Immigration

Greyhound Should Just Say No to the Border Patrol's Bus Sweeps

The company has no legal obligation to let alien hunters harass its customers unless they have a warrant or probable cause.

|

YouTube

Across the country, U.S. Border Patrol agents routinely board intercity buses and interrogate passengers with brown skin or foreign accents, asking for proof that they are in the country legally. These warrantless inspections, which have become more common since Donald Trump took office, are intimidating, inconvenient, and humiliating, and they often lead to the erroneous detention of U.S. citizens and legal residents who can't immediately document their status. Critics of Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration say there is an easy way to end these "papers, please" parades up and down the aisles: The companies that operate the buses can just say no.

Last week Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) and 22 other members of Congress sent Greyhound Lines CEO David Leach a letter urging him to stop letting Border Patrol agents on the company's buses unless they have a warrant or probable cause. "By granting consent to CBP [Customs and Border Protection] agents to board buses to inquire about immigration status, Greyhound exposes its passengers to frequent violations of their constitutional rights to be free from warrantless searches and seizures, racial profiling, and harassment," Castro et al. wrote. "According to Greyhound's website, the company prides itself on 'providing safe, enjoyable and affordable travel to nearly 18 million passengers each year in the United States and Canada.' We do not see how this mission comports with authorizing dragnet CBP searches of Greyhound's passengers."

Greyhound seems to agree but maintains that it is powerless to resist the Border Patrol's demands. The company does not "support or coordinate these searches," a spokeswoman told The Washington Post this week. "Nor are we happy about them….We have started conversations with the Border Patrol to determine if there is anything that can be done to balance the enforcement of federal law with the dignity and privacy of our valued customers." Castro et al. say such conversations are unnecessary, because Greyhound has no legal obligation to allow bus searches without a warrant or probable cause.

It is not hard to see how the company might have gotten the opposite impression. A federal law, 8 USC 1357, says Border Patrol agents "shall have power without warrant…to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle," provided the search occurs "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," defined as a 100-mile zone that happens to include about two-thirds of the country's population. But as the American Civil Liberties Union noted in its own letter to Leach, the blanket power suggested by that language is inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

In the 1973 case Almeida-Sanchez v. U.S., the Court rejected the Border Patrol's warrantless search of a car driven by a Mexican who was legally working in California. The search, which discovered marijuana, was conducted without consent or probable cause. The Border Patrol argued that it was authorized by 8 USC 1357, and the Court disagreed. "No Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution," Justice Potter Stewart observed in the majority opinion.

Greyhound is therefore free to stop Border Patrol agents from boarding its buses, which are nonpublic areas ordinarily open only to employees and passengers with tickets. "The Fourth Amendment protects businesses as well as individuals," the ACLU says, "and we believe Greyhound has the Fourth Amendment right to refuse consent to board its buses." The Department of Homeland Security (which includes the Border Patrol) seems to recognize that right. The department's regulations say "an immigration officer may not enter into the non-public areas of a business…unless the officer has either a warrant or the consent of the owner or other person in control of the site to be inspected."

The Post reports that Leach is not happy about the searches, which "cause delays and missed connections." But in his response to Castro et al., he "also said the company couldn't direct drivers to physically block armed officers from searching buses without putting them in danger." Leach would like Congress to amend the law to clarify that Border Patrol agents need a warrant or probable cause to board a bus in search of unauthorized immigrants. But since he already has Supreme Court precedent and homeland security regulations on his side, declining to cooperate with the Border Patrol's invasions and impositions seems like a perfectly legal and straightforward way to defend the interests and rights of Greyhound's customers.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

99 responses to “Greyhound Should Just Say No to the Border Patrol's Bus Sweeps

  1. Federal monies to them and tax benefits can be dealt with.

  2. So, go ahead, bus drivers. Get into a pissing match with state agents armed with both conflicting statements of authority and with guns.

    1. Hey, I’m sure that Greyhound drivers make more than enough money to justify throwing away their future job prospects, their freedom, and their lives in a fight with the CBP.

      1. Why am I not surprised that you’re a coward.

        1. Why am I not surprised you’re a real badass on the internet?

    2. That’s not the open borders aficianados’ problem.

    3. Sullum is misreading the Almeida-Sanchez v. U.S. case. It hinged on whether there was probable cause. It is far from some kind of black and white ruling that prohibits a CBP officer from walking up and down the aisle of a Greyhound bus and asking people questions.

      The ACLU naturally thinks that this kind of search is unconstitutional. Sullum should quit drinking the ACLU kool-aid uncritically.

      I am not a fan of this law personally, but it is far from clear that it is actually unconstitutional.

      1. Sullum’s point was that these searches are being conducted in the absence of probable cause.

        1. Yes, and SCOTUS ruled probable cause is not needed for immigration enforcement. SCOTUS merely ruled that these searches can’t be “primarily used for drug-search or general law enforcement efforts”.

      2. The ruling was that agents cannot search vehicles absent probable cause or a warrant, which is precisely what CBP is doing on Greyhound buses right now.

        1. Correct, they cannot search the vehicles without probable cause. But they can ask passengers for evidence of legal presence in the US.

      3. Leftists lie. Sullum lies. Reason lies.

        The majority opinion doesn’t say squat about the constitutionality of 1357, a concurrence by White implies it is unconstitutional, while a 4 Justice dissent asserts the search was constitutional, and cites numerous case law upholding 1357.

        I go into detail below

        https://goo.gl/Ek2bgU

        1. Ok, strawman-killer – post the false language from the article or f^^k off.

    4. When did Reason start hiring leftist shitheads and sovereign citizentards to write worthless articles?

      1. How did Reason attract boot-lickers to read and comment?

  3. Just say no to vehicle registration and tax audits while they’re at it as well.

    1. Greyhound: Your Sovereign Bus Line


  4. Leach would like Congress to amend the law to clarify that Border Patrol agents need a warrant or probable cause to board a bus in search of unauthorized immigrants

    Because, you know, the constitution and bill of rights isn’t enough so a random admonition should do the trick?

    1. Leach would like Congress to amend the law to clarify that Border Patrol agents need a warrant or probable cause to board a bus in search of unauthorized immigrants

      So now any bus gets special treatment but the border patrol can still stop and search any passenger car they like. I don’t see the difference between the rights of those on a bus and those in a car, why not require a warrant for all vehicle searches

      1. No amending is necessary, the constitution is explicit on the point of no search and seizure without a warrant and probable cause. There is ‘but immigrants’ exception.

        The only argument would revolve around if it’s ‘unreasonable’ which, I would think, a blanket rule that says ‘we can search all busses’ would be unreasonable at face value. If nothing else it’s overly broad.

        I guess I’m not educated enough to see the reasonableness.

        1. I don’t think the requirement of a warrant is explicit. (The requirement of probable cause for issuance of a warrant is explicit.)

          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 …

          1. You should quote the whole thing, since it’s sort of important.

            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.

            Clearer now?

            1. Sorry, I don’t see the relevance of the addition to the question of whether the amendment is explicit about the requirement of a warrant for every search or seizure. We know that warrants are orders for search or seizure; the language says that one that is issued must meet the stated requirements. But it doesn’t say that no search or seizure may be performed without a warrant.

              And in fact not every search and seizure requires a warrant. Even if one disagrees about some of the relevant case law, it would be tough to argue that an officer of the peace who observes a murder must obtain a warrant before detaining the murderer.

          2. If warrants aren’t necessary when there’s probable cause, when would a warrant be necessary? Are they for when you want to search something without probable cause? If warrants aren’t necessary for searches that are reasonable, is the whole purpose of the 4th amendment to allow for unreasonable searches?

            The only logical interpretation of the 4th amendment is that any unreasonable search is unconstitutional, only searches with warrants are reasonable (otherwise warrants are just for unreasonable searches), and warrants can only be issued upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

            1. The only logical interpretation of the 4th amendment is that any unreasonable search is unconstitutional,

              So far so good.

              only searches with warrants are reasonable (otherwise warrants are just for unreasonable searches)

              A warrantless search justified by consent can be reasonable. In some circumstances a search may be reasonable where it is not feasible to obtain a warrant, usually because of time constraints. E.g., a search, pursuant to an arrest for murder, of the arrestee’s person for weapons.

              and warrants can only be issued upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

              That’s a quote rather than an interpretation.

        2. Didn’t SCOTUS rule that border patrol searches within x miles (100?) from the border was reasonable?

          Not that I agree, but it seems this has already been adjudicated.

          1. It has been, I simply disagree. The idea that there is an exception that applies to a 100 mile swath of territory is, in my view, unconstitutional given that no such exception seems to exist and no amendment exists (not to even mention how much geographic territory that actually encompasses which should indicate towards it’s so-called reasonableness).

            Again, though, it relies on that ‘reasonable’ bit which has caused endless amounts of trouble.

        3. the constitution is explicit on the point of no search and seizure without a warrant’

          I agree that a warrant should be required in all cases not just in cases of immigrants. as you pointed out anyone within 100 miles can be searched that includes most of Sacramento Ca only because of the port of entry on the river. We have seen plenty of cases of not just immigrants being harassed by border patrol, remember people with badges will harass anyone.

      2. Leach would like Congress to amend the law to clarify that Border Patrol agents need a warrant or probable cause to board a bus in search of unauthorized immigrants

        They aren’t “searching” the bus or the people, they are asking for identification.

    2. Well, we needed laws to allow self defense. 2A
      We need laws to curtail asset forfeiture. 4A
      Why wouldn’t we need laws in this case?
      Because more laws is always better.

  5. Maybe they should, but they do not have to. Greyhound can let the cops on their bus as much or as little as they want. They are a corporation with plenty of lawyers. I am sure they are quite aware of their ability to say no and just choose not to do so.

    1. I doubt that. If some Greyhound employee told a Border Patrol agent he may not board the bus, I’m pretty sure the response would be something like “my ass” and the agent would board anyway.

      1. “OK. Bus is leaving. Get off or end up in Fresno. Your call.”

        1. Border officer jumps in front of bus, kills driver in self defense.

          1. Yeah I don’t think that’s what’ll happen. More like the bus will run the agent over.

            1. Cops occasionally do jump in front of cars to claim self defense, or that you assaulted them.

              I was half joking.

              1. And anyone who thinks that shooting the driver will stop a car within a few feet, let alone a bus, is too stupid to be issued live ammunition.

    2. Are you implying in this comment that you (1) did not read the article, (2) read the article but did not believe the statements issued by spokesperson of Greyhound that the company is “powerless” to stop these searches, or (3) are just trolling?

    3. considering most bus drivers are now illegal Mexicans themselves. Thats the reason greyhound won’t put a stop to it since border patrol will overlook their driver as long as they cooperate. Plus whats the legal difference between a passenger car and a bus, just size nothing more.

    4. Greyhound can let the cops on their bus as much or as little as they want.

      The SCOTUS decision seems pretty clear: border agents have a right to stop the bus and require the passengers to identify themselves.

  6. If government schools are going to indoctrinate younguns with government propaganda, I’d sure like it to include one class every year (I mean one year long class every year, not one hour-long session) on how to tell the government to fuck off. A+ to every student who refuses to stand for the pledge or sing the anthem at footballs games.

    Future adults would be far better off knowing they can demand a warrant and ask if they are being detained than having stupid lessons in writing a check. FInal exam should be memorizing the bill of rights.

    1. They should also be warned, of course, that government agents rarely actually fuck off when told to. Telling them to fuck off is just a legal tactic that might pay off later in the proceedings.

      1. Might pay off for their estate. Not so much for them, exactly.

    2. To counter indoctrination you do not like you propose counter indoctrinating young people to believe things you do like. Like not standing for the pledge or singing the national anthem.

      *thumbs up* way to stick to your morals!

      1. I believe in telling young people the truth.

        1. I believe in saying things for fun, and if people get confused, it ain’t my problem.

    3. I agree with you.

      We should be teaching the kids that all governments are somewhere along the line of becoming the enemy of the people and that public sector unions are a cancer. Probably half the voting public believes something like the above, yet I’m guessing no school teaches those beliefs.

      And to contradict myself. My son took AP world history this year and he said the teacher led the students to the belief that all civilizations eventually get destroyed by their government. I’ve got to meet the teacher one of these days. She sounds interesting.

    4. you will also have to teach government agents that the citizens have a right to tell them to f off. most agents no less than the average citizen

  7. Yes!! More immigration articles that peddle more racism claims!

    Quick points:
    – 7 of the 20 (35%) most recent articles are articles on immigration.
    – 9 of the 20 (45%) most recent articles directly reference Trump.
    These numbers do overlap but it must be noted of the 20 some are things like the Stossel advertisement.

    In any event, keep up the good work. The free minds here sure march in ideological lockstep pretty well and the endless moralizing to convert the heathens to the one true faith of open-borderism has been a resounding success thus far.

    1. Hey, if the phrase ‘brown skin’ is in there, it’s guaranteed grade A quality.

    2. You don’t have to be an open-borderer to see that our policy is neither legal nor moral nor smart. Un-legal, un-moral and un-smart government activities should get as much ink as they can stuff into a web site.

    3. The same thing happens when some kid goes on a shooting rampage. All the articles shift to bedwetting about gun control.

  8. How is a bus driver supposed to know if an agent has probable cause, and what is the driver supposed to do about it if the agent says he does? Are the rent-a-cops at the bus station supposed to draw their guns on the Border Patrol? Maybe Rep. Castro thinks it would do some good for those taken into custody if Greyhound issued a People’s Front of Judea-style statement about how the agents don’t have their permission to board the buses.

    1. Put the agent on record as saying he has probable cause. Makes him and the agency easier to sue later.

  9. declining to cooperate with the Border Patrol’s invasions and impositions seems like a perfectly legal and straightforward way to defend the interests and rights of Greyhound’s customers.

    So, exactly how is that going to work with an $18 per hour driver with no real access to a lawyer?

    Driver: “No you can’t come in. We have SC precedents on our side.”

    CBP Goon: Well, we pulled you over for doing 60 in the that long, downhill 55MPH stretch. We can wait for the local sheriff to get here and write you ticket. The good part is that will give us time to bring out the dog for quick non-search … Or we can just have a quick chat with your passengers.

    1. The conversation wouldn’t be that complicated. The agent would just say “fuck you” and get on the bus.

    2. Does Border Patrol have the authority to enforce state traffic laws?

      1. Nope. Then again, the inland checkpoints are just for the purpose of establishing immigration status. But all the signs leading up to the Campo,Calif checkpoint brag about the amount of drugs seized at that point.

        Rules don’t matter. FYTW is good enough for CPB.

  10. Greyhound has been doing this for decades. And it’s one reason I got into the anti-anti-immigration side in the first place. INS would come on the bus and check the IDs of every swarthy citizen, but my pale and pasty Canadian friends were never asked. Fuck that.

    That the INS now does an anal cavity search of everyone regardless of skin color is NOT an improvement.

    1. Vanishingly few illegal immigrants are white. So it makes sense for them to prioritize.

      1. There was that one time INS deported the entire analog electronics group at an old company. Because they were Irish. Because dipshit HR forgot to renew their H1Bs. Do you know how fucking rare good analog electronic engineers are?

        Also, while most illegal immigrants may not be white, but California was once a part of Mexico, and a part Spain before that. Being swarthy in California means that you family may very well have been here a few centuries or more before Trump’s ancestors ever thought about heading west across that big ocean.

        Targeting people for papers verification just because they don’t look like Canadians is stupid. I’m not opposed to profiling, but this is not profiling. Profiling includes MORE than just skin color and apparent cultural heritage. Profiling is a matching a pattern that is more specific than that. Don’t use profiling as an excuse to be racist.

    2. 52% of CBP agents are Hispanic, just so you know.

  11. “Nice bus you have here. Would be a shame if we had to delay you for eight hours in order to make sure all the safety regulations are being adhered to. Hey, Joe, that look like a loose mudflap to you?”

    1. Don’t forget the driver’s logbook – – – – –

  12. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube monopolies suppressing speech they politically disagree with: Private companies can do whatever they want.

    Greyhound following federal law by allowing Border Patrol agents to enforce the law: OMG somebody get the ACLU on this!

    1. its comparable to California trying to make it illegal for a citizen within the State to even talk to a federal agent.

      1. That would be nice. If the BATF show up looking for guns no one has to answer.

        1. unless a family member is kidnapped which FBI has jurisdiction over but I can’t talk to them. Consequences of stupid laws

    2. Clearly the government strongarming companies into agreeing to allow warrantless searches with no probable cause of their customers (which violates the 4th Amendment, which is a higher law than the 100 mile constitution-free zone one – you can always tell when an authoritarian wanders in here thinking libertarians think “enforcing the law” is inherently good) and racial profiling (based on your comment above) aren’t real violations of civil liberties. No, clearly the bigger threat is Internet companies you voluntarily associate with removing some content at times unfairly.

    3. Yeah, it’s great when the government strongarms private companies into helping it violate everyone’s rights. As a libertarian, I fucking love that.

  13. “because Greyhound has no legal obligation to allow bus searches without a warrant or probable cause.”

    Broken taillight again? Seems like your bus has a broken taillight every time you come pass this checkpoint – – – – – –

  14. Of course the constitutional (cough, cough) response is TSA in every bus station, and prohibiting intermediate stops to pick up or drop off. Full fingerprint and background checks for terrorism and/or sex trafficking in addition to the existing crook & druggie testing of the drivers. And maybe to be fair, test every employee up to the chair of the board.

    1. And internal passports.

      1. we are already at the stage of using passports to fly state to state. I think its next year, if you don’t have the correct drivers license you will have to use your passport to fly. California as an example won’t be able to provide the new licenses for years after the mandated new licenses are required. interesting side not if you owe more than $50k to the IRS or have outstanding child support you can’t get a passport so many people will not be able to fly state to state anymore.

    2. “”Of course the constitutional (cough, cough) response is TSA in every bus station””

      Every now and then I hear talk of bringing TSA level security to train stations. Every now and then, TSA will setup a table and swab bags at random at NY Penn station.

  15. Not expecting to be on a greyhound bus anytime soon, but if I’m on any public transport and anyone demands my ID, I’ll say “fuck you, get a warrant”.

    -jcr

    1. ID? No sir, I don’t watch that channel.

  16. Greyhound should start smuggling people to fight inhumane immigration policies

  17. Great bunch of libertarians here, crowing about how Greyhound [checks notes] shouldn’t…shouldn’t stop border patrol from violating riders’ fourth amendment rights…

    1. You misunderstand. We’re saying Greyhound CAN’T tell Border Patrol agents what to do, so it’s not reasonable to expect them to.

    2. No shit. Libertarians who are totally cool with warrantless, no probable cause searches of vehicles that result in people – some of whom are American citizens – getting toted off to jail for no reason other than that they can’t prove their citizenship on the spot. This is the same crap that Arpaio was doing that got him into trouble.

      Hey! I guess that means that these guys would support Arpaio for president on the Libertarian ticket in 2020! Not only is he a shit stain on the 4th Amendment, but he’s also got a lot of experience in spying on his political opponents and teaming up with a corrupt county attorney to file bogus criminal charges against his political opponents. If that’s not presidential I don’t know what is.

      On the other hand, it’s a little shitty of the ACLU and Castro to expect some poor Greyhound driver to stand up against a federal agent wanting to search his bus. Easy for them to say because the gun isn’t pointed at them……

      1. …Libertarians who are totally cool with warrantless, no probable cause searches of vehicles…

        I see no examples of that in these comments.

        …it’s a little shitty of the ACLU and Castro to expect some poor Greyhound driver to stand up against a federal agent…

        I and several others have said just that.

      2. “”Libertarians who are totally cool with warrantless, no probable cause searches of vehicles””

        Are not libertarians

  18. I think you all are missing the main point here – Greyhound still exists. I thought $99 Southwest Air flights put them out of business.

    1. Saved by the No Fly List.

      1. And AmTrak, every time, daily, that AmTrak breaks down they send everyone on a greyhound.

  19. I recall being ‘delayed’ for many hours on the US side of the border. Whole damn bus was detained ’cause of a suspected drug smuggler, who had spent 3 weeks in Matamoros. That would be me. ‘Da fuck you doing here for that long!’. ‘Waiting for the transfer to another bus to SMA, Gto, to join my parents for their 50th wedding anniversary. Must have been here for almost an hour’. Took like 8 transfers from bus to bus to get there. But he thought I was just buying drugs and whores, or some such. Showed him the programme from the church service and everything. He did have he decency to apologize (boy, was his face red!).

  20. Greyhound being subject to all manor of government regulation, I’m sure Trump could give them many profit-sucking headaches if they cross him. Not to mention his power to prompt a boycott with just a handful of tweets.

  21. open borders REASON hates USA sovereignty

  22. As long as the 100 mile perimiter massive highway blockagesa nd searches can legally continue, so can searches of Greyhound Busses, Amtrak, etc. THSE searches are what need to end.

    If we’d just build the stupid wall and close up our borders, then other factors would eventually find and return all those here in violatioin of the laws on immigratioin and entry. As long as the southern boundary remains so porous, there will be mamy illegal invaders to catch riding on Greyhound and otehr modes of transport, both public and private. .

  23. UMMM You do realize that current supreme court rulings give ICE/BP authority to detain and search a vehicle without a warrant anywhere in the Country if you are within 50 miles of a border? There is no saying no, it’s of course you can search the vehicle why yes I have papers and smile while you do it or off to a cell you go. Because you are not legally in the US, see airport cases. And yes international airports count as borders.

  24. Legal and straightforward – yes. A smart business decision? Not hardly. In the best case, Greyhound will pay through the nose to fight a legal case against the CBP. For their money, they will get no direct benefit. They’ll get some advertising and reputational value but only among that fraction of their customers who agree that the CBP abuses should be reined in. But they’ll lose big among their anti-immigration customers.

    It would be wonderful if businesses were altruistic and fought legal battles just for the principle. But that’s not what they’re there for.


  25. In the 1973 case Almeida-Sanchez v. U.S., the Court rejected the Border Patrol’s warrantless search of a car driven by a Mexican who was legally working in California. The search, which discovered marijuana, was conducted without consent or probable cause. The Border Patrol argued that it was authorized by 8 USC 1357, and the Court disagreed. “No Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution,” Justice Potter Stewart observed in the majority opinion.

    Greyhound is therefore free to stop Border Patrol agents from boarding its buses

    Sounds like more legal Narrative spinning. Notice that we’re not hearing the details of Court’s disagreement.

    Aaaaaand whaddya know? It is bs. The majority ruling only refers to 1357 once, to note reference to it by the govt. as authorization for the search, which was rejected at the appeals court level. It is not referred to again in the ruling.

    “The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recognized that the search of petitioner’s automobile was not a “border search,” “, meaning it had already determined that 1357 was not the applicable law in the case.

    The majority ruling passed no judgment on 1357 at all, and Sullum is just lying to you.

    1. It *is* referred to in Justice White’s concurrence, apparently seeking to invalidate it, while a four person dissenting opinion upholds the legality of the search in the case, and refers to multiple cases upholding 1357.

      In the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, ***8 U.S.C. 1357 (a) (3) has also been sustained in***, e. g., Mienke v. United States, 452 F.2d 1076 (1971); United States v. Marin, 444 F.2d 86 (1971); Duprez v. United States, 435 F.2d 1276 (1970); United States v. Sanchez-Mata, 429 F.2d 1391 (1970); United States v. Avey, 428 F.2d 1159 (1970); United States v. Miranda, 426 F.2d 283 (1970); and United States v. Elder, 425 F.2d 1002 (1970). See also Valenzuela-Garcia v. United States, 425 F.2d 1170 (1970), and Barba-Reyes v. United States, 387 F.2d 91 (1967).

      Leftists Lie. You’re reading a left wing rag that lies to you.

      1. The dissent gives some useful constitutional history for government control of immigration.

        Useful for anyone interested in an *honest* discussion about federal immigration power to read. Even if you’re opposed, you see the legal argument you’re opposing.

  26. Grayhound is an American interstate company and it should abide by the laws of the land. The Democrats want to break laws and they are not for democracy or they would follow the will of the democratically elected official that passed the laws they want to break.

  27. Maybe Greyhound does not like law breakers roaming freely in their country so they are happy to comply.

  28. “an immigration officer may not enter into the non-public areas of a business?unless the officer has either a warrant or the consent of the owner or other person in control of the site to be inspected.”

    Doesn’t apply to vehicles, and a passenger compartment is a public area of business anyway.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.