Immigration

'You a Citizen?': Video Shows CBP Agent Asking New Mexico Bus Passengers for Papers

"Living in Nazi Germany where you need to show your I.D. within the states, this is bullshit."

|

Yolanda Varela Gonzalez/Facebook/Screenshot

Video captured aboard a charter bus in New Mexico last week shows a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agent asking passengers if they're American citizens.

On its way from El Paso to Los Angeles, the bus stopped at a checkpoint near Deming, New Mexico, roughly 70 miles from the Mexican border. The video, which was then posted to Facebook, shows a CBP agent asking passengers, "You a citizen?" and checking their documentation.

The agent's actions are challenged by the woman taking the video, Los Angeles teacher Yolanda Varela Gonzalez. "I understand you're not allowed to ask for that within 100 miles of the border," she says. The officer claims he's not doing anything wrong, but the woman disagrees. "You're not supposed to be on here. You know you guys terrorizing people," she says.

"We're not even within 100 miles of the border. This is bullshit. This is what you guys do to everybody," Gonzalez continues. "Living in Nazi Germany where you need to show your I.D. within the states, this is bullshit."

It's unclear whether Gonzalez was saying the bus was more or less than 100 miles away from Mexico, but since the incident occurred roughly 70 miles from the border, the agent's actions were legal. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1946 allows immigration agents to "to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle." Originally, agents could only conduct such searches within 25 miles of any "external boundary of the United States," but a 1953 Department of Justice rule expanded the distance to 100 miles. The Supreme Court has upheld immigration agents' extra authority in areas near the border. As far as the law is concerned, your Fourth Amendment rights essentially evaporate when you come close to a national frontier.

But just because it's legal doesn't make it proper, says American Civil Liberties Union New Mexico Communications Director Micah McCoy. "We believe people's rights don't just disappeared because they are by an international border," McCoy tells KOAT.

Gonzalez agrees, telling KOAT that people shouldn't have to live in fear of immigration agents. "It really boils down to how people are being treated regardless of how many miles it is, the fact that people are living in fear," she says. "And yes, it's racial profiling, and that is just a violation, any sort of racial profiling is a violation of human rights and civil rights."

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.

179 responses to “'You a Citizen?': Video Shows CBP Agent Asking New Mexico Bus Passengers for Papers

  1. If only there were some kind of structure that could be built at the border, so this sort of enforcement could happen at the source of the problem without burdening random travelers inside the US.

    1. Yeah I’m sure they’ll stop using these tactics once the wall gets built. Solid take.

      1. You’re right. Let’s do nothing instead. That will help.

        Or let’s advocate some sort of fantasy utopian answer that has zero chance of ever being enacted. That’s way better than being responsible and trying to help solve problems.

        1. It’s a utopian fantasy to expect the government to not routinely violate the 4th amendment within 100 miles of the border?

          1. Expecting problems to magically disappear is a fantasy, yes.

            Glad I could clear that up for you.

            1. Your argument is basically:

              1. WE MUST DO SOMETHING!

              2. You don’t want to do this one thing I want to do, therefore we must do this other thing, even if it blatantly violates the Constitution and individual rights.

              Someone doesn’t have to believe in fantasies to realize your logic is terrible.

              1. No, I didn’t say “we must do something”. Apparently someone wants fewer border agents demanding ID inside the border. That might change if someone did something to solve the problem an alternate, less intrusive way. It won’t change if no one does anything different. That’s some wacky logic, I know.

                1. The same people pushing for the wall are the same people who most enthusiastically support these policies. I’m sorry if I don’t buy the laughable notion that they’d given in on this if they got a wall (and unfortunately this isn’t even something that Dems or moderate or libertarian Republicans have put on the table in the debates over the wall and immigration).

                  Also, even if you assume the wall was perfect in terms of stopping illegal border crossings, that has no impact on the people already here illegally, or future immigrants who overstay visas (which is a huge portion of the overall group of people here illegally). So the people defending this policy will have very little reason to abandon it if they get a wall.

                2. That might change if …

                  I’ll bet you think that if they institute a national sales tax (“fair” tax) that they’ll abolish the income tax.

                3. Apparently someone wants fewer border agents demanding ID inside the border. That might change if someone did something to solve the problem an alternate, less intrusive way.

                  What is “the problem” other than “border agents demanding ID inside the border”?

            2. I don’t see anyone expecting problems to magically disappear. Just expecting that the Fourth amendment be respected near borders. Because it’s the fucking law. You want to take away people’s rights near the border, then change the constitution.

              1. The Supreme Court disagrees Zeb. What can one do about that, since it is THE LAW as you say.

                1. I don’t know. Probably not much. I don’t put all that much stock in laws.

              2. I don’t decide what happens any more than anyone else, Zeb. I want everything to go perfectly for everyone. Do you see that not happening? Do you see how much it matters what I want?

                1. Yes, my comment wasn’t really supposed to be a direct challenge to you.

              3. Seems like your argument was needed in 1946, when the bill was passed and signed. The DOJ doesn’t have the authority to increase the distance either, but that happened as well. Should have been a legislative action.

            3. The very serious problem being, apparently, brown people on a bus.

              1. The very serious problem of between 11 and, maybe, 30 million people, illegally in the country using resources intended for those, who do belong here.
                And it isn’t just brown people, but white, yellow and any other skin hue you can name.
                They all should do the honorable thing and go back to where the nation of their citizenship and come here legally, if they want.
                We let in more than a million each year – more than all the countries in the world, combined.
                Why should our resources be stretched to this level? For people, who don’t respect the country enough to follow our laws.

          2. Wasn’t the Democratic Party in charge of Congress when this law was passed in 1946?

            1. Yes. So what? Did someone claim it wasn’t?

              1. Was about to post this. For lc1789, it seems the primary concern on any topic is whether it can be tied to the Democratic party in some way.

                1. The democrats are responsible for over 99% of America’s misery.

          3. Does that mean that it is OK for the Government to violate the 4th-A outside of 100-miles of the border?

            1. Yes it is. Driving through NM on I-40 a few times I’ve seen CBP vehicles that far north.

            2. Go read that amendment, again.
              The word “reasonable” means whatever the Supreme Court says it does and they say it isn’t unreasonable to ask for proof of citizenship within 100 miles of the border.
              So, no violation of the 4th Amendment, here.

        2. Let’s do nothing instead. That will help.

          Help what?

        3. Yeah, instead you advocate some sort of fancy utopian answer that has zero chance of ever working.

          The wall won’t work.

          You want real border security? Then get used to checkpoints. Get used to mandatory ID. Get used to warrantless searches. Get used to internal travel visas. Get used to asking permission to leave the country.

          1. And then we still won’t have border security!

          2. eliminate the social welfare system and nanny-state government and everyone will stop caring about border security.

            1. YYYYYYAAAAYY! Problem solved. And while we’re at it American business owners should stop hiring undocumented individuals. Like that will ever happen! Didn’t Drumpf employ undocumented individuals at one point? I’m pretty sure he has put he’ll never admit it.

          3. So, you live in a dwelling without walls/doors/fences?
            How’s that working out for you?

            1. I have a wall around my property and guess what, that doesn’t stop the wildlife from scaling over it, burrowing under it or flying over it and dropping shut bombs on my patio furniture.

              1. So you’re saying that illegal immigrants are animals and vermin?

                If the purpose of your wall was specifically to keep out wildlife, then that would certainly be a failure of its purpose. But I’m guessing your wall exists to keep out people and has probably fulfilled that role pretty well thus far, rendering your point moot.

                1. “But I’m guessing your wall exists to keep out people and has probably fulfilled that role pretty well thus far”

                  Nope, can’t say that is has. Several years ago I had to notify the police about someone breaking into my RV I keep on the property. Come to find out days later that it was actually a runaway kid making a temporary home which I can only assume would suffice the individual until they got their shit together and moved on. So “moot”, not so much!

    2. The logic of prohibition dictates an ever-tightening ratchet of enforcement.

      We see the same thing with drug prohibition. The prohibitionists periodically say “we’re going to just go after the drug pushers, and leave the small-time users alone”. So the drug lords respond by creating a highly decentralized drug distribution network, so that the distinction between the pushers and the users becomes blurred. So the prohibitionists HAVE to tighten the noose by ‘getting tough’ on the pushers and the users both.

      It’s the same thing here. Even if the state builds a wall, the migrants will just find new and clever ways around it. And once they do, the prohibitionists will demand even stricter measures, like throwing away the Fourth Amendment as we’ve seen.

      1. You make the same spurious arguments over and over. Every one of them has been discredited. Now you’re just embarrassing yourself.

        1. Says the guy who routinely advocates the murder or imprisonment of his political opponents while portraying himself as a defender of the Constitution and freedom.

          1. Cal, I advocate for the vigorous prosecution of all communists as they are existential enemies of America and the constitution. CPUSA members actually take an oath to this effect, and many progressives hold those sentiments. Also, it isn’t murder when it’s self defense. Outside of some dry humor, I typically only mention violence in reference to stopping progtard attacks. As they are growing steadily more violent (something I predicted years ago).

            Instead of directing your ire towards me, you should focus it where it belongs; the progressives. As I am not the one coming to steal your property and infringe on your freedoms.

        2. except he’s most likely correct…

          1. Mcgoo, thanks.

      2. “But we’ll get it right this time” used to be a punchline around here.

      3. “Even if the state builds a wall, the migrants will just find new and clever ways around it. ”

        Jesus you’re an idiot.

        1. What did Jesus do to you?

        2. Jesus thinks you’re a jerk.

    3. And furthermore.

      Walls only ‘work’ when they are backed by the credible threat of lethal force by those defending the wall.

      That is how the wall in Israel works. The soldiers manning the wall are willing to shoot people trying to breach the wall.

      Do you honestly think there is popular support for US soldiers, or even US cops, shooting unarmed Mexicans trying to cross a border wall?

      1. “That is how the wall in Israel works. ”

        Ok, I’m wIth many of the others, you simply do not have the ability to understand information.

        Independent of one’s feelings about a wall, those two situations are significantly different. If you are legitimately so stupid that you ignore those differences in order to make a self serving prediction, then you are too stupid to interact with or take seriously.

        1. Jeff is that stupid.

      2. Most of the invaders are foreign nationals, not wearing the uniform of a recognized nation-state. That makes them spies under the Geneva convention, subject to summary execution. Armed or unarmed makes no difference.
        And to be fair, lots and lots of them are not Mexicans.
        They are not refugees, because refugees go to an embassy and apply for asylum.

        1. Refugees are refugees because of what they have experienced, not because they didn’t fill out the right paperwork.

          And do you really think that a country, in which people expressed disagreement of separating families of undocumented migrants, would ever agree to a policy which treated undocumented migrants as *spies* to be summarily executed? Really?

        2. Under the Geneva Convention, spies are not subject to summary execution. Article 30 guarantees a fair trial for spies.

          And thinking foreign nationals not in uniform are automatically considered spies might be one of the dumbest things I’ve read today.

        3. You have no clue about the Geneva convention.

      3. \Walls only ‘work’ when they are backed by the credible threat of lethal force by those defending the wall.

        Taxes only “work” when they are backed by the credible threat of lethal force by those collecting the taxes.

        There is clearly popular support for US cops shooting unarmed taxpayers refusing to pay taxes, so I don’t see why illegal Mexicans should be any different.

      4. You might ask that question of the Unorganized Militia.

      5. Walls don’t work unless you’re a rabid nationalist who has lost all contact with reality and want to shoot all the brown people

      6. Jeff,…….moron……..how are they going to “breach” the wall? If they launch rockets, ike the Palestinians, then I wold hope the Border Patrol does use lethal force. I don’t think prospective illegals will be doing that.

        Have you ever thought of recording all the things you say for an entire day, then playing it back? Then you can see how stupid you are, like the rest of us do.

    4. Ben, this sort of thing is happening up north, too.

      Would your eventual solution be to put another wall on the US-Canada border?

      1. We don’t have nearly the problem at the Canadian border. Easier ways to work that out.

        1. I guess I’ve less faith in the imaginations of the Top Men at Border Patrol.

    5. If only there was some kind of border patrol that actually patrolled the border and didn’t patrol 70 miles inland like a bunch of Nazi SS soldiers asking for papers.

      1. Do, how far should we let an invader get, before they can use our resources, without the concern of having to answer for violating our border and the democratically elected representatives prohibition on illegal entry?
        One step?

    6. You know you guys terrorizing people

      Not terrorizing me. Of course, I’m not a criminal invader.

  2. America has indulged its lesser citizens — those who feared, hated, and victimized Italians, Jews, Asians, Catholics, agnostics, eastern Europeans, blacks, the Irish, women, and others — periodically but always temporarily. The forces of ignorance and intolerance have succeeded only in the shorter terms.

    This latest batch of bigots seems nothing special, despite the charms, insights, stability, and effectiveness of Donald Trump.

    Immigration agents have become as reprehensible as drug warriors, pursuing a paltry livelihood of stifling freedom and promoting immorality.

    I expect this latest “papers, please” phase to pass and our conservative authoritarians to be relegated by their betters to right-wingers’ natural position — muttering bitterly at the fringe of our society, lamenting all of this damned progress, tolerance, science, and reason — soon enough.

    1. Oh fuck off. You’re a barely employed high school dropout who is little more than a punchline to a joke around here. Go Emory your conservative boss’ waste paper basket.

      1. I am your better, the type of person who has been shoving liberal-libertarian progress down your right-wing throat for more than a half-century.

        Open wider, clinger.

        1. Yessss. This is the sort of viciousness I was looking for.

          Short, but this is 9/10 material.

          1. He’s letting the hate flow through him. Something, something, something dark side. Something, something, something, complete.

        2. Arty, you dumb bitch, keep thinking that while you ask people like me if we want want fries with that.

          Or maybe you’re too busy taking on all summers at the glory hole. Faggoty bitch.

        3. Arthur, you ignorant slut!

    2. Speaking of stifling freedom:

      Florida Man Arrested, Accused of Threatening to Kill Children of GOP Rep Over Immigration Policies

      Quote:
      A man from Stuart, Florida is in jail after being accused of threatening to harm the children of Republican Rep. Brian Mast (Fla.).

      Mast, who represents the state’s 18th Congressional District has three young children, all under the age of 8. The arrested man, Laurence Wayne Key, is facing federal charges for the offense of “communication of a threat to kidnap or injure a person.” He threatened Mast’s children in response to the Trump administration’s immigration policies, according to NBC affiliate WPTV.

      A criminal complaint alleges Key called Mast’s Washington, D.C. office and told an intern he would “find the Congressman’s kids and kill them.” He continued, “If you’re going to separate kids at the border, I’m going to kill his kids. Don’t try to find me because you won’t.”

    3. I’m proudly a “lesser citizen” than you. And come next election, I’ll probably become a “deplorable” as well.

      Keep up the good work, “Rev”.

      1. the deplorables lose next go round, they only won because they got some extra support from gerrymandering and “never hillary” crowd. It was an anomaly. A perfect shit shit storm of stupid and brittle thinking.

        1. The “never HiLIARy” crowd – plus the 3.5 million “no more 0blama” crowd that stayed away from the voting booths in 2012.
          Your side, even with the Mulatto Messiah, has gone from 52.86% to 48.02% support in the 8 years since his ascension.
          Maybe you should be looking for a better message instead of thinking that the “hate Trump” crowd will rise up, unlike they did in 2016, and get your latest socialist candidate elected.

        2. Well, the reason I left the Democratic party was Hillary.

          Since then, Democrats have given me several dozen more reasons never to vote for them again.

    4. Yeah, good luck with that

  3. What any American citizen should say in this situation is: “Fuck off, Barney Fife. I’m not crossing a border, and if you want any information out of me, get a subpoena like a real American lawman would do.”

    -jcr

    1. Exactly.
      Which will lead to the officer finding reasonable and articulateble suspicion you are obstructing an investigation.
      Which will become probable cause for your arrest and personal search for weapons and incarceration while said warrant (not subpoena) is obtained.

    2. See you in jail. You have no Constitutional Rights when within 100 miles of the border other than maybe getting read your Miranda rights.

  4. since the incident occurred roughly 70 miles from the border, the agent’s actions were legal.

    BULLSHIT.

    There is no “border exception” in the bill of rights. The failure of the court to enforce the 4th amendment doesn’t change what it says.

    -jcr

    1. Does the Bill of Rights apply to non-Americans?

      1. The parts that are limitations on government do. And if some of it doesn’t, you still need a way of figuring out who is and isn’t protected that doesn’t violate the rights of citizens.

      2. Does the Bill of Rights apply to non-Americans?

        No, it applies to the government.

        1. The federal government. The doctrine of incorporation is a legal scam.

      3. The bill of rights is a set of restrictions on governmental power. It applies to all US government office holders, employees, vendors, and agents, at all times, and in all places. The constitution is the entirety of the government’s legal basis for existing, and whenever Barney Fife ursurps a power not granted to the government by the constitution, he acts without authority.

        -jcr

    2. “just because it’s legal doesn’t make it proper, says American Civil Liberties Union New Mexico Communications Director Micah McCoy”

      Well, why doesn’t the ACLU defend our civil rights by suing the government about it, rather than spending their money helping illegals and suing the government for separating illegal children from their “families” when those children cross the border (sometimes with coyotes or others pretending to be the parents, or when the parents are also crossing illegally).

      1. Because, Morefreedom, the ACLU has devolved into just another globalist organization that has adopted the viewpoints of some of its largest contributors, namely Soros.

    3. In what way is a question and request for identification an “unreasonable search and seizure”? In fact, in what way is it either a “search” or a “seizure”?

    4. Go try it at the border and stir up some shit and get back with us in 5 to 10.

    5. All of you who are making the false claims that this violates the Fourth Amendment need to go back and read it.
      The fact that the authors of that part of the Bill of Rights inserted “unreasonable” makes whatever it says, subject to what the government, backed by the courts, decides is reasonable.
      In this case, asking for proof of citizenship, at whatever distance from the border they decide, is reasonable, and thus, not a violation of the Fourth.
      Sorry. You’re wrong.

  5. I mean this is crap, but “I understand you’re not allowed to ask for that within 100 miles of the border”

    “incident occurred roughly 70 miles from the border”

    But Deming is about 35 miles from Mexico, unless you mean the checkpoint halfway to Las Cruces, which is even closer to Mexico…

  6. Man, I miss the days when comparing everything to Hitler/Nazis was considered a shitty argument and treated with derision. I guess we can add Godwin’s Law to the list of laws ignored in the Trump era.

  7. DAME SUS PAPELES! AHORA!

  8. If you are yelling at police and standing up for yourself- you’re definitely an American.

  9. “But just because it’s legal doesn’t make it proper, says American Civil Liberties Union New Mexico Communications Director Micah McCoy.”

    I agree, but these guys have lost some credibility lately. It’s also not proper to restrict the freedom of speech.

  10. she says. “And yes, it’s racial profiling

    Hispanic is not a race

    Everyone gets stopped and briefly questioned at internal border checkpoints.

    Working from Brownsville to El Paso and passing through these checkpoints far more times than I can count I’ve observed most of the Border Patrol agents ARE Hispanic.

    I’m not in favor of internal checkpoints excepting those actually close to an unsecured border crossing (say the road out of Boca Chica where you can cross right on the beach) but these are nothing new and nothing has changed under Trump.

    1. Except that it’s Trump now, and not Hope n’ Change.

    2. Correct, having passed through many of these checkpoints in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, at least half of the border patrol agents are visibly Hispanic.

      1. And my own experience: my wife and I are visibly brown skinned; the agents ask: “Are you US citizens?”, we say Yes, and they ask us to carry on for some reason. I have never had to actually produce an ID.

        1. Immigrants are honest and would not lie. It is known.

          1. They don’t care what the answer to the question is…they are watching for how you respond. Most citizens are indignant. most non-citizens are overly polite or nervous.

            1. Kevin also probably doesn’t sound like Speedy Gonzalez.

              1. CBP agent : Y’all Merican citizens?

                Me & family: Si!

          2. Lying to an immigration agent about your citizenship is a serious offense, more than simply being in the country illegally. So, yeah, the question does make a difference: if they determine that you’re in the country illegally (e.g., from your fingerprints, etc.), it means the consequences will be more serious than if you simply had told the truth.

            1. So if I’m asked about my citizenship by ICE and I tell them I am an illegal Mexican, but they later discover I am a native citizen, am I in trouble?

              1. If they want to make an example of you, then yes, you are.
                Lying to a federal official is a felony.
                Ask General Kelly or Scooter Libby.

      2. IME, nobody hates Mexicans more than other Mexicans. Especially if they’re paid to do it.

        1. Correction: Nobody hates illegal alien Mexicans more than legal immigrant Mexicans. Even if they’re not paid for it.

    3. I’m not saying it is racial profiling. But it is possible for people to racially/ethnically profile people who are of the same race or ethnicity as they are.

      1. Certain political beliefs consider it profiling if you refuse to question whites even of the described suspect is black.

        1. Profiling is a bit like discrimination that way. Everyone profiles and discriminates all the time. It’s inappropriate profiling and discrimination that reasonable people object to.

    4. Everyone gets stopped and briefly questioned at internal border checkpoints.

      Nah, half the time they wave me through before I even finish coming to a stop or roll my window down.

    5. I know a guy who is Border Patrol, his parents are illegals, and he harasses people he believes to be illegals (solely on skin color) like you wouldn’t believe. I got the same treatment, until it became obvious I didn’t know a lick of Spanish and that some Asians are in fact brown.

      1. I know a guy who is Border Patrol, his parents are illegals

        Doesn’t ICE even do basic background checks?

        -jcr

      2. The truth is the no profiling rule is fucking dumb.

        Profiling is a valid and useful tactic in a lot of situations. With the TSA what are the odds a 70 year old white woman from Wisconsin is going to try to hijack a plane? 0. In reality it’s going to be pretty much 100% Muslims, most of which that have the extremist bent also happen to be middle eastern.

        Maybe it’s not NICE, but it is a practical and useful tactic.

    6. Everyone gets stopped and briefly questioned at internal border checkpoints.

      No we don’t. I live here and have gone through these tons of times between San Diego, Yuma, and Phoenix. If I’m by myself I rarely even have to come to a complete stop before being waved on.

  11. Having just returned from a trip to my hometown, Buffalo, NY, it occurred to me that since my aunt’s house is technically far closer than 100 miles from Canada, this could happen there as well as in New Mexico, where I live.

    One’s 4th Amendment protections should NOT evaporate when one is close to a border. Especially for those who live in cities along the border and whose lives, and expectations of cooperation across these borders, predates the 9-11 and present paranoia.

    1. It probably does happen near Buffalo. They do it in northern NH.

    2. I forgot my passport last time I visited Buffalo (North Tonawanda really) and thought about swimming to Canada so I could see the pretty side of the Falls.

    3. I think about 80% of the USA lives within these Constitution Free zones.

      1. I have to correct myself, it’s only about 2/3 or so that live in zones where you have no 4th amendment rights.

    4. Shoulda, coulda, woulda.
      Join the real world and realize that the government, including the courts, says it is not unreasonable to ask for proof of citizenship, at whatever distance from the border they decide.

  12. Someone remind me why Mexico is such a shithole. Reason won’t.

    1. Mainly because of American meddling in internal Mexican politics and empowering the cartels at the expense of legitimate government with the War on Drugs.

      Mexico used to just be poor.

      1. Oh, come on! you are talking like we sell them guns and just let them walk back across the border of something.

      2. The funniest thing is that Mexico is actually a pretty wealthy country by global standards. Their per capita income is some of the highest in the world outside of Europe and the Anglosphere. They’re poor as hell compared to us, but they make Africa, India, China, the rest of Asia look like the impoverished peasants they still are.

    2. Prohibition. Shutting down US-based meth labs. Selling them firearms. Without the US, Mexico would just be another developing country.

  13. Wow, Yolanda is shrill and annoying. The CBP officer handled that professionally. Especially since Deming is only 33 miles from the border and Yolanda’s shouting that it’s more than 100 makes her either an idiot, or intentionally disruptive.
    In a true police state, he would have dragged her off the bus.
    But apparently ignoring Yolanda’s hectoring and politely asking each passenger about the citizenship, at an actual internal checkpoint, is enough to make this guy a Nazi.

    1. Yes, the Nazi comparison is a bit much. But that’s what shrill and annoying people do.

      The point here isn’t whether we are actually living in a Nazi police state. It’s whether internal checkpoints are consistent with the constitution and American values.

      1. The point here isn’t whether we are actually living in a Nazi police state. It’s whether internal checkpoints are consistent with the constitution and American values.

        Internal checkpoints are an inevitable consequence of a progressive social welfare state. It’s not surprising that implementing something that is inconsistent with the Constitution and American values (the progressive social welfare state) requires policies that are inconsistent with the Constitution and American values.

      2. The constitution and ‘American values’ was founded on personal freedom and limited government.

        We no longer have the latter, and the former is being eclipsed by state-managed freedom.

        Internal checkpoints are a direct outcome of the social welfare state. In the absence of unlimited wealth, state sponsored life requires controls on outlay from the public coffers….like proof of citizenship.

        eliminate the social welfare state, and the state has no reason to ask you for proof of citizenship.

        1. So if some American values have been compromised, we should just go ahead and throw the rest of them out the window?

          1. You’re saying that you want the payouts from a social welfare state without the authoritarian policies. That’s like saying that you want the fun of skydiving without the inconvenience of a parachute: it’s suicidal.

            Well, it’s actually worse, because jumping out of a plane without a parachute only hurts you. Implementing a social welfare state without enforcement of its rules screws over millions of other people.

    2. Before you get outraged, maybe you should check that you know what the fuck what you’re getting outraged about. Seems nearly the whole country has forgotten this detail. This lady is a complete dumbshit.

      1. Regardless of this lady’s dumbness, I still find detaining people, including US citizens, and demanding that they identify themselves without individualized suspicion to be outrageous.

        1. I find the tax bill I’m forced to pay every April 15 “without suspicion” to be outrageous too. Let’s make a deal: let’s reduce my tax bill by 95% and then we can stop enforcing immigration law.

          1. I don’t think I’m in a position to make that deal. If I were, we’d be doing good.

          2. And I’m pretty sure your employers provide the IRS with plenty of individualized suspicion to back up the tax bill.

            1. My employer, my bank, and lots of other organizations provide the IRS with details on every aspect of my life. And under Obama’s financial regulatory regime, huge numbers of private financial transactions are sent to the federal government. I’m sure the IRS and other branches of the federal government could reconstruct my sexual orientation, my taste in men, my diet, and my political leanings from the information they collect about me.

              But hey, asking people to identify themselves and state whether they are a US citizen, that definitely crosses the line of unreasonable government intrusions into private lives for progressives!

        2. Zeb, how are they supposed to know if these people are citizens or not. I’m loathe to have government intrusion into people’s rights, as well. But thanks to years of unfettered illegal immigration, it is unfortunately a necessary evil, in order to identify and deport the untold number of illegal aliens already here. When we actually used to control our borders, this was not an issue.

  14. Actually it’s closer to the USSR/Soviet Union, in that a) you always had to have papers on you and b) you could not travel from oblast to oblast without the state’s permission, but yeah…We’ll go with that Nazi comment, because Nazis.
    Remember kiddies, if they can stop you to check your blood alcohol level, they sure as hell can stop and ask you for proof of citizenship, especially at a stop point.

    1. Proof

    2. Proof

      1. Fucking squirrels.

        What I was trying to say is that carrying around actual *proof* of citizenship is very unusual in America. I only take it out of the safe if I need it for a specific purpose, and would be unable to produce it on demand. And American law does not currently require that I be able to do so. Hell, American law doesn’t even require that everyone *have* proof of citizenship. Or ID for that matter. There are some public functions you can’t do without ID, but you are not required, in any state of the union, to be able to produce ID on demand. “It’s at home” is a perfectly legal response to a request for ID.

        For that matter, you shouldn’t confuse “driver’s license” for “proof of citizenship” as that’s not something a driver’s license indicates.

        1. Hell, American law doesn’t even require that everyone *have* proof of citizenship.

          You can choose not to have proof of citizenship, like you can choose not to have identification. That merely means that you don’t get punished for not having such proof per se. But the consequences of lacking such proof/identification may still be dire.

          “It’s at home” is a perfectly legal response to a request for ID.

          It is. However, depending on the circumstances, police/immigration agents may still detain you while they determine your identity/citizenship.

        2. There are some public functions you can’t do without ID, but you are not required, in any state of the union, to be able to produce ID on demand. “It’s at home” is a perfectly legal response to a request for ID.

          I’m not certain the result in Hiibel supports this assertion.

    3. No papers?

      No papers.

  15. The Supreme Court has upheld immigration agents’ extra authority in areas near the border. As far as the law is concerned, your Fourth Amendment rights essentially evaporate when you come close to a national frontier.

    And in cyberspace you’re *always* close to a national frontier.

  16. “Living in Nazi Germany Norway/Switzerland/Monaco/France/Denmark/Japan/… where you need to show your I.D. within the states”

    FTFY

    Oh, and people making false Nazi analogies are deplorable.

  17. I’d love to do away with Border Patrol check points. People, however, need to stop like this is because of Trump or something new. My first experience was a check point near Tombstone and Obama sat on the throne.

    Leftists never do themselves any favors. There’s so many people that want to solve the same issues but would never want to associate with the left.

  18. She’s lucky she didn’t get dragged off the bus and beaten.

  19. That person (not lady so much) seems to have learned public speaking from Lucy; “if you can’t be right, be wrong at the top of your voice.”

  20. Seeing immigration laws enforced in my lifetime… a wet dream come true.

  21. Legal or not , proper or not, it is a waste of time and money and does nothing to stop illegal immigration .It does however piss people off and shows that the Federal Government thinks they own us and can do what they want.so, there is that

    1. How do you know it’s a waste of time? Why do you think they ask the question?

      As for the federal government thinking they own us, “are you a US citizen” comes way down on my list of issues, long after massive taxes and all my financial transactions going to the federal government (thanks Obama!).

  22. Damn, every time the government gets off it’s ass and actually does it’s job, we hear we’re in Nazi Germany.

    Wonder how long that will go on before people start wondering if the Nazis were on to something?

    1. You, sir, are an idiot. The only thing the government accomplishes with those vehicle stops is to penalize honest citizens. Anybody with a map can easily bypass those CBP checkpoints. It requires going on back roads and going out of your way but it is not difficult AT ALL! If you had the brains the Creator gave a piss ant you’d know that those CBP checkpoints are merely a way of showing us who is really the boss. Silly us. We thought WE THE PEOPLE were the ultimate bosses.

      The denizens of Mordor on the Potomac seem to forget that the federal government – like ALL governments – derives its power (just or otherwise) from the consent of the governed. That consent can be withdrawn any time the governed (You know? We the People ?) wish to do so. One other fact the lowlifes in MotP forget. The ratio of Indians to Chiefs ALWAYS favors the Indians!

  23. If you disagree with the laws and regulations governing the actions of the CBP, have Congress change them, for the CBP is their creation, as is the DoJ.

  24. The teacher should be asking the CBP agent for his papers and citizenship status! He looks like he may be illegal.

    1. Well, that’s just racial profiling.

  25. I have to stop at that same CBP station every time I go see my son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren in New Mexico. Then on the return leg, I get stopped yet again near Ozona. When our (adopted) daughter was still living with us we always carried a copy of her birth certificate along with her passport,adoption papers and Social Security card. one time they held us up 2 hours verifying that the documents were not forged. On another occasion they stopped us, had us pull over to one side and proceeded to perform a VERY thorough search of our vehicle (a Dodge minivan) – INCLUDING pulling all out and ransacking ALL our luggage and pulling out the two rear passenger seats. Meanwhile my wife, daughter and I were forced to stand in the hot (100+) West Texas sun. Oh, and as we stood there every carload of people which drove through the CBP station was ogling us like we were some sort of criminals. Eventually, they decided there was no contraband in my vehicle and we were told we could leave. Of course WE had to re-pack our belongings and _I_ had to put the seats back so we could continue our trip home. When I asked for some help the agents just laughed at me.

    1. If we had the wall and shit was straightened out I doubt anyone would hassle you.

  26. Gonzalez agrees, telling KOAT that people shouldn’t have to live in fear of immigration agents. “It really boils down to how people are being treated regardless of how many miles it is, the fact that people are living in fear,” she says. “And yes, it’s racial profiling, and that is just a violation, any sort of racial profiling is a violation of human rights and civil rights.”

    You know what this is? Me playing the world’s smallest violin.

  27. Evidently, she doesn’t know what the law is. Liberals….they love and support the criminal element! Trump 2020!!

  28. Putting aside whether there should be mile exception at all, how exactly does the Justice Dept. get the authority to change 25 miles into 100 miles?

  29. This is what happens when you have 10-20 million illegal invaders in a country

    1. Yep.

      Build the Wall!

      No more illegals.

  30. Yeah, what were the Nazis supposed to do, what with all the 20 Million Jews sneaking into Germany

  31. “Gonzalez agrees, telling KOAT that people shouldn’t have to live in fear of immigration agents. ”

    Uhhh, nobody has anything to fear if they’re here legally as citizens or on a legal visa…

    Look, this is kind fucked up police state stuff… But it’s not totally crazy either. I mean would a reasonable person agree that 50 feet past the border it is acceptable for somebody to check that you should be legally allowed here? That you’re not a terrorist or wanted murderer? Of course it would.

    What about half a mile in? What about 1 mile in? What about 5 miles? Maybe 100 miles is a bit overzealous, but the general principle isn’t completely insane.

  32. I live in Arizona, so I get annoyed by CBP a lot, but I don’t understand how this amounts to being “living in fear”, and as far as racial profiling goes, EVERYONE is asked if they are a citizen at checkpoints. The list of people murdered by Border Patrol agents during routine stops is pretty short. You have a lot more to fear from the cops. The only reason I can imagine someone “lives in fear” of the Border Patrol is that they are knowingly violating immigration law. Laws can be stupid, and often are, and we all have a choice to follow them or ignore them. The consequences of those choices are ours to bear.

  33. they wouldn’t have been doing this crap if people like this gonzales bitch didn’t allow the ILLEGAL ALIEN HISPANICS

  34. they wouldn’t have been doing this crap if people like this gonzales bitch didn’t allow the ILLEGAL ALIEN HISPANICS
    to run free all over this country. close the border and then round up the ILLEGAL ALIENS

  35. they wouldn’t have been doing this crap if people like this gonzales bitch didn’t allow the ILLEGAL ALIEN HISPANICS
    to run free all over this country. close the border and then round up the ILLEGAL ALIENS and run em out of the US.

  36. The people on this bus should have had Terry Bressi on board.

    http://www.justsecurity.org/56862/cos…..er-patrol/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.