Since, as a matter of history and legal precedent, American law has from the beginning recognized this "border exception" to the Fourth Amendment, you cannot fairly or accurately pose as if your views are already the law. If you have a credible case to make, it must rest on some premise other than claiming that you have the law on your side. You do not.
According to this analysis (http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2008/10/aclu-23-of-us-population-lives-in-constitution-free-zone.ars) about 2/3rds of the US population now live in ridiculously defined ‘border’ areas where the 4th amendment has become a dead letter. I wonder how folks would feel if the 2nd amendment had this ‘border’ exception and the border was so liberally defined.
Anyone who has driven through these checkpoints in Kali and the southwest can see that they are a joke as far as effective border enforcement goes. They never report on their false positive (harassment with no violation found) rate, but regardless these internal checkpoints are a tacit admission that the actual border itself is poorly controlled.
From these observations a reasonable person might conclude that this sort of security theatre is little more than a PR operation, window dressing for the submitizens. Or worse, a psy-op to condition the multitudes who are exposed to this that violating the 4th amendment under precedent is a normal and expected government function.
We used to ridicule the East German’s border guard mentality, now we make excuses for it. Was the pastor a confrontational pinhead before or after the incident? By his own account, perhaps. Pathetic even. About as pathetic as a canary in a coal mine. Not nearly as pathetic as the just-following-orders mentality our public servants and their fig bearers display.