The Shotgun Blog
« Peggy Nash elected President of NDP | Main | "From now on, I’m just going forward.” »
Sunday, August 16, 2009
May we see your papers?
The spectre of being stopped at random government checkpoints to be intercept people on wanted lists, and undocumented persons, is an image we associate with the likes of Nazi Germany.
But today, in the United States, the Department of Homeland Security is in the process of setting up inland immigration checkpoints.
That's right, checkpoints to stop and check persons who are already inside the border. The Supreme Court rules that these checkpoints are legal up to 100 miles from the borders--that's about 80% of the US population with all the coastal cities.
These checkpoints have been the cause of large protests by American citizens in Washington State, by citizens who are sick and tired of having their community turned into a police state, where couples walking on the beach are stopped and asked their citizenship--yes this is and has been happening.
To be clear. Some Americans, by virtue of living near the border are being forced to present themselves to immigration officials simply by driving to work everyday. These Americans have never left their own country, and most Americans are still not even aware this is going on. Here is one of them who's fighting back:
Update: And this Christian Pastor, Steven Anderson, was tasered and arrested for refusing to answer questions at a random immigration stop near the California-Arizona state line. The police had claimed their drug sniffing dog had detected drugs in his car. Although, they quickly took the dog back inside after indicating the dog had detected it, and refused to bring it back out to show him.
Steven Anderson refused to allow a search of his vehicle, and was told he was under arrest. He refused. And was tasered from two sides, and glass from his car windows severely cut his face and head when the police smashed them in. No drugs or illicit material was found in the Pastors car.
Posted by Mike Brock on August 16, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
So he has to stop and declare that he's an American on the way to work? What is the big deal? What are you people? Anarchists?
You seem to have a problem with law enforcement doing it's job. It seems to me these checkpoints are a good way to weed out illegal immigrants and terrorists.
This guy seems to want to make life easier for the terrorists. Which shows absolutely no patriotism or love for his country.
Posted by: Don | 2009-08-16 10:44:48 AM
It seems to me these checkpoints are a good way to weed out illegal immigrants and terrorists.
Do you know what else would be a good way to weed out terrorists? Have all citizens wear GPS tracking ankle-bracelets (like the people on house arrest), and subject ourselves to 24 hour government monitoring.
Perhaps, police should just be able to come randomly search homes for signs that people are illegal immigrants or might be terrorists.
It seems to me, that one of the hallmarks of living in a country that believes in liberty, is not having government checkpoints setup to "fish" for potential criminals. That's why we have laws about reasonable suspicion, and require search warrants.
This guy seems to want to make life easier for the terrorists. Which shows absolutely no patriotism or love for his country.
The argument that liberty makes life easier for terrorists is not a valid argument to curtail liberty. That's a fallacious appeal to consequences argument.
It's amazing to me how many people are willing to lay down and have their constitutional rights violated in the name of being "patriotic".
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-16 10:49:14 AM
Mike,
You sound like every deranged liberal I know.
You would probably repeal the Patriot Act too. Even though it has saved countless lives.
Nobody likes losing their freedom. But when it's a life and death situation, would you rather have life or freedom? I'd rather have life. It seems liberals would rather have death. Without conservatives this country would have been doomed.
Posted by: Don | 2009-08-16 10:57:09 AM
Nobody likes losing their freedom. But when it's a life and death situation, would you rather have life or freedom? I'd rather have life. It seems liberals would rather have death. Without conservatives this country would have been doomed.
Perhaps we should have just surrendered to the Axis powers, then. We could have saved countless lives, and I'm sure the police state the Nazis would have imposed on us would have cracked down hard on illegal immigration and terrorism. But hey, at least we would have been alive!
I don't want to get too far off into ad hominem here, but your argument is a steaming pile of dung.
If any of the American founding fathers were here, they would be astounded that you were willing to lay down your rights in the name of security.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-16 11:02:07 AM
I've been following Checkpontusa.org for a few years now, he has great ideo. "Am I being detained?" "Am I free to go"?
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-16 11:03:46 AM
"What is the big deal?"
The big deal is that it is a violation of the U.S. constitution to be stopped without just cause. It's also a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, though the supreme court has said that it's okay to violate the charter in this case.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-16 11:05:51 AM
But when it's a life and death situation, would you rather have life or freedom?
Posted by: Don | 2009-08-16 10:57:09 AM
What is the life and death situation? Mexicans and Canadians going tot he U.S. to visit or work? Does that justify trampling rights?
Perhaps Mike you shoukd post the video fo the American pastor who was beaten and tasered for simply not answering their questions.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-16 11:07:58 AM
The 14th Amendment gave the US federal government the authority to define citizenship, so it's all perfectly legal.
None of this would be a problem if you didn't provoke the authorities. It is a crime to lie to the authorities or to provide false information. If you truly love your freedom, then behave. The intrusion is minor at best.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-16 11:08:57 AM
I've been following Checkpontusa.org for a few years now, he has great ideo. "Am I being detained?" "Am I free to go"?
Yeah, he's quite amazing.
However, other people who've tried his stonewalling tactics have not been as lucky. Like Christian Pastor Steven Anderson, who was inspired by CheckpointUSA to refuse to cooperate with the DHS at one of the checkpoints in Arizona, right over the state-line from California.
He was tasered from two sides and beaten (all caught on tape) for refusing to cooperate and declare his citizenship. Actual footage here.
The agents claim that the drug sniffing dog in this case detected drugs in his car (none were found)--as was the justification for tasering him.
Why did they even have drug sniffing dogs at an inland, suspicionless, checkpoint? I'm sure Shane Matthews is happy.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-16 11:11:58 AM
None of this would be a problem if you didn't provoke the authorities. It is a crime to lie to the authorities or to provide false information. If you truly love your freedom, then behave. The intrusion is minor at best.
Yep, more typical conservative anti-liberty trite: just cooperate with the authorities if you have nothing to hide. If you get beaten for standing up for your rights, then it's your own fault... not the police for crossing the line. You must LOVE the police and all the great work they do. Only petulant citizens who refuse to cooperate are the problem here.
You should just walk around with a sign around the neck that says: OBEY!
What about your fifth amendment rights, Zeb? The right to not answer questions? Which is exactly the right that these guys are invoking it. It's a basic element of our laws. You do not have to be a witness against yourself.
What about the fourth amendment right? The right not to be detained or searched unless there is reasonable cause to believe you've broken the law. Does simply driving down the road give authorities reasonable cause to believe you are an illegal immigrant? Or smuggling drugs?
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-16 11:18:38 AM
Mike, the fifth ammendmend is a refuge of the guilty. In my book, using it should be an admission of guilt. If I was a judge or jury, and someone plead the fifth, I would find that more than enough reason to convict.
And us conservatives do love liberty. We are the ones who believe in protecting it while communists like the ACLU protect rights like the fifth ammendment, which should never be needed if you have nothing to hide.
Posted by: Don | 2009-08-16 11:28:16 AM
"which should never be needed if you have nothing to hide"
You should really watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
The fifth amendment is not a "refuge of the guilty". It is to prevent innocent people from becoming a witness against themselves.
I'm seriously dizzy from how insane you are Don. You'd fit right in over in China, where the attitude is: if you got arrested, you must be guilty. Otherwise, why would you have been arrested? It's silly to think anybody in a courtroom is actually innocent! Especially the ones who stand up for their rights!
Proof #9,304,405 that conservatives have an authority and punishment fetish.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-16 11:33:25 AM
Mike,
That Christian pastor had it coming to him. He refused police orders. And he's lucky they used tasers and not live ammunition. The police would have been in their right to use lethal force.
It's very simple: follow instructions from police and you live. Disobey, and you could die.
Posted by: Don | 2009-08-16 11:40:04 AM
"The police would have been in their right to use lethal force."
For peacefully refusing to get out of his car and submit to an illegal arrest, you would kill him? I totally see how you "love life" Don. Protect life by murdering citizens who do not obey. You love liberty and life. It's so clear.
Another typically conservative position: advocate for police to use lethal force more often. While, at the same time, pretending to be "pro-life". Got to have live babies, so they can grow up to be dead disobedient citizens and dead soldiers.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-16 11:44:33 AM
It's very simple: follow instructions from police and you live. Disobey, and you could die.
Posted by: Don | 2009-08-16 11:40:04 AM
So Don, if a cop pulled you over one night and told you to give him a blow job, would you comply?
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-16 11:51:13 AM
Good luck trying to overturn the CBP's authority. Border crossings are exempt from the 4th and 5th amendments.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-16 11:51:14 AM
"Border crossings are exempt from the 4th and 5th amendments."
We are not talking about border crossings, Zeb. Those videos both depict checkpoints that are at least 60 miles from the border. These are random stops.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-16 11:54:24 AM
Wow! I firmly believe in the rule of law and the necessity of an orderly society, but to claim this is a case of acceptable "law enforcement" is a form of denial. Also note that it was never claimed that the pastor was suspected of being a terrorist, since the allegation was that his vehicle contained drugs, even though there were none.
This has nothing to do with being liberal, conservative or whatever, but it has everything to do with being able to see clear signs of a police state. Furthermore, it is far from being the only example of American "law enforcement" out of control.
The truth is that people involved in law enforcement are neither all corrupt nor all good, so to turn a blind eye to such abuses is to welcome a police state. Those who sacrifice freedom for security end up with neither.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-08-16 11:57:49 AM
You seem to have a problem with law enforcement doing it's job. It seems to me these checkpoints are a good way to weed out illegal immigrants and terrorists.
Posted by: Don | 2009-08-16 10:44:48 AM
Are you out of your freaking mind?
Do you know "anything" about history?
Do you not understand that this same crap is what the Nazi's and Stalinists, not to mention the Stasi were doing?
And you call Brock a deranged liberal?
You sir are the one who is deranged.
A complete nazi already...just add power and watch him go...
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-16 11:59:20 AM
Scott,
We are talking about forcing people to answer questions and allowing their cars to be searched. Don't compare apples to oranges.
There is a serious illegal immigrant problem, and it only makes sense to screen the highways with checkpoints. Not unlike the stops we have for DUI.
Are you a bleeding heart liberal, Scott? Sure seems like it.
Posted by: Don | 2009-08-16 12:00:15 PM
It's very simple: follow instructions from police and you live. Disobey, and you could die.
Posted by: Don | 2009-08-16 11:40:04 AM
And I'll say it again...a complete Nazi.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-16 12:00:30 PM
And Shane Matthews wonders why I have a problem with conservativism and it's authority fetish. It produces attitudes like those of Don and Zebulon Pike--just OBEY and nobody gets hurt.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-16 12:03:14 PM
There is a serious illegal immigrant problem, and it only makes sense to screen the highways with checkpoints. Not unlike the stops we have for DUI.
Posted by: Don | 2009-08-16 12:00:15 PM
Yet these same "illegal" immigrants are entitled to schooling, social security, welfare...
If they wanted to catch them they could just invite them in for some more "benefits...
You're argumant holds no water.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-16 12:05:28 PM
So this one exception, done for good reasons, some how makes the US a police state. I don't buy it. Arguments need evidence in order to work. Find more and better sources, and even then you'll get a debate.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-16 12:08:58 PM
I can see that everyone here are suffering from liberal derangement syndrome. There's no arguing with people like that.
Come on everybody! Let's just invite in all the Mexicans and terrorists so they can overrun and destroy the country! Let's cut off our nose to spit our face! Weeeee! Liberalism is fun!
Posted by: Don | 2009-08-16 12:09:02 PM
Zebulon Pike,
The United States and Canada were both countries with cultures of freedom, where we live our lives in peace, go about our daily lives without having to answer to the state.
You seem to think it's completely acceptable for stop people on the street and on the roads, and force them to declare their citizenship. You think it's done for "good reasons"
Zeb, you should read about people being stopped in the streets, walking, in Port Angeles, WA... being subjected to the same treatment as these drives.
In fact people walking on the beaches in Washington state, are approached by immigration officials and asked to declare their citizenship.
Some country. You go to the bloody beach for the afternoon, and the police are walking around checking everyone's papers to make sure they're legal. Not a police state? Well, I don't know what your standard is.
Since New York City and Los Angeles are both within 100 miles of a border (coastal border), DHS could randomly stop you walking out of the Apple Store on Fifth Avenue and ask you to declare your citizenship. And you think that's an acceptable state of affairs?
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-16 12:14:21 PM
You want freedom. But how will you be free when there are Islamic suicide bombers blowing themselves up everyday? How will you find a job when cheap Mexican labour has made you redundant?
If it takes these so-called "police state" measures to ensure I have my safety and my job, then so be it.
Posted by: Don | 2009-08-16 12:23:51 PM
Yes, I do. First, the DHS is not some sort of Gestapo or Stasi. They have a limited footprint. Rather, local law enforcement does the actual checking. My encounters with the NYPD have been extremely positive - always friendly and polite. (Compare that to Toronto's all-white racist police farce). Moreover, I have walked all over New York without any problems at all. It is hardly something I worry about in NYC, let alone anywhere in North America - except Toronto.
Second, the odds of running afoul of any law are low since I would not be outside the Apple Store on 5th Avenue had I not cleared US Customs and Immigration. A few isolated examples won't change my mind any time soon.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-16 12:29:22 PM
Don, you need to really learn the term "false dichotomy".
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-16 12:30:54 PM
Come on everybody! Let's just invite in all the Mexicans and terrorists so they can overrun and destroy the country! Let's cut off our nose to spit our face! Weeeee! Liberalism is fun!
Posted by: Don | 2009-08-16 12:09:02 PM
Lets just see you say something that actually makes sense, that actually bears out facts and logic.
Lets see you say something that says you know anything....anything at all, about what it really means to be an American.
Or you can just keep spewing Nazi propoganda.
If it takes these so-called "police state" measures to ensure I have my safety and my job, then so be it.
Posted by: Don | 2009-08-16 12:23:51 PM
A cradle to grave security baby.
Here's a thought for you Don, from an "American"
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
~Samuel Adams~
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-16 12:32:07 PM
JC,
Doesn't it amuse you that it's always these authoritarian conservatives who claim to be the ones who believe in the values of the founding fathers?
When almost all of those founding fathers would have been aghast at America's interventionist foreign policy, state spying on it's citizens, suspicionless searches and wiretaps.
The conservatives stand for everything the founding fathers were against... with the exception of maybe tax policy.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-16 12:52:19 PM
Mike: I recommend two books to you by Prof. Mark Neely. "Fate of Liberty" deals with allegations that the Lincoln Administration ran a police state. "Southern Rights" refutes the idea that the Confederacy was some sort of libertarian paradise. And don't quote DiLorenzo's weakly argued work to me. If any eras had extreme provisions for law enforcement they were the First World War era, and that of the Founding Fathers, Washington, Adams and Jefferson in particular.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-16 12:58:24 PM
I find it amusing yes, but at the same time it really sets the old "spidey senses" tingling, doesn't it?
Further to your thought Mike:
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
~Samuel Adams~ (again)
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-16 1:02:26 PM
extreme provisions for law enforcement they were the First World War era, and that of the Founding Fathers...
Zeb can you provide examples of the Founding father's "extreme" provisions?
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-16 1:04:06 PM
Come on, guys. Don is obviously trolling. He's probably a libertarian pretending to be a conservative.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-08-16 1:12:53 PM
If a police officer were to stop me on the street, and ask me my citizenship, I would refuse to answer the question. Even though I'm a Canadian, and have nothing to hide. As a matter of principle, since the police officer has no reasonable suspicion to believe I am breaking the law, I should never need to comply with what is clearly illegal search and seizure.
Terrorism and illegal immigration is not a reason to "bend the rules" and glaze over our natural rights as citizens to be free of arbitrary search and seizure by the state.
We stand on the edge of losing our freedom of speech because we sat idly by while busy-bodies, social justice activists, and anti-semitism groups lobbied the government to setup special commissions to investigate our words. Until people like Ezra Levant decided to fight back.
Like those on the left have been willing to sit idly by and let our freedom of speech slip away, those on the right are willing to sit idly by while other freedoms slip away: like freedom from warrantless search, and freedom of movement. In fact conservatives like to jump up and down and claim that requiring reasonable suspicion and search warrants "hampers anti-terrorism efforts", in much the same way the left says "discriminatory speech hampers anti-hate efforts".
Both the left and the right deserve each other. They both show contempt for liberty, and it's why I'll never again identify with either of those labels.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-16 1:13:24 PM
Terrence,
Whoever Don is... he is in downtown Toronto on the Rogers Network. Because he has the same Rogers Wireless Gateway IP address as my iPhone here. :)
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-16 1:16:02 PM
"Perhaps we should have just surrendered to the Axis powers, then. We could have saved countless lives, and I'm sure the police state the Nazis would have imposed on us would have cracked down hard on illegal immigration and terrorism. But hey, at least we would have been alive!"
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-16 11:02:07 AM
Well put. Too many "cops" seem to be on the wrong side these days. I hate to say this, but a lot of so-called zealots have been predicting this for many years.
"So Don, if a cop pulled you over one night and told you to give him a blow job, would you comply?"
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-08-16 11:51:13 AM
I doubt that a taser would be required. Don, and others have proven their willingness to submit, and what better way to demonstrate total submission?
Posted by: dp | 2009-08-16 1:25:02 PM
Yes I am in downtown Toronto. I thought you didn't believe in spying without reasonable cause . A bit of a hypocrite I think.
Posted by: Don | 2009-08-16 1:26:24 PM
Mike, let's drop the inaccurate labelling please. Don is not a conservative voice and acceptance of a police state or abuse of power by law enforcement agents has nothing in common with conservatism. To do so is on par with Don ranting that anyone contesting such flagrant abuse is an anarchist.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-08-16 1:28:42 PM
Don,
I wasn't spying on you. I simply checked your IP address to see if it matched the IP address of any other comments in the system. I noticed it matched my name from the comments I posted on my iPhone while walking the dog--which surprised me. So I quickly investigated and realized that IP address is the wireless gateway address for one of the Rogers cellphone towers in the downtown area, telling me that you're also on the Rogers network with a Blackberry or iPhone or something.
Terrence's comment got me to consider that you might be Fact Check or someone under a different name... so I was just trying to check for evidence of that.
So, what building do you live in? I certainly hope it's not mine. :)
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-16 1:30:54 PM
Mike, apparently there are some others who have noticed an infringement on their rights...
USA Buys Enough Guns in 3 Months to Outfit the Entire Chinese and Indian Army
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-16 1:32:42 PM
It is highly unlikely that any white person would be asked their citizenship. Just saying, because that's the way things work.
JC: Shay's Rebellion under Washington, the Alien and Sedition Acts under Adams, and the Whiskey Rebellion and the Barbary Wars (first US interventions overseas) occurred under Jefferson.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-16 1:33:48 PM
I don't think there should be "borders". People should be able to go where they want. What a world that would be. Oppressive government wouldn't work because people would just leave. Its something to think about, I guess.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2009-08-16 1:34:47 PM
oops, there should have been a link attached.
http://www.ammoland.com/2009/04/22/usa-buys-enough-guns-in-3-months-to-outfit-the-entire-chinese-and-indian-army/
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-16 1:34:51 PM
Don is not a conservative voice and acceptance of a police state or abuse of power by law enforcement agents has nothing in common with conservatism.
What it has in common with conservatism is that conservatives often pursue a "law and order" agenda, and are often pushing to give police "more tools" to do their jobs, and conservatives are always the ones making arguments like "if you have nothing to hide..." in response. Just listen to Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh for any length of time.
Conservatives portrary themselves in an ever-present struggle against The Liberal Agenda(tm), The Feminist Agenda(tm), The Gay Agenda(tm), The Atheist Agenda(tm), and the Terrorist Threat(tm).
In this sense, conservatives view themselves in a kind of civilizational struggle for survival. When you start thinking in absurd dimensions like that, it starts becoming much easier to approve of more and more drastic measures to fight "the enemy".
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-16 1:36:38 PM
Ann Coulter refers to liberals who are against the war on terrorism as "traitors", and defends McCarthyism openly.
Rush Limbaugh regularly implied during the Bush Administration's tenure, that "liberals" were unpatriotic Americans, and lambasted Republican's like John McCain for having the tenacity to speak out against the use of torture.
And from what I can tell, conservatives for the most part, love these two figures.
So is it any surprise, that in the last year of the Bush Administration's tenure, we were seeing things like this--both of these video's are from 2008. Behold the product of eight years of conservative jingoism.
When conservatives like David Frum have come forward and repented of all that B.S., the lot of conservatives have come out an labelled him a traitor and a liberal, etc.
Sorry, Alain. While I acknowledge that not all conservatives fit the mold I am projecting, the point remains that the "conservative political culture" that has emerged is largely responsible for that very taser attack in that video. And if you are a conservative, you will certainly score browny points for conservatism by fessing up to that fact--as Frum has done.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-16 1:41:12 PM
JC: Shay's Rebellion under Washington, the Alien and Sedition Acts under Adams, and the Whiskey Rebellion and the Barbary Wars (first US interventions overseas) occurred under Jefferson.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-16 1:33:48 PM
Fair enough Zeb. I've maintained for some time now that the life span of the "American Republic" lasted about 20 minutes and that the US Foriegn Policy of intervention into the affairs of other nations was the beginning of a long term policy to dominate and control...well, everything.
So basically they began to negate the Constitution a very long time ago. Sad.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-16 1:42:04 PM
I'd rather not tell people where I live. Thanks but no thanks.
Posted by: Don | 2009-08-16 1:44:49 PM
Mike, you've said the phrase "nothing to hide" a couple of times now...
here's an article from someone you might remember...John Dean...on the fallacies of a "nothing to hide" rationalization.
http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2007/10/government_surv.html
I think you'll enjoy it.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-16 1:47:35 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.