Border Wars

[tyler34]

It is not constitutional, fair, or just for a border patrol agent to conduct a warrantless search of a home in Texas because he wanted to catch some illegals. Having not witnessed any crimes, he is searching a citizen's home for no reason other than his desire to stop illegal immigration. He thinks that warrants get in the way of catching illegals. But the quest to catch illegals does not supersede the U.S. Constitution.

I'll ask the same ? I did to tracy, are you giving illegals protection and rights under the constitution?

 

[tyler34]

So.... if they have REALLY GOOD intel, we can dispense with warrants and trials?

does the constitution apply to non U.S. citizens? and to answer your ? I'm all for warrants and trials when it comes to lawful U.S. citizens.

 

[Joe Williams]

does the constitution apply to non U.S. citizens? and to answer your ? I'm all for warrants and trials when it comes to lawful U.S. citizens.

So.... how do you know whether or not the house you are raiding belongs to US citizens or not? Just gonna knock down doors of any Hispanic occupied house that catches your fancy? Or we going to just dispense with warrants and the Constitution if the cops have REALLY GOOD intel?

Setting aside the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled on whether or not illegals have rights, I personally think we have to extend those Constititutional rights to everybody. If we don't, we may as well call them animals and sell them as property as we used to do to another race. Sure, they are here illegally, but that doesn't strip them of their rights anymore than a child rapist loses his right to a fair trial.

 

[Lucas156]

I'll ask the same ? I did to tracy, are you giving illegals protection and rights under the constitution?

I don’t think they have constitutional rights but does that mean that someone has to prove they are legal here before they can exercise their rights in any given situation? no

 

[tyler34]

I don’t think they have constitutional rights but does that mean that someone has to prove they are legal here before they can exercise their rights in any given situation? no

so they don't have rights but they also don't have to prove they're legal to use rights they don't have??? correst me if I'm seeing this wrong.

 

[tyler34]

So.... how do you know whether or not the house you are raiding belongs to US citizens or not? Just gonna knock down doors of any Hispanic occupied house that catches your fancy? Or we going to just dispense with warrants and the Constitution if the cops have REALLY GOOD intel?

Setting aside the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled on whether or not illegals have rights, I personally think we have to extend those Constititutional rights to everybody. If we don't, we may as well call them animals and sell them as property as we used to do to another race. Sure, they are here illegally, but that doesn't strip them of their rights anymore than a child rapist loses his right to a fair trial.

once again I'm referring to BP not everyday cops in indy. their sole purpose is to stop illegals thats all they do so I would think they know a thing or two when it comes to spotting an illegal and their tricks of the trade. they are making judgement calls based on their experience is it 100% accurate? no, but it is more often than not(with regards to BP). and as far as your stance on giving rights to any joe illegal no matter what race just because, well I'll agree to disagree on that.

 

[Joe Williams]

once again I'm referring to BP not everyday cops in indy. their sole purpose is to stop illegals thats all they do so I would think they know a thing or two when it comes to spotting an illegal and their tricks of the trade. they are making judgement calls based on their experience is it 100% accurate? no, but it is more often than not(with regards to BP). and as far as your stance on giving rights to any joe illegal no matter what race just because, well I'll agree to disagree on that.

Ok, ok... I think I've got it. We'll dispense with warrants, trials, and the Constitution for Border Patrol because they've got REALLY GOOD intel, good intentions, and they know some of the tricks of the trade used by their quarry, and they are right a lot of the time. Got it.

But.... there are illegals here, also, and you don't trust the cops around here, the ones who might be knocking on your door while you've got your best friend and neighbor Jose over for a couple beers, you don't trust the cops who might be knocking at your door with the same power. OUR cops you want to have to have warrants, right?

Just trying to figure where you are coming from. You know, which cops have to obey the Constitution, which ones don't and all that.

 

[tyler34]

Ok, ok... I think I've got it. We'll dispense with warrants, trials, and the Constitution for Border Patrol because they've got REALLY GOOD intel, good intentions, and they know some of the tricks of the trade used by their quarry, and they are right a lot of the time. Got it.

But.... there are illegals here, also, and you don't trust the cops around here, the ones who might be knocking on your door while you've got your best friend and neighbor Jose over for a couple beers, you don't trust the cops who might be knocking at your door with the same power. OUR cops you want to have to have warrants, right?

Just trying to figure where you are coming from. You know, which cops have to obey the Constitution, which ones don't and all that.

boy you really are fishing border patrol and indy cops are two separate entities. the thread was about border wars not how have your panties in a bunch over cops because you want to be uncooperative with them and expect them not to be suspicious. I'll just end it, your right and I'm obviously wrong when it comes to this sorry for making you waste time and energy to tell me how I'm wrong.

 

[Joe Williams]

boy you really are fishing border patrol and indy cops are two separate entities. the thread was about border wars not how have your panties in a bunch over cops because you want to be uncooperative with them and expect them not to be suspicious. I'll just end it, your right and I'm obviously wrong when it comes to this sorry for making you waste time and energy to tell me how I'm wrong.

Wait... what... expecting government officials to actually obey court orders and the Constitution somehow translates into me not liking cops? Talk about fishing!!

Really? You REALLY think the Constitution doesn't apply to American homes just because the guy knocking on the door happens to be Border Patrol instead of IMPD?

 

[tyler34]

Wait... what... expecting government officials to actually obey court orders and the Constitution somehow translates into me not liking cops? Talk about fishing!!

Shouldn't be surprised. You've got a cop on this forum, with other cops supporting him instead of condemning the actions, who states that if you exercise your right to not answer his questions at a traffic stop he'll stick a gun in your ear and split your head open.

The position holds a lot of power, and positions with power will always attract those who hope to abuse it. Not everybody is fit to wield it, but the good ones are far to shy about keeping their "brothers" in check.

sure doesn't seem like your painting them in a good light.

Really? You REALLY think the Constitution doesn't apply to American homes just because the guy knocking on the door happens to be Border Patrol instead of IMPD?

I think it doesn't apply to american homes when they are on the border and full of illegal immigrants and there is more than reasonable doubt of what is going on.

 

[alxjmrk]

AHHHH! STFU!

 

[Joe Williams]

I think it doesn't apply to american homes when they are on the border and full of illegal immigrants and there is more than reasonable doubt of what is going on.

So... isn't that the reason for warrants like the Constitution says?

 

[tyler34]

So... isn't that the reason for warrants like the Constitution says?

IF the constitution applies to illegal immigrants than yes.

 

[Joe Williams]

IF the constitution applies to illegal immigrants than yes.

Supreme Court says it does.

 

[tyler34]

Supreme Court says it does.

not saying your wrong but can you show the case?

 

[dburkhead]

your lack of nicotine is showing I'm referring to the show and in that instance they had plenty of intelligence that it was an illegal stash house. I saw no U.S. citizens having their rights violated and they were right the house was full of illegals. they weren't going door to door asking people if they had illegals in their house they had a target house did the recon and acted on the intelligence. your painting broad strokes with my statement that didn't pertain to my comment to suit your agenda. and I will again refer you to this.

before getting angry at cops try getting mad at the criminals who flippantly disregard the law. and the legislators that create laws that invade privacy because they would rather invade your privacy and violate your rights than do anything effective on for fear of being branded/called a racist or bias towards a certain group or societal class and potentially lose votes that would keep them in office.

You mean like those who disregard the supreme law of the land, the source from which all other laws in the US spring, the United States Constitution?

You mean like folk who flippantly disregard this law?

"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."

And if their "intel" is so good then how can they not have probable cause for a warrant? If they can't get a warrant, then maybe their "intel" isn't as good as they claim.

Also, from Amendment 14:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

Three parts here:
- Defines what makes a citizen.
- Forbids a State from making or enforcing laws against the privileges or immunities of citizens.
- Forbids a State from depfing any person (not just Citizens) of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Laws regarding warrants are part of the protection provided to persons. No one, not just citizens, are to be denied equal protection of that law (perhaps unless denied "liberty" via due process of law).

 

[Joe Williams]

not saying your wrong but can you show the case?

Plyler v. Doe is one

 

[tyler34]

You mean like those who disregard the supreme law of the land, the source from which all other laws in the US spring, the United States Constitution?

You mean like folk who flippantly disregard this law?

"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."

yeah exactly what I said, the cops didn't create those laws the legislators did. I thought I was pretty clear on that.

And if their "intel" is so good then how can they not have probable cause for a warrant? If they can't get a warrant, then maybe their "intel" isn't as good as they claim.

or maybe it was but they got stonewalled because of the liberal law makers who don't want to irritate the mexicans. as a parrable look at what obamas doing with with his foreign relations policy. he won't allow the U.S. to act on intel because he doesn't want the middle east to be mad at him.

 

[Bigum1969]

Holy cow, folks.

One simple question... if the BP had such good intel, why couldn't they get a warrant?

Hmmm....

 

[tyler34]

Plyler v. Doe is one

thats kind of a reach there. it had to do with children being denied schooling because of their staus when they had no choice whether they wanted to be illegal or not. I'm saying does the second you knowingly illegally cross the border give you constitutional rights.