[lordofduct]

Python_4_President, on 01 March 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

Of course I'm using the term "Nazi" wrong. That's the point.

It's obvious what I mean, but I receive no credit.

@LOD: Really? You think I'd call nazis anything but nazis? Nope.. if they're of the people-on-training eugenics practicing spying-on-everyoneing papers-pleasing disarming-peopleing dissenter-disappearing variety, then they're nazis and nothing but nazis.

Yeah, I know, that's why I had the part about you using it as a pejorative. And I pointed out that what you said was empty and inconsequential.

"You know those assholes over there? They're assholes!"

[jon.kiparsky]

farrell2k, on 01 March 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Maybe you and I watched different videos. No one was arrested. They seem to have been just asked a few tough questions, and when they resisted answering as per their right to do so, they were let go. Most of them were even told they weren't being detained. While it may be annoying, a few tough questions which you are not even legally obligated to answer is not a violation of your rights. I am glad they're grilling people instead of just immediately just taking their word for everything. How else would you catch illegal activity?

Are you really saying you'd prefer to live in a country where the police can stop you and interrogate you on suspicion, and the suspicion can be based on absolutely nothing?

Do you actually understand what you're advocating?

[modi123_1]

jon.kiparsky, on 01 March 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

I just want to know how I got wrapped up in this.

... because it is clear someone has a man-crush on you that borders on an unhealthy obsession.

[lordofduct]

farrell2k, on 01 March 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Sorry, man. I didn't mean to straw man anyone. "You" is meant as the public in general, as in a majority of the public wants the gov't to do everything it can to prevent illegal immigration. Poll after poll tells us this.

Well you might want to avoid that. I figured you were talking about the population en masse... and still, again, people are all different. When you have a democracy two different sections of the populous can, and most often will, have contradicting points of view. It's the basis of nearly all political debates.

The populous en masse is not an individual.

Quote

Maybe you and I watched different videos. No one was arrested. They seem to have been just asked a few tough questions, and when they resisted answering as per their right to do so, they were let go. Most of them were even told they weren't being detained. While it may be annoying, a few tough questions which you are not even legally obligated to answer is not a violation of your rights. I am glad they're grilling people instead of just immediately just taking their word for everything. How else would you catch illegal activity?

Here's the thing, they attempt to imply that you don't have the right to not comply. They coerce people into relinquishing their rights. It's only those who know their rights, who deny the request, and after having to dig past the insistence of the officers, do they finally give in.

And this isn't in all cases. Not all of the clips were like this. Also youtube other instances where people WERE detained for it (like the extended version of the video of the kid who said he was a marine... he was detained for several hours).

There's all sorts of ways to catch illegal activity that don't require coercion and breaching my rights. We've been doing it for over 200 years.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 01 March 2013 - 11:53 AM

[jon.kiparsky]

modi123_1, on 01 March 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

jon.kiparsky, on 01 March 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

I just want to know how I got wrapped up in this.

... because it is clear someone has a man-crush on you that borders on an unhealthy obsession.

Oh, if that's all, then. I was afraid I was destroying our freedoms somehow, or something like that.

[modi123_1]

The only freedom you are infringing on is his free heart.. since, you know, you bind and chain his so.

[jon.kiparsky]

Yeah, I'm a real bitch that way.

[farrell2k]

jon.kiparsky, on 01 March 2013 - 06:44 PM, said:

farrell2k, on 01 March 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Maybe you and I watched different videos. No one was arrested. They seem to have been just asked a few tough questions, and when they resisted answering as per their right to do so, they were let go. Most of them were even told they weren't being detained. While it may be annoying, a few tough questions which you are not even legally obligated to answer is not a violation of your rights. I am glad they're grilling people instead of just immediately just taking their word for everything. How else would you catch illegal activity?

Are you really saying you'd prefer to live in a country where the police can stop you and interrogate you on suspicion, and the suspicion can be based on absolutely nothing?

Do you actually understand what you're advocating?

First you have to consider what is happening in the video. Everyone is being stopped and asked their citizenship status. Some are being asked to consent to searches of their vehicles. Law enforcement officer has the right to detain you and even sometimes search you against you will on suspicion of illegal activity, but that doesn't seem to be what is happening here. It doesn't appear that these people aren't being targeted at all. It looks like a border crossing. It appears as if everyone is being stopped and asked their business and status...big difference.

Now, to your question. If we mean the literal definition of "interrogate", which is to ask questions in a forceful manner, and we're talking about border patrol, then yes. I am quite happy with people being asked forceful questions at border crossings, and you and everyone else should be as well, because the alternatives are to search everyone against their will and legally require proof of citizenship or visa status, or allow everyone to go to and fro freely. Both of those options are unacceptable, so the forceful questions are a good compromise.

I get that a lot of people think they're above questioning or scrutiny, but in the end, they're just being asked questions; however, the Supreme court has held up that the border search exception does allow customs and border agents to search and detain without probably cause or reasonable suspicion with 100 miles of border crossings.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 01 March 2013 - 05:02 PM

[jon.kiparsky]

So just to be absolutely clear on this, you would prefer to live in a state where any cop can detain you without charges for any length of time, as long as they just want to "ask you some questions about your papers"? Really?

And the reason for this is because Mexicans are so dangerous they can't be allowed in to this country? Seriously?

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 01 March 2013 - 05:15 PM

[farrell2k]

jon.kiparsky, on 02 March 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

So just to be absolutely clear on this, you would prefer to live in a state where any cop can detain you without charges for any length of time, as long as they just want to "ask you some questions about your papers"? Really?

And the reason for this is because Mexicans are so dangerous they can't be allowed in to this country? Seriously?

You're straw manning me. I said nothing about Mexicans or anything about any cop being able to detain you for no reason.

The answer to your questions is NO.

I am perfectly fine with DHS and border control AT BORDER CROSSINGS asking forceful questions of those entering the country. It is a much better option than searching and demanding papers from everyone, or just allowing everyone to go as they please. You cannot search everyone, and you cannot have an unprotected border. You have to make some compromises, and a few tough questions doesn't seem so bad.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 01 March 2013 - 05:24 PM

[supersloth]

edit: aww fuck it i don't care about stupid semantics arguments. FRIDAY WOO /drinks a bottle of jameson

This post has been edited by supersloth: 01 March 2013 - 05:33 PM

[jon.kiparsky]

No, this is not a straw man. You're trying to justify uncontrolled detentions by the police by the threat of immigrants coming into the country.

I do not believe for a minute that this sort of genie can be put back in its bottle: once you allow the cops to stop Juan and Carlos in Arizona, they can stop Miguel and Rosa in Chicago. And once they can stop Miguel and Rosa in Chicago, they can stop anyone they want. What's to stop them from stopping me? I'm in Boston, and there's plenty of Irish here without papers. I'm not actually Irish, but they don't know that until they ask me "a few questions".

If you're to be questioned, a police officer must either have your consent or they must have a good reason to detain you. If you do not consent to be questioned - and you should never, ever, under any circumstances consent to questioning without a lawyer present - then they must allow you to go on your way without let or hindrance. This is a fundamental protection of the citizen, and a citizen who asks to give it away is asking to be made into a subject.

Quote

you cannot have an unprotected border

Why not? What's so scary in Mexico that you're asking me to revert to a police state to avoid it?

[farrell2k]

jon.kiparsky, on 02 March 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

So just to be absolutely clear on this, you would prefer to live in a state where any cop can detain you without charges for any length of time, as long as they just want to "ask you some questions about your papers"? Really?

And the reason for this is because Mexicans are so dangerous they can't be allowed in to this country? Seriously?

This is the straw man. You establish a position that I do not hold then confront or attack me on it.

jon.kiparsky, on 02 March 2013 - 12:37 AM, said:

No, this is not a straw man. You're trying to justify uncontrolled detentions by the police by the threat of immigrants coming into the country.

Another one. See above. I am simply saying that I would rather have order control ask questions that I am not even required to answer than to detain and search, or let anyone come and go as they please. I am justifying the questioning.

jon.kiparsky, on 02 March 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

I do not believe for a minute that this sort of genie can be put back in its bottle: once you allow the cops to stop Juan and Carlos in Arizona, they can stop Miguel and Rosa in Chicago. And once they can stop Miguel and Rosa in Chicago, they can stop anyone they want. What's to stop them from stopping me? I'm in Boston, and there's plenty of Irish here without papers. I'm not actually Irish, but they don't know that until they ask me "a few questions".

If you're to be questioned, a police officer must either have your consent or they must have a good reason to detain you. If you do not consent to be questioned - and you should never, ever, under any circumstances consent to questioning without a lawyer present - then they must allow you to go on your way without let or hindrance. This is a fundamental protection of the citizen, and a citizen who asks to give it away is asking to be made into a subject.

You don't seem to understand the massive difference between an order and a request. Any cop can stop you anywhere at any time and ask you any questions he or she wants. You are under no obligation to answer any questions and do not have to consent to a search or provide any identification. Police do this all the time. No one, not even law enforcement needs your permission to ask you questions.

farrell2k, on 02 March 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

you cannot have an unprotected border

jon.kiparsky, on 02 March 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

Why not? What's so scary in Mexico that you're asking me to revert to a police state to avoid it?

[/quote]
OK fine. It is possible to have an unprotected border, but it is a huge national security risk. The majority of Americans want protected borders.

I don't view border patrol asking questions that I am under no obligation to answer as being in a police state. I guess you do, for some reason. That's cool.

I get the feeling you think I am attacking Mexicans now, or something...

[lordofduct]

farrell2k, on 01 March 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

jon.kiparsky, on 02 March 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

So just to be absolutely clear on this, you would prefer to live in a state where any cop can detain you without charges for any length of time, as long as they just want to "ask you some questions about your papers"? Really?

And the reason for this is because Mexicans are so dangerous they can't be allowed in to this country? Seriously?

You're straw manning me. I said nothing about Mexicans or anything about any cop being able to detain you for no reason.

The answer to your questions is NO.

I am perfectly fine with DHS and border control AT BORDER CROSSINGS asking forceful questions of those entering the country. It is a much better option than searching and demanding papers from everyone, or just allowing everyone to go as they please. You cannot search everyone, and you cannot have an unprotected border. You have to make some compromises, and a few tough questions doesn't seem so bad.

The problem...

THOSE ARE NOT BORDER CROSSINGS

The places in the video tend to be 20 and 50 miles away from the border along interstates like I-10 in places like Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.




Also the questions that are asked may not be required to be answered. But they coerce an answer with threats of detaining. The only reason the people in the video get to leave is because they stand there guns and won't budge on the matter. Still the officers attempt to coerce them though. This is wrong.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 01 March 2013 - 06:59 PM

[jon.kiparsky]

farrell2k, on 01 March 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

jon.kiparsky, on 02 March 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

So just to be absolutely clear on this, you would prefer to live in a state where any cop can detain you without charges for any length of time, as long as they just want to "ask you some questions about your papers"? Really?

And the reason for this is because Mexicans are so dangerous they can't be allowed in to this country? Seriously?

This is the straw man. You establish a position that I do not hold then confront or attack me on it.

If I misunderstand your position, I'm sorry. Please clarify it. What I see you arguing looks a lot like "what the cops in that video did is okay, because Mexicans".
I believe that the cops in that video do is unconscionable, and migrant laborers do not pose any particular threat to anyone: this is why I think we disagree. Where am I wrong?

Quote

Another one. See above. I am simply saying that I would rather have order control ask questions that I am not even required to answer than to detain and search, or let anyone come and go as they please. I am justifying the questioning.

You are justifying the questioning based on the premise that, if it's not done, the Mexicans will come and get us or something. Again, I'm not exactly clear on what goes horribly wrong if you just let people go where they want to go - after all, we let people with money go where they want to go, why shouldn't poor people do it too?

Quote

You don't seem to understand the massive difference between an order and a request. Any cop can stop you anywhere at any time and ask you any questions he or she wants. You are under no obligation to answer any questions and do not have to consent to a search or provide any identification. Police do this all the time. No one, not even law enforcement needs your permission to ask you questions.

If I have a gun and legal authority to use it, and you don't, then any request I make of you is an order, and any order I make is a threat on your life. Cops are like fire: a useful servant and a dangerous master. I want to make sure they never become my masters.

Quote

OK fine. It is possible to have an unprotected border, but it is a huge national security risk. The majority of Americans want protected borders.

What's the security risk? Mexico decides to take their land back? Al Qaeda drives a nuke from Nogales to New Orleans? What risk are you going to cite that isn't laughable?

Quote

I don't view border patrol asking questions that I am under no obligation to answer as being in a police state. I guess you do, for some reason. That's cool.

When an armed man forces you to stop your car and starts asking you questions, and refuses to tell you whether or not you are under detention, then it is not obvious that you are not being threatened and are under no obligation to answer. When that armed man then insists (as they do in the video) that "you have to answer", then it is even less obvious that not answering is one of your options.
Imagine yourself in that situation. Anything that goes wrong in that situtation almost certainly works out very badly for you, and the guy asking the questions knows that you are aware of this. Why do you think the people being held "under no obligation" do not simply drive off? Under your theory, they should just leave. Why don't they? And why does Officer Friendly there not simply answer the question of whether they are being detained?

Quote

I get the feeling you think I am attacking Mexicans now, or something...

No, I just think you're buying some dangerous and faulty logic. I do think that the only justification for all of this, at bottom, is the simpleminded xenophobia of the nativist movement, always a useful tool for whipping up a frenzy. This is not a mistake I usually see you making, which is why I'm a little weirded out by it.


BTW - just so you're not confused the +1 was inadvertent, I was reaching for the reply button. But I've probably missed some of your smart posts, so I don't mind if you get some undeserved rep on this one.