Amtrak Don't Turn Into the ****/KGB Express

[Choo Choo]

"just answer what you are asked, show your ID if requested and let them move on! It's guaranteed if you develop an attitude that they can make things very unpleasant and complicated for anyone!"

No! How am I developing an "attitude" by not answering their stupid questions? They are the ones bothering me. I am merely sitting by myself minding my own business. Don't shine a flashnight in my face, and don't ask me questions as to where I am going/who I am seeing - it's none of your damn business!

You seem to be fixated on the "don't shine a flashlight in my face" issue. Actually, if the people doing the questioning are charged with doing a specific job and part of that includes wanting to know where people are going and what they are doing it is their business - in fact it is their job! [snip]

If it is Border Patrol and within 100 miles of the border, they also have the right to ask any of those questions.

Yeah, and I also have the right not to answer any of them.

The Border essentially exists within 100 miles of the actual physical Border between countries. Within that space, Border Patrol officers are allow to stop and question individuals without needing a reason. You are legally obligated to answer questions about citizenship, and can be detained if you refuse. "...questioning about immigration status, in the absence of a seizure, does not require reasonable suspicion of alienage.” "Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 731. See also Cuevas-Ortega v. INS, 588 F.2d 1274 (9th Cir. 1979); Cordon de Ruano v. INS, 588 F.2d 1274 (9th Cir. 1977)."

That is both the obligation of questionee and limitation on the questioner.

You can be detained. "Can" is the operative word. YOU STILL NEED REASONABLE SUSPICION TO TEMPORARILY DETAIN SOMEONE. If you are going to detain someone indefinitely beyoung a reasonable time limit, you better have probable cause to suspect I am an illegal. The simple act of me refusing to talk to you hardly rises to that level. You can ask me all the questions in the world till the cows come home, but no law or judicial edict mandates that I talk to you.

"An immigration officer, like any other person, has the right to ask questions as long as the immigration officer does not restrain the freedom of an individual, not under arrest, to walk away."

United States v. Rodriguez-Franco, 749 F.2d 1555.

Now, leave me the hell alone, and get off the train so I can go back to sleep.

 

[rrdude]

"just answer what you are asked, show your ID if requested and let them move on! It's guaranteed if you develop an attitude that they can make things very unpleasant and complicated for anyone!"

No! How am I developing an "attitude" by not answering their stupid questions? They are the ones bothering me. I am merely sitting by myself minding my own business. Don't shine a flashnight in my face, and don't ask me questions as to where I am going/who I am seeing - it's none of your damn business!

You seem to be fixated on the "don't shine a flashlight in my face" issue. Actually, if the people doing the questioning are charged with doing a specific job and part of that includes wanting to know where people are going and what they are doing it is their business - in fact it is their job! [snip]

If it is Border Patrol and within 100 miles of the border, they also have the right to ask any of those questions.

Yeah, and I also have the right not to answer any of them.

The Border essentially exists within 100 miles of the actual physical Border between countries. Within that space, Border Patrol officers are allow to stop and question individuals without needing a reason. You are legally obligated to answer questions about citizenship, and can be detained if you refuse. "...questioning about immigration status, in the absence of a seizure, does not require reasonable suspicion of alienage.” "Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 731. See also Cuevas-Ortega v. INS, 588 F.2d 1274 (9th Cir. 1979); Cordon de Ruano v. INS, 588 F.2d 1274 (9th Cir. 1977)."

That is both the obligation of questionee and limitation on the questioner.

You can be detained. "Can" is the operative word. YOU STILL NEED REASONABLE SUSPICION TO TEMPORARILY DETAIN SOMEONE. If you are going to detain someone indefinitely beyoung a reasonable time limit, you better have probable cause to suspect I am an illegal. The simple act of me refusing to talk to you hardly rises to that level. You can ask me all the questions in the world till the cows come home, but no law or judicial edict mandates that I talk to you.

"An immigration officer, like any other person, has the right to ask questions as long as the immigration officer does not restrain the freedom of an individual, not under arrest, to walk away."

United States v. Rodriguez-Franco, 749 F.2d 1555.

Now, leave me the hell alone, and get off the train so I can go back to sleep.

Or slowly reach into your bag, get our your flashlight, and shine it in THEIR face......Then ask them to get the off the train and leave you alone. Amen brother, Amen.

 

[PerRock]

I see two sides to this.

If I were a BPoff and came to a bedroom which I knew someone was in; knocked on the door announced myself (this is at night) a couple times; and the person did not respond. I would probably start to think that the person is avoiding me. Hence when the person finally opens the door I would probably start snapping at them.

However;

If I were a passenger on a sleeper and a BPOff came thru I'm not sure I would necessarily want to be woken up to be asked to see my papers. Personally I'd probably grumble: "Coming." And rummage around opening the door. However I also know people who would say to the selves "Bug off." (ok they'd use a different word instead of 'bug') and just roll-over and go back to sleep.

We really can't draw any conclusions as to why they shone a light in your face and demanded stuff without knowing the officer's side of the story. If you really have an issue with it you should bring it up with BP (http://www.cbp.gov); your local elected officials; Amtrak (http://www.amtrak.com); or if you feel so strongly about it hire a lawyer. Complaining on a web forum isn't really going to do much good.

On to personal experience:

I've only been bothered by from BP once; we were traveling on the EB with a friend from India (who was here on a work visa and was going from her companies Boston Office to their Portland,OR one). She spoke very good English (albeit more British English) and really didn't look to much like a tourist (she had been in the states for a couple months now). We also had in the same car a gentleman from Africa here on a tourist visa; who spoke with a thick accent and even had war scars on his face. the BP checked everyones documents but spent extra time questioning us and our friend. I believe my parents (I was still young) wrote a letter to BP about the profiling they did. Never heard back from BP.

peter

 

[Devil's Advocate]

This country was founded by people who had the guts to risk it all in order to stand up to overbearing authority figures. Today it's populated by people who would never dare to rock the boat for fear they might annoy some ignorant prick with a shiny badge. Land of the free and home of the brave? Most of the trends I'm watching point to further erosion of our freedoms combined with an ever shrinking will to defend them. Yellow bellies make for a lousy future.

 

[CNW]

There seem to be a lot of "wanna be patriots" who would like to be thought of as brave and fearless for standing up to the authority of the Border Patrol and defending their liberties. Trouble is many people don't see them that way at all. These are also the folks who will scream the loudest if something happens to jeopardize their safety. The OP wants the last word, but I'm sure by now has moved on to confrontations with other entities.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

These are also the folks who will scream the loudest if something happens to jeopardize their safety.

Don't you just love it when people attempt to manufacture hypocrisy out of thin air? You may want to believe this, your myopic world view may even require you to believe this, but in reality there is no idealogical link between those who choose to defend their civil liberties in an era of social indifference and those who cry for a police state response to the inherent insecurities of living in a truly free society. You simply made it up.

 

[CNW]

Its not possible for us or anyone to live in a truly free society. It just isn't possible. Like I said before we pick our battles and if this makes you feel that you are "making a difference" then that is your reality and I'll end it with that.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Just admit you made it up and we can call it a day. No unexplained philosophical retort required.

 

[Ryan]

These are also the folks who will scream the loudest if something happens to jeopardize their safety.

Don't you just love it when people attempt to manufacture hypocrisy out of thin air? You may want to believe this, your myopic world view may even require you to believe this, but in reality there is no idealogical link between those who choose to defend their civil liberties in an era of social indifference and those who cry for a police state response to the inherent insecurities of living in a truly free society. You simply made it up.

The Tea Party and the rest of the extreme right called and would like to disagree with you. Purported to be the defenders of the Constitution, but only for "real Americans".

 

[GG-1]

Aloha

Seems it is time to say Count to 10, Show some Aloha, and relax. OK If there is more bickering one of us will close this thread.

 

[leemell]

"just answer what you are asked, show your ID if requested and let them move on! It's guaranteed if you develop an attitude that they can make things very unpleasant and complicated for anyone!"

[snip]

You seem to be fixated on the "don't shine a flashlight in my face" issue. Actually, if the people doing the questioning are charged with doing a specific job and part of that includes wanting to know where people are going and what they are doing it is their business - in fact it is their job! [snip]

If it is Border Patrol and within 100 miles of the border, they also have the right to ask any of those questions.

Yeah, and I also have the right not to answer any of them.

The Border essentially exists within 100 miles of the actual physical Border between countries. Within that space, Border Patrol officers are allow to stop and question individuals without needing a reason. You are legally obligated to answer questions about citizenship, and can be detained if you refuse. "...questioning about immigration status, in the absence of a seizure, does not require reasonable suspicion of alienage.” "Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 731. See also Cuevas-Ortega v. INS, 588 F.2d 1274 (9th Cir. 1979); Cordon de Ruano v. INS, 588 F.2d 1274 (9th Cir. 1977)."

That is both the obligation of questionee and limitation on the questioner.

You can be detained. "Can" is the operative word. YOU STILL NEED REASONABLE SUSPICION TO TEMPORARILY DETAIN SOMEONE. [snip]

"Accordingly, we hold that the stops and questioning at issue may be made in the absence of any individualized suspicion..." U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) 428 U.S. 543

"At issue" was in part the questioning about legal residence.

"...However, the law is quite clear that agents can interrogate any person who is an alien or who the agent believes to be an alien as to his right to be or remain in the United States. A refusal to answer could be construed as an articulabel fact supporting a level of suspicion to further investigate and possibly to arrest, depending on the totality of the circumstances at hand."

Not answering the legal residence question by the Border Patrol has been ruled by the USSC as the necessary reasonable suspicion to temporarily detain.

 

[CNW]

Just admit you made it up and we can call it a day. No unexplained philosophical retort required.

The postings on this topic were OPINIONS. Yours, mine, and other peoples, we all have them. When I first joined the board I didn't realize certain topics would become so political. I get enough of policical controversy from other sources. I won't get caught up in discussions of this sort again, that was my mistake. In fact it has sort of spoiled the whole forum for me although I will continue to ride AMTRAK!

 

[JayPea]

[ When I first joined the board I didn't realize certain topics would become so political. I get enough of policical controversy from other sources. I won't get caught up in discussions of this sort again, that was my mistake. In fact it has sort of spoiled the whole forum for me although I will continue to ride AMTRAK!

HA! A kindred spirit! I'd like to see the political discussions that have absolutely NOTHING to do with Amtrak go away. But that won't happen so the best course of action is to avoid those posts.

 

[MrFSS]

[ When I first joined the board I didn't realize certain topics would become so political. I get enough of political controversy from other sources. I won't get caught up in discussions of this sort again, that was my mistake. In fact it has sort of spoiled the whole forum for me although I will continue to ride AMTRAK!

HA! A kindred spirit! I'd like to see the political discussions that have absolutely NOTHING to do with Amtrak go away. But that won't happen so the best course of action is to avoid those posts.

And, that's what I tell folks who complain about what's on TV. They have a little switch right there on the front of the set that turns it off.

We try to be as free with comments as we can until they get to the place where they are abusive. Then we turn them off.

 

[GoldenSpike]

theory on clothes is ridiculous bunk, we're not worried about anyone coming over here illegally from Europe, and being "not from here" is meaningless in determining legal status. The AZ law is wildly unconstitutional and is going to get utterly destroyed in court.

 

Ryan...theory on clothes is ridiculous bunk

Please tell that to the professionals in the immigration enforcement field that may use it as one of their tools to evaluate a situation, where Rep. Bilbray learned of it.

…we're not worried about anyone coming over here illegally from Europe

Why not? Guess where the Underwear Bomber flight originated from last Christmas? Hint: Amsterdam

Check out www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2008/table34d.xls and Table 34:

DEPORTABLE ALIENS LOCATED BY REGION AND COUNTRY OF NATIONALITY: FISCAL YEAR 2008

Europe - 2,000+ that fell under this category. Just as important are those coming from ME countries.

'Not from here' hysteria? U.S. Border Patrol website: Mexican Officials Say They Can't (or Won't) Confirm Arrest of Hezbollah Operative on Border.

 

What horror if somebody should 'Profile' somebody of this ilk!

Table 35

DEPORTABLE ALIENS LOCATED BY PROGRAM AND BORDER PATROL SECTOR AND INVESTIGATIONS SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE (SAC) JURISDICTION: FISCAL YEARS 1999 to 2008

Of all the border states the Tucson sector out classes the others. Is this why AZ is getting slammed?

 

[GoldenSpike]

...The AZ law is wildly unconstitutional and is going to get utterly destroyed in court.

While I burst your misinformed bubble, we don't hear from the Anti-AZ 'Profiler Crowd,' AZ is doing what is known as concurrent enforcement: a person can only be guilty under state law if guilty under the federal law.

Correctly, the Lefty clowns at the 9th Circus Court of Appeals – the most overturned court in the system got it right and has gone along with that concept.

The final gospel according to the Top Dogs at USSC - De Canas v. Bica (1976): States may enact legislation to discourage illegal immigration within their jurisdictions.

Utterly unconstitutional Ryan?

 

With their blessing AZ's SB 1070 practically is a mirror image of 8 USC's components which has been on the books since 1940: requires non-citizens to carry documents proving they are here legally. (What a novel concept!)

So, Ryan how are they going to be utterly destroyed in court?

As most know both parties have largely ignored federal law it as it relates to Mexico for obvious reasons and worsened the problems – chickens now coming home to roost:

Republicans: Cheap labor.

E-Verify and Real ID is a step in preventing this.

Democrats: Cheap votes.

Efforts to block requirements voters present ID to verify eligibility amongst other tactics.

Politicizing

The howls of PROFILING!!! are a Straw Man scare tactic as diversion. There are governments, politicians and radical groups that don't wish the USA success any time soon and attempt to undermine our laws and values.

If you don't already know the terms, do a Web search for Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals – one of them is to attack and marginalize the messenger: 'Paging Gov. Brewer!' (He was a friend and mentor of our current Sec. of State while she was in college and so impressed she wrote her thesis on the subject). Her boss in the White House made his living on the same principle: street agitation; and the Cloward-Piven strategy (Orchestrated Crisis). Those in the biased media sharpen their teeth on this stuff with slanted news and disinformation when needed.

Yet, in glaring contrast those yelling the loudest are essentially silent of these facts:

Poll after poll show the U.S. public by a majority support AZ in their efforts knowing Profiling is not the issue.

Florida has filed a brief along with AL, MI, NE, PA SC, SD, TX, and VA, supporting AZ's RIGHT TO MAKE ITS OWN LAWS (the central issue).

MI, SC, MN, PA, and RI have proposed similar laws as AZ.

RI in particular via Boston.com in early July: R.I. troopers embrace firm immigration role .

The article points out that in nearby Massachusetts after getting a Democrat governor will only deal with illegal immigrants when incarcerated, but in RI they face deportation during the normal course of police activity. The article correctly points out LEO's are caught between politics and public safety.

Little is said of the obvious profiling at the Mexico border by the BP in their use of 'traits' and other obvious events to evaluate a subject. But, horror upon horror, if they manage to sneak past them and come into contact with police a mile down after the law passes, it is profiling and human-rights atrocities! Undermine the police.

Despite Mexico's draconian immigration laws and blatant profiling, they sing another song in the U.S. As a random example involving Arizona in 2004 with Prop 200: proof of citizenship to vote and to receive some types of welfare. After it passed the Mexican counsel-general in AZ threw a fit and was going to sue in international court for human-rights violations, etc.

How about Mexico's Calderon? Not surprised, he is invited to speak before Congress to take part in politicizing immigration. In an unprecedented Dog and Pony Comedy Show, a foreign leader on our soil falsely scolds AZ's Contitutional rights as nothing more than profiling. Egging him on is the usual from the D party with rousing applause.

Then with stunning audacity and hypocrisy Senor Cal is interviewed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Mexico's immigration laws. Here is the redacted interview. Understandably CNN pulled the video once it started making the rounds because it ain't pretty folks:

BLITZER: I read an article in "The Washington Times" the other day. I'm going to read a paragraph to you and you tell me if this is true or not true. This is from "The Washington Times": "Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to reenter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals." Is that true?

CALDERON: It was true, but it is not anymore….

BLITZER: So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, they can just walk in?

CALDERON: No. They need to fulfill a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedent….

BLITZER: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?

CALDERON: Of course. Of course, in the border, we are asking the people, who are you? ……..once they are inside the country, what the Mexican police do is, of course, enforce the law.

BLITZER: So in other words, if somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America, through the southern border of Mexico, they wind up in Mexico, they can go get a job…

CALDERON: No, no…

---------

The Dog and Pony Comedy Show continues with a laugh a minute. DOJ's Holder is suing Arizona despite they are relying on the law of the land - USSC, and even though he recently revealed he had not read the AZ law. But, it is in the tradition of how Obamacare got passed by Congress.

 

Some legal scholars feel Prez O may be opening a can of Unintented Consequences with the 57 states he says we have in the country. In what appears AZ will very likely prevail, it is going to give other states who have been silent because they are intimidated by the temper tantrums on the Left, they will pile on the band wagon as some are doing now.

Other leftist groups also have hidden agendas and are in the immigration fray to undermine our laws may also regret their spoiled child mantra. Take for instance the radical La Raza and MEChA bunch infesting our country since the '60's and behind many of the organized public protest marches. Even a LA Mayor belonged to this cabal at one time.

Their movement's motto is Racism and Profiling in spades!! "For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing." Their goal is to reclaim their land from the U.S. along with ethnic cleansing: Black, Asian…and White as in Europeans that took their lands.

Ahhh, I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning!

 

I look forward to Ryan's explanations while turning the channel back to Trains.

 

[Ryan]

Please, lets try to keep this on topic and not venture off into non-train areas and issues.

Thank!

Wow, I really struck a nerve there, didn't I? How exactly does this relate to trains?

I'd suggest that you check your copy of the Constitution again - immigration is solely the providence of the federal government, so even if the law simply mirrored Federal law, it'd still be outside the lines (Article 1, Section 10 and Article 6 would be good places to start).

You can point to all the people and states that support this that you want - that doesn't change the facts of the case, and highlights exactly why we have a Constitution.

One you're done with that you can do some reading on Proposition 187 and Hines v. Davidowitz.

From Justice Black's majority opinion:

First. That the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution was pointed out by authors of The Federalist in 1787,9 and has since been given continuous recognition by this Court. 10 When the national government by treaty or statute has established rules and [312 U.S. 52, 63] regulations touching the rights, privileges, obligations or burdens of aliens as such, the treaty or statute is the supreme law of the land. No state can add to or take from the force and effect of such treaty or statute, for Article VI of the Constitution provides that 'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.' The Federal Government, representing as it does the collective interests of the forty-eight states, is entrusted with full and exclusive responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties. 'For local interests the several states of the Union exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power.' 11 Our system of government is such that the interest of the cities, counties and states, no less than the interest of the people of the whole nation, imperatively requires that federal power in the field affecting foreign relations be left entirely free from local interference. As Mr. Justice Miller well observed of a California [312 U.S. 52, 64] statute burdening immigration: 'If (the United States) should get into a difficulty which would lead to war, or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union?'12