Troublemakers or standing up for our rights?

[Mindflayer]

I fully disagree with the sentiment that this behavior is fine to "lock down the borders". I've lived overseas in nations with checkpoints and "Vere are your papers?" attitude. What happens when you're wearing that pro-2A shirt, and DHS says, "Oh, lookie, one of those Sovereign Citizens. Let's detain him."

Let's flip the tables. Let's say black and latino cops say, "Hey, white guys. Must be right wing extremists. Detain."

Don't use unconstitutional bullshit to stomp all over our rights.

[dorminWS]

I fully disagree with the sentiment that this behavior is fine to "lock down the borders". I've lived overseas in nations with checkpoints and "Vere are your papers?" attitude. What happens when you're wearing that pro-2A shirt, and DHS says, "Oh, lookie, one of those Sovereign Citizens. Let's detain him."

Let's flip the tables. Let's say black and latino cops say, "Hey, white guys. Must be right wing extremists. Detain."

Don't use unconstitutional bullshit to stomp all over our rights.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So how do we stop the Hispanics from taking over the frikkin' country? If we don't, the only difference is that we'll see a future of being an oppressed minority being rousted, detained and asked for their papers IN SPANISH.

[grumpyMSG]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I guess I am a little muddled on this one, the fourth amendment has the word "unreasonable" in it. It doesn't say "inalienable". I would even argue that an auto, boat or aircraft would constitute a person's effects. The crux of the discussion is where the line is drawn between reasonable and unreasonable and does asking a question constitute a search? I don't think it does. It is obvious I put the line in a different place than some others. As a society, we don't individually get to pick where the line drawn, Article III Section 2 of the Constitution gives that role to the Court system (defined in Section 1).
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unreasonable

un·rea·son·able
adjective \-ˈrēz-nə-bəl, -ˈrē-zən-ə-bəl\
Definition of UNREASONABLE
1
a: not governed by or acting according to reason <unreasonable people>
b: not conformable to reason : absurd <unreasonable beliefs>
2
: exceeding the bounds of reason or moderation <working under unreasonable pressure>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable

in·alien·able
adjective \(ˌ)i-ˈnāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈnā-lē-ə-nə-\
Definition of INALIENABLE
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>
— in·alien·abil·i·ty noun
— in·alien·ably adverb

This isn't a perfect world by any stretch of the imagination, There are both good people and evil people out there. Do the various governments get it right all time? Oh heck no. Do they get out of control with "promote the general Welfare"? Absolutely. I can't say the purpose of the Federal Government better than the Preamble, one of our duties as citizens is to hold them to it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html

[GeneFrenkle]

I suspect the use of "inalienable" really meant a reference to our unalienable rights, of which the 4th is one.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Mindflayer]

So how do we stop the Hispanics from taking over the frikkin' country? If we don't, the only difference is that we'll see a future of being an oppressed minority being rousted, detained and asked for their papers IN SPANISH.

You mean the illegal aliens? We secure our borders. Stop the silly War on Drugs. We offer a way for people to quickly become legal aliens.

We've gone thru waves of different folks coming to this nation and becoming part of our fabric. We can't just say, "No Latinos!" That's un-American. We can say, though, that English is the official language. (That's a rant in another thread.)

But let's stretch out your question... How do we stop the Statists from taking over the freaking country? How do we prevent this escalating erosion of our rights?

[GeneFrenkle]

@mindflayer - aren't you really asking how to make gov't smaller and less intrusive on free people?

I dunno given our current path...

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gunderwood]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I guess I am a little muddled on this one, the fourth amendment has the word "unreasonable" in it. It doesn't say "inalienable". I would even argue that an auto, boat or aircraft would constitute a person's effects. The crux of the discussion is where the line is drawn between reasonable and unreasonable and does asking a question constitute a search? I don't think it does. It is obvious I put the line in a different place than some others. As a society, we don't individually get to pick where the line drawn, Article III Section 2 of the Constitution gives that role to the Court system (defined in Section 1).

Unreasonable to the founding generation meant without a lawful warrant. There was and is a process for that. The judicial review (which was Marbury vs. Madison, not Article III, Section 2 because it caused quite a stir at the time) has expanded the powers of the state in nearly every instance, so they don't have to do the right thing...which is get a warrant. Typically, because most judges would turn them down.

Unreasonable use to mean without just cause (aka PC), now it simple means as long as it's not an inconvenience to the government.

I'm pretty sure if the founding generation knew what that decision and the establishment of judicial review actually would be used to justify, there would have been another revolution.

So I take it you're a living document kind of guy, eh? If not, why use the argument? Either the contract means something or its just a guideline open for reinterpretation. This is why we are in this mess; people compromising the meaning and intent of the contract (US Constitution) because they like the outcome of a policy.

[gunderwood]

I guess I am a little muddled on this one, the fourth amendment has the word "unreasonable" in it. It doesn't say "inalienable".

Unalienable is the language of the DoI, not the Constitution. Here's a good explaination:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/ ... _as_1.html

Our American Declaration of Independence is the supreme, unamendable moral law of the United States. Declarational law preceded and trumps our supreme, amendable secular law, the Constitution. As stated in our Declaration, the purpose of secular law (Constitution) is to secure our sacred, unalienable, equal, individual rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness -- i.e., private property honestly earned through creative labor: "That to secure these rights, Governments [constitutions] are instituted among Men...."

While our Constitution and Bill of Rights are the greatest secular laws ever written, it must be acknowledged that our secular Constitution has a sacred mandate -- the Declaration of Independence. The American Revolution is first and foremost a revolution in sacred, unalienable human rights and their associated moral laws (Declaration), and secondarily a revolution in secular law (Constitution). We must be aware that secular law, and particularly the "Living Constitution" (Orwellian Newspeak for Dead Constitution), can be perverted into tyranny when such law becomes destructive of the individual's human rights.

It is unreasonable to search or seize property which the enforcement arm of the government has not demonstrated reasonable evidence, to an independent authority for due process (typically the judiciary), that the law has been broken. Because they looked "Hispanic" or because I happened across an agent, is the very definition of unreasonable. It's a government fishing expedition.

[zerodown1]

With so many battles to be fought, I think some priority is in order.I see no sense in kicking at rattle snakes, sooner or later you will get bit.

[gunderwood]

This just goes to show that one of our God-given rights is to be a pain in the ass.

It's only a pita because the government agents are attempting to use their position of authority to force compliance. If you leave before they "release" you, they'll just claim that as their RAS. Thus, you must sit there and play word games with them until they give up. All the time hoping you don't slip up and comply with anything such as pulling into secondary or entering their work flow.

After all, they're getting paid to be a pain in my mine and I'm just trying to go about by business.

[HighExpert]

I would not object to the BP requesting a passport AT the border...100miles inside is ridiculous. If we suddenly required a passport to visit Mexico because of the illegal entry of folks from south of the border I will bet that Mexico might think twice about how wonderful the old US was to jump the border into. The passport would probably stop about 60% of Americans from even going to Mexico and keep their money at home. Americans do not want a national ID card so I say we use what is done on world-wide basis. Back to the passport. Come to think of it, how about requiring all citizens to have a passport and a passport be required to vote?

[Mindflayer]

Even better....

According to the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court, Federal agents at the border do not need any reason to search through travelers’ laptops, cell phones or digital cameras for evidence of crimes. So, within 100 miles of any border, they can search through any and everything you have.

So, think giving up your Fourth Amendment right is worth stopping a few illegal aliens? If so, I am sure China and North Korea would love to have you.

[GeneFrenkle]

100 miles this year. 105 miles next year, 110 miles the year after....

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[allingeneral]

Come to think of it, how about requiring all citizens to have a passport and a passport be required to vote?

Can I get a federally assigned bar code tattooed on my forearm while we're at it?

[gunderwood]

Even better....

According to the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court, Federal agents at the border do not need any reason to search through travelers’ laptops, cell phones or digital cameras for evidence of crimes. So, within 100 miles of any border, they can search through any and everything you have.

So, think giving up your Fourth Amendment right is worth stopping a few illegal aliens? If so, I am sure China and North Korea would love to have you.

A lot of companies have started providing laptops/electronic devices that are empty except for the OS/programs and then downloading the companies information since that has a little bit more protection. Of course they wipe the machine before returning to the US. Also, wasn't there a case about if you encrypt your data they can demand the passphrase and if you don't provide it they deny you entry into the country?

[GeneFrenkle]

@gunderwood -

http://travel.stackexchange.com/questio ... ed-to-know

EFF: https://www.eff.org/wp/defending-privac ... al-devices

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Tweaker]

I fully disagree with the sentiment that this behavior is fine to "lock down the borders". I've lived overseas in nations with checkpoints and "Vere are your papers?" attitude. What happens when you're wearing that pro-2A shirt, and DHS says, "Oh, lookie, one of those Sovereign Citizens. Let's detain him."

Let's flip the tables. Let's say black and latino cops say, "Hey, white guys. Must be right wing extremists. Detain."

Don't use unconstitutional bullshit to stomp all over our rights.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So how do we stop the Hispanics from taking over the frikkin' country? If we don't, the only difference is that we'll see a future of being an oppressed minority being rousted, detained and asked for their papers IN SPANISH.

1) E-verify - they can't get jobs, they won't come. Are you folks aware that this program IS FOOKIN' VOLUNTARY!?!?!?!?!

2) Bash the piss out of employers who violate this. they can't get jobs, they won't come

3) DEPORT DEPORT DEPORT. This is an obvious and underused solution.

4) STOP GIVING THEM ID, EDUCATIONS, WELFARE. DERRRRRRR

5) Clamp down on "remittance." A large % of the Mexican GDP is from money sent from illegals in the USA. Did you know that 10% of those born in Mexico are here in the USA today?
http://azstarnet.com/business/local/mex ... 0800c.html

6) NO AMNESTY NOW OR EVAR!

7) Close the fookin' border!

Any or all of these would be moar effective than harrassing people on the open road. Soooooooooo much harder though, both politically and actually. In case you were uncertain, our political 'leaders" DON"T WANT TO STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION! Democrats (generally) don't want it stopped because 70% of aliens are better termed UNDOCUMENTED DEMOCRATS. RepubEicans (generally) don't want it stopped due to being beholden to large corporations and wealthy employers who exploit the reduced labor costs.

That's all I have to say about thay-at.

[Tweaker]

Come to think of it, how about requiring all citizens to have a passport and a passport be required to vote?

Can I get a federally assigned bar code tattooed on my forearm while we're at it?

I think something more along the lines of a big electronic device inserted bodily like in Total Recall would be more likely, given this administration. Suppository form only.

[dorminWS]

In answer to my question as to how we keep Hispanics from taking over our country, some of us have prescribed the following remedies:

(1) E-verify - they can't get jobs, they won't come.
(2) Bash the piss out of employers who violate this.
(3) DEPORT DEPORT DEPORT.
(4) STOP GIVING THEM ID, EDUCATIONS, WELFARE.
(5) Clamp down on "remittance."
(6) NO AMNESTY NOW OR EVAR!
(7) Close the fookin' border
(8) Stop the silly War on Drugs.
(9) Say that English is the official language.

This is great stuff. These are all eminently rational, reasonable, workable proposals. I agree with ALL of it. But guess what? It’s all been on the table for decades, and none of it has happened or is likely to ever happen. So while we’re building sky-castles, why don’t we just say we’ll put one of those Star Wars force fields up at the border and freeze all illegal aliens in carbonite like Jabba the Hut did to Han Solo; then we can all quit worrying about it and go sit around the campfire and sing Coom-Bah-Yah?

I don’t think illegal searches and seizures are acceptable. I don’t think a “stop and search zone” of within 100 miles of the border is acceptable. But given that the redistributionist, social justice advocating statists already have enough control to prevent any rational measures from being taken to protect our culture and sovereignty, what can we REALLY get done about this?