Posted on 02/21/2005 2:42:11 PM PST by SwinneySwitch
Most likely, but one should never assume anything.
Years ago, when I first started in immigration enforcement, I ran across a little known law that states that a person crossing the border at a place other then a port of entry, has 48 hours to present himself to an immigration official for inspection.
Many of my fellow officers know of this law also, but none of us can find it, so it may have been repealed.
It was designed for people entering at remote locations or by sea, but was legal anywhere.
The bottom line is, in Arizona, you'll be arrested for stopping anyone from crossing the border, unless you are law enforcement. A couple of kids ran into that problem down in Yuma a few years ago. They saw the folks crossing and decided enough was enough. They tried to arrest them family and even handcuffed one. If my memory is correct, they were a mix of Resident Aliens and US Citizens. Bad news for the kids.
That is the crux of the problem. You don't know who is crossing. Is it a US Citizen, a legal resident or an illegal alien? You don't know if the person is crossing legally or illegally. All you’re doing is opening yourself up to arrest and a law suite.
That’s why the minuteman folks are not to detain or impede the people they see. Just record the incident and report it. There are too many variables.
Thanks for the clarification.
You’re welcome.
I believe in the idea of the Minutemen Project and part of my wants to take off and join them, but I see a disaster waiting to happen and I don't want to be caught up in it, if it happens, which I sincerely hope it does not.
Some folks are going to try and get into the group and screw things up, and I know the organizers are trying to keep that from happening, but it’s a difficult task.
For CITIZENS arrest. Try to stay on the subject.
Followed by your vanity post about how America just became a police state...
"Your papers, sir" happens thousands of times per day when an officer makes a traffic stop and asks for drivers license, proof of insurance and registration! What's wrong with that?
Does that make us a police state?
Does asking for registration insinuate that the driver is a car thief, perhaps?
Is the request to take a breathalyser test an invasion of privacy?
Why restrict our law enforcement personnel from asking questions that might reveal that a person is a law breaker???
Why grant illegal foreign nationals the courtesy of selective law enforcement and deny the same courtesy to our citizens and legal immigrants?
The above, bold and underlined, is the most asinine statement I have ever seen in this forum and over the course of years I've seen a sh*t load. Even a person with the IQ of a door knob realizes that illegals impact every single state and that the four states you allude to are only points of entry. If you've ever seen a swarm of locusts you would get the picture.
"Maybe 20 years ago the illegals were innocent, hard-working people," she said. "Not any more. Now they're extremely dangerous. They mean violence."
Bump por justicio en la frontera de Tejas.
The difference is that there is probable cause in that case; i.e., the police officer has witnessed a traffic infraction.
Is the request to take a breathalyser test an invasion of privacy?
In that instance, there is probable cause to suspect that the person is intoxicated.
<>Why restrict our law enforcement personnel from asking questions that might reveal that a person is a law breaker???
"
Why grant illegal foreign nationals the courtesy of selective law enforcement and deny the same courtesy to our citizens and legal immigrants?
Because you'd have to junk the requirement for probable cause in order to catch most of the illegal aliens.
You want to junk probable cause? Hey, there are plenty of countries that already have done that, move to one of those.
Mostly when you aelf-search, I suspect.
Even a person with the IQ of a door knob realizes that illegals impact every single state and that the four states you allude to are only points of entry.
Well, that is the view of the American public at large--most folks in the other 46 states view illegal immigration as being a problem peculiar the border states. Deal with it.
I mean that most people in the other 46 states view it as a problem peculiar to the border states. Perception is reality in politics, deal with it.
Yes.
Two EPA goofs running around checking on endangered fruit flies cost as much as a McMansion in Pennsylvania?
Yes.
How can we ever afford our military?
Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines only cost an average of $69K a year.
I think your numbers are just a little bit inflated.
Actually, they're probably low: those figures are from 1997.
The American public at large does not think so.
Don't have to junk probable cause, just define it in such a way to allow interdiction of illegals.
As for moving.............you really do take the cake! The day will never come when I move to accommodate the sensibilities of illegals and their enablers, such as you. If anyone is going to move, it will be the illegals and hopefully you and your ilk will follow them.
It is they and your warped philosophy that are the intruders and need to go!
Yes. It's lower than the cost of enforcing the border sufficiently to keep them out.
Hell, a cheaper solution to this problem would be to set up a program that dispenses large quantities of cash in Mexico--but the recipients must provide proof that they were in Mexico the entire time.
Or just who's crossed over and set up shop since 9/11?
If you're suggesting that controlling the border is an antiterrorist measure, then you have just made the problem far more difficult than stopping illegal aliens along a 2,000-mile stretch of the border. You're now talking about securing 19,000 miles of border--and you have also, in an era of man-portable WMD, set a performance criterion of 100% effectiveness (the one guy you miss could be the one guy carrying the suitcase nuke). Multiply your likely costs to a point beyond any level of reality.
Cost has NEVER been a factor in enforcing the border.
Actually, it has.
Thank you for enlightening me. Now I understand why the people in 49 states considered the attack on the twin towers as an attack against the State of New York or more specifically against New York City.
Perhaps you could also inform our president that it is a city or at best a state issue and to stay out of their business and not get the rest of us entangled in their feud with the terrorists!
Time for Curtis to get his boys down there
Of course, that's a way to make the present law work. When the bracero program got shut down by Lyndon Johnson as a favor to his AFL-CIO bubbas, it upended over 100 years of economic relationships on the southern border. We went from having a tolerable illegal immigration problem to an utterly intolerable one overnight.
And we're back to people demanding your papers with no reason whatsoever. Unless you have something else in mind, of course.
Those who would trade a little freedom for a little security deserve neither.
Good effort but do not fall for confusing the issue that the OBL folks, the anti-Constitution and law and order folks, wish to happen. Stick to the basics of the US Constitution and the Presidential oath of office and what must be done to defend our nation from a foreign invasion and maintain the rule of law. The other side has been warned to not respond by labeling we who wish to respond to the invasion "racist" for doing so so the next method to attempt to win an argument when neither the law or the facts are on their side is to mystify the issue and take the argument into areas where the result is inconsequential.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.