons or drugs.

The purpose of asking questions about your destination or plans is not to invade your privacy, per se–false answers are easily provided–but to determine from the way you answer whether or not further suspicions should be aroused.

For those of us who want our borders protected, it seems a bit quixotic to rail against such procedures.

Of course the security screeners are often incompetent, over-reaching tin-cup sherrifs, under-educated bozos and self-aggrandizing nitwits. Our nation, in its infinite wisdom, has for example decided to offer airport TSA employment to barely-literate retards and I haven’t found the border security to be made of much better protoplasm.

But while I find fault with the quality of the individuals, I find no particular fault with perfunctory questions designed to ferret out those who should get further screening.

[Waffle_Decider]

@Chief_Pedant

I travel frequently, and frequently across borders.

I prefer a checkpoint procedure which looks for suspicious people over looking for documents or looking for weapons or drugs.

The purpose of asking questions about your destination or plans is not to invade your privacy, per se–false answers are easily provided–but to determine from the way you answer whether or not further suspicions should be aroused.

For those of us who want our borders protected, it seems a bit quixotic to rail against such procedures.

Of course the security screeners are often incompetent, over-reaching tin-cup sherrifs, under-educated bozos and self-aggrandizing nitwits. Our nation, in its infinite wisdom, has for example decided to offer airport TSA employment to barely-literate retards and I haven’t found the border security to be made of much better protoplasm.

But while I find fault with the quality of the individuals, I find no particular fault with perfunctory questions designed to ferret out those who should get further screening.

I have no objection to what you said, provided that this is applied to people seeking to enter the country at a checkpoint located at an international border. It is perfectly reasonable to question, or even search if necessary, people crossing an international border. What many find so objectionable here, however, is that these checkpoints are located within the United States and apply to people travelling entirely within the United States. The fact that someone simply going to work may be subjected to daily questioning by the authority at a domestic checkpoint does not sit well with many people.

[Nava]

@sailor

It seems to me they are just doing a perfunctory “stop all vehicles” so that they can more closely question those people with Mexican appearance.

With appearance that they consider Mexican, too. I had serious problems doing my paperwork in the way back from Mexico because the border agent refused to believe I wasn’t American; later that same day we got stopped by a cop who took one look at my Irish-Scottish ancestry friend and at this Spanish chick and pronounced us American.

So if you’re “White Mexican,” or say a Black Costa Rican, you’re in… :smack: