Border agents exempt from new racial profiling rules

a reply to: quercusrex

And I doubt the majority of illegals enter through Jersey. It's mostly through borders. Yes there are cases where there's entries in random states but the majority are on the southern and northern borders. Really now come on lol.

Welcome to United nazy states of murika

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

It's more the DHS I'm concerned with and the opportunity for abusive practices that this directive allows them.

a reply to: quercusrex

Well I think this policy is going to be exercised more at the borders (north and south Mexican/Canadian borders). So unless your friend is an actual criminal I don't think he has to worry. Because if he isn't a criminal, he has nothing to worry about.

But hey, if they think he's illegal he shouldn't deny it. Free meals, education, healthcare. He could live as a civilian and as an illegal!

Well this is more than slightly hypocritical. Didn't the DoJ come down hard on the MCSO for racial profiling in the name of border control? I didn't agree with it when they did it and I don't agree with the practice now.

originally posted by: muse7
Just another one of the privileges of being born White.

Or being born black. Border patrol doesn't harass black people either.

But of course you want to turn it into a white vs everyone else issue, and for that you have done an excellent job. Well done.

a reply to: James1982

Hey now, us white people were responsible for slavery. Of course it ended years ago but white=guilt by association. Or at least that's what my liberal college professor kept crying

a reply to: quercusrex

Scotus has already dealt with distance from the border and what customs can do. The farther from the border the more rs/pc required.

Secondly border crossings are classified differently than people. The border crossing is viewed in legal eyes as the US government dealing with foreigners and not individual police to individual persons.

a reply to: Xcathdra
And all of Manhattan is a stones throw from the border (the coast) so DHS agents there have free reign to ignore profiling directives.

a reply to: quercusrex

Considering the amount of illegals in NYC I don't think they're doing a good enough job. And I'm not being prejudice, there are tons of them. Volunteer at soup kitchens, you will see (if you're in NYC that is).

originally posted by: quercusrex
a reply to: Xcathdra
And all of Manhattan is a stones throw from the border (the coast) so DHS agents there have free reign to ignore profiling directives.

Wrong

It's funny how Liberals cry about trusting the federal government selectively.

Al Sharpton is calling for the Federal Government to step in in every Officer involved shooting, apparently they can be trusted with that, but nope, not Border Patrol or DHS, they can't be trusted not to abuse their power.

Hypocrites to say the least.

Gee, life is hard, and nobody said it would be fair. Suck it up, people. Some of you are going to be profiled because of your color or your proclivities. Blame it on Hispanics and Muslims abusing the system and blowing up innocent people.

BUT, for godsake, stop WHINING like little bitches.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Not Wrong. All US coastlines are border areas. Just ask Haitians trying to land in Ft, Lauderdale.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Office of Air and Marine (OAM) is the world's largest aviation and maritime law enforcement organization, a critical component of CBP's layered enforcement strategy for border security. With 1,200 federal agents, more than 250 aircraft and over 280 marine vessels operating from 83 locations throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. CBP detects, intercepts, and apprehends criminals in diverse environments at and beyond U.S. borders.

DHS

This includes the Island of Manhattan.

Which means ANY agent of the DHS , not just border patrol, can ignore the new non-profiling protocols.

a reply to: chuck258

No. I do not trust the DHS.

a reply to: Xcathdra

And there is also this:

America shares 7,000 miles of land border with Canada and Mexico, as well as rivers, lakes and coastal waters around the country.

Border & National Security Summit

a reply to: quercusrex

As instated before scotus says you are wrong.

profiling works in this instance. if your a U.S. citizen and aren't living a outlaw lifestyle, other than the little inconvenience being stopped may cause, you have rights and responsibilities whether you like it or not.

here is just a short list provided to new citizens from the USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Service).

Rights
Freedom to express yourself.
Freedom to worship as you wish.
Right to a prompt, fair trial by jury.
Right to vote in elections for public officials.
Right to apply for federal employment requiring U.S. citizenship.
Right to run for elected office.
Freedom to pursue “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Responsibilities
Support and defend the Constitution
Stay informed of the issues affecting your community.
Participate in the democratic process.
Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws.
Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others.
Participate in your local community.
Pay income and other taxes honestly, and on time, to federal, state, and local authorities.
Serve on a jury when called upon.
Defend the country if the need should arise.
Citizenship Rights and Responsibilities

now whether they are looking for terrorists, illegal aliens, drug/ arms runners or what have you, you as a citizen are responsible or should be willing to do all that you can. just part of the price you have to for the right/ privilege of being a citizen. you know no matter what they say the price of freedom is not free.

originally posted by: quercusrex
a reply to: crazyewok

So a latino whose family has lived in El Paso since 1805 just better deal with homeland security stopping him whenever they feel like?

Or we can quadruple the number of agents, expenses, and time for everyone, for almost zero increase in results.

How about, that's stupid.

Condrado ALMEIDA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

Condrado ALMEIDA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. - 1973

..............The Attorney General's regulation defines 'reasonable distance' as 'within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States.' The Court of Appeals upheld the search on the basis of the Act and regulation. Held: The warrantless search of petitioner's automobile, made without probable cause or consent, violated the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 269—275.

(a) The search cannot be justified on the basis of any special rules applicable to automobile searches, as probable cause was lacking; nor can it be justified by analogy with administrative inspections, as the officers had no warrant or reason to believe that petitioner had crossed the border or committed an offense, and there was no consent by petitioner. Pp. 269—272.

From your DHS link - Protecting Nations Borders

Border Patrol / Customs manning ports of entry into the US is covered under a sovereign search on individuals entering the US. Border searches a broken into 2 categories - Traditional and Non traditional.

Traditional applies to a port of entry, like a physical border checkpoint, airports, etc..
Non traditional is beyond the control of the physical border checkpoint. Non traditional covers persons and vehicles inside the US but not at a border check.

Outside ports of entry they must have RS / PC to stop and search and the 4th amendment applies. While Manhattan is an island customs / Border patrol must have RS/PC to take action, just like any other police agency.


Racial profiling is exempt based on the US Constitution and sovereign borders. A sovereign state has a fundamental right to ensure people entering the country are not a threat.