[Python_4_President]

It's cool, kipper. We disagree plenty, but I realize that you, handog, LOD, et al. actually are pretty good people. It's enough for me to know that y'all are reasonable and genuine. Maybe one day I can dig my reputation out of the poo, but I'm sure that will be a lengthy endeavor.

[farrell2k]

Python_4_President, on 02 March 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

Well, farrel... Make sure you don't have any pirated music on your Ipod when traveling, because... they'll search that, too., but not just AT the border.. See the surprisingly large orange "border" around the USA? That is where your constitutional rights end... apparently..

Blame our very first congress. The border search and extended border search exceptions to the 4th amendment have been law since 1790.

jon.kiparsky, on 02 March 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

I'm done. The man has programming chops, but not a lick of sense.

I think we pretty much agree on guns rights, however.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 02 March 2013 - 01:08 PM

[lordofduct]

Well no, in 1789 the border exception may have been enacted, but it was NOT 100 miles from the border.

That large of an extension was a very recent expansion of the border.


And this is what we take issue with. It may be the current law, but it still ain't right. What did I hear Bill Burr say last night in a stand-up special.

"100 years ago it was ok for me to beat you [women] with a wooden peg... doesn't make it right."

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 02 March 2013 - 07:15 PM

[farrell2k]

Yeah, I get that you guys don't like it, and I would probably agree with you in most situations, but it does demonstrate what I have been saying all along, that the people in those videos are complete idiots for complaining about the perceived violation of rights they don't even have. They're not fighting "tyranny", as one moron in the video proclaimed, and their fourth amendments rights are not under assault. The main issue is that stupid people like that don't live in a vacuum. They are allowed to vote, which affects everyone else.

The extended border search has isn't really recent. The oldest challenge to it which failed that I could find was Almeida-Sanchez v. United States in 1973, so it's at least 40 years old. It's a reasonable compromise between individual rights and security.

Anyway, I am sorry I even got caught up in this stupid topic, and I feel dumber for having watched the dopes on that video.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 02 March 2013 - 11:46 PM

[jon.kiparsky]

Quote

They're not fighting "tyranny", as one moron in the video proclaimed, and their fourth amendments rights are not under assault.

Oh, shut up, you simply don't know what you're talking about. If a guy with a gun and a badge tells you that he's going to search your person and/or effects without reasonable grounds for suspicion, that's a plain and simple violation of the right to be secure in your effects against unreasonable search and seizure. Where you see that happening in the video, that's a violation of fourth amendment rights.

When a guy with a gun and a badge insists that you have to answer his questions, and gives you no opportunity to consult a lawyer or to understand the charges which he's trying to investigate, that's a clear violation of the fifth amendment.

What I can't understand is how you can possibly support this sort of thing. After all, you usually seem to be on the side of the liberal conception of justice and fair play. Do you not know who these laws are aimed at?

Think about it for a minute: has there ever been a stop-and-frisk law aimed at white middle-class people? Has law enforcement ever targeted people for "driving while rich"? Who is the victim of your smug sanctimony, in the end? Just because you've never been on the pointy end of the law doesn't mean that there isn't injustice being done here.

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 03 March 2013 - 01:14 AM

[creativecoding]

Trying to understand you here farrell2k, but what I've gathered from reading your posts, is that you believe citizens have absolutely no rights at the border and "within reasonable distances of the border"?

[jon.kiparsky]

No, I think that's just what he says. What he means is something else entirely. It's a secret.

[farrell2k]

jon.kiparsky, on 03 March 2013 - 07:19 AM, said:

Quote

They're not fighting "tyranny", as one moron in the video proclaimed, and their fourth amendments rights are not under assault.

Oh, shut up, you simply don't know what you're talking about. If a guy with a gun and a badge tells you that he's going to search your person and/or effects without reasonable grounds for suspicion, that's a plain and simple violation of the right to be secure in your effects against unreasonable search and seizure. Where you see that happening in the video, that's a violation of fourth amendment rights.

When a guy with a gun and a badge insists that you have to answer his questions, and gives you no opportunity to consult a lawyer or to understand the charges which he's trying to investigate, that's a clear violation of the fifth amendment.

What I can't understand is how you can possibly support this sort of thing. After all, you usually seem to be on the side of the liberal conception of justice and fair play. Do you not know who these laws are aimed at?

I am a die-hard liberal, and I always will be. Hell, I'd even call myself a Socialist.

We're talking about border agents, not just any law enforcement with a gun and a badge, as in your average cop. That's a different issue.

I am more than sure they racially profile people all the time down there.

The Supreme court has decided that you and I have a much less expectation of privacy at border crossings or at secondary checkpoints within x amount of miles. It's an exception to the 4th amendment. No rights are beyond regulation or exception. Any gun owner who is not allowed to own a machine gun made after 84 will tell you that. The people who get on a plane and scream "bomb" are in the same boat.

None of those people had to answer one question that any of those guards asked them, but they could have been legally detained and their belongings searched. Don't like it? Too bad. Vote for Presidents and politicians who support Supreme Court justices who support unsecured borders, and things may change. Until then, there is nothing "tyrannical" or illegal happening. It's just a bunch of dumb people who do not know their rights, and more importantly, do not understand that none of their rights are absolute.

And to answer your question, I most certainly support asking tough questions like "Are you a citizen and do you have any Mexican fruit?"(please!) of people entering the country, or of people at ancillary stations. I also support searches of those being uncooperative, just because they're douche bags who have no idea what their rights really are.

jon.kiparsky, on 03 March 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

No, I think that's just what he says. What he means is something else entirely. It's a secret.

It's a secret to everybody. Here's 100 rupies from the moblin standing in the center of the room, a gift for wasting a bomb on the crumbling wall you used to enter this cave.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 03 March 2013 - 06:31 AM

[jon.kiparsky]

farrell2k, on 03 March 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

I am a die-hard liberal, and I always will be. Hell, I'd even call myself a Socialist.

...
And to answer your question, I most certainly support asking tough questions like "Are you a citizen and do you have any Mexican fruit?"(please!) of people entering the country, or of people at ancillary stations. I also support searches of those being uncooperative, just because they're douche bags who have no idea what their rights really are.

And this is why Phil Ochs wrote "Love Me, I'm a Liberal".

[farrell2k]

You can have liberal beliefs while understanding the need to balance security with personal freedom. The alternative is simply unreasonable. I guess I don't see it as such a big deal, because I know those people weren't having any of their rights violated. Whether they or you like it or not is a different story.

I'm out.

[Craig328]

farrell2k, on 03 March 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

I guess I don't see it as such a big deal, because I know those people weren't having any of their rights violated. Whether they or you like it or not is a different story.

I'll suggest that perhaps one of the differences between you and your detractors lies in statements like this. Those people were indeed having their rights violated. It's just that once upon a time, a court said that those violations were permissible. There is a difference between saying there ISN'T a violation and that there is a violation but it's permissible.

The Supreme Court has a history of deciding a case one way and then a later court revisits it because the initial ruling is constitutionally invalid. Four of our amendments exist because the court wouldn't do that. In either event, the federal government stopping, detaining, searching and questioning you, away from the border, without probable cause or reasonable suspicion is a pretty stark violation of your rights under the 4th and possibly 14th Amendments. Just because a court said they could so doesn't change the fact that the action violates your rights...they just have an okay from that court to do so and nobody has brought a challenge to that status quo since.

And that there is the sad part. Who today will actually challenge this activity? Supporters will claim that its intrusion into the lives of those affected is small, so hey it's okay and why bother fighting over something that's small like this. But the issue I have is a bigger picture one. We border two nations but we only have these internal checkpoints near one border. We don't seem to have much of an issue with our Canadian neighbors traveling about the United States...but we sure do with the Mexican ones, don't we? We can't have them dirty, non-English speaking brown people roaming around unfettered now, can we?

Like it or not, that's what this is about. If we had a concern based solely on illegal aliens traveling about then we'd have these checkpoints set up in all 50 states, wouldn't we? But we don't. And all you need to do to see the truth in this is ask yourself: what would the public reaction be if the Border Patrol started erecting these nuisances in states like Pennsylvania or Oregon or Illinois tomorrow? There's be an enormous backlash. They'd be seen as huge government intrusions into your right to move about freely and not be detained for questioning arbitrarily...and those people saying so would be doing so with an unsaid background reason of "we don't have a Mexican problem here". Curiously, we also have issues with illegal Asians, Arabs, Africans and eastern Europeans but those folks don't figure into the discussion of "locating illegal aliens". It's just the Hispanics.

And I submit that a policy that is based primarily on race, like this one obviously is, make it even more wrong.

[farrell2k]

Craig328, on 03 March 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

I'll suggest that perhaps one of the differences between you and your detractors lies in statements like this. Those people were indeed having their rights violated. It's just that once upon a time, a court said that those violations were permissible. There is a difference between saying there ISN'T a violation and that there is a violation but it's permissible.

You cannot violate a right that you do not have. Not everything is black and white, yes or no. Do you have 4th amendment rights? Yes, in most situations. Is that really that hard to grasp???

Craig328, on 03 March 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

The Supreme Court has a history of deciding a case one way and then a later court revisits it because the initial ruling is constitutionally invalid. Four of our amendments exist because the court wouldn't do that. In either event, the federal government stopping, detaining, searching and questioning you, away from the border, without probable cause or reasonable suspicion is a pretty stark violation of your rights under the 4th and possibly 14th Amendments. Just because a court said they could so doesn't change the fact that the action violates your rights...they just have an okay from that court to do so and nobody has brought a challenge to that status quo since.

The Supreme court disagrees with you. Its interpretation of your rights is what matters, not yours. Just like it has decided that you have the right to own a gun for personal protection, it has also decided that you do not have protection from warrant-less searches and seizures in these situations. I get the impression that you and many others simply refuse to accept that your rights are not unlimited and are subject to exception and regulation.

Craig328, on 03 March 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

And that there is the sad part. Who today will actually challenge this activity? Supporters will claim that its intrusion into the lives of those affected is small, so hey it's okay and why bother fighting over something that's small like this. But the issue I have is a bigger picture one. We border two nations but we only have these internal checkpoints near one border. We don't seem to have much of an issue with our Canadian neighbors traveling about the United States...but we sure do with the Mexican ones, don't we? We can't have them dirty, non-English speaking brown people roaming around unfettered now, can we?

It has been challenged numerous times over the past 40 years, all were unsuccessful. That should tell you something...

Craig328, on 03 March 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

And I submit that a policy that is based primarily on race, like this one obviously is, make it even more wrong.

I guess you missed all the white people being questioned in that video.

[Craig328]

Wow.

I'll be honest here: I read your response three times and then considered responding to each point with how/why you're mistaken. But then I saw that others (some of whom I normally disagree with) also tried, failed and shrugged their shoulders and moved on.

I don't know what your education level is or what you may have absorbed about American civics throughout your educational career (I can opine on both but those opinions wouldn't be helpful to the conversation) so I'll simply say this: a common thread that is remarkably persistent in your remarks made in debates about American constitutional rights is that you have a severe and significant flaw in understanding the same on a foundational level. With the foundation you appear to work from, your argument seems logical and natural to you and seems equally ill-informed and disagreeable to, what appears to be, a majority of others. I don't mean it to be insulting to your intellect or education. I say it because I've seen it before in an academic setting amongst student peers many years ago and encountered it recently with one of my children's social studies teachers.

I'm going to pass on plainly stating things others have stated as it's obvious you don't possess the same foundational logic. It's like two people speaking two totally separate languages...there just isn't a common middle ground that can be worked from and efforts after that recognition are useless. I'll simply suggest that how you view individual rights in a society versus a government formed from that same society that then turns back to limit individual rights is somehow skewed in a direction that most don't share.

[farrell2k]

OK, and if and when the border search exception and extended border search exceptions to the fourth amendment are successfully challenged and are struck down as violations of the fourth amendment by the Supreme court, I will then agree with you and everyone else that these people rights are being violated. I have a feeling it will be a long time.

There is no common ground, because am dealing with reality, as opposed to assumed reality, a reality where one cannot violate a right that does not exist.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 03 March 2013 - 09:59 AM

[Craig328]

farrell2k, on 03 March 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

OK, and if and when the border search exception and extended border search exceptions to the fourth amendment are successfully challenged and are struck down as violations of the fourth amendment by the Supreme court, I will then agree with you and everyone else that these people rights are being violated. I have a feeling it will be a long time.

There is no common ground, because am dealing with reality, as opposed to assumed reality, a reality where one cannot violate a right that does not exist.

Listen, explaining it again isn't the issue. Everyone understands your position. You're pretty much saying a right isn't a right as long as a court says it isn't one even when the Constitution says otherwise. I get your point: the highest court trumps the Constitution. It's just that you're wrong because it doesn't. Otherwise there would be no point to having a check on that power via the amendment process and further legislative remedies.

Quote

OK, and if and when the border search exception and extended border search exceptions to the fourth amendment laws that say that slaves born in the United States are not citizens but chattel and cannot be free men are successfully challenged and are struck down ...by the Supreme court, I will then agree with you and everyone else that these people rights are being violated. I have a feeling it will be a long time.

See, wrong decisions aren't made right via an institution declaring right and wrong. Dred Scott was the law of the land (upheld that people of African descent weren't citizens and could be enslaved) until the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments because the functional government that worked under the Constitution was conveniently neglecting the founding statement of the Declaration "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Every other aspect of the Constitution was based on the Declaration and its omission while technically legal was still wrong and was a violation of rights per the language of both the Constitution and Declaration.

The short answer is: people (including those who sit on the Supreme Court) can be wrong. The document is right. The document isn't wrong. It can be amended if necessity requires it. In your case, there isn't a language exception in the document that says "you have these rights...unless you're within X miles of the border". A court said that and courts are frequently reversed.

The even shorter answer: rights != legalities. Rights are rights, period. Denial of those rights, while legal sometimes, doesn't negate them being rights.