OT:Cross Country Road Trip Anyone?

Member logins have been temporarily disabled. Please try again later.
User Forum Topic
Submitted by paramount on June 25, 2012 - 8:58pm

If you've even remotely considered a cross country road trip; you might want to get started on that trip while you still can.

Today, the supreme court codified increased tyranny in this country by affirming Arizona's "Show me your Papers" law.

Soon, I have little doubt you will have to "carry your papers" wherever you travel across the country just as the Jews did in Nazi Germany.

Oh, and if I were you I'd stay the hell out Arizona; especially if you have brown skin.

Submitted by briansd1 on June 28, 2012 - 12:42pm.

deadzone, point me to a law that says that undocumented presence in the USA is illegal.

Conservatives are so good with the Constitution and the law so, now, prove it.

deadzone wrote:
Another obvious sign is they CAN'T SPEAK ENGLISH.

Why is that so obvious? Plenty of American citizens speak only broken English.

Submitted by briansd1 on June 28, 2012 - 1:10pm.

deadzone wrote:

Non-US citizens are required to carry documentation by law. I don't need to prove that to you.

But I want you to. You know, Conservatives are always pointing to the constitution and the law. So please point.

deadzone wrote:

inabability to speak basic English is a sure give-away that the person is not a US citizen.

What is expedient and seemingly logical is not necessarily the fair way of treating people. Looking for "people who can't speak English" will undoubtedly lead to profiling.

That's why I don't believe that Arizona can develop a fair mechanism of checking immigration status. They would have to do so for everyone; just like everyone is screened at the airport.

Submitted by UCGal on June 28, 2012 - 6:38pm.

deadzone wrote:
Non-US citizens are required to carry documentation by law. I don't need to prove that to you. Everyone is required to carry driver's license while operating a vehicle.

Ok. I'll try to make my point again.
US Citizens are *not* required to carry documentation of their citizenship.
Drivers licenses are not citizenship documents, btw.
So - a cop pulls over someone who they suspect is here illegally. That person, a citizen, cannot produce the required paperwork... so they get hauled into the police station. Perhaps they don't have the appropriate paperwork... the percentage of US citizens with passports is very low. And how many people keep a certified copy of their birth certificate readily available. (e.g. not in a safe deposit box, at their parents house, etc.)

The problem is that it will effect people who "look" like they might be illegal more than those who "look" like citizens. We're supposed to be a melting pot - but in this case hispanics will get asked for proof more than caucasians, blacks, and asians.

Alabama has had some bad luck with their papers please law. First they detained a german car exec. Then a japanese car exec. Not good for the local economy (car plants) when you're harrassing the executives. Missouri is now advertising that they won't harrass car execs if they move their plants to that state.
http://news.yahoo.com/alabamas-house-app...

Submitted by Coronita on June 28, 2012 - 6:55pm.

UCGal wrote:
deadzone wrote:
Non-US citizens are required to carry documentation by law. I don't need to prove that to you. Everyone is required to carry driver's license while operating a vehicle.

Ok. I'll try to make my point again.
US Citizens are *not* required to carry documentation of their citizenship.
Drivers licenses are not citizenship documents, btw.
So - a cop pulls over someone who they suspect is here illegally. That person, a citizen, cannot produce the required paperwork... so they get hauled into the police station. Perhaps they don't have the appropriate paperwork... the percentage of US citizens with passports is very low. And how many people keep a certified copy of their birth certificate readily available. (e.g. not in a safe deposit box, at their parents house, etc.)

The problem is that it will effect people who "look" like they might be illegal more than those who "look" like citizens. We're supposed to be a melting pot - but in this case hispanics will get asked for proof more than caucasians, blacks, and asians.

Alabama has had some bad luck with their papers please law. First they detained a german car exec. Then a japanese car exec. Not good for the local economy (car plants) when you're harrassing the executives. Missouri is now advertising that they won't harrass car execs if they move their plants to that state.
http://news.yahoo.com/alabamas-house-approves-changes-tough-immigration-law-015925894.html

Well, at least Alabama is an equal opportunity harrassing state!

Submitted by spdrun on June 28, 2012 - 7:06pm.

I agree with all of this. But usually I have a loaded trunk, kid and/or dog with me in the 100+ deg heat and reservations to spend the night somewhere in NM or El Paso. Both are long drives from SD.

Generally, it helps the louts' attitude if they know that their interactions are being recorded AND streamed to the cloud via a 3G connection. i.e. smashing or confiscating the camera phone won't help at all.

Submitted by svelte on June 28, 2012 - 9:01pm.

deadzone wrote:
UCGal wrote:
deadzone wrote:
Non-US citizens are required to carry documentation by law. I don't need to prove that to you. Everyone is required to carry driver's license while operating a vehicle.

Ok. I'll try to make my point again.
US Citizens are *not* required to carry documentation of their citizenship.

While a driver's license is not a "citizenship document" from a federal point of view, it is a pretty good proxy.

What if you're a passenger? If you are a US citizen and you are not driving, you are not required to carry a DL.

No need to prove citizenship then, eh?

Submitted by bearishgurl on June 28, 2012 - 9:32pm.

deadzone wrote:
...While a driver's license is not a "citizenship document" from a federal point of view, it is a pretty good proxy. In almost all states, including California, you can't get a driver's license unless you are a legal resident. Therefore if you have a valid state issue driver's license, I doubt the AZ police would have any reason to suspect you as being illegal. Again, I don't see where race fits into this equation.

Uhh, deadzone, I am personally aware of "unauthorized immigrants" who have a CA Driver License. And I'm sure the few that I know are merely a drop in the bucket.

From: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm#BDLP

in pertinent part:

Birth date verification and legal presence requirements

The issue of identification reliability, integrity, and confidentiality is of prime concern to all citizens. Eligibility for government services, issuance of various licenses, assessment of taxes, the right to vote, etc., are all determined through evaluations based on identification documents. It is critical that identification documents be authenticated and accurate in identifying each individual. The California driver license and ID card have been declared as primary identification documents in this state by the California legislature.

State law requires every applicant for an original California identification (ID) card and driver license to show verification of birth date and proof of legal presence within the United States to help safeguard the accuracy and integrity of departmental documents.

If your current name no longer matches the name on your birth date/legal presence document, see "True Full Name" and "How to Change Your Name" for more information.

Only the original or a certified copy of one of the following documents is acceptable:

US Birth Certificate (certified copy from state or local vital statistics office)
US Certificate of Birth Abroad or Report of Birth Abroad
Federal Proof of Indian Blood Degree
USCIS American Indian Card
Birth Certificate or passport issued from a US Territory
US Passport or US Passport Card
US Military Identification Cards (Active or reserve duty, dependent of a military member, retired member, discharged from service, medical/religious personnel)
Common Access Card (only if designated as Active military or Active Reserve or Active Selected Reserve)
Certificate of Naturalization or Citizenship
Northern Mariana Card
USCIS US Citizen ID Card
Permanent Resident Card
Temporary Resident Identification Card
Canadian Passport/Birth Certificate
Non–resident Alien Canadian Border Crossing Card
Valid foreign passport with a valid Record of Arrival/Departure (form I–94)

"Processed for I–551" stamped in a valid foreign passport
Permanent Resident Re–entry Permit
Refugee travel document
Certified court order or judgment issued from a court of competent jurisdiction. Must contain name, birth date, place of birth, legal presence status, and judge’s signature.
Certification from California Department of Corrections or California Youth Authority
Employment Authorization Card
Valid I–94 stamped "Refugee," "Parole or Parolee," "Asylee," or Section 207, Section 208, Section 209, Section 212d(2), HP or PIP
Valid I–94 with attached photo stamped "Processed for I–551 temporary evidence of lawful admission for permanent residence"
Notice of Action (I–797 Approved Petition) – must indicate approved extension of stay or change in status that grants temporary or permanent residency, or indicates that an original, duplicate or renewal Resident Alien card is forthcoming.
Immigration judge’s order granting asylum
Mexican Border Crossing Card with valid I–94
U.S. Border Crossing Identification card with valid I–94

Once their "temporary gig" is up, they still have a DL lasting four years OR can theoretically remain in the US while "shopping" 24/7, lol. Not sure if they can renew their DL's by mail, though.

Submitted by mike92104 on June 28, 2012 - 9:38pm.

svelte wrote:
deadzone wrote:
UCGal wrote:
deadzone wrote:
Non-US citizens are required to carry documentation by law. I don't need to prove that to you. Everyone is required to carry driver's license while operating a vehicle.

Ok. I'll try to make my point again.
US Citizens are *not* required to carry documentation of their citizenship.

While a driver's license is not a "citizenship document" from a federal point of view, it is a pretty good proxy.

What if you're a passenger? If you are a US citizen and you are not driving, you are not required to carry a DL.

No need to prove citizenship then, eh?

Easy: "What is your social security number?" "What is your name?"
Call it in, if it matches and is valid, you're good to go.

Submitted by bearishgurl on June 28, 2012 - 9:59pm.

mike92104 wrote:
Easy: "What is your social security number?" "What is your name?" Call it in, if it matches and is valid, you're good to go.

mike, you might be SHOCKED at how many "unauthorized immigrants" are using the SSN AND identity of American decedents or young minors.

Submitted by paramount on June 28, 2012 - 10:46pm.

While I don't condone illegal immigration in any way, I also understand that a favorite cover story for HATRED is the illegal immigration issue.

Submitted by mike92104 on June 29, 2012 - 9:48pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
mike92104 wrote:
Easy: "What is your social security number?" "What is your name?" Call it in, if it matches and is valid, you're good to go.

mike, you might be SHOCKED at how many "unauthorized immigrants" are using the SSN AND identity of American decedents or young minors.

I would not be shocked at how many "Illegal Immigrants" are using fake documents or someone else social security number. However, that doesn't validate the argument that they shouldn't be checked.

Submitted by CA renter on June 30, 2012 - 12:31am.

paramount wrote:
While I don't condone illegal immigration in any way, I also understand that a favorite cover story for HATRED is the illegal immigration issue.

Bullshit.

The problems related to illegal immigration are very real, and people who voice their concerns about these issues are NOT racist (or "haters").

Personally, I don't care if we magically eliminate illegal immigration, or if we make the employers pay for all the costs related to illegal immigrants and their dependents. But we DO need to find workable solutions to our illegal immigration problems. We cannot continue with pretending that these problems don't exist, and we cannot continue with the false claims that people who point out these problems are somehow "racist" or "xenophobic."

Submitted by Dougie944 on June 30, 2012 - 7:11am.

I happen to know a lot about this subject.....

A US citizen does not have to "show papers". The law was labeled with that name by people that do not like it in order to fire people up. That seems to have worked. A law enforcement officer, after making a lawful stop, would make a determination of alienage using a number of factors to decide the veracity of the individual's claim. Also on the stop, he could and probably would run each occupant for warrants during the stop. Not much different.

There is no database for determining US citizenship. It would be based on a number of factors, the first of which might be simply asking the individual if they are a US citizen. An answer of no would lead to the next question of seeing their immigration documents to legally be in the US.

It is US federal law that legal immigrants must carry their immigration documents on them at all times. On a side note, I went to 4 Euro countries last year and had to show and carry my immigration documents at all times. I didn't call their policemen "swine" or rail about the tyranny and didn't seem to have any problems.

If law enforcement officers are making unlawful stops. Use the court system to correct those abuses.

To reiterate, US citizens do not need to "show papers", legal immigrants do need to show their immigration documents, and illegal aliens need to be sent home no matter who makes the lawful encounter. Unlawful encounters should be taken to court. Politicians should address our country's immigration law and produce a comprehensive policy that does not encourage illegal immigration.

Submitted by spdrun on June 30, 2012 - 7:26am.

The swinish part wasn't them checking my citizenship. It was being bombarded with personal questions AFTER presenting valid proof of citizenship (i.e. US Passport).

The purpose of the internal checkpoints is to check for citizenship, not to go on a fishing expedition. As a citizen, I shouldn't have to account for why I choose to travel in my OWN country. And didn't, despite what the pigs wanted me to do.

Your situation in Europe was different since you were a foreigner.

Submitted by Hobie on June 30, 2012 - 7:32am.

+1 CAR and Dougie

Submitted by scaredyclassic on June 30, 2012 - 7:49am.

What if I'm a citizen but as a matter of policy never answer a police officers question ever. But I'm kind of dark. Do I have to go to a federal detention facility while the govt sorts it out?

Submitted by spdrun on June 30, 2012 - 7:53am.

Apparently not, so long as they can prove you're a legal citizen and not carrying any contraband.

Submitted by no_such_reality on June 30, 2012 - 8:04am.

paramount wrote:
spdrun wrote:

I have no problem with BORDER checks at the border. I do have a problem with random checks inside the US. I have an even bigger problem with probing questions about things that are none of the business of the people asking them, and have no relation to whether I'm carrying drugs, have a trunk full of "extreme Southerners," or am an American citizen.

Exactly. These are suspicion-less and illegal/unconstitutional interior checkpoints.

You must hats Dui checkpoints

Driving is a privilege not a right

Submitted by spdrun on June 30, 2012 - 8:18am.

DUI checkpoints are specifically for checking for intoxication. I'm not a fan of them, but the ones I've gone through either asked me to blow, or asked me whether I had been drinking (cop sniffed the air) and didn't do anything else. They didn't go on a fishing expedition as to my itinerary for the next few weeks.

When you're given a license, you sign an implied consent form allowing breath and drug testing. This does NOT extend to being required to state your personal business for the next few weeks.

BTW - the Border Patrol checkpoints don't only necessarily check drivers. The 2-lane portion of Rt. 94 is theoretically usable by pedestrians and cyclists.

Submitted by Hobie on June 30, 2012 - 8:10am.

I know you are having fun with this Walter, but I would like you to answer your own question.

Submitted by CDMA ENG on June 30, 2012 - 9:07am.

WTF...

Four pages of AZ bashing...

Anyone want to included NM or TXs into the mix?

These problem are not inherient to AZ. They are to all border states including this one.

CE

Submitted by spdrun on June 30, 2012 - 9:10am.

They're also confined to the Federal government, who prefers harass American citizens already in the country instead of ACTUALLY SECURING THE BORDER.

Submitted by Dougie944 on June 30, 2012 - 9:22am.

Submitted by spdrun on June 27, 2012 - 1:58pm.
Story to tell -- this crap doesn't only happen in AZ:
I was driving from AZ to CA, and I took the scenic route to San Diego about 2 years ago. I'm pretty much straight-up white, but I was pulled over by Border Pigs twice.

As you can see from the above quote, you labelled each set of Border Patrol Agents as Border Pigs even though you thought the first detention was handled well. It wasn't the personal questions that brought the swine reference you tried to spin.

Border Patrol Agents are allowed to look for other violations of the law while you are at the checkpoint. As you must know, you drove within a 1/4 mile of the border in those locations and those roads are commonly used to leave the area by smugglers.

Agents can ask questions and you are free not to answer. It just might take a little longer to do their job. While you are waiting, they are still getting paid. I can assure you that your protest is no skin off any agents back. Feel free to continue, but do not think you are making anyone's life unpleasant except your own.

Submitted by spdrun on June 30, 2012 - 9:40am.

Even so, I'll stand on my rights, as is my DUTY as an American citizen.

Correct: the personal questions occurred at the second stop, not the first. The first was conducted professionally, and without wanting to know my itinerary for the next few weeks.

Looking for other violations of the law? Sure. Last I checked, police aren't allowed to pull people over at random and grill them on whether they plan to speed, and where they plan to sleep, for the next few weeks. Border Patrol shouldn't do so either, at least not unless someone is actually entering the US.

And yes, I think that people who choose to follow orders to harass innocent people with personal questions that have no bearing on whether they're committing a crime, are pigs. "Just doing a job" is no excuse at all. They're free to get different jobs. Prostitution and burger-flipping are good options if they can't do anything else useful.

Submitted by davelj on June 30, 2012 - 9:46am.

UCGal wrote:

Do you carry your passport with you everywhere you go?

Yes. My wallet - if that's what you would call it - consists of just four items: (1) US Passport Card, (2) drivers license, (3) ATM card, and (4) a credit card. It might be the thinnest wallet on record. If folks are required to carry a license to drive - and aren't particularly put out by so doing - how difficult is it to carry a passport card? Just sayin'...

Submitted by Dougie944 on June 30, 2012 - 10:33am.

Just to be clear, the Border Patrol does not check anyone while they come through the ports of entry. Customs agents do that. BP agents are arresting people that skirt around the fence, run, hide, and jump into vehicles that are driven by US citizens, legal immigrants, and other illegal aliens. Those smugglers use the roads that other citizens use everyday. The checkpoints are there as a layered approach to help control an area. When you come up to a checkpoint, each agent should be wondering if you are legally in the country and whether you are potentially smuggling. Simple questions as you have described are not easy to answer when someone is nervous and trying to be evasive, such as when someone is smuggling. I doubt there are orders to harass as you suggest.

For the record, a checkpoint stop and a vehicle stop are not the same thing in the eyes of the law. Different levels of suspicion are needed and your initial stop at the checkpoint was not random as everyone entered the checkpoint. Contrary to your assertion, a policeman, during a lawful traffic stop, can engage you and ask you
questions.

If you have read the court rulings that have given the checkpoints their authority, then surely you would see how the Supreme Court took a lot of care in trying to balance everyone's Constitutional Rights, public safety, and the need to secure the border.

I can understand that checkpoints aren't considered ideal, but I would love to hear your solution on how to catch those entering illegally.

Submitted by spdrun on June 30, 2012 - 10:49am.

The solution is simple: patrol the border itself. Anyone that gets through, gets through.

Make it extremely expensive and/or unpleasant to get caught employing illegals, and increase avenues for legal immigration. Same goes for public assistance -- none provided, other than a truck trip to the nearest border, if a non-citizen finds themselves in need of going on the dole. Anchor babies go with them -- they can come back when they're 18. The problem will all but disappear if there's no economic incentive for people to jump the fence.

Oh, and end the war on drugs tomorrow. No need to harass people looking for substances if said substances are legal.

The other option is to take NAFTA to its logical conclusion and have a full border and employment rights union with Canada and Mexico.

Lastly, just because it stops crime doesn't mean that it's right, nor that I (or any other American) have to like it or shouldn't complain about it.

PS - how do you know the increased questioning wasn't random? Most cars got waved through. Some didn't. Do you know that they weren't stopping say one in twelve cars for further scrutiny?

Submitted by spdrun on June 30, 2012 - 10:57am.

Lastly, I'm from NYC. Over 40% of the population is foreign born, with some 5-6% being illegal. Most immigrants, legal OR illegal, are hard working, decent people. I don't see it as a huge problem at least from my perspective.

Submitted by Dougie944 on June 30, 2012 - 11:21am.

Anyone that gets through, gets through is not much of a policy for the BP. Kind of figured as much.

The rest of your solution is nothing new, but is in the hands of the politicians. I earlier stated that the incentive for illegal aliens should be taken away.

I believe that I stated your initial stop was not random as that is the definition of the checkpoint. Everyone approaches and is "seized" (you and I would probably refer to it as detained, SC uses the word seized) whether or not they stop or roll through at the direction of the agent.

I find it hard to believe, even though you assert otherwise, that you do not project a demeanor that wants to engage. I have never pulled up to the agent and been held longer than 20 seconds.

I agree with you that the checkpoints are not ideal. I just do not think that you properly weigh all the factors that the SC figured in when ruling that immigration checkpoints are legal. Again, I point out that in their rulings, you can clearly see that much thought was given towards finding the solution that is the least intrusive into your Rights.

Submitted by spdrun on June 30, 2012 - 11:35am.

Other than my citizenship or whether I'm carrying contraband, that's correct. I have no desire to engage some armed reject in conversation. And will continue to refuse to do so, even if it does take extra time. I'm not committing a crime by traveling in my own country, and I resent anyone that treats me as a suspect because I choose to travel.

I may not hurt the agents, but I will indirectly increase the waiting time at the checkpoint if they make me wait. The less convenient the checkpoints become, the more Americans will start to pressure Congress into coming up with a REASONABLE solution that doesn't inconvenience American citizens.

Removing the incentive to come here illegally and/or smuggle drugs will go a long way. In fact, the latter is already happening -- more and more states are moving towards decriminalization or outright legalization. And as time goes on, this change of opinion will have an effect on the numbskulls in DC as well.

Lastly, just because it's been approved by the Supreme Court doesn't make it OK. Slavery was once approved by the courts as well.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.