Truck drivers jailed for 19 days after exercising rights at highway checkpoint

[hornadylnl]

The American public won't get upset about things like this unless it's a Marine illegally carrying a gun on the Mexican side of the border and gets detained.

 

[chipbennett]

There need not be one. Congress has all the implied power, necessary and proper, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization

Naturalization takes place at internal immigration checkpoints?

Wait: I should keep that thought to myself. Obama might get ideas. Drive-Through Amnesty, anyone?

 

[cobber]

Read the first line in your link.

What is the "expressed power" that pertains to roadside interrogation checkpoints? Cite the clause of the constitution.

There need not be one. Congress has all the implied power, necessary and proper, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization

The BP is under the executive, so you would have to refer both to the executive power, and then the ability of Congress to pass relevant enabling legislation. Presumably the bill dealing with the BP has legislative findings. The function in this case seems predicated on the detection of illegal immigrants. Seems if the Congress can pass laws on immigration, this sort of action is derivative of that authority.

Now if the government doesn'thave the power to exclude "visitors", then I guess we don't need the checkpoints.

 

[rambone]

The BP is under the executive, so you would have to refer both to the executive power, and then the ability of Congress to pass relevant enabling legislation. Presumably the bill dealing with the BP has legislative findings. The function in this case seems predicated on the detection of illegal immigrants. Seems if the Congress can pass laws on immigration, this sort of action is derivative of that authority.

Now if the government doesn'thave the power to exclude "visitors", then I guess we don't need the checkpoints.

The power to naturalize immigrants has nothing to do with harassing American travelers inside the USA. This is a very disappointing and imaginative argument.

 

[hornadylnl]

The power to naturalize immigrants has nothing to do with harassing American travelers inside the USA. This is a very disappointing and imaginative argument.

Not to mention that putting checkpoints 100 miles away from the border would be like waiting til the airplane is taxiing to the runway to do security checks on the passengers.

But those subjected to this border patrol harassment are my enemies so I won't be sufficiently moved to care.

 

[Destro]

The power to naturalize immigrants has nothing to do with harassing American travelers inside the USA. This is a very disappointing and imaginative argument.

are you being this dense on purpose?

 

[Destro]

Naturalization takes place at internal immigration checkpoints?

Wait: I should keep that thought to myself. Obama might get ideas. Drive-Through Amnesty, anyone?

Congress has the power of naturalization, thus, they have implied power over immigration. The establishment of a border patrol is necessary and proper for enforcement of naturalization and immigration powers bequeathed in the constitution.

 

[chipbennett]

Congress has the power of naturalization, thus, they have implied power over immigration. The establishment of a border patrol is necessary and proper for enforcement of naturalization and immigration powers bequeathed in the constitution.

Agreed. But the border is... at the border. Not 100 miles from the border. Not 30 miles from the border. At the border.

I don't care what SCOTUS opines. Stopping all motorists at a random point inside the country not at the border, to determine legal immigration status, is absurd, ineffective, and unreasonable.

That said: immigration/legal status/presence in the country and naturalization are two entirely different matters (immigration can be granted temporarily or permanently, and one can be a permanent legal immigrant without ever being naturalized). So claiming that naturalization authority confers power to establish interior checkpoints to determine legal status in the country is a bit of a non sequitur. The power to establish such checkpoints should derive from immigration authority.

 

[rambone]

are you being this dense on purpose?

Sorry, I am unconvinced. You've made an impressive stretch. It belongs in the same category as using the "General Welfare" clause to justify passing out free cell phones.

 

[Destro]

Sorry, I am unconvinced. You've made an impressive stretch. It belongs in the same category as using the "General Welfare" clause to justify passing out free cell phones.

So you don't believe Congress has the authority to pass laws related to immigration?

 

[cobber]

The power to naturalize immigrants has nothing to do with harassing American travelers inside the USA. This is a very disappointing and imaginative argument.

Except it's your argument and not mine. Next?

 

[chipbennett]

So you don't believe Congress has the authority to pass laws related to immigration?

Okay, I'll try again: naturalization authority has absolutely nothing to do with setting up checkpoints 30-100 miles away from the border and stopping all and sundry motorists to determine if they are legally present.

 

[cobber]

Agreed. But the border is... at the border. Not 100 miles from the border. Not 30 miles from the border. At the border.

I don't care what SCOTUS opines. Stopping all motorists at a random point inside the country not at the border, to determine legal immigration status, is absurd, ineffective, and unreasonable.

That said: immigration/legal status/presence in the country and naturalization are two entirely different matters (immigration can be granted temporarily or permanently, and one can be a permanent legal immigrant without ever being naturalized). So claiming that naturalization authority confers power to establish interior checkpoints to determine legal status in the country is a bit of a non sequitur. The power to establish such checkpoints should derive from immigration authority.

I don't think proximity to the border is the argument Prerna Lal is going to make, but I could be wrong. Certainly folks would not argue that if ICE detains someone more than 30 miles from the border they're home free?

The location in this case wasn't exactly random. Does Indiana have any such checkpoints? That would seem random.

Not caring what SCOTUS opines is certainly anyone's right. Whether the federal judges will see it the same way is another matter. By the way, did everyone hear that a federal judge struck down Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage? Live by the courts, die by the courts metaphorically speaking.

Okay, I'll try again: naturalization authority has absolutely nothing to do with setting up checkpoints 30-100 miles away from the border and stopping all and sundry motorists to determine if they are legally present.

One could make similar arguments about sobriety checkpoints.

 

[chipbennett]

I don't think proximity to the border is the argument Prerna Lal is going to make, but I could be wrong. Certainly folks would not argue that if ICE detains someone more than 30 miles from the border they're home free?

If it's ICE, I assume they're detaining with RAS? If so, the RAS is enough to ensure they're not "home free."

The location in this case wasn't exactly random. Does Indiana have any such checkpoints? That would seem random.

The zone of arbitrary immigration checkpoints is anywhere within 100 miles of a border.

Not caring what SCOTUS opines is certainly anyone's right. Whether the federal judges will see it the same way is another matter. By the way, did everyone hear that a federal judge struck down Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage? Live by the courts, die by the courts metaphorically speaking.

More legislation from the bench, and overruling the intent of the populace by fiat.

One could make similar arguments about sobriety checkpoints.

And I would agree with those points, as well. Other than at border crossings, off the top of my head, I can't think of any reason that government "checkpoints" would have a place in a free society.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]