TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:

couzin wrote:Having worked on a border project, I got to know a bunch of officers in TX, NM, AZ, and CA. They are not evil and they are not trying to trample your rights. It is ridiculous when jerks show their behind with these provocation videos. For crying out loud just say you are a citizen and get on down the road. It ain't that hard. BTW - yes they are Federal law enforcement and as such they can search, arrest, and pursue. And - they also can apprehend someone breaking State laws (they just turn em over to local law enforcement for charge/prosecution). If stopped by any Federal Law enforcement it might be a good idea to simply tell them you are armed and have a concealed carry license. Again - it ain't that hard.

I'm with you.. it's real easy not to cause trouble. But the reality is that they're not "allowed" to do anything about someone who remains silent, but they often do...
And what's the point? Is saying "yes" to that question really enough to establish citizenship? I think not... It's not a stop about residency, it's a stop about eyeballing your vehicle and maybe slowing you down enough for a quick sniff from the drug dog - and having that happen on THIS side of the border isn't legal. America doesn't start 100 miles from the border. Sure, it catches some bad guys... And sure, it's a minor inconvenience, but we could catch a lot more bad guys if we were to trample a few more rights.

The world isn't perfect...

The bolded section is part of the reason I -don't- have a problem with people recording at the checkpoints (that whole 1st Amendment thing aside ). BP are people too, and just as prone to moments of stupidity as anyone else. Having something to back up your side of the story in an official complaint can be very important (who watches the watchmen kind of thing).

And I'm not a fan of the checkpoints. That being said, the rest of your quote is an issue for courts and legislatures, no matter how much I may agree with the points and sentiments espoused.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

winters wrote:Most people find it an invasion of their privacy when they ask those questions. If I don't have to answer im not going to. Has nothing to do making their jobs more difficult. Its the fact I am not required to answer. If they wanted to catch illegals why are they stopping people 90 miles inside the boarder. When I get stopped by a police officer for speeding I don't offer up oh yea I always do x over the speed limit because I can and have enough money to not care about the fine.

I drive to Louisiana a lot and constantly see a truck marked "boarder patrol" right outside of the east side of lake Charles. Why do we need someone from boarder patrol there?

I remember I was about 50 miles away from lake Charles on the Texas side of the border, and I would've thought the same thing, but that dry bulk 40ft trailer sitting next to the truck stop that cooked a bunch of illegals inside of it changed my way of thinking. Just saying. If I do recall, there was a rash of abandoned illegals in trailers, I think it even made the news at some points. I know that was years ago, but still. I'd like to see more presence along the border, and leave the ones that make it through to get caught by the sheriff's and city cops...

Still happens, although I haven't heard of any deaths lately.

As for the ones that make it through, we need to start prosecuting "sanctuary city" officials in order to make that stick. Otherwise you'll just have the status quo of "not my job" that is currently in place.

cb1000rider wrote:

JSThane wrote: I don't have my reference handy, but it's essentially that citizenship "shall be established to the agent's satisfaction." Normally, this amounts to "Are you an American citizen?" "Yes."

Maybe we're talking about different things. I'm talking about inland checkpoints. I know that the on-border checkpoints are a different matter.
I can't find any requirement at inland check points. Is your right to remain silent somehow suspended at these checkpoints?

Oh, you can say nothing at all, and some folks do, but that just means the agent must establish citizenship some other way, which usually winds up being a hassle for both motorist and agent. Remember, too, mere citizenship information is NOT incriminating one way or the other; to be deported and/or prosecuted (which are two separate things), not only must a non-US citizenship be established, but also that the non-citizen is here -illegally-. As one more aside, non-citizens here legally are required by law to carry their card with them and present it to immigration officers/agents when requested, whether they're Lawfully Admitted for Permanent Residence or simply on a visitor's visa. Citizens have no such ID requirement.

cb1000rider wrote:

JSThane wrote: Long version, an agent can ask you any question he or she likes. The one you -have- to answer is "Are you an American citizen?" If not, then they now have to find out if you're legal. That's it.

Just to qubble on that a bit, do you "have" to answer that question? I understand that it's the officers job to determine the probable answer to that question, but I wasn't under the impression that you have to say anything.

Any if you do have to answer, how does a verbal answer actually justify "proof"? Asking for ID or papers is a much more accurate means of establishing citizenship.

Again, I'm not saying make a hassle.. I'm asking what is actually required. No crime has been committed. They're not actively investigating something. What gives the BP a special clause that forces you to answer that question?

I don't have my reference handy, but it's essentially that citizenship "shall be established to the agent's satisfaction." Normally, this amounts to "Are you an American citizen?" "Yes."

Requesting ID can be useful if you suspect the person is lying, but not always conclusive. It's most useful if the person presents a false ID, or if a prior deportation pops up in record checks run from a valid ID. Either way, it's a step beyond the normal. And yes, both happen with fair regularity, at least around here.

cb1000rider wrote:

jmra wrote:If you so desire you can tell them to go pound salt. I'm a little more diplomatic.

Correct, but bring a recording device. Expect hassle.

Better yet, be polite, and don't make youtube channels showing what a jerk you are. I hate those.

Long version, an agent can ask you any question he or she likes. The one you -have- to answer is "Are you an American citizen?" If not, then they now have to find out if you're legal. That's it.

Short version, don't be a jerk.

My version, if you don't want to answer any other questions, explain so. The agents will, by-and-large, respect that. And if one doesn't, request a supervisor, immediately. Trust me, -they- know, or ought to know, their own legal limitations at -least- as well as you do. Don't pull the youtube thing like so many folks do. If you do have a recording, use it in your complaint; don't publish it. I see FAR too many idjits who think they can show how superior they are to BP, cops, etc., who often don't have any clue what the law and Constitution actually say, nor what legal precedents have been set.

Kind of a sore spot with me, really...

dcphoto wrote:I've been told by agents that it is their policy to not ask for ID at interior checkpoints or during stops. That being said, I have the same question. I don't think I'd show my CHL if asked for ID.

First I've ever heard of this.

With regards to "interior enforcement," yes, BP does do immigration enforcement in the "interior," up to 25 air miles from the border. The highway checkpoints are indeed there primarily for citizenship purposes. Yes, they can and will ask for ID, if they think the situation warrants it. No, it doesn't close down if the dog handler takes a sick day.

The reason the checkpoints catch a lot more drugs than people is due to one reason: dope is easier to hide than a living person, so more people think they can get away with smuggling it through. The illegal aliens are usually dropped off several miles before the point, and made to walk around it in the boonies by the smugglers, then maybe picked up again later (or sometimes never).

Were it not for the checkpoints (and I have major personal problems with them, even as I defend them), smuggling persons further into the interior would be much, -much- easier.