Welcome to the USA
James Robinson
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/09/eveningnews/main20078170.shtml
For some unknown reason, they feel it necessary to subject people who
arrive by bus or train to more immigration checks than those who drive or
fly.
At the same time, there is a push on to tell foreigners that they are more
than welcome to spend tourist dollars in the country.
Many Europeans simply avoid the US because of the barriers that have been
erected in the name of security and travel elsewhere to spend their money.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Many Europeans simply avoid the US because of the barriers that have been
> erected in the name of security and travel elsewhere to spend their money.
The Phila Inqr had a travel article about photographers being hassled
when they were legally taking pictures. It suggested it was better
for photographers to obey the authority-figures even when they were
wrong. IMHO, that while in some cases that is prudent advice, it
depends on the situation. It is disturbing none the less.
Since 9/11 many once public facilities have become off limits to
visitors and photography.
full article:
http://www.philly.com/philly/travel/20110710_Consumer_News.html
HAL
<eeb9e54d-f41d-440c...@g12g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> The Phila Inqr had a travel article about photographers being hassled
> when they were legally taking pictures. It suggested it was better
> for photographers to obey the authority-figures even when they were
> wrong. IMHO, that while in some cases that is prudent advice, it
> depends on the situation. It is disturbing none the less.
>
> Since 9/11 many once public facilities have become off limits to
> visitors and photography.
If the authority figures are wearing a gun I obey. If there are signs
posted like at museums and at immigration and customs I obey. At a
shopping mall it depends on the situation. I will have a discussion
with them first.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> For some unknown reason, they feel it necessary to subject people who
> arrive by bus or train to more immigration checks than those who drive or
> fly.
At a time when federal deficits are a major concern, the money spent
on this sort of thing seems to be "off limits" to budget cutters. Nor
may taxes be raised to cover this new expense of government spending.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > Since 9/11 many once public facilities have become off limits to
> > visitors and photography.
>
> If the authority figures are wearing a gun I obey. If there are signs
> posted like at museums and at immigration and customs I obey. At a
> shopping mall it depends on the situation. I will have a discussion
> with them first.
Many security personnel, even when not wearing a gun, can summon an
armed police officer to the scene very quickly and are well prepared
to bring charges against you. It becomes your word against theirs.
The problem is that most of us do not have the resources to lose time
from work, hire an lawyer, and go to court to claim "there is no
prohibition against photography", or "their prohibition is
unconstitutional". Further, you can still lose--some low level courts
are very friendly to cops (who do this often) and not so friendly to
people bought in accused of petty crimes.
This is of particular problem when one is on vacation and away from
home.
Another problem is that there are other laws they can charge you with
violating, such as trespassing, disorderly conduct, or obstructing
traffic or movement. As the above article mentions, an individual has
a right to take personal photographs in most places, but commercial
photography requires a permit. If they say you're a "commercial
photographer", you're at a disadvantage.
Anyone have any thoughts on the new Amtrak program?
[public replies, please]
Sancho Panza
> Homeland security making people arriving in the US feel welcome:
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/09/eveningnews/main20078170.shtml
>
> For some unknown reason, they feel it necessary to subject people who
> arrive by bus or train to more immigration checks than those who drive or
> fly.
Where does the report say anything about comparative checks?
>
> At the same time, there is a push on to tell foreigners that they are more
> than welcome to spend tourist dollars in the country.
The first sentence says he was returning to his home to New York.
James Robinson
> On 7/10/2011 3:56 AM, James Robinson wrote:
>
>> Homeland security making people arriving in the US feel welcome:
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/09/eveningnews/main20078170.sht
>> ml
>>
>> For some unknown reason, they feel it necessary to subject people who
>> arrive by bus or train to more immigration checks than those who
>> drive or fly.
>
> Where does the report say anything about comparative checks?
The article doesn't, but all you have to do is ride a bus or a train to
see the difference compared to when you drive or fly. Homeland security
has even taken to getting on buses or trains that are just near the
border and not even crossing it, to ask what citizenship everybody is on
board. There are lawsuits pending that challenge their right to do it.
>> At the same time, there is a push on to tell foreigners that they are
>> more than welcome to spend tourist dollars in the country.
>
> The first sentence says he was returning to his home to New York.
That's nice. There are other articles that show that more and more
foreigners are avoiding the US for vacation and university study, since
the visa requirements can be so difficult, and because of isolated
stories about rough treatment upon trying to enter the US. If they treat
a citizen like that, how do you think they treat visitors?
Nobody
>On Jul 10, 3:56 am, James Robinson <wasc...@212.com> wrote:
>
>> Many Europeans simply avoid the US because of the barriers that have been
>> erected in the name of security and travel elsewhere to spend their money.
>
>The Phila Inqr had a travel article about photographers being hassled
>when they were legally taking pictures. It suggested it was better
>for photographers to obey the authority-figures even when they were
>wrong. IMHO, that while in some cases that is prudent advice, it
>depends on the situation. It is disturbing none the less.
>
>Since 9/11 many once public facilities have become off limits to
>visitors and photography.
>
Possibly even earlier... i.e. after the Oklahoma Bombing.
I've recently returned from a Western road trip to Colorado from the
Pac NW and (as a radio nut) would've liked to visit the transmitter
facilities of the National Institute of Standards and Technology at
Fort Collins for radio station WWVB (the uber-longwave stn that sets
your "radio-controlled watch") and WWV "shortwave" near Fort Collins,
CO.
No such luck -- no public access -- though antennas are visible with
difficult photogpraphy from local roads.
>full article:
>http://www.philly.com/philly/travel/20110710_Consumer_News.html
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The article doesn't, but all you have to do is ride a bus or a train to
> see the difference compared to when you drive or fly. Homeland security
> has even taken to getting on buses or trains that are just near the
> border and not even crossing it, to ask what citizenship everybody is on
> board. There are lawsuits pending that challenge their right to do it.
The above has been well documented in the NYT. Further, their
definition of "near" the border is quite large, so they can and do
considerably far inland checking for papers.
> That's nice. There are other articles that show that more and more
> foreigners are avoiding the US for vacation and university study, since
> the visa requirements can be so difficult, and because of isolated
> stories about rough treatment upon trying to enter the US. If they treat
> a citizen like that, how do you think they treat visitors?
Indeed, today's paper had such an article, and the foreigners getting
screwed had previously assisted the US.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I've recently returned from a Western road trip to Colorado from the
> Pac NW and (as a radio nut) would've liked to visit the transmitter
> facilities of the National Institute of Standards and Technology at
> Fort Collins for radio station WWVB (the uber-longwave stn that sets
> your "radio-controlled watch") and WWV "shortwave" near Fort Collins,
> CO.
>
> No such luck -- no public access -- though antennas are visible with
> difficult photogpraphy from local roads.
There were several commercial antennas (antenni?) in my area, and for
_decades_ their bases were strongly secured. You couldn't even stop
and stare at the entrance from the public street without getting
shooed away.
Of course, many industrial and government facilities would allow
visitors by advance arrangement, indeed, they liked to show off how
they did their work. Many industries had organized tours for
visitors. But today I doubt visitors would be allowed "behind the
scenes" in most places.
rsh...@gmail.com
> > On 7/10/2011 3:56 AM, James Robinson wrote:
>
> >> Homeland security making people arriving in the US feel welcome:
>
> >>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/09/eveningnews/main20078170.sht
> >> ml
>
> >> For some unknown reason, they feel it necessary to subject people who
> >> arrive by bus or train to more immigration checks than those who
> >> drive or fly.
>
> > Where does the report say anything about comparative checks?
>
> The article doesn't, but all you have to do is ride a bus or a train to
> see the difference compared to when you drive or fly. Homeland security
> has even taken to getting on buses or trains that are just near the
> border and not even crossing it, to ask what citizenship everybody is on
> board. There are lawsuits pending that challenge their right to do it.
>
It actually started with local cops boarding buses with drug sniffing
dogs and those "atomic"sniffers as the budgets for the drug war grew
Further, after 9-11 people demanded "border security" and there were
huge inc in the Border Patrol
The Border Patrol has been involved in the drug war for some years now
There is a fed law allowing them to set up insp points 40 miles inside
the US
At their insp points they walk around your vehicle with the drug
dogs
That gives them probable cause
Sancho Panza
> > On 7/10/2011 3:56 AM, James Robinson wrote:
>
> >> Homeland security making people arriving in the US feelwelcome:
>
> >>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/09/eveningnews/main20078170.sht
> >> ml
>
> >> For some unknown reason, they feel it necessary to subject people who
> >> arrive by bus or train to more immigration checks than those who
> >> drive or fly.
>
> > Where does the report say anything about comparative checks?
>
> The article doesn't, but all you have to do is ride a bus or a train to
> see the difference compared to when you drive or fly. Homeland security
> has even taken to getting on buses or trains that are just near the
> border and not even crossing it, to ask what citizenship everybody is on
> board. There are lawsuits pending that challenge their right to do it.
>
> >> At the same time, there is a push on to tell foreigners that they are
>
> > The first sentence says he was returning to his home to New York.
>
> That's nice. There are other articles that show that more and more
> foreigners are avoiding the US for vacation and university study, since
> the visa requirements can be so difficult, and because of isolated
> stories about rough treatment upon trying to enter the US. If they treat
> a citizen like that, how do you think they treat visitors?
I take all three modes regularly and can state unequivocally that the
difference is far and away magnitudes far greater, more severe and
more intrusive with air travel, both in terminals and on board.
James Robinson
> James Robinson <wasc...@212.com> wrote:
>
>> Homeland security has even taken to getting on buses or trains that
>> are just near the border and not even crossing it, to ask what
>> citizenship everybody is on board. �There are lawsuits pending that
>> challenge their right to do it.
>
> It actually started with local cops boarding buses with drug sniffing
> dogs and those "atomic"sniffers as the budgets for the drug war grew
>
> Further, after 9-11 people demanded "border security" and there were
> huge inc in the Border Patrol
>
> The Border Patrol has been involved in the drug war for some years now
>
> There is a fed law allowing them to set up insp points 40 miles inside
> the US
>
> At their insp points they walk around your vehicle with the drug
> dogs
>
> That gives them probable cause
The problem is not just the 40 mile inland inspection points, which have
existed for decades along the Mexican border, but that they have taken to
getting on trains and buses that aren't even crossing the border in
places like Rochester NY, or Spokane WA, and demanding to know what
people's citizenship is.
In the process, they have been accused of profiling, in that there are
reports of them getting on a bus and only questioning the three
passengers who don't have blond hair and blue eyes. If they take someone
off the bus or train for further questioning, they are stuck there when
they are susequently released, which can be a real inconvenience.
It's all done in the name of preventing terrorism, but I don't think
they've found one yet.
James Robinson
> James Robinson <wasc...@212.com> wrote:
>
>> ... all you have to do is ride a bus or a train to see the difference
>> compared to when you drive or fly. Homeland security has even taken
>> to getting on buses or trains that are just near the border and not
>> even crossing it, to ask what citizenship everybody is on board.
>> There are lawsuits pending that challenge their right to do it.
>>
>> ... more and more foreigners are avoiding the US for vacation and
>> university study, since the visa requirements can be so difficult,
>> and because of isolated stories about rough treatment upon trying to
>> enter the US. If they treat a citizen like that, how do you think
>> they treat visitors?
>
> I take all three modes regularly and can state unequivocally that the
> difference is far and away magnitudes far greater, more severe and
> more intrusive with air travel, both in terminals and on board.
Let's see: A magnitude is ten times greater, so are you really trying to
suggest that it is 100 or 1000 times worse (magnitudes) with air travel?
I can unequivocally state that is simply absurd.
I'll bet you have never even ridden a bus or train into the US over the
border. I enter the US perhaps a dozen times a year using various modes,
from various countries, and the checks are noticeably more stringent by
bus or train. Not an order of magnitude, just more stringent.
Overall, the reception you get by any mode can best be described as
professional, and at worst you feel that they think you are a terrorist,
and should feel lucky they even let you in. In either case, you don't
feel particularly welcome.
Stephen Sprunk
> "rsh...@gmail.com" <rsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> At their insp points they walk around your vehicle with the drug
>> dogs
>>
>> That gives them probable cause
Note there have been numerous reports of drug dogs giving false reports,
which some claim they've been _trained_ to do when given a signal by
their handler. This gets cops the "probable cause" they need to search
the vehicle for other things they can use to arrest the occupants. The
courts have upheld such searches, even when no drugs are found, based on
claims the dogs had detected evidence of drugs having been in the
vehicle _at some unspecified point in the past_. Such rulings, of
course, just encourage this behavior to continue.
> The problem is not just the 40 mile inland inspection points, which have
> existed for decades along the Mexican border, but that they have taken to
> getting on trains and buses that aren't even crossing the border in
> places like Rochester NY, or Spokane WA, and demanding to know what
> people's citizenship is.
They also stop random cars on the freeways in certain places near the
border, so it's not just buses and trains.
> In the process, they have been accused of profiling, in that there are
> reports of them getting on a bus and only questioning the three
> passengers who don't have blond hair and blue eyes. If they take someone
> off the bus or train for further questioning, they are stuck there when
> they are susequently released, which can be a real inconvenience.
Yep. Even if no charges are brought, the police are deemed not
responsible for whatever inconvenience their harassment causes.
> It's all done in the name of preventing terrorism, but I don't think
> they've found one yet.
That's because it's not about terrorism. It's what the border patrol
(and certain elements of the public) wanted done anyway to find illegal
immigrants but couldn't get passed into law--until they could wrap it in
a veneer of terrorism prevention, which few politicians were/are willing
to stand up to.
There was a lot of that after 9/11. For instance, airlines had wanted
_for decades_ to mandate checking of IDs and boarding passes to stop
third parties who would buy cheap advance-purchase tickets and sell them
at the last minute for less than the airlines' own prices. 9/11 gave
politicians the excuse they needed to pass that law, even though all of
the 9/11 hijackers flew on tickets in their own names and had legitimate
IDs not on any watch lists.
OTOH, a border agent in Washington (state) _did_ find a terrorist. It
wasn't via any of the new powers granted after 9/11, though, since it
was in 1999. She found one of the ferry passengers, who had already
cleared immigration, to be "hinky"; she searched his car (as customs
agents have always been able to do) and found explosives, which he later
admitted he intended to use to blow up LAX. AFAIK, we haven't found any
terrorists crossing the border since then.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Jimmy
> There was a lot of that after 9/11. For instance, airlines had wanted
> _for decades_ to mandate checking of IDs and boarding passes to stop
> third parties who would buy cheap advance-purchase tickets and sell them
> at the last minute for less than the airlines' own prices. 9/11 gave
> politicians the excuse they needed to pass that law, even though all of
> the 9/11 hijackers flew on tickets in their own names and had legitimate
> IDs not on any watch lists.
You needed ID to fly in the U.S. long before 9/11.
Jimmy
Stephen Sprunk
Really? What I recall, prior to 9/11, was that one didn't need a
boarding pass to go through security, and they never checked IDs at the
gate, just that you possessed a boarding pass for that flight. ID was
only required to check luggage.
Even today, one can print up a fake boarding pass (matching your ID) to
get through security, then use the real boarding pass (in someone else's
name) to board the flight. Some enterprising folks even set up helpful
web sites to generate the former; rather than fix the obvious security
hole, the Feds shut them down "for helping terrorists", though no
charges were ever filed.
Sancho Panza
>I enter the US perhaps a dozen times a year using various modes,
> from various countries, and the checks are noticeably more stringent by
> bus or train. Not an order of magnitude, just more stringent.
Could you be more precise and descriptive about the differences you have
encountered? Perhaps you could tell us about the traditional scanners
and magnetometers, not to mention scanners with ionizing radiation.
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.
> On 18-Jul-11 19:46, Jimmy wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk<step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>> There was a lot of that after 9/11. For instance, airlines had wanted
>>> _for decades_ to mandate checking of IDs and boarding passes to stop
>>> third parties who would buy cheap advance-purchase tickets and sell them
>>> at the last minute for less than the airlines' own prices. 9/11 gave
>>> politicians the excuse they needed to pass that law, even though all of
>>> the 9/11 hijackers flew on tickets in their own names and had legitimate
>>> IDs not on any watch lists.
>>
>> You needed ID to fly in the U.S. long before 9/11.
>
> Really? What I recall, prior to 9/11, was that one didn't need a
> boarding pass to go through security, and they never checked IDs at the
> gate, just that you possessed a boarding pass for that flight. ID was
> only required to check luggage.
beginning with the sale of non-refundable round-trip tickets, to stop
people from splitting or sharing the tickets.
Glen Labah
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> Really? What I recall, prior to 9/11, was that one didn't need a
> boarding pass to go through security, and they never checked IDs at the
> gate, just that you possessed a boarding pass for that flight. ID was
> only required to check luggage.
That depended on the airport or airline.
Miami, for example, had it so that you could not go into the specific
terminal from which your flight would depart unless you had a boarding
pass for a flight that would leave from that terminal area. There was
and is no way to get between the various air side terminals without
exiting security first.
Apparently, this is because of the huge number of flights going to South
America out of Miami, and as everyone (apparently) knows, the vast
majority of people trying to get to South America are criminals.
I don't know of any other airport in the USA that is set up that way.
--
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam due to e-mail address
harvesters on Usenet. Response time to e-mail sent here is slow.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > Really? What I recall, prior to 9/11, was that one didn't need a
> > boarding pass to go through security, and they never checked IDs at the
> > gate, just that you possessed a boarding pass for that flight. ID was
> > only required to check luggage.
>
> That depended on the airport or airline.
>
> Miami, for example, had it so that you could not go into the specific
> terminal from which your flight would depart unless you had a boarding
> pass for a flight that would leave from that terminal area. There was
> and is no way to get between the various air side terminals without
> exiting security first.
"Long before 9/11", one did not need any ID or a ticket go to through
security. One could go through to see someone off, or pick up someone
right at the gate.
The security check was much weaker, too, though it got tighter as
years went by.
When I flew out of Miami, quite some ago, there weren't those checks.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > You needed ID to fly in the U.S. long before 9/11.
>
> Really? What I recall, prior to 9/11, was that one didn't need a
> boarding pass to go through security, and they never checked IDs at the
> gate, just that you possessed a boarding pass for that flight. ID was
> only required to check luggage.
Correct. And previously (I think it was Lockerbie), you didn't need
an ID to check luggage or to fly. If you gave them cash or travellers
checks, you could merely orally give your name and that was fine.
James Robinson
Those aren't immigration checks, which were the subject of discussion.
Cynthia Smith
> On 18-Jul-11 19:46, Jimmy wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk<step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>> There was a lot of that after 9/11. For instance, airlines had wanted
>>> _for decades_ to mandate checking of IDs and boarding passes to stop
>>> third parties who would buy cheap advance-purchase tickets and sell them
>>> at the last minute for less than the airlines' own prices. 9/11 gave
>>> politicians the excuse they needed to pass that law, even though all of
>>> the 9/11 hijackers flew on tickets in their own names and had legitimate
>>> IDs not on any watch lists.
>>
>> You needed ID to fly in the U.S. long before 9/11.
>
> Really? What I recall, prior to 9/11, was that one didn't need a
> boarding pass to go through security, and they never checked IDs at the
> gate, just that you possessed a boarding pass for that flight. ID was
> only required to check luggage.
The great experienced pilot with "hundreds of thousands of miles
experience" is wrong again. Although IDs were not checked consistently
to pass the security checkpoints, IDs were checked prior to 9/11/2001 to
obtain a boarding pass, luggage or no luggage.
Stephen Sprunk
If so, it wasn't universal. I know for certain I flew many times before
1995 without photo ID, since I didn't have one until then, and a few
years after (but still before 2001) some airlines had automated kiosks
that didn't check ID either--and the more progressive airlines were
letting passengers print boarding passes at home.
Stephen Sprunk
> In article <j02p5f$ur2$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> Really? What I recall, prior to 9/11, was that one didn't need a
>> boarding pass to go through security, and they never checked IDs at the
>> gate, just that you possessed a boarding pass for that flight. ID was
>> only required to check luggage.
>
> That depended on the airport or airline.
>
> Miami, for example, had it so that you could not go into the specific
> terminal from which your flight would depart unless you had a boarding
> pass for a flight that would leave from that terminal area. There was
> and is no way to get between the various air side terminals without
> exiting security first.
There are many airports like that, unfortunately. In most cases, you
can at least connect between flights on the same airline without going
through security, but there are notable exceptions.
> Apparently, this is because of the huge number of flights going to South
> America out of Miami, and as everyone (apparently) knows, the vast
> majority of people trying to get to South America are criminals.
>
> I don't know of any other airport in the USA that is set up that way.
The TSA requires a boarding pass (or other airline document bearing the
person's name) to get through security at all airports, except for a few
in a test program to measure the effects on checkpoint wait times.
Sancho Panza
>You needed ID to fly in the U.S. long before 9/11.
>
> Really? What I recall, prior to 9/11, was that one didn't need a
> boarding pass to go through security, and they never checked IDs at the
> gate, just that you possessed a boarding pass for that flight. ID was
> only required to check luggage.
It depended on the airport. Some had extremely strict rules. Others were
ridiculously lax.
Sancho Panza
They still do.
Sancho Panza
In what way or ways are the immigration checks for train and bus
passengers more intensive than for airline passengers?
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.
Sancho Panza
Can you explain how BCE or ICE treats different modes of transportation
differently for entry purposes? OP's here are saying that bus and train
passengers are by and large subjected to much harsher immigration than
airline passengers. That does not seem possible or rational. Aren't the
tools and procedures the same for all modes of travel?
Stephen Sprunk
Could you be more specific?
Yes, you can still get boarding passes at kiosks or print one at home,
but you have to show ID to get through security, except at airports
participating in the aforementioned test program.
Stephen Sprunk
That is part of the problem, actually; the procedures used _should_ be
tailored to the mode of travel, but since rail and bus are relatively
minor modes compared to air and car, they aren't. Even air and car
aren't much different from each other, for that matter.
There's also the problem that you could be riding a bus or train _near_
the border, get removed by border agents for further questioning and
then be stuck with no onward transportation. That doesn't happen for
users of other modes.
Miles Bader
>> Although IDs were not checked consistently to pass the security
>> checkpoints, IDs were checked prior to 9/11/2001 to obtain a
>> boarding pass, luggage or no luggage.
>
> If so, it wasn't universal. I know for certain I flew many times
> before 1995 without photo ID
I remember news stories in the late '90s about photo-IDs becoming a
requirement for flying -- and of course people griping about it!
[and I certainly recall them checking; for a long time I didn't have
any photo-ID except for my passport, so this was actually something I
worried about...]
-Miles
--
Quotation, n. The act of repeating erroneously the words of another. The words
erroneously repeated.
Jimmy
> If so, it wasn't universal. I know for certain I flew many times before
> 1995 without photo ID, since I didn't have one until then, and a few
> years after (but still before 2001) some airlines had automated kiosks
> that didn't check ID either--and the more progressive airlines were
> letting passengers print boarding passes at home.
The ID requirement to fly was imposed after the crash of TWA flight
800 in 1996. (Airlines were supposed to ask for ID to check baggage
starting in 1995, because of the Oklahoma City attack, but enforcement
of that rule varied.)
The procedure (at least at the airports I used) was that you had to
show ID and answer the silly questions ("Did you pack your bags
yourself?" etc) when you checked in and got your boarding pass. They
put a sticker on your boarding pass to show that it had been done.
If you had a boarding pass you printed yourself, you could go straight
to security, but if they didn't see the sticker they'd ask for your ID
and ask the questions then instead.
Here's an article from 1997 about people having to get new NJ driver's
licenses so they could fly, since the older licenses didn't have
photos: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/05/nyregion/when-the-dmv-is-issuing-licenses-to-fly.html
Jimmy
James Robinson
They ask more questions.
Here is a specific example:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/21/37563.htm
When were you last asked your citizenship when you took a domestic
flight?
Cynthia Smith
Which "progressive" airlines allowed printing boarding passes at home
prior to 9/2001?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> There's also the problem that you could be riding a bus or train _near_
> the border, get removed by border agents for further questioning and
> then be stuck with no onward transportation. That doesn't happen for
> users of other modes.
The problems you describe have been reported by the New York Times.
Cynthia Smith
One big difference between air and car is that air travelers pay US
customs/immigration for the privilege of being checked by
customs/immigration. This charge is collected in the form of user fees
for private aircraft and via ticket line item taxes for airline
passengers.
Auto travelers do not pay any user fees at the US border. I've never
taken an international train trip into the US, but I assume it is the
same.
Sancho Panza
Special pleading by what is a clearly special interest group with the
stated motive of reducing enforcement of immigration laws and that was
able to assemble three unverified assertions just won't cut it.
Such a FOIA suit, which as we all know anyone can file, amounts to not
much more than a fishing expedition to back up this otherwise
unsubstantiated assertion:
"Apprehensions have dramatically increased in recent years in the
Buffalo Border Patrol
Sector, which spans twenty-nine counties in New York and Peillisylvania.
Upon information and
belief, transportation raids are driving the growth in arrests. These
raids have caused widespread
concern in the community, as demonstrated by protests, vigils, and
significant media attention
surrounding the issue."
>When were you last asked your citizenship when you took a domestic
>flight?
Red herring. One does not have to be a citizen to fly anywhere in the
United States.
As for Amtrak, its passenger requirements are basically the same as for
airline customers and it clearly warns of regular checks on board its
trains:
"Passenger Identification
Amtrak has undertaken heightened security measures for the benefit of
our customers.
Valid Photo Identification Required
Photo ID Required
Amtrak customers 18 years of age and older must produce valid photo
identification when:
Obtaining, exchanging or refunding tickets
Storing baggage at stations
Checking baggage
Sending Amtrak Express shipments
Onboard trains, in response to a request by an Amtrak employee
Please note that unaccompanied children 15 and older must also produce
valid photo ID when purchasing tickets.
Random Ticket/ID Checks
Following federal Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
guidelines, we regularly conduct random ticket verification checks
onboard trains to ensure that passengers are properly ticketed. Please
be prepared to show valid photo identification to a member of the
onboard crew upon request.
What is a Valid ID?
To be valid, your identification must be current and in-force. The
following forms of identification are acceptable for persons 18 and older:
One piece of photo identification issued by a government authority, or
Two pieces of identification, at least one of which is issued by a
government authority
Examples of acceptable forms of ID include:
State or provincial driver's license
Passport
Official government-issued identification (federal, state or county
government or foreign government)
Canadian provincial health card ID card with photo
Military photo ID
Student identification (university, college or high school photo ID)
Job Corps photo ID"
Glen Labah
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 18-Jul-11 22:18, Glen Labah wrote:
> > In article <j02p5f$ur2$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >> Really? What I recall, prior to 9/11, was that one didn't need a
> >> boarding pass to go through security, and they never checked IDs at the
> >> gate, just that you possessed a boarding pass for that flight. ID was
> >> only required to check luggage.
> >
> > That depended on the airport or airline.
> >
> > Miami, for example, had it so that you could not go into the specific
> > terminal from which your flight would depart unless you had a boarding
> > pass for a flight that would leave from that terminal area. There was
> > and is no way to get between the various air side terminals without
> > exiting security first.
>
> There are many airports like that, unfortunately. In most cases, you
> can at least connect between flights on the same airline without going
> through security, but there are notable exceptions.
Over the years I have flown out of various domestic and foreign
airports. The only other one I can think of that is set up that way is
GRU in São Paulo. However, due to the very confusing airport layout,
they pretty much have to.
> > Apparently, this is because of the huge number of flights going to South
> > America out of Miami, and as everyone (apparently) knows, the vast
> > majority of people trying to get to South America are criminals.
> >
> > I don't know of any other airport in the USA that is set up that way.
>
> The TSA requires a boarding pass (or other airline document bearing the
> person's name) to get through security at all airports, except for a few
> in a test program to measure the effects on checkpoint wait times.
I'm talking about long before the current set of regulations. At that
time no other USA airport I went through had restrictions on passengers
departing from one terminal wandering into another terminal building, so
long as they were in the secured area. Miami was making sure that only
those going to a flight went through security for that specific terminal.
Their security procedures also changed from terminal to terminal. One
time I went through there they were doing a far more thorough set of
screening and examinations for passengers for a specific terminal than
any other terminal. I suspect it had something to do with the flight to
Cuba originating two gates down and across the hall from the gate I
departed from.
Sancho Panza
> I'm talking about long before the current set of regulations. At that
> time no other USA airport I went through had restrictions on passengers
> departing from one terminal wandering into another terminal building, so
> long as they were in the secured area.
Even before 9/11, airports in the metropolitan New York region did not
permit "wandering" from one secure terminal area to another. Shortly
after EWR started opening its present-day terminals, it even allowed
non-passengers into some of its piers and aircraft gate areas. That,
however, did not last long. At JFK, different terminals had wildly
variable procedures. The guideline to meet and greet family and friends
was to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
Stephen Sprunk
> On 7/20/2011 10:41 AM, James Robinson wrote:
>> When were you last asked your citizenship when you took a domestic
>> flight?
>
> Red herring. One does not have to be a citizen to fly anywhere in the
> United States.
No, but there _are_ airports where many (i.e. non-white) passengers are
required to submit to a Border Patrol inspection to fly domestically. I
encountered this in McAllen, TX, and I've heard it's "normal" along the
US-Mexico border.
> Please note that unaccompanied children 15 and older must also produce
> valid photo ID when purchasing tickets.
How many 15-year-olds have suitable photo ID? If it were 16, that'd be
another story, but there are still plenty that don't.
> To be valid, your identification must be current and in-force. The
> following forms of identification are acceptable for persons 18 and older:
>
> One piece of photo identification issued by a government authority, or
> Two pieces of identification, at least one of which is issued by a
> government authority
What is acceptable for those 15-17? And what good is "identification"
that doesn't include a photo anyway?
Jimmy
> James Robinson wrote:
> >http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/21/37563.htm
> Such a FOIA suit, which as we all know anyone can file, amounts to not
> much more than a fishing expedition to back up this otherwise
> unsubstantiated assertion:
>
> "Apprehensions have dramatically increased in recent years in the
> Buffalo Border Patrol
> Sector, which spans twenty-nine counties in New York and Peillisylvania.
> Upon information and
> belief, transportation raids are driving the growth in arrests."
Here is some substantiation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/nyregion/30border.html
"The Lake Shore Limited runs between Chicago and New York City without
crossing the Canadian border. But when it stops at Amtrak stations in
western New York State, armed Border Patrol agents routinely board the
train, question passengers about their citizenship and take away
noncitizens who cannot produce satisfactory immigration papers. "
> >When were you last asked your citizenship when you took a domestic
> >flight?
>
> Red herring. One does not have to be a citizen to fly anywhere in the
> United States.
That was his point. Even though you don't have to be a citizen to
travel within the U.S., *domestic* bus and train passengers, on
domestic buses and trains, are regularly hassled by immigration
authorities in upstate New York and other places within 100 miles of
the border.
Jimmy
Stephen Sprunk
> In article <j042fh$tpb$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 18-Jul-11 22:18, Glen Labah wrote:
>>> In article <j02p5f$ur2$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> Really? What I recall, prior to 9/11, was that one didn't need a
>>>> boarding pass to go through security, and they never checked IDs at the
>>>> gate, just that you possessed a boarding pass for that flight. ID was
>>>> only required to check luggage.
>>>
>>> That depended on the airport or airline.
>>>
>>> Miami, for example, had it so that you could not go into the specific
>>> terminal from which your flight would depart unless you had a boarding
>>> pass for a flight that would leave from that terminal area. There was
>>> and is no way to get between the various air side terminals without
>>> exiting security first.
>>
>> There are many airports like that, unfortunately. In most cases, you
>> can at least connect between flights on the same airline without going
>> through security, but there are notable exceptions.
>
> Over the years I have flown out of various domestic and foreign
> airports. The only other one I can think of that is set up that way is
> GRU in São Paulo. However, due to the very confusing airport layout,
> they pretty much have to.
MCI (Kansas City) often requires exiting and reentering security to
connect between flights, even within the same terminal.
Many, many airports require the same when changing terminals, since they
lack secure-side walkways/trains. Most do not advertise such
connections, but it's required for AFAIK all international connections
at LAX.
>>> Apparently, this is because of the huge number of flights going to South
>>> America out of Miami, and as everyone (apparently) knows, the vast
>>> majority of people trying to get to South America are criminals.
>>>
>>> I don't know of any other airport in the USA that is set up that way.
>>
>> The TSA requires a boarding pass (or other airline document bearing the
>> person's name) to get through security at all airports, except for a few
>> in a test program to measure the effects on checkpoint wait times.
>
> I'm talking about long before the current set of regulations. At that
> time no other USA airport I went through had restrictions on passengers
> departing from one terminal wandering into another terminal building, so
> long as they were in the secured area. Miami was making sure that only
> those going to a flight went through security for that specific terminal.
If there are connections on the secure side, they shouldn't care which
entrance you use. If there aren't, well, it is perfectly logical to not
let people in the wrong entrance for their ticket since it's a waste of
security effort.
(Prior to checking ID/tickets, though, it wouldn't have made sense.
What if you wanted to greet an arriving friend at the gate, as was
commonly done?)
> Their security procedures also changed from terminal to terminal. One
> time I went through there they were doing a far more thorough set of
> screening and examinations for passengers for a specific terminal than
> any other terminal. I suspect it had something to do with the flight to
> Cuba originating two gates down and across the hall from the gate I
> departed from.
There are flights between Miami and Cuba? I thought that you had to
connect via a third country--though you can do it on a US-flag airline.
Glen Labah
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> (Prior to checking ID/tickets, though, it wouldn't have made sense.
> What if you wanted to greet an arriving friend at the gate, as was
> commonly done?)
Like I said, this was a while back, and before this was before that was
commonplace.
> > Their security procedures also changed from terminal to terminal. One
> > time I went through there they were doing a far more thorough set of
> > screening and examinations for passengers for a specific terminal than
> > any other terminal. I suspect it had something to do with the flight to
> > Cuba originating two gates down and across the hall from the gate I
> > departed from.
>
> There are flights between Miami and Cuba? I thought that you had to
> connect via a third country--though you can do it on a US-flag airline.
Like I said, this was a while back.
I think that particular trip was in 1999, so before all the tightening
of Cuban tourist regulations that happened after Bush II was in office.
There was actually a time that Trains Unlimited was actually running
Cuba Steam excursions and tours, marketed to railfans in the USA, and
getting there on a commercial flight departing from Miami.
I don't know if you can even do tourist trips like that these days. My
understanding is that today doing tourist trips to Cuba is far more
difficult than it was during the Clinton years.
I suppose also it wasn't a direct flight, but had an intermediate stop
on one of the other islands.
But, it definitely was headed to Cuba, as that definitely stuck out in
my mind, and was very obviously being watched by a number of people in
the terminal waiting area that can at best be described as "Men in
Black".
James Robinson
> James Robinson wrote:
>
>> Sancho Panza<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Can you explain how BCE or ICE treats different modes of
>>> transportation differently for entry purposes? OP's here are saying
>>> that bus and train passengers are by and large subjected to much
>>> harsher immigration than airline passengers. That does not seem
>>> possible or rational. Aren't the tools and procedures the same for
>>> all modes of travel?
>>
>> They ask more questions.
>>
>> Here is a specific example:
>>
>> http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/21/37563.htm
>
> Special pleading by what is a clearly special interest group with the
> stated motive of reducing enforcement of immigration laws and that was
> able to assemble three unverified assertions just won't cut it.
If you took even the slightest effort, you would find that this in not
an isolated case. There are complaints about citizenship checks in
Washington and Pennsylvania, with the ACLU actively informing bus
passengers what their rights are when confronted on a domestic journey:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,500325,00.html
There was even episodes in Colorado and Iowa, far from the border:
http://www.iowaimmigrationeducation.org/index.cfm?nodeID=19036&audienceID=1&action=display&newsID=13323
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/11/aclu_files_claim_against_ice_for_harassing_us_citizens_en_route_to_amway_convention.php
The TSA even went as far as going after Amtrak passengers who had
just gotten of a train in Savannah, GA. This was clearly an
illegal act, but who will argue with them as they directly
violate the Constitution?
http://upgrd.com/matthew/amtrak-throws-out-the-tsa.html
All of this is an erosion of our fourth amendment right to being left
alone, except when reasonable suspicion exists, in the name of tightened
security or making a show of going after illegal immigrants.
>> When were you last asked your citizenship when you took a domestic
>> flight?
>
> Red herring. One does not have to be a citizen to fly anywhere in the
> United States.
Are you even paying attention to the discussion? Of course you don't
have to be a citizen to fly, nor should you have to produce proof of
citizenship. In spite of that, the feds are asking about citizenship of
people who are riding buses and trains on domestic routes, sometimes far
from the border.
Do you see anything in that list about proof of citizenship?
Given that the Constitution effectively prohibits the police from
randomly stopping you to ask your citizenship when you are walking
down the street without reasonable suspicion that you have committed
a crime, or are about to commit a crime, why do you passively accept
the same actions just because you want to ride an intercity bus or
train? What's the next step that they will take in the name of safety
or security that you will sheepishly acquiesce to?
Sancho Panza
As stated before in this thread, that is a red herring. One does not
have to be a citizen to travel anywhere in the U.S. One does have to
have, according to the law, legal status.
> Given that the Constitution effectively prohibits the police from
> randomly stopping you to ask your citizenship when you are walking
> down the street without reasonable suspicion that you have committed
> a crime, or are about to commit a crime, why do you passively accept
> the same actions just because you want to ride an intercity bus or
> train?
Should trains and buses be exempt from the procedures for, say, aviation?
At any rate, under U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez, border protection is a
special case under the Fourth Amendment:
"The border search exception is a doctrine of United States criminal law
that exempts searches of travelers and their property from the Fourth
Amendment warrant requirement.
The United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), ICE-HSI Special
Agents, and Coast Guard officers (E4 grade and above) who are all
customs officers (those tasked with enforcing Title 19 of the United
States Code) with the United States Department of Homeland Security, are
permitted to search travelers and their belongings at the American
border without probable cause or a warrant. These searches are therefore
exempted from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. Pursuant to this
authority, customs officers may generally stop and search the property
of any traveler entering or exiting the United States at random, or even
based largely on ethnic profiles." --wikipedia
"FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution]
'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.'
To pass muster under the Fourth Amendment, detention must be
'reasonable. ' See U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 542-44
('85) (analyzing constitutionality of length of traveler's border
detention under Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard); Caban, 728
F.2d at 75 (considering whether duration of border detention without a
hearing was reasonable).
In the context of a criminal arrest, a detention of longer than 48 hours
without a probable cause determination violates the Fourth Amendment as
a matter of law in the absence of a demonstrated emergency or other
extraordinary circumstance. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 111
S.Ct. 1661, 670 ('91). However, the Supreme Court arrived at this rule
by considering the time it takes to complete administrative steps
typically incident to arrest. See id."--lectlaw.com
Sancho Panza
Continental and American encouraged/allowed printing boarding passes
even in the era of dot matrix printers. The problem was the scanners at
curbside had huge problems reading them.
Stephen Sprunk
> Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> If so, it wasn't universal. I know for certain I flew many times before
>> 1995 without photo ID, since I didn't have one until then, and a few
>> years after (but still before 2001) some airlines had automated kiosks
>> that didn't check ID either--and the more progressive airlines were
>> letting passengers print boarding passes at home.
>
> The ID requirement to fly was imposed after the crash of TWA flight
> 800 in 1996. (Airlines were supposed to ask for ID to check baggage
> starting in 1995, because of the Oklahoma City attack, but enforcement
> of that rule varied.)
Enforcement of the ID requirement also varied, apparently, as it was so
lax at dozens of airports I flew through all over the country from 1996
to 2001. It was trivial to get around it, as long as you weren't
checking bags.
Things changed when they started checking ID at the security
checkpoints, but even then you could "fly as a selectee" without ID;
that ended a few years ago.
> The procedure (at least at the airports I used) was that you had to
> show ID and answer the silly questions ("Did you pack your bags
> yourself?" etc) when you checked in and got your boarding pass. They
> put a sticker on your boarding pass to show that it had been done.
>
> If you had a boarding pass you printed yourself, you could go straight
> to security, but if they didn't see the sticker they'd ask for your ID
> and ask the questions then instead.
I _never_ had that happen.
James Robinson
> James Robinson wrote:
>
>> Sancho Panza<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As for Amtrak, its passenger requirements are basically the same as
>>> for airline customers and it clearly warns of regular checks on
>>> board its trains:
>>
>> < snip list >
>>
>> Do you see anything in that list about proof of citizenship?
>
> As stated before in this thread, that is a red herring. One does not
> have to be a citizen to travel anywhere in the U.S. One does have to
> have, according to the law, legal status.
As stated before, which you are obviously ignoring, TSA is asking what
people's citizenship is when making spot checks on buses and trains that
operate near, but not over the international border. They are not setting
up checkpoints on the nearby I90, nor are they asking people flying out
of Syracuse or Rochester what their citizenship is. Only trains and
buses. It is that difference in treatment that is the whole point.
Further, local or state police cannot stop you at all to ask questions
unless they have reasonable suspicion of a crime, but the border patrol
is allowed to confront you without any reason within 100 miles of the
border and demand to know what your citizenship is. This is what the
ACLU calls the "Constitution Free Zone". I wonder when the TSA will
start asking everybody's citizenship in the Transbay Terminal or the Port
Authority bus terminal, both of which are within 100 miles of the
international border.
Stephen Sprunk
> As stated before, which you are obviously ignoring, TSA is asking what
> people's citizenship is when making spot checks on buses and trains that
> operate near, but not over the international border. They are not setting
> up checkpoints on the nearby I90, nor are they asking people flying out
> of Syracuse or Rochester what their citizenship is. Only trains and
> buses. It is that difference in treatment that is the whole point.
Maybe they don't do that along the Canadian border, but they do it along
the Mexican border. Cars are routinely stopped on I-10, I-5 and I-25 at
impromptu checkpoints, and agents swarm airports along the border asking
any Hispanic-looking passengers for proof they're in the country legally.
> Further, local or state police cannot stop you at all to ask questions
> unless they have reasonable suspicion of a crime, but the border patrol
> is allowed to confront you without any reason within 100 miles of the
> border and demand to know what your citizenship is.
Actually, state and local police _can_ do that. That's what the big
flap in Arizona was about: the state passed a law allowing their police
to take advantage of a power they already had under federal law, which
extends to _all_ law-enforcement officers, not just federal ones.
James Robinson
> On 24-Jul-11 11:19, James Robinson wrote:
>
>> As stated before, which you are obviously ignoring, TSA is asking
>> what people's citizenship is when making spot checks on buses and
>> trains that operate near, but not over the international border. They
>> are not setting up checkpoints on the nearby I90, nor are they asking
>> people flying out of Syracuse or Rochester what their citizenship is.
>> Only trains and buses. It is that difference in treatment that is the
>> whole point.
>
> Maybe they don't do that along the Canadian border, but they do it
> along the Mexican border. Cars are routinely stopped on I-10, I-5 and
> I-25 at impromptu checkpoints, and agents swarm airports along the
> border asking any Hispanic-looking passengers for proof they're in the
> country legally.
I5 and I25 are north/south, and the border patrol similarly has
checkpoints set up on a couple of highways leading from the border. They
are relatively recent, and have been controversial because of a couple of
bad accidents approaching the stopping point. There are none on
east/west highways, that I know of.
>> Further, local or state police cannot stop you at all to ask
>> questions unless they have reasonable suspicion of a crime, but the
>> border patrol is allowed to confront you without any reason within
>> 100 miles of the border and demand to know what your citizenship is.
>
> Actually, state and local police _can_ do that. That's what the big
> flap in Arizona was about: the state passed a law allowing their
> police to take advantage of a power they already had under federal
> law, which extends to _all_ law-enforcement officers, not just federal
> ones.
As I understand the Arizona law, the police are not allowed to randomly
stop people to ask about their citizenship, unlike the powers the Border
Patrol officers hold. The police can only ask about a person's legal
status if they have stopped that person for another violation, and
further, they have to have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in
the country illegally. The police are not allowed to use racial
profiling or an inability to speak English alone to reach the conclusion
that they are illegal. All of this will be a feast for the lawyers.
Sancho Panza
> Sancho Panza<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> James Robinson wrote:
>>
>>> Sancho Panza<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As for Amtrak, its passenger requirements are basically the same as
>>>> for airline customers and it clearly warns of regular checks on
>>>> board its trains:
>>>
>>> < snip list>
>>>
>>> Do you see anything in that list about proof of citizenship?
>>
>> As stated before in this thread, that is a red herring. One does not
>> have to be a citizen to travel anywhere in the U.S. One does have to
>> have, according to the law, legal status.
>
> As stated before, which you are obviously ignoring, TSA is asking what
> people's citizenship is when making spot checks on buses and trains that
> operate near, but not over the international border. They are not setting
> up checkpoints on the nearby I90, nor are they asking people flying out
> of Syracuse or Rochester what their citizenship is. Only trains and
> buses. It is that difference in treatment that is the whole point.
As posted in the snipped sections, the Supreme Court has clearly ruled
that is entirely legal and constitutional. The figures show that a
significant problem exists in that region.
And the TSA states this about non-citizens:
"Non-US/Canadian citizens are not required to carry their passports if
they have documents issued by the U.S. government such as Permanent
Resident Cards. Those who do not should be carrying their passports
while visiting the U.S."
For people lacking ID, the TSA has some alternatives. All are based on
access to comprehensive databases from airports. Buses and trains are
behind the curve on that.
"We understand passengers occasionally arrive at the airport without an
ID, due to lost items or inadvertently leaving them at home. Not having
an ID, does not necessarily mean a passenger won’t be allowed to fly.
If passengers are willing to provide additional information, we have
other means of substantiating someone’s identity, like using publicly
available databases.Passengers who are cleared through this process may
be subject to additional screening. Passengers whose identity cannot be
verified by TSA may not be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint or
onto an airplane.
Acceptable IDs include:
U.S. passport
U.S. passport card
DHS "Trusted Traveler" cards (NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST)
U.S. Military ID (active duty or retired military and their
dependents, and DOD civilians)
Permanent Resident Card
Border Crossing Card
DHS-designated enhanced driver's license
Drivers Licenses or other state photo identity cards issued by
Department of Motor Vehicles (or equivalent)
A Native American Tribal Photo ID
An airline or airport-issued ID (if issued under a TSA-approved
security plan)
A foreign government-issued passport
Canadian provincial driver's license or Indian and Northern Affairs
Canada (INAC) card
Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)"
>
> Further, local or state police cannot stop you at all to ask questions
> unless they have reasonable suspicion of a crime, but the border patrol
> is allowed to confront you without any reason within 100 miles of the
> border and demand to know what your citizenship is. This is what the
> ACLU calls the "Constitution Free Zone".
As you see fit to repeat the ACLU position, I see fit to reiterate
the law of the land, as consistently found by the Supreme Court. Of
course, if one wants to equate Rochester, NY, with Guantanamo Bay,
that's his prerogative. In that case, it is useful to note that Cuba
strictly limits immigration. Not that boatloads of folks are trying to
sail there.
"FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution]
'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.'
To pass muster under the Fourth Amendment, detention must be
'reasonable. ' See U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 542-44
('85) (analyzing constitutionality of length of traveler's border
detention under Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard); Caban, 728
F.2d at 75 (considering whether duration of border detention without a
hearing was reasonable).
In the context of a criminal arrest, a detention of longer than 48 hours
without a probable cause determination violates the Fourth Amendment as
a matter of law in the absence of a demonstrated emergency or other
extraordinary circumstance. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 111
S.Ct. 1661, 670 ('91). However, the Supreme Court arrived at this rule
by considering the time it takes to complete administrative steps
typically incident to arrest. See id."--lectlaw.com
> I wonder when the TSA will
> start asking everybody's citizenship in the Transbay Terminal or the Port
> Authority bus terminal, both of which are within 100 miles of the
> international border.
I have always regarded Long Island as not just another country, but
another world.
Sancho Panza
> On 24-Jul-11 11:19, James Robinson wrote:
>> As stated before, which you are obviously ignoring, TSA is asking what
>> people's citizenship is when making spot checks on buses and trains that
>> operate near, but not over the international border. They are not setting
>> up checkpoints on the nearby I90, nor are they asking people flying out
>> of Syracuse or Rochester what their citizenship is. Only trains and
>> buses. It is that difference in treatment that is the whole point.
>
> Maybe they don't do that along the Canadian border, but they do it along
> the Mexican border. Cars are routinely stopped on I-10, I-5 and I-25 at
> impromptu checkpoints, and agents swarm airports along the border asking
> any Hispanic-looking passengers for proof they're in the country legally.
The most publicized checkpoint being near Camp Pendleton.
>
>> Further, local or state police cannot stop you at all to ask questions
>> unless they have reasonable suspicion of a crime, but the border patrol
>> is allowed to confront you without any reason within 100 miles of the
>> border and demand to know what your citizenship is.
>
> Actually, state and local police _can_ do that. That's what the big
> flap in Arizona was about: the state passed a law allowing their police
> to take advantage of a power they already had under federal law, which
> extends to _all_ law-enforcement officers, not just federal ones.
The Arizona legislation was not just allowing state and local officers
to use that power, but instructed them to do so.
Sancho Panza
> Stephen Sprunk<ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
>> On 24-Jul-11 11:19, James Robinson wrote:
>>
>>> As stated before, which you are obviously ignoring, TSA is asking
>>> what people's citizenship is when making spot checks on buses and
>>> trains that operate near, but not over the international border. They
>>> are not setting up checkpoints on the nearby I90, nor are they asking
>>> people flying out of Syracuse or Rochester what their citizenship is.
>>> Only trains and buses. It is that difference in treatment that is the
>>> whole point.
>>
>> Maybe they don't do that along the Canadian border, but they do it
>> along the Mexican border. Cars are routinely stopped on I-10, I-5 and
>> I-25 at impromptu checkpoints, and agents swarm airports along the
>> border asking any Hispanic-looking passengers for proof they're in the
>> country legally.
>
> I5 and I25 are north/south, and the border patrol similarly has
> checkpoints set up on a couple of highways leading from the border. They
> are relatively recent, and have been controversial because of a couple of
> bad accidents approaching the stopping point.
The big one near Camp Pendleton has been there for more than 20 years.
Fred Ellis
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
>
>>On 24-Jul-11 11:19, James Robinson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As stated before, which you are obviously ignoring, TSA is asking
>>>what people's citizenship is when making spot checks on buses and
>>>trains that operate near, but not over the international border. They
>>>are not setting up checkpoints on the nearby I90, nor are they asking
>>>people flying out of Syracuse or Rochester what their citizenship is.
>>>Only trains and buses. It is that difference in treatment that is the
>>>whole point.
>>
>>Maybe they don't do that along the Canadian border, but they do it
>>along the Mexican border. Cars are routinely stopped on I-10, I-5 and
>>I-25 at impromptu checkpoints, and agents swarm airports along the
>>border asking any Hispanic-looking passengers for proof they're in the
>>country legally.
>
>
> I5 and I25 are north/south, and the border patrol similarly has
> checkpoints set up on a couple of highways leading from the border. They
> are relatively recent, and have been controversial because of a couple of
> bad accidents approaching the stopping point. There are none on
> east/west highways, that I know of.
>
>
There is a major Border Patrol immigration check point on I-10 just west
of Sierra Blanca, TX. And there is also one on I-8 east of San Diego.
Fred Ellis
--
"Who do you serve.... And who do you trust?"
(To e-mail me, remove the X from my address)
Stephen Sprunk
> On 7/24/2011 12:19 PM, James Robinson wrote:
>> Sancho Panza<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>>> As stated before in this thread, that is a red herring. One does not
>>> have to be a citizen to travel anywhere in the U.S. One does have to
>>> have, according to the law, legal status.
>>
>> As stated before, which you are obviously ignoring, TSA is asking what
>> people's citizenship is when making spot checks on buses and trains that
>> operate near, but not over the international border. They are not setting
>> up checkpoints on the nearby I90, nor are they asking people flying out
>> of Syracuse or Rochester what their citizenship is. Only trains and
>> buses. It is that difference in treatment that is the whole point.
>
> As posted in the snipped sections, the Supreme Court has clearly ruled
> that is entirely legal and constitutional. The figures show that a
> significant problem exists in that region.
>
> And the TSA states this about non-citizens:
>
> "Non-US/Canadian citizens are not required to carry their passports if
> they have documents issued by the U.S. government such as Permanent
> Resident Cards. Those who do not should be carrying their passports
> while visiting the U.S."
The obvious problem there is that if a citizen doesn't have ID on them
while traveling domestically, which is perfectly legal, the border
agents can accuse them of being non-citizens and they have no way to
prove otherwise. Therefore, in practice this requires citizens to carry
ID as well, which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
> In the context of a criminal arrest, a detention of longer than 48 hours
> without a probable cause determination violates the Fourth Amendment as
> a matter of law in the absence of a demonstrated emergency or other
> extraordinary circumstance. See County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 111
> S.Ct. 1661, 670 ('91). However, the Supreme Court arrived at this rule
> by considering the time it takes to complete administrative steps
> typically incident to arrest. See id."--lectlaw.com
Allowing officers to detain someone for two full days without probable
cause is ridiculous. "Terry stops" are only supposed to last a few
_minutes_.
James Robinson
I believe it's been there more than 40 years. I have never been asked my
citizenship the many times I've driven through it when it was operating.
James Robinson
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
>> James Robinson wrote:
>>
>>> Further, local or state police cannot stop you at all to ask
>>> questions unless they have reasonable suspicion of a crime, but the
>>> border patrol is allowed to confront you without any reason within
>>> 100 miles of the border and demand to know what your citizenship is.
>>
>> Actually, state and local police _can_ do that. That's what the big
>> flap in Arizona was about: the state passed a law allowing their
>> police to take advantage of a power they already had under federal
>> law, which extends to _all_ law-enforcement officers, not just
>> federal ones.
>
> The Arizona legislation was not just allowing state and local officers
> to use that power, but instructed them to do so.
That's not correct. Local police in Arizona still cannot stop you randomly
to ask your legal status, unlike the border patrol. They can only ask if
you are stopped for another crime, and there is reasonable suspicion that
you are illegal. How they come to that suspicion is very controversial,
since it implies likely racial profiling, and many legal immigrants are
concerned they will be harrassed by police officers.
James Robinson
> James Robinson wrote:
>
>> Sancho Panza<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> James Robinson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sancho Panza<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As for Amtrak, its passenger requirements are basically the same
>>>>> as for airline customers and it clearly warns of regular checks on
>>>>> board its trains:
>>>>
>>>> < snip list>
>>>>
>>>> Do you see anything in that list about proof of citizenship?
>>>
>>> As stated before in this thread, that is a red herring. One does not
>>> have to be a citizen to travel anywhere in the U.S. One does have to
>>> have, according to the law, legal status.
>>
>> As stated before, which you are obviously ignoring, TSA is asking
>> what people's citizenship is when making spot checks on buses and
>> trains that operate near, but not over the international border. They
>> are not setting up checkpoints on the nearby I90, nor are they asking
>> people flying out of Syracuse or Rochester what their citizenship is.
>> Only trains and buses. It is that difference in treatment that is the
>> whole point.
>
> As posted in the snipped sections, the Supreme Court has clearly ruled
> that is entirely legal and constitutional. The figures show that a
> significant problem exists in that region.
As posted before, my whole point is that travelers on different modes are
treated differently, legal or not, a point that you continue to ignore.
Bus and train passengers are being harrassed, unlike passengers on other
modes.
As to whether a problem exists or not, you don't really know since that
is the reason for the FOIA request.
> And the TSA states this about non-citizens:
< snip irrelavant post >
It's not the TSA doing the inspections, it is the Border Patrol, and they
aren't inspecting airline passengers, which is what the TSA data you
posted was talking about.
>> Further, local or state police cannot stop you at all to ask
>> questions unless they have reasonable suspicion of a crime, but the
>> border patrol is allowed to confront you without any reason within
>> 100 miles of the border and demand to know what your citizenship is.
>> This is what the ACLU calls the "Constitution Free Zone".
>
> As you see fit to repeat the ACLU position, I see fit to reiterate
> the law of the land, as consistently found by the Supreme Court.
Your legal knowledge is obviously lacking. Look up Terry vs Ohio, since
you simply do not understand what the Supreme Court has ruled regarding
the fourth amendment's protections and the need for reasonable suspicion
before police can stop anyone to question them about anything. The Border
Patrol is a different matter, since unlike regular police, they are
allowed to randomly stop people within 100 miles of the border to
determine their statues. However, once they have asked you about your
legal status, they cannot ask any further questions or detain you without
reasonable suspicion.
Stephen Sprunk
Legal immigrants are going to get hassled; that's par for the course.
I'm more concerned about naturalized and natural-born citizens, who are
not required to carry proof of their status and therefore will get
hassled _more_ than immigrants.
As to racial profiling, it's not just "implication"; all one has to do
is spend a few days near the border and it's quite apparent that border
agents and police hassle _anyone_ the looks Hispanic or Arab while
leaving alone all whites and blacks.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Should trains and buses be exempt from the procedures for, say, aviation?
When was the last time a train was hijacked to Cuba?
Oh wait, I suppose you'll now us about the time an MU train was
hijacked in Pennsylvania Station during the political convention
upstairs at Madison Square Garden. They doctored the control system
so that train did a 'wheely', aimed upward, and then used the wheels
of the front truck to cut through the concrete floor and enter the
Garden.
> At any rate, under U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez, border protection is a
> special case under the Fourth Amendment:
Except this discussion has NOT been about the borders, see previous
post.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Maybe they don't do that along the Canadian border, but they do it along
> the Mexican border. Cars are routinely stopped on I-10, I-5 and I-25 at
> impromptu checkpoints, and agents swarm airports along the border asking
> any Hispanic-looking passengers for proof they're in the country legally.
What happens with people who look Hispanic (or Asian or anything else)
but actually were born in the United States? Are they supposed to or
expected to carry proof of citizenship with them at all times "just in
case"? What happens to someone who doesn't have such proof? (I don't
carry any such proof, and I suppose I'd have to request a birth
certificate from the state to prove it. Further, I've ridden on the
Lake Shore without any documentation and aren't aware that I would
need any beyond a driver's license.)
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The obvious problem there is that if a citizen doesn't have ID on them
> while traveling domestically, which is perfectly legal, the border
> agents can accuse them of being non-citizens and they have no way to
> prove otherwise. Therefore, in practice this requires citizens to carry
> ID as well, which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Most people carry either a driver's license or substitute state ID
card. Others might have a employee ID, a Medicare card, or student
ID. However, these documents do not show citizenship status. What
happens then?
Indeed, I believe some states ran counter to the Arizona attitude and
ignore immigration legal status in granting of a driver's license.
Stephen Sprunk
> On Jul 24, 5:19 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> Maybe they don't do that along the Canadian border, but they do it along
>> the Mexican border. Cars are routinely stopped on I-10, I-5 and I-25 at
>> impromptu checkpoints, and agents swarm airports along the border asking
>> any Hispanic-looking passengers for proof they're in the country legally.
>
> What happens with people who look Hispanic (or Asian or anything else)
> but actually were born in the United States?
I've never been hassled since I'm white, so I have no idea.
>> Are they supposed to or expected to carry proof of citizenship with them
>> at all times "just in case"?
Apparently they are, despite such a requirement running directly counter
to the Fourth Amendment.
> What happens to someone who doesn't have such proof? (I don't
> carry any such proof, and I suppose I'd have to request a birth
> certificate from the state to prove it. Further, I've ridden on the
> Lake Shore without any documentation and aren't aware that I would
> need any beyond a driver's license.)
In theory, the Border Patrol can detain anyone within these zones for up
to two days without probable cause. If you don't want to risk that,
carry your papers at all times, Comrade.
Stephen Sprunk
> On Jul 25, 12:35 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> The obvious problem there is that if a citizen doesn't have ID on them
>> while traveling domestically, which is perfectly legal, the border
>> agents can accuse them of being non-citizens and they have no way to
>> prove otherwise. Therefore, in practice this requires citizens to carry
>> ID as well, which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
>
> Most people carry either a driver's license or substitute state ID
> card.
Most, but not all.
> Others might have a employee ID, a Medicare card, or student
> ID. However, these documents do not show citizenship status. What
> happens then?
I suspect that depends on what color your skin is.
> Indeed, I believe some states ran counter to the Arizona attitude and
> ignore immigration legal status in granting of a driver's license.
Most states never bothered checking before the REAL ID Act, and at least
two (TN and UT) that do now comply in general also offer "not for
federal ID" driver's licenses that do not require proving legal
residence. Some states don't comply at all; many state legislatures
have passed laws ordering their executive branch to _not_ comply.
Cynthia Smith
> On 25-Jul-11 11:47, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Jul 25, 12:35 am, Stephen Sprunk<step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>> The obvious problem there is that if a citizen doesn't have ID on them
>>> while traveling domestically, which is perfectly legal, the border
>>> agents can accuse them of being non-citizens and they have no way to
>>> prove otherwise. Therefore, in practice this requires citizens to carry
>>> ID as well, which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
>>
>> Most people carry either a driver's license or substitute state ID
>> card.
>
> Most, but not all.
>
>> Others might have a employee ID, a Medicare card, or student
>> ID. However, these documents do not show citizenship status. What
>> happens then?
>
> I suspect that depends on what color your skin is.
>
>> Indeed, I believe some states ran counter to the Arizona attitude and
>> ignore immigration legal status in granting of a driver's license.
>
> Most states never bothered checking before the REAL ID Act, and at least
> two (TN and UT) that do now comply in general also offer "not for
> federal ID" driver's licenses that do not require proving legal
> residence. Some states don't comply at all; many state legislatures
> have passed laws ordering their executive branch to _not_ comply.
No doubt those same states are also wondering why their medical
healthcare and free benefits accounts are being strained while their
budget shortfall increases.
Cynthia Smith
That is an interesting statement, given what you write below.
> Look up Terry vs Ohio, since
> you simply do not understand what the Supreme Court has ruled regarding
> the fourth amendment's protections and the need for reasonable suspicion
> before police can stop anyone to question them about anything. The Border
> Patrol is a different matter, since unlike regular police, they are
> allowed to randomly stop people within 100 miles of the border to
> determine their statues.
What Supreme Court ruling states that "police" cannot question people
"about anything" but "border patrol" can? Please cite. Especially
since you deride "legal knowledge" of others.
Hint: Asking someone to produce ID is a "reasonable inquiry" and
requires no "suspicion" by police.
Stephen Sprunk
> What Supreme Court ruling states that "police" cannot question people
> "about anything" but "border patrol" can? Please cite. Especially
> since you deride "legal knowledge" of others.
>
> Hint: Asking someone to produce ID is a "reasonable inquiry" and
> requires no "suspicion" by police.
Merely asking someone to produce ID is always reasonable. What may not
be reasonable is what happens if that someone cannot or will not comply.
James Robinson
Hint: But the person asked doesn't have to identify themselves, produce
ID, nor answer any other questions, unless they choose to in normal
conversation. They can just walk away, and the police cannot detain
them. Police can only detain someone if they have reasonable suspicion
that a crime is being committed, and in that case, any demand for
identifiation depends on individual state "stop and identify laws", of
which only about 1/2 of the states have any on the books.
And note that I wrote that the police cannot _stop_ and question people
without reason. There is nothing preventing them from entering into
casual conversation with somebody where they might ask them to
voluntarily provide ID. They also don't have to say it's voluntary.
This all dates back to the anti-vagrancy laws of the 1960s and 70s,
where the police would demand "credible identification" from poor people
they wanted to harrass - people who often didn't have any formal ID at
all. The US Supreme court ruled in 1983 that a California vagrancy law
was discriminatory against the poor, and that it wasn't a crime to be
poor. The ruling effectively stopped the police from demanding ID's from
people who were not suspected of committing any crime.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,925975,00.html
Even if the police have reasonable cause to stop you, the stop and
identify laws vary from state to state. In about 1/2 the states you
don't even have to provide your name when questioned. In others, you may
need to give your name and address, but you cannot be detained just
because you don't have ID.
Hiibel vs Nevada is the most recent decision of note on the subject. The
US Supreme court upheld the appeals court ruling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
Obviously, when you are driving a car, a different set of ID rules
apply.
Finally, the laws applying to Immigration officers are contained under
the Immigration and Nationality act, section 267:
It gives immigration officers a number of powers not enjoyed by other
police, such as the ability to search without a warrant, a suspension of
habeas corpus under certain conditions, and the ability to stop anybody
and ask them about their legal status in the country.
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9505.html
Once a person tells them verbally that they are a US citizen, then they
cannot ask for proof or any other ID, unless there is reasonable
suspicion that they are illegally in the US. That of course gets
tricky, since if you are Spanish speaking, traveling on a bus with a
large group of other Spanish speaking people, and don't have proof of
citizenship with you, is that grounds for suspicion that they are
illegally in the country?
Any other questions?
Stephen Sprunk
> This all dates back to the anti-vagrancy laws of the 1960s and 70s,
> where the police would demand "credible identification" from poor people
> they wanted to harrass - people who often didn't have any formal ID at
> all.
Anti-vagrancy laws go back to Reconstruction, when Southern states were
forced to modify their Black Codes to replace the word "negro" with
"vagrant". Perhaps other states adopted such laws later, but that's
where the concept is rooted.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Anti-vagrancy laws go back to Reconstruction, when Southern states were
> forced to modify their Black Codes to replace the word "negro" with
> "vagrant". Perhaps other states adopted such laws later, but that's
> where the concept is rooted.
They were utilized during the Depression, as local authorities sought
to keep unemployed on the road out of their towns.
In the Charlie Chaplin film "Modern Times" he shows poor people being
chased away by cops. (In this film Chaplin doesn't appear to like
cops very much).
Vagrantcy laws are somewhat related to loitering laws. Both became an
issue for transportation carriers when the govt took over private
companies, such as commuter railroad lines. Under private ownership,
the railroads ejected homeless people occupying their terminals.
Under public ownership, social activists sued the carriers and forced
them to let the homeless stay. The homeless people got into track and
yard areas and the result was dangerous fires, vandalism, injuries and
deaths. They also made commuters miserable. Carriers have since
adopted new rules that conform to court decisions, and now they are
better able to keep disruptive people out of terminals (not totally).
James Robinson
> On 26-Jul-11 19:59, James Robinson wrote:
>> This all dates back to the anti-vagrancy laws of the 1960s and 70s,
>> where the police would demand "credible identification" from poor people
>> they wanted to harrass - people who often didn't have any formal ID at
>> all.
>
> Anti-vagrancy laws go back to Reconstruction, when Southern states were
> forced to modify their Black Codes to replace the word "negro" with
> "vagrant". Perhaps other states adopted such laws later, but that's
> where the concept is rooted.
Yes the laws date back a long way, but the Supreme Court decision regarding
the need to produce identification was based on how the laws were written
and enforced in the 60s and 70s.
Clark F Morris
<was...@212.com> wrote:
>Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
>> On 24-Jul-11 11:19, James Robinson wrote:
>>
>>> As stated before, which you are obviously ignoring, TSA is asking
>>> what people's citizenship is when making spot checks on buses and
>>> trains that operate near, but not over the international border. They
>>> are not setting up checkpoints on the nearby I90, nor are they asking
>>> people flying out of Syracuse or Rochester what their citizenship is.
>>> Only trains and buses. It is that difference in treatment that is the
>>> whole point.
>>
>> Maybe they don't do that along the Canadian border, but they do it
>> along the Mexican border. Cars are routinely stopped on I-10, I-5 and
>> I-25 at impromptu checkpoints, and agents swarm airports along the
>> border asking any Hispanic-looking passengers for proof they're in the
>> country legally.
>
>I5 and I25 are north/south, and the border patrol similarly has
>checkpoints set up on a couple of highways leading from the border. They
>are relatively recent, and have been controversial because of a couple of
>bad accidents approaching the stopping point. There are none on
>east/west highways, that I know of.
I8 and I10 are east-west and have had check points. There have been
checkpoints on I87 at least one fatal accident due to them.
Clark Morris
Sancho Panza
You are exactly right, and the OP's apparently do not have sufficient
knowledge of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.
James Robinson
Apparantly you didn't read my response, where I used Hiibel as an example
of the Supreme Court's feelings about ID stops. And you are exactly
wrong. Police cannot _stop_ you to ask for ID without reasonable
suspicion. Read Brown vs Texas, among others. It might expand your
limited knowledge on the subject:
"Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and
require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the
officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was
engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to
require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person
subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be
"reasonable.""
Sancho Panza
> Police cannot _stop_ you to ask for ID without reasonable
> suspicion.
The question in Hiibel is not STOPPING the subject, despite your
underlining, but asking for ID. Of course, the call on what constitutes
justifiable grounds for reasonable suspicion in a case like Hiibel is
subject to individual perception.
And if you want to equate illegal immigration with a crime like assault,
you might just be stepping outside the comfort zone of your agenda.
James Robinson
> James Robinson wrote:
>
>> Police cannot _stop_ you to ask for ID without reasonable
>> suspicion.
>
> The question in Hiibel is not STOPPING the subject, despite your
> underlining, but asking for ID. Of course, the call on what
> constitutes justifiable grounds for reasonable suspicion in a case
> like Hiibel is subject to individual perception.
My original statement was that police could not _stop_ you to ask you to
identify yourself, without reasonable suspicion that a crime had been
committed, which was why I underlined the word stop. You said I didn't
understand the requirements, and referred to Hiibel. Since that case
was related to a stop with the specific knowledge that a crime might
have been committed, it was not germane to the discussion. You also had
absolutely no grounds to say I didn't understand what it meant.
As to Hiibel, it only applies to stops _with_ reasonable suspicion,
which is when the police can ask you to identify yourself, but only if
there is a state law in effect that allows them to do so. Half the
states don't have a stop and identify law in place, and in those states
the police can't force you to identify yourself at all, though they can
always ask, with the understanding that you might legally refuse to
comply.
> And if you want to equate illegal immigration with a crime like
> assault, you might just be stepping outside the comfort zone of your
> agenda.
How so? I've simply stated that the Border Patrol can do things that
other police can't, like stop you without the need for any reasonable
suspicion that you have committed a crime. In recent years, they have
been expanding their use of that power, using to question people who
aren't even crossing the border, often with what appears to be profiling,
which seems to be a real stretch, given the wording of the fourth
amendment.
Sancho Panza
> Sancho Panza<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> James Robinson wrote:
>>
>>> Police cannot _stop_ you to ask for ID without reasonable
>>> suspicion.
>>
>> The question in Hiibel is not STOPPING the subject, despite your
>> underlining, but asking for ID. Of course, the call on what
>> constitutes justifiable grounds for reasonable suspicion in a case
>> like Hiibel is subject to individual perception.
>
> My original statement was that police could not _stop_ you to ask you to
> identify yourself, without reasonable suspicion that a crime had been
> committed, which was why I underlined the word stop. You said I didn't
> understand the requirements, and referred to Hiibel. Since that case
> was related to a stop with the specific knowledge that a crime might
> have been committed, it was not germane to the discussion. You also had
> absolutely no grounds to say I didn't understand what it meant.
>
> As to Hiibel, it only applies to stops _with_ reasonable suspicion,
> which is when the police can ask you to identify yourself, but only if
> there is a state law in effect that allows them to do so.
Hiibel was not stopped by the police. His pickup was already parked on
the side of the road, and he was outside it smoking while his daughter
was inside.
James Robinson
On the contrary, Hiibel was stopped by the police, since he was not free
to go. That is the interpretation of a stop. The stop met the
requirements for a legal stop as there was reasonable suspicion that a
crime had been commited, as interpreted in Brown v Texas. The fact that
he wasn't driving at the time is immaterial.
Stephen Sprunk
He was "detained", which is the official term for when a person is
neither under arrest nor free to leave. That is what Terry was about.
> His pickup was already parked on the side of the road, and he was
> outside it smoking while his daughter was inside.
Once the police detained him, he was not free to leave; that makes it a
"Terry stop".
Sancho Panza
> On 05-Aug-11 19:42, Sancho Panza wrote:
>> On 8/5/2011 8:25 PM, James Robinson wrote:
>>> As to Hiibel, it only applies to stops _with_ reasonable suspicion,
>>> which is when the police can ask you to identify yourself, but only if
>>> there is a state law in effect that allows them to do so.
>>
>> Hiibel was not stopped by the police.
>
> He was "detained", which is the official term for when a person is
> neither under arrest nor free to leave. That is what Terry was about.
>
>> His pickup was already parked on the side of the road, and he was
>> outside it smoking while his daughter was inside.
>
> Once the police detained him, he was not free to leave; that makes it a
> "Terry stop".
Another red herring. You cannot show that Hiibel ever evinced any
intention to leave the site.
Sancho Panza
Under the standard as you describe it, that could easily and validly
apply in your immigration example.
Sancho Panza
> >> Further, local or state police cannot stop you at all to ask
> >> questions unless they have reasonable suspicion of a crime, but the
> >> border patrol is allowed to confront you without any reason within
> >> 100 miles of the border and demand to know what your citizenship is.
>
> > Actually, state and local police _can_ do that. That's what the big
> > flap inArizonawas about: the state passed a law allowing their
> > police to take advantage of a power they already had under federal
> > law, which extends to _all_ law-enforcement officers, not just federal
> > ones.
>
> As I understand theArizonalaw, the police are not allowed to randomly
> stop people to ask about their citizenship, unlike the powers the Border
> Patrol officers hold. The police can only ask about a person's legal
> status if they have stopped that person for another violation, and
> further, they have to have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in
> the country illegally. The police are not allowed to use racial
> profiling or an inability to speak English alone to reach the conclusion
> that they are illegal. All of this will be a feast for the lawyers.
Exactly. And reasonable suspicion can include a wide range of clues
for law enforcement. What caused the uproar in the Arizona instance is
that law enforcement had not been performing even cursory secondary
questioning. The law now reads as follows:
Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
adding article 8, to read:
Article 8. Enforcement of immigration laws
11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration
laws; indemnification
A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or
other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the
enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent
permitted by federal law.
B. For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement
official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law
enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city,
town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement
of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state
where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is
unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be
made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the
person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an
investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's
immigration status determined before the person is released. The
person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal
government pursuant to 8 united states code section 1373(c). A law
enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town
or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race,
color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this
subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or
Arizona Constitution."
Surely, many of us will be keeping an eye on cases involving the
"reasonable suspicion" criteria.
James Robinson
With Hiibel, the police had received a call that somebody had been
physically attacking a female passenger in a pickup. That gave them the
ability to detain a man they found standing by a pickup with a female in
the passenger seat. Under Nevada's stop and identify law, they could then
ask the suspect for his name. As the police questioned the suspect, they
also came to the conclusion that he was intoxicated, and had likely been
driving the pickup, giving them further reason to detain him.
In the vast majority of states the police cannot detain a person for
immigration violation, even if they are suspicious of their legal
standing. That is the Border Patrol's job. Arizona's law has yet to be
tested in the courts.
The Border Patrol, on the other hand, can both stop you at random, and
ask you about your legal standing in the country.
James Robinson
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>> James Robinson wrote:
>>>> As to Hiibel, it only applies to stops _with_ reasonable suspicion,
>>>> which is when the police can ask you to identify yourself, but only
>>>> if there is a state law in effect that allows them to do so.
>>>
>>> Hiibel was not stopped by the police.
>>
>> He was "detained", which is the official term for when a person is
>> neither under arrest nor free to leave. That is what Terry was
>> about.
>>
>>> His pickup was already parked on the side of the road, and he was
>>> outside it smoking while his daughter was inside.
>>
>> Once the police detained him, he was not free to leave; that makes it
>> a "Terry stop".
>
> Another red herring. You cannot show that Hiibel ever evinced any
> intention to leave the site.
When are you going to stop the BS, and just admit you were wrong?
Both the Nevada Supreme Court and the Federal Supreme Court agreed at
the outset of their respective reviews that the detention was a legal
stop. No question. The question was whether the defendant was required
to identify himself after a legal "Terry Stop", and both courts agreed
that he had to.
James Robinson
> James Robinson <wasc...@212.com> wrote:
>
>> Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>
>> > JamesRobinsonwrote:
>
>> >> Further, local or state police cannot stop you at all to ask
>> >> questions unless they have reasonable suspicion of a crime, but
>> >> the border patrol is allowed to confront you without any reason
>> >> within 100 miles of the border and demand to know what your
>> >> citizenship is.
>>
>> > Actually, state and local police _can_ do that. �That's what the
>> > big flap inArizonawas about: the state passed a law allowing their
>> > police to take advantage of a power they already had under federal
>> > law, which extends to _all_ law-enforcement officers, not just
>> > federal ones.
>>
>> As I understand theArizonalaw, the police are not allowed to randomly
>> stop people to ask about their citizenship, unlike the powers the
>> Border Patrol officers hold. �The police can only ask about a
>> person's legal status if they have stopped that person for another
>> violation, and further, they have to have a reasonable suspicion that
>> the person is in the country illegally. �The police are not allowed
>> to use racial profiling or an inability to speak English alone to
>> reach the conclusion that they are illegal. �All of this will be a
>> feast for the lawyers.
>
> Exactly.
So you agree that regular police can't randomly stop you, which is what
I said, and you agree that what you wrote above was wrong?
Why, then, all this other junk?
> What caused the uproar in the Arizona instance is that law enforcement
> had not been performing even cursory secondary questioning.
What caused the uproar was that the law was asking local police to do
things they aren't legally allowed to do; (I doubt the law will pass
Supreme Court scrutiny) that was asking the local police to make
judgements about legal status that would likely end up falling into the
category of racial profiling; that asked the police to take on tasks that
were not properly funded.
Sancho Panza
Don't be so eager to misconstrue. The agreement was that what
constitutes "reasonable suspicion" has been and will continue to be a
full-employment proviso for a bevy of lawyers.
>
> Why, then, all this other junk?
>
>> What caused the uproar in the Arizona instance is that law enforcement
>> had not been performing even cursory secondary questioning.
>
> What caused the uproar was that the law was asking local police to do
> things they aren't legally allowed to do;
Where are local police prohibited from enforcing federal laws?
> (I doubt the law will pass
> Supreme Court scrutiny) that was asking the local police to make
> judgements about legal status that would likely end up falling into the
> category of racial profiling; that asked the police to take on tasks that
> were not properly funded.
If you don't think immigration status is a subject to be broached, we
can just imagine what you will say about civil status.
James Robinson
It's in direct conflict with the supremacy clause in the Constitution
that only allows the federal government to enact and enforce immigration
laws.
>> (I doubt the law will pass Supreme Court scrutiny) that was asking
>> the local police to make judgements about legal status that would
>> likely end up falling into the category of racial profiling; that
>> asked the police to take on tasks that were not properly funded.
>
> If you don't think immigration status is a subject to be broached, we
> can just imagine what you will say about civil status.
What does that have to do with immigration laws, which are clearly under
federal jurisdiction?
Stephen Sprunk
No, you're the one with the red herring. Whether he intended to leave
is irrelevant; he wasn't free to do so, therefore he was detained.
Since the cops had reasonable suspicion, that detention was a valid
Terry stop, and the stop-and-identify law became enforceable.
george conklin
"James Robinson" <was...@212.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9F39AFB2EC9...@94.75.214.39...
How would an ordinary citizen with a driver's license "prove" he/she was a
citizen if stopped at random? No way you could, unless we all start
carrying passports 24/7.
Sancho Panza
Because "citizenship" is a red herring thrown up to advance a political
agenda. The real question is residency status.
george conklin
"Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e409cd8$0$23621$607e...@cv.net...
Now how on earth can an average person stopped by the cops prove "residency
status"????? We don't have a residency status card in our wallets.
Sancho Panza
That is most usually accomplished through drivers' licenses or similar
municipal, county or state-issued photo ID. The old voters' registration
cards were just a step toward that. Now it's basically the same "papers,
please" that are required for airline travel.
James Robinson
> george conklin wrote:
>
>> "Sancho Panza"<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> george conklin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How would an ordinary citizen with a driver's license "prove"
>>>> he/she was a citizen if stopped at random? No way you could,
>>>> unless we all start carrying passports 24/7.
>>>
>>> Because "citizenship" is a red herring thrown up to advance a
>>> political agenda. The real question is residency status.
>>
>> Now how on earth can an average person stopped by the cops prove
>> "residency status"????? We don't have a residency status card in our
>> wallets.
>
> That is most usually accomplished through drivers' licenses or similar
> municipal, county or state-issued photo ID. The old voters'
> registration cards were just a step toward that. Now it's basically
> the same "papers, please" that are required for airline travel.
No. A standard drivers' license proves nothing about legal status. The
enhanced drivers' license, which is only available in a few border
states, does provide proof of citizenship.
Most people carry nothing that proves legal status.
Sancho Panza
The smokescreen canard about citizenship has already been discarded. In
what states can one obtain a driver's license without being a legal
resident?
James Robinson
Most states. The Federal Real ID law compliance deadline has been
extended yet again, to 2013 this time, and there are a number of bills
in Congress to overturn many of the provisions of the law. Even is that
date sticks with no changes, individuals don't have to comply until
something like 2020. Further, 16 states have passed laws that will
prevent them from complying with the federal law on privacy or funding
grounds. A further 8 states have passed resolutions that say they don't
want to comply, and are foot-dragging the issue.
Fake ID's that include holograms, and will pass police scrutiny, even
with UV light, are also being made by the thousands by a Chinese
company, mostly used by underage kids to get into bars, but likely also
used by unscrupulous people as well:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015787126_fakeids01.html
In short, the idea that driver's licenses somehow prove legal status is
simply a joke.
Sancho Panza
> On 06-Aug-11 15:41, Sancho Panza wrote:
>> On 8/6/2011 2:50 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> On 05-Aug-11 19:42, Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>> On 8/5/2011 8:25 PM, James Robinson wrote:
>>>>> As to Hiibel, it only applies to stops _with_ reasonable suspicion,
>>>>> which is when the police can ask you to identify yourself, but only if
>>>>> there is a state law in effect that allows them to do so.
>>>>
>>>> Hiibel was not stopped by the police.
>>>
>>> He was "detained", which is the official term for when a person is
>>> neither under arrest nor free to leave. That is what Terry was about.
>>>
>>>> His pickup was already parked on the side of the road, and he was
>>>> outside it smoking while his daughter was inside.
>>>
>>> Once the police detained him, he was not free to leave; that makes it a
>>> "Terry stop".
>>
>> Another red herring. You cannot show that Hiibel ever evinced any
>> intention to leave the site.
>
> No, you're the one with the red herring. Whether he intended to leave
> is irrelevant; he wasn't free to do so, therefore he was detained.
> Since the cops had reasonable suspicion, that detention was a valid
> Terry stop, and the stop-and-identify law became enforceable.
Ignoring the basic fact in this part of the discussion that Hiibel never
evinced any intention to leave the spot where he had parked. Meaning
that you have no way of knowing whether he would be detained or not from
leaving. The problem was with his identification papers.
Sancho Panza
Well, what would you suggest?