Trucker refuses to cooperate at Border Patrol checkpoint

[breakingcontact]

I can do this all day.


He s just playing a game here. no discussion. no point.

Bring your argument. 10-15 million illegals. Why should I support inland Border Patrol checkpoints again?

Should I support the war on poverty too? 60 years and 22 trillion dollars spent and...people are still poor.

I dont know how you can argue with my logic.

Our Border Patrol and immigration policy isnt working. How can you disagree with that?

 

[breakingcontact]

And with that... Im out!

PM me if you are a glutton for intellectual punishment.

 

[bones_708]

And with that... Im out!

PM me if you are a glutton for intellectual punishment.

Who were you going to refer him to?

 

[Tony2]

No this thread was enough.

 

[Tejano Scott]

If you want to take one for the team, I think we all support that. Godspeed.

In all seriousness, here's my thoughts. Why not pursue legal action through the Courts? Too big a hassle? Why not write a letter to the Sheriff, chief of police, head of ICE, or whoever else is behind the roadblocks you hate? Why not write the AG, DA, DOJ, or whatever prosecuting agency that would oversee these warrantless roadside incidents? Why not write your mayor, governor, congressman, president, etc? Why not resolve it in the ballot box? Why not write an OP-ed for local paper? Why not sponsor a petition against this practice? Why not form a group of like minded folks to peacefully protest? Why not start a Facebook or social media page against it?

Living in a democracy affords you all of the above options (and more than I could even name) to wage your own personal war against this practice. If you choose a roadside confrontation with a LEO as your only option to fight this injustice then don't be surprised if it's ends badly. If you love democracy, take better advantage of it than this guy.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

In a nutshell, the freedom of the American people and their right to travel around without harassment is not worth a billion illegals and all the cocaine in the world that can be found 100 miles from the border.

The American people do not lose their rights because the government wants to play nanny and illegalize drugs and because immigrants are flooding in because of the government's own policies.

There is absolutley no reason why we should have these checkpoints and I agree with Scott on the proper ways to solve the problem.

 

[Tony2]

I disagree. Answering one question cant be construed as harassment. Because you cant think of a reason for them to have these checkpoints doesn't mean they are not needed. It seems a good strategy to me I have been through several of them, Usually there isn't much of a wait if any. Granted there could be much improvement at the border itself. it does seem strategically easier to do checks on the road inland. Most illegals aren't crossing at the bridges and they aren't gonna walk all the way to wherever they are headed. Illegal immigration is out of hand no doubt. I am for no immigration and sending all non citizens back but I am not gonna call this harassment if it helps at all. Hell you could say a stop sign or red light is harassment. These people don't make policy they are doing a job. If you want to make a statement like this guy did knock yourself out.

 

[Younggun]

This has been an enterta...I mean, interesting thread.

 

[jrbfishn]

What he did was dumb. There are better ways to fight against it. Wrong is wrong, and an intrusion to your rights is still an intrusion. If you don't mind a little, a little more won't hurt. A second line of defense is only needed for a failed first line. Given the number of illegals and the amount of drugs that come from Mexico, they are both failed. A little more intrusion for the third line? What's a little more?

What about a little more intrusion on your gun rights too? You know, for safety's sake. Because the first hundred intrusions did not hurt you, you won't mind one more. Just a little one.

Will you?
How many "little" intrusions are too many, for the good of the country of course, are too many untill nothing is left to intrude upon? And who gets to decide? SCOTUS? If an unconstitutional law, or action, is allowed to stand, in full or in part, because it did not intude on enough people bad enough, I would not count on it if I were you.

from an idgit coffeeholic

 

[bones_708]

Hell you could say a stop sign or red light is harassment.

This is a great point.

 

[bones_708]

,,, Wrong is wrong, and an intrusion to your rights is still an intrusion. If you don't mind a little, a little more won't hurt. A second line of defense is only needed for a failed first line. Given the number of illegals and the amount of drugs that come from Mexico, they are both failed. A little more intrusion for the third line? What's a little more?

What about a little more intrusion on your gun rights too? You know, for safety's sake. Because the first hundred intrusions did not hurt you, you won't mind one more. Just a little one.

Will you?
How many "little" intrusions are too many, for the good of the country of course, are too many untill nothing is left to intrude upon? And who gets to decide? SCOTUS? If an unconstitutional law, or action, is allowed to stand, in full or in part, because it did not intude on enough people bad enough, I would not count on it if I were you.

from an idgit coffeeholic

No offence but it's kind of rhetoric without a point. In debate it would be called a logical fallacy.
As was just mentioned even a stop sign is an intrusion. That is life when you must deal with more than one person. Railing against every intrusion is like complaining about day and night. There is no way to do with out them unless you just eliminate the rights you are intruding on.
Complaints about the number of intrusions one might face have no effect or the "correctness", value, constitutionality, or legality of any particular "intrusion". Each must be evaluated on it's own basis.
In my opinion we already face much greater intrusions on our gun rights than anyone faces by this checkpoint so saying if we let this much smaller intrusion go we might somehow be worse in an area that much greater intrusion exists makes no logical sense.
There doesn't seem like a particular point to the SCOTUS bit and the key to the constitutionality of these checkpoints isn't how many people are intruded on, that is not a legal argument, it's the intrusion on those that are stopped that gets weighed.

 

[jrbfishn]

This is not a formal debate match, and I am not the one who missed the point. You have with just about every post.
Each intrusion, no matter how small, leads to more. Quit watching the movie, they tell a better story.

Edit: My posts were not about legality, but right and wrong, period. You keep tying to dodge that issue. Legal or not, wrong is still wrong. No matter what stupid method you choose to use to point it out.

from an idgit coffeeholic

 

[bones_708]

This is not a formal debate match, and I am not the one who missed the point. You have with just about every post.
Each intrusion, no matter how small, leads to more. Quit watching the movie, they tell a better story.

Edit: My posts were not about legality, but right and wrong, period. You keep tying to dodge that issue. Legal or not, wrong is still wrong. No matter what stupid method you choose to use to point it out.

from an idgit coffeeholic

And I'm not scoring you it's about logic or lack of it that is involved in the argument. You have no logical basis for your claim that any intrusion leads to more. It doesn't. If so are freedoms would have been continuously and regularly decreased with no movement the other way. Your claim is illogical and historically and demonstratively untrue. Right and wrong is not embossed on some yardstick that everyone agreed on. The closest thing we have here in the US is either a religions measure or a constitutional one and by either of those standards you are wrong. If you just don't like it fine. Say "I don't like it " but when you use BS, bad logic, and incorrect arguments in order to try and justify to others your position expect to get a response.

It's not like I think your feelings are wrong. I mean that's how you feel. But as far as arguments for you haven't made a decent one at all.

 

[Tejano Scott]

You have no logical basis for your claim that any intrusion leads to more. It doesn't.

How about 200 years worth of Commerce Clause and 10th amendment litigation? I personally think you both have good arguments. I see both sides of this issue. I just think the guy in the video should have chosen a smarter way to exercise/defend his rights. You just cant legally debate a LEO on the side of the road. They're just enforcing the law or whatever policies they're told. You can't fight this battle with them on a roadside and win.

 

[bones_708]

How about 200 years worth of Commerce Clause and 10th amendment litigation? I personally think you both have good arguments. I see both sides of this issue. I just think the guy in the video should have chosen a smarter way to exercise/defend his rights. You just cant legally debate a LEO on the side of the road. They're just enforcing the law or whatever policies they're told. You can't fight this battle with them on a roadside and win.

No. That's an intrusion on one area not intrusions in all aspects and we have greater freedoms in some areas than we have had in years. Basically his statement only allowed for greater intrusion and there have been times where it has decreased so his statement is provably wrong.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

I disagree. Answering one question cant be construed as harassment. Because you cant think of a reason for them to have these checkpoints doesn't mean they are not needed... Hell you could say a stop sign or red light is harassment. These people don't make policy they are doing a job. If you want to make a statement like this guy did knock yourself out.

I'd say being pulled over/stopped on a public highway and asked a stupid question is the very essence of harassment.

 

[Tejano Scott]

Do we? If you take a traditionalist approach, and Jimmy is about as traditional as it gets, you could very much argue that our founding fathers would turn over in their graves at the thoughts of federal agents doing warrantless stops inside a State. I agree with you that current case law seems to support, at least not seem inclined to stop, these types of check points. But there was a once time in this country, this would have been considered an act of war. In fact, this act would have been grounds for a State to secede from the Union.

 

[kyletxria1911a1]

Yall can argue all day but when the man says get out you gonna get out.
And if you don't believe it give it a try. I deal with them every day. Politeness
And answering the questions gets me on my way. Damn being a test case.

 

[Vaquero]

Yall can argue all day but when the man says get out you gonna get out.
And if you don't believe it give it a try. I deal with them every day. Politeness
And answering the questions gets me on my way. Damn being a test case.

Thank you.
Prolly won't stop the arguing, but it aught to.

 

[TheDan]

Prolly won't stop the arguing, but it aught to.

No, it shouldn't.