How Deep is the Border?

[togor]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/u...-searches.html

CBP says it's 100 miles deep, per the law, but as one Texas law professor says,

Inevitably, one of these cases is going to get to the Supreme Court, which will have to revisit the seemingly limitless government authority the department claims it has. It cannot be the case that anyone who lives or travels within 100 miles of the border has no Fourth Amendment rights.

This is apparently an issue on both the north and south ends.

[JB White]

I know that as a US citizen I would be pissed off to be searched 100 miles inland or find the Government was operating on my property without a warrant or permission. Having said that, being checked on public highways and byways for whatever reason has been going on practically forever. Border agents have their own mission and it can't be restricted to a line in the sand.
It's going to be interesting to see what the courts decide is in the line of duty, or if they handcuff the BP to nothing more than movie ushers at the line.

[bruce]

There never has been a single moment in the life of this nation that encroachment by the fed./state/local govt. has not been a threat to the liberty and freedom guaranteed citizens by the COTUS. The BP should never have been permitted to ignore the 4th Amendment. The day and hour they are forced to fully respect and comply with the 4th Amendment, just exactly as an police officer in NYC, etc. is required and forced to comply with a post Stop and Frisk era, the better for everyone concerned. It is that simple. The COTUS must be what it is ... or someone will make it what they want it to be. The Founding Fathers did not produce the COTUS to be applicable in only certain circumstances, etc. As written, they intended that it be the leash restricting any govt. power to act beyond only those areas where power/authority was granted. If the BP finds this restricts their operations, fine. So be it. Better that then for the BP or any other police dept./agency to have carte blanc to act under color of law as though the Constitutional rights of citizens may be violated with impunity as long as a fed./state/local govt. deems it in the best interest of a particular administration, etc. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

[S.A. Boggs]

After reading the article I can see only one thing that bother's me and that is the placement of a camera on private property without a warrant. I do not see how asking a person their nationality or a checkpoint is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Passing thru a checkpoint and a trained animal indicates is not an "unreasonable" thing. Highways are public, not private and checkpoints for DUI is common. I agree this is an issue to be settle by the Supreme Court once and for all. A federal officer is not bound by a state law if the federal law voids it. The ACLU should be neutral, they are left of center so are suspect similar to the Southern Poverty Law Center. I have no issue showing my ID, why should I?
Sam

[dave]

An illegal is an illegal 1 mile inside our border or a hundred miles in side.

[togor]

After reading the article I can see only one thing that bother's me and that is the placement of a camera on private property without a warrant. I do not see how asking a person their nationality or a checkpoint is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Passing thru a checkpoint and a trained animal indicates is not an "unreasonable" thing. Highways are public, not private and checkpoints for DUI is common. I agree this is an issue to be settle by the Supreme Court once and for all. A federal officer is not bound by a state law if the federal law voids it. The ACLU should be neutral, they are left of center so are suspect similar to the Southern Poverty Law Center. I have no issue showing my ID, why should I?
Sam

Of the man on the street, the government official asks, "papers, please?" Hmm, what kind of countries have gone for that?

[bruce]

After reading the article I can see only one thing that bother's me and that is the placement of a camera on private property without a warrant. I do not see how asking a person their nationality or a checkpoint is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Passing thru a checkpoint and a trained animal indicates is not an "unreasonable" thing. Highways are public, not private and checkpoints for DUI is common. I agree this is an issue to be settle by the Supreme Court once and for all. A federal officer is not bound by a state law if the federal law voids it. The ACLU should be neutral, they are left of center so are suspect similar to the Southern Poverty Law Center. I have no issue showing my ID, why should I?
Sam

With respect, no to all of the above. Just a flat no. No survellance cameras placed w/o warrant on private property. No dumbed down Stop and Frisk style challenges to present proof of citizenship/status simply b/c someone has a "hunch." No dumbing down the 4th Amendment ... this to include eliminating setting up road blocks to check for DUI by requiring a driver otherwise not suspect of doing anything illegal to present proof of license, insurance, registration, etc. ... with attendant attention given to occupants of the vehicle who have otherwise done nothing at all that would merit suspicion according to the standard of the reasonable man. There is absolutely no reason at all for a private citizen going about their own business to be subjected to challenge, interrogation, search, etc. merely b/c they are not in their private home/property but rather in a common public space. No to any attempt to circumvent the 4th Amendment at the federal level merely b/c it gets in the way of fed./state or local police officers. No to the ACLU being "neutral." As extremely objectionable as we find the ACLU, in no way should they be required to be neutral. Let them advocate to the greatest extreme possible in support of the 4th Amendment. If police groups chaff under the burden of the result, then let them advocate for their own selves in the courts. No to the SPLC being also forced to a neutral position. Again, find them extremely objectionable. That is not a matter of debate. Am sure those who support such people as the SCLC find various right wing groups we support to be equally objectionable. Let them object. Let them make their best case. Let those groups we support do exactly the same thing. But, to try to ham string these groups just b/c we don't agree with them will not work. These aren't thank God the old days when it was a bit easier to silence people and groups. Nowadays lots and lots of folks have found out just how effective a cell phone camera can be in getting out information, or a message that some wish to silence. Good for one and all. Finally, no. Just simply and plainly no to the idea that any police officer whether they be a officer on his beat in Dog Patch USA or NYC, NY or ... a officer with the BP or any other officer can challenge any person or group of persons for identification, etc. for any reason other than a "reasonable suspicion" based in fact as defined by the courts and not merely predicated upon a "hunch." No means no. It is not hard to understand. Let police officers do their job within the law and not be given some sort of sympathetic wink to do as they please regardless of the COTUS. If the police who are sworn to up hold and defend the law are not to be subject to the law, then there is absolutely no reason to expect that anyone else will see any reason to obey the law. There. Coffee is starting to kick in. Asbestos on. Sincerely. bruce.

[S.A. Boggs]

Of the man on the street, the government official asks, "papers, please?" Hmm, what kind of countries have gone for that?

We already have that, get pulled over and what happens? Unfortunately times have changed and not for the better that is for sure. Stuff that is happening today would never have been an occurrence 60 years ago. Most of us had respect for self and family, now there is often no family. Personal responsibility is out the window, punishment is a talking to not to hurt self esteem, there are only winners not losers. How can someone cope who has never lost? "Papers please!" is the new America, the new reality so accept it as the new social norm. When people no longer are required to have personal responsibility to do the right thing, then others [government] will step in to protect society as a whole. People demanded their "rights" even those who are not here legally and are given rights. With rights also comes personal accountability, something that those in power don't want to interject. When something goes out something else will fill the void that is reality.
Sam

[togor]

Sam, the obvious problem with the above post is that you'd flip the script 180 degrees in heartbeat if "papers please" came to include papers for your guns, either your CCW or the ones in the house, or buried behind the barn.

I've been posting for years here to no avail that letting the second amendment get out of sync with the others is a bad idea. But the law-and-order-types tell me there's nothing to worry about.

[S.A. Boggs]

Sam, the obvious problem with the above post is that you'd flip the script 180 degrees in heartbeat if "papers please" came to include papers for your guns, either your CCW or the ones in the house, or buried behind the barn.

I've been posting for years here to no avail that letting the second amendment get out of sync with the others is a bad idea. But the law-and-order-types tell me there's nothing to worry about.

If you think I like it, brother I don't! I believe in people doing the right thing, problem is that they don't. Both sides have brought the problems to US by trying to be something to all in the hopes of buying votes and hence political power for them and the party. I left the Republican Party in 1989 and became an independent voting for AMERICA. Both parties are opposite sides of the same coin GREED. I don't personally like everything Trump has done but I can live with most of it. Very little of the Hillary/Obama aspect was tolerable due to differences of outlook on life. If we had guarded our borders and not looked the other way "papers please" would never came around. IMHO the wall is more useful to stop drug smugglers then illegal immigrants. Enforcement of laws to stop employment and housing illegals could drastically slow them from coming over the border. Putting an armed military force on the border to stop smugglers would be a great help then no wall is needed.
Sam

[togor]

Trump is making sounds now about gun legislation, but I just don't see it happening. Getting laws passed at the Federal level is brutally tough these days. So for now "papers please" doesn't include guns. Overall I pretty much agree with Bruce, that letting the CBP guys go off leash is something we'd come to regret later, regardless of the professed good intentions, for the old observation that temporary States of Emergency have a way of becoming permanent. Supposedly 200M Americans live within 100 miles of the coast or north/south borders so that's a lot of bodies subject to some pretty intrusive rules, if CBP is to be believed.

[barretcreek]

I've seen Border Patrol stops in Wickenburg and been harassed by them crossing back to the U.S. at Blaine. When the trainee, acting under instruction from his trainers, found out one of my passengers was a lawyer (the p.o'd redhead) things went from 'attempting to enter the U.S. improperly' to 'quit obstructing traffic and use the LE/VIP gate over there'.