Relax everyone ...

Its OK to have a different opinion Tim. Thats why we are all here to discuss.
I'm surprised you are in favor of this though.

Occasionally, I'm asked my citizenship. But no proof required, to date. The dog usually takes a sniff around the car but I guess they see my big ugly white ass driving and wave me through. Seems pretty pointless. I suppose if I were hispanic looking there would be more questions. Maybe they are profiling the motorist passing through. TSA can't do that but maybe Border Patrol can. Its all DHS departments so I would think the government would have standardized rules.

And it damn sure IS arbitrary. The temporary checkpoints are set up/taken down/moved quite often. The dots on the maps I showed are the permanent checkpoints, the tent looking ones are temporary.

No....we have these kinds of interior immigration stops BECAUSE we don't have our international borders under control and because we allow illegals to live, work, and move about this country freely.

I think the checkpoints are an attempt to enforce "boarder" controls and immigration laws. Maybe that's why they're near the border?

Jesus, you are fucking brain-dead. Originally Posted by timpage

Its OK to have a different opinion Tim. Thats why we are all here to discuss.
I'm surprised you are in favor of this though.

Occasionally, I'm asked my citizenship. But no proof required, to date. The dog usually takes a sniff around the car but I guess they see my big ugly white ass driving and wave me through. Seems pretty pointless. I suppose if I were hispanic looking there would be more questions. Maybe they are profiling the motorist passing through. TSA can't do that but maybe Border Patrol can. Its all DHS departments so I would think the government would have standardized rules.

And it damn sure IS arbitrary. The temporary checkpoints are set up/taken down/moved quite often. The dots on the maps I showed are the permanent checkpoints, the tent looking ones are temporary. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

No, I mean it's not arbitrary in a constitutional sense. It's one of the standards a court looks at when making a determination as to the constitutionality of a law.

Do you think the police should be allowed to set up sobriety checkpoints to get drunks off the road? Some states allow it. Others have found it to be violative of the 4th Amendment. No probable cause, no police stop.

It's about law enforcement. If you think arresting people who come into the country illegally is a good idea, then as long as the enforcement mechanism isn't arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious, and there is a compelling state interest (stopping drunk drivers, enforcing federal immigration laws) the enforcement mechanism will pass legal muster.

No....we have these kinds of interior immigration stops BECAUSE we don't have our international borders under control and because we allow illegals to live, work, and move about this country freely. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Do you really not get what I'm saying? The checkpoints are part of the effort to do exactly what you say should be done in your post: prevent illegals from moving "about this country freely."

You can't seal the border between Texas and Mexico, and anybody that says you can is unfamiliar with the territory down in those parts. People are going to come across, it can't be stopped. The checkpoints are one of the tools ICE uses to arrest and deport the illegals.

Interesting comment Randy4Candy,

but emotion based is pretty much the mentality of the USA public, and much of that is based on the media. When the media fails to reports events in a factual and matter of fact fashion, then the public fails to react in a matter of fact, or well informed manner.

The very aspect that we have left wing and right wing media present the same basic story using two different subgroups of facts is where the public has become the loser. Once the 'major' channels discovered they could 'sell' the news, objective reporting fled the scene.

Sad.

I am not really opposed to it really.If everyone was carrying and the weapon wasn't concealed I bet we would have less violence. Try pulling an Armed robbery at a Circle K while there might be a real good chance of a few patrons could be armed. It could change the thinking of a few would be criminals.

No, I mean it's not arbitrary in a constitutional sense. It's one of the standards a court looks at when making a determination as to the constitutionality of a law. I get that, as I said earlier.

Do you think the police should be allowed to set up sobriety checkpoints to get drunks off the road? Some states allow it. Others have found it to be violative of the 4th Amendment. No probable cause, no police stop. Absolutely not, again a 4th amendment violation. But at least that one is decided where it constitutionally should be, with each state.

It's about law enforcement. If you think arresting people who come into the country illegally is a good idea, then as long as the enforcement mechanism isn't arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious, and there is a compelling state interest (stopping drunk drivers, enforcing federal immigration laws) the enforcement mechanism will pass legal muster. Originally Posted by timpage

I still get that, as I said. And I still don't like it. My 1st amendment right lets me bitch about it. As long as innocent US citizens are stopped/detained within the country, without just cause, its wrong and a violation.

+1

Well said, CC!