Some 'cops' are radically stupid when it comes to exercising discretion, like certain TSA screeners, but if I recall they did let this guy through did they not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
|
Some 'cops' are radically stupid when it comes to exercising discretion, like certain TSA screeners, but if I recall they did let this guy through did they not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
So we should just do away with drivers licenses, testing and speed limits or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
In the first place, the cops were only ASKING him what his citizenship was. They were NOT asking him to produce ANYTHING out of his pocket... So, I'm addressing what HAPPENED, not what DIDN'T happen.. You're confused.
excon
"Let" this GUY--oh THAT guy--through? Why did they allow him to go through, after all?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Bingo, you finally got there to what happened. There was no searching, no beating, no kicking, no macing, he just inquired. Is that unconstitutional?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I answered that on page one - more than once. In fact I've mentioned "discretion" 3 times, once directly to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Yes, it IS... He was searching for the citizenship of the driver.. In this great land of ours, we USED to be able to walk around UNFETTERED by the cops.. THAT was the design.. That's what a FREE country is all about.. How come you don't know that?
It's NOT that way anymore.. It's MUCH more Gestapo. It's GETTING that way WITH your help. If it was ME, I'd be ASHAMED.
excon
No, you didn't. They let him through because he didn't fit the profile.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
In other words, he used his discretion which is what I said the first two times. They have "wide discretion" which they exercised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Dude, you're really stretching. No one is stopping the guy from moving about the country freely. You may as well consider stop signs, traffic lights, one way streets, yield signs and speed limits a violation of your right to drive around UNFETTERED as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And again, I go back to precedent:
There is no expectation of privacy on a public, controlled road. But if you can show me the precedent that it's unreasonable to be asked a question by the cops when you're just trying to drive down the road I'm listening. I don't like to go through checkpoints either, but I have nothing to be ashamed of for my view.Quote:
Definition of "search"
A threshold question in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is whether a search has occurred. If no search occurred, then the Fourth Amendment does not apply.
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.
In Katz, the Supreme Court ruled that a search had occurred when the government wiretapped a telephone booth.[22] The Court's reasoning was that 1) Charles Katz expected that his phonebooth conversation would not be broadcast to the wider world and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.
In United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. ____ (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that, in addition to the Katz standard, a search occurs when law enforcement trespasses on the searched person's property. In Jones, law enforcement officers had attached a GPS device on a car's exterior without Antoine Jones's consent. The Court concluded that Jones was a bailee to the car, because the car's owner had regularly permitted him to use the car, and so had a property interest in the car.[23]
There is no unconditional right to drive our streets and highways that I'm aware of.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I've always known that we didn't share the same view of America.. But the gap is WIDER than I could have imagined...
In this free country of ours, I believe we HAVE the right to move about WITHOUT ANY interference from the police - unless there's probable cause to stop you. At least that's what the Constitution says.. YOU, on the other hand, believe that if a cops business is MORE important than yours, he can IMPEDE your freedom, and that's just OK with you.
It's not a teeny little difference... It's a MAJOR difference... My position is ABSOLUTE - just like the Constitution is. YOURS is a slippery slope that ENDS just like where I said it would... With ARMBANDS, and maybe a concentration camp or two...
I'm a JEW.. You cannot imagine HOW repulsive it is to be asked for your papers (metaphor for DO YOU BELONG?) You, who speak about a close relationship with Israel, would ENDORSE the behavior that lead to the holocaust.
THAT is why the Fourth Amendment is written like it is, and you, who purport to LOVE the Constitution just threw it in the trashcan...
excon
First of all I don't like checkpoints, I'm just curious where you find this unconditional right to drive our streets and highways. And comparing it to the gestapo and the holocaust is way over the top.
The rulings are clear, if you don't like file suit. And while you're at it, don't try to fly, that'll really pi$$ you off.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
We're not going to get anywhere as long as you SPIN what I said... I didn't say you have an unconditional right to drive. I said you have the right to MOVE about this country UNFETTERED... It has NOTHING to do with driving.. It has to do with MOVING ABOUT.. You have the right to WALK unfettered.. Drive, unfettered, swim, unfettered. The MODE of transportation ISN'T the issue.. FREE MOVEMENT IS. You don't need a license to move about UNFETTERED...
Am I clear, or do you want to throw more sh!t into the game?
Oh, never mind... I'll NEVER convince you about the BASIC FREEDOMS our Constitution calls for... I have no idea why not. I certainly NEVER thought a person who, purportedly, LOVES the Constitution could SO mangle what it means...
excon
They are not looking for illegals . They are looking for people driving without licenses. They are checking everyone since only checking for "someone who looks like an illegal " would be a rights violation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
But isn't it illegals who drive down there without a license? Or do Jim Bob's 15 year-old son and his friends drive without licenses and the cops want to catch them?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm guessing the "driving without a license" is just an excuse, a cover story.
I'm not the one comparing a checkpoint to the gestapo and the holocaust and distorting what I've said.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
What I said was I don't like checkpoints but I don't see the fuss. You admit we don't have an unconditional right to drive on our highways but whine about the conditions. Which is it, are there conditions or not? I'm consistent, you move the line every time.
No ,they will pull over anyone driving without a license ;illegal alien or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
But they aren't looking for teens without licenses, are they.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Having seen the video I would say that fellow is extremely fortunate the cops didn't detain him for refusing to comply with the lawfull instruction of a police officer. Would it have hurt to comply, take the officers details and make a complaint to his congressman. It cost him more time to argue than comply
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Look at the video again... These are federal Border Patrol agents.. They don't give a sh!t if you drive without a license... They don't even have the power to ticket you for it...
They let the guy go because he did not fit the profile..
excon
You don't think his accent might have had something to do with itQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Psssst... That's part of the profiling.
excon
Ok ex excuse my ignorance, I though it might have been a certain tinge of skin colour, the wearing of large hats and being accompanied by a tribe of brown kids, but this guy had a mustouche a sure give away, and what was with that cell phone.
We don't have profiling here, we refer to suspects as being of aboriginal appearance, of being of asian appearance, of being of south asian appearance, of being of middle eastern appearance, all of which has to do with the size of the nose and the intensity of the sun tan, hardly ever do we refer to someone as northern European or southern European and if there are hispanics they are rare
That's another rub with you leftists, profiling. You spend all day profiling conservatives then b*tch because the cops decide to let a guy go because he doesn't fit the profile.
You guys are so confusing.
But they don't dare say they are profiling, thus they have to stop EVERYONE and inconvenience EVERYONE.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Yeah and that's stupid. Libs get their panties in a collective knot over profiling and then get them in another knot over the mess they created but not allowing profiling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
It makes perfect sense to me to profile. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... But then if Congress would get off its butt and remodel the immigration service and deal fairly with the millions of illegals who are here now roofing our homes, picking our crops, cleaning our motel rooms...
A fair dealing would be deportation for illegally entering the country . But a more practical decision is in order . We've tried all the lib solutions ;amnesty and all that... and all we asked in return was border security . Well our end of the deal was met at least twice .Quote:
deal fairly with the millions of illegals who are here now
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
And, we're wise to your ploy. How secure is "secure"? If ONE guy gets through, does that mean it's NOT secure?? In order to avoid talking about the 12 million illegals already here, I'll bet you'll say, OF COURSE, that means the border isn't secure...
But, it's pretty DAMN secure.. The subject of the OP ought to tell you that... People are NOT pouring over like they once did. There are 1,000's more Border Patrol. No, there's not a 3,000 mile long, 50 foot high electrified fence, but that's not going to happen. If you're waiting till it does, then you'll wait forever..
excon
You can't deport them. Who will roof our homes, pick our crops, clean our motel rooms and all the other dirty, nasty jobs red-blooded Americans refuse to do?
What's a "practical" solution?
12 million illegals here and you call it secure ?
I already said that it was impractical to deport all of them . Shame on Americans if they think getting their hands dirty is beneath them. That is the truest indicator yet of a failing pampered society .Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Southwestern and Southern farmers have said that crops will rot in the field before they can find white people to harvest them, or who are willing to stick it out more than a couple of days. Of course, now with the drought, it's almost a moot point.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
My solution would be to reinstate the Bracero Program .But no one asked me.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Not long ago, we didn't care about illegals crossing the border. In fact, we invited them. We did that for a LONG, LONG time, so SOME of them settled down and raised family's.
THOSE are the 12 million that are here.
Now, we've changed our mind.. We want those people OUT. The welcome sign has been removed.. Now, I don't know know the numbers, but I can promise you, the fence is working, the new Border Patrol hires is working, the gun crazy militias roaming the desert are working, the anti-immigration laws like SB 1070 are working, the intrusion into yours and my ability to move about this country FREELY, is working...
But, I KNEW you had a trick up your sleeves about what a "secure" border is. It's NOT secure as long as the 12 million that are here, remain here... So, you'll take up a comprehensive immigration bill AFTER the 12 million are deported... Gotcha..
You KNOW this. You want to distract us again. Is that cause you're out of gas?
excon
I like the idea of a time-limited worker visit to this country with maybe then an opportunity to apply for citizenship. What criteria would then need to be met for citizenship and over what period?
But that doesn't address all the people here now.
The Bracero program was temporary workers . It did not allow for them to become citizens. The farmers get the work needed and the migrants get to work and get paid . Then when the crops are picked ;they go home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
If they want to apply for residency they can do it like every other legal immigrant does .
Dude, I've lived among them all my life so why would I want to deport them? I don't, I wouldn't and it sure seems to me Republicans have done their share to work out a way for them to stay more than once, so I can only surmise your talk about being for securing the borders is just blowing smoke.
I don't know when the time was that I thought illegals crossing the border was a good idea. I've cared about this issue since I began hiring people more than 25 years ago. 27 years ago Reagan did one of those "compromises " that Tal loves so much (aka Simpson-Mazzoli Act, aka the Immigration Reform and Control Act), Amnesty in exchange for border enforcement . Ted the Swimmer sold the enforcement clauses of the law as strong enough to ensure that only a one time amnesty would be needed.Quote:
Not long ago, we didn't care about illegals crossing the border. In fact, we invited them. We did that for a LONG, LONG time, so SOME of them settled down and raised family's.
THOSE are the 12 million that are here
Well Reagan kept his part of the "compromise " . The Congress did not . Back then it was 3 million .But that neglect for the border security means the numbers have swelled to 12 million .If they were invited at all it was under the assumption that the Congress would not take the steps necessary to properly deal with illegal entry into the country .
So now I say I'm all ears and am willing to "compromise " on their status. My bottom line is that border security gets done 1st .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm from the west.. I didn't think about it being an idea. I just knew it WORKED. Farmers loved it.. Restaurant owners loved it. Hotel owners loved it. Small business owners loved it. The Mexican workers loved it. Their family's in Mexico loved it. Both country's benefited from it, and loved it. Nobody DIDN'T love it. They weren't hurting a soul..
Yeah, yeah, I know... You're going to give me that crap about taking jobs away from teenagers - as though you really DO think our teenagers are going to go out into the fields... Bwa, ha ha ha.
It was only when you wingers got scared that we looked at them... But, they don't want to plant bombs.. They want to plant lettuce.
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:54 AM. |