Court Says Arizona Residents Hassled By CBP Encroachment Can Move Forward With Their First Amendment Lawsuit
from the jackbooted-thugs-as-a-service dept
About a half-decade ago, Customs and Border Patrol turned roads in and out of a small Arizona town into East Germany. Now, the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has ruled residents of Arivaca, Arizona can move forward with the civil rights lawsuit against several federal government agencies, including the DHS and CBP.
The backstory to the lawsuit is stunning, in a "surely this can't be happening in America" sort of way. The New York Times covered the misery of Arivaca residents back in 2014. It shows what can happen when the federal government is allowed to turn large swathes of American soil into a proto-DMZ with armed guards and "papers, please" checkpoints.
Every time Jack Driscoll drives the 32 miles from this remote outpost in southeastern Arizona to the closest supermarket, or to doctor’s appointments, or to a pharmacy to fill his prescriptions, he must stop at a Border Patrol checkpoint and answer the same question: “Are you a U.S. citizen?”
Sometimes, Border Patrol agents ask where he is going or coming from, the type of car he is driving, what is in that bag on the back seat or what brings him to these parts, even though he has lived here for more than a year.
[...]
He is not the only one in this community of 800 whose anger is boiling over. Although checkpoints are a fact of life here — the tollbooth-like way stations are part of the routine for anyone driving the highways near the border — citizens like Mr. Driscoll are now starting to raise questions about whether the familiar but irritating routine violates their constitutional rights, which include protections against arbitrary stops and searches.
Most residents of Arivaca have to leave town to do anything. The small town has few services, forcing residents to deal with the CBP every time they travel anywhere else. Surrounded by three roads with three checkpoints, residents have no option but to subject themselves to unneeded scrutiny, apparently in perpetuity. Despite the CBP's stranglehold on this particular border-adjacent area, no one who's dealt with CBP hassle for years has seen much in the way of border protection. And they would know, because they've been watching.
This year, volunteers organized, gathering hundreds of signatures and picketing outside the Border Patrol offices in Tucson to try to get the checkpoints removed, to no avail. For several months, small groups monitored the busiest of the area’s checkpoints, on Arivaca Road, noting things like the length of the stops, the questions asked and the number of drivers pulled aside for a search of their vehicle and belongings.
“We didn’t see any arrests,” said one of the volunteers, Peter Ragan, 52, a landscaper who has lived in Arivaca for 12 years. “There were no undocumented people apprehended at the checkpoint, no drugs interdicted, no murderers, rapists or terrorists we were defended against, as far as we could see.”
To be clear, none of these residents ever leave the country. All of this activity -- this constant monitoring of 800 residents of a small Arizona town -- targets US citizens going from place to place entirely within US borders. The pushback by residents was limited to monitoring CBP operations from public roads. No one interfered with the work being done by officers. All they did was watch, record, and protest the CBP activities.
The CBP didn't like this. It couldn't just tell residents to leave, however. That would have been too obvious of a Constitutional violation. Instead, the CBP did everything it could to deter citizens from documenting the agency's activities. From the appeals court decision [PDF]:
Some of them, as part of an organization called People Helping People (PHP), held a protest near the checkpoint area on December 8, 2013. The protest was spurred by community complaints that BP agents racially profiled, unlawfully searched, and used excessive force on people stopped at the checkpoint. The BP agent in charge of the checkpoint area learned of the planned protest and decided to suspend checkpoint operations during the protest, allegedly for the safety of all involved, which permitted cars to pass uninspected. On February 26, 2014, the Appellants and others returned to the checkpoint area to protest and to monitor activities within the checkpoint area. The protesters stood first on the south side of Arivaca Road, and later on the north side of the road, in each case approximately 100 feet east of the portable office. After the protesters refused to move further away from the checkpoint area, BP agents erected a yellow tape barrier across the north and south shoulders of Arivaca Road approximately 150 feet east of the portable office unit, and required the protesters to relocate behind those barriers.
First, there was the arbitrary decision by the CBP that moved protesters and observers back 50 feet, as though 100 feet wasn't far enough away for the CBP to do its work without interference. Anyone crossing the tape barrier was threatened with arrest.
Then there's the fact that the CBP only enforced this ad hoc barrier against protesters and observers.
Several incidents led Appellants to believe that the enforcement zone policy was selectively enforced against them. The agents in charge stated in an email to Appellants and at a public presentation that agents on the scene are the ones who determine “who can enter into the perimeter” and “where [Appellants] can and can’t be.” On April 3, 2014, one of the Appellants saw a local resident arrive at the checkpoint area, park inside the enforcement zone, and remain inside the barrier for approximately 40 minutes. The local resident’s wife also arrived and parked inside the barrier. The local resident, who was known to be a supporter of the BP and an opponent of PHP, questioned and harassed the PHP protesters. BP agents did not ask the local resident to leave the enforcement area. As he departed, he shouted “Well, we had our fun today” to the BP agents on duty, who smiled and laughed. When the Appellants asked an agent at the checkpoint area if they had given the local residents permission to be in the enforcement zone, the agent replied, “It’s a free country.”
Is it? Sure doesn't seem like it when you're being asked about your citizenship several times a week and forced to stand behind an arbitrary barrier to even look at a CBP checkpoint.
Sometimes the tape barrier wasn't enough for the CBP. It also engaged in activities clearly aimed at preventing observation from behind the barriers.
On another occasion, BP agents allowed reporters and pedestrians to walk along the north side of the road through the enforcement zone during a PHP rally; but, on the same day, agents parked their vehicles so as to impede the PHP monitors from even viewing, much less entering, the enforcement zone.
The residents sued (with the assistance of the ACLU), alleging First Amendment violations. The district court ruled in favor of the CBP, granting summary judgment before any discovery had occurred. It called the three CBP checkpoints (which were supposed to be temporary) "nonpublic forums" where citizens could be removed without violating their rights.
The Appeals Court calls this decision premature, stating that the plaintiffs have raised several issues which require discovery to proceed before they can be ruled on.
The panel held that appellants identified several areas where discovery was relevant to critical matters at issue in the summary judgment motion. First, information regarding law enforcement uses of the checkpoint area encompassed within the enforcement zone was relevant to the determination of whether the enforcement zone was a public or a nonpublic forum. Second, information about who had been allowed into the enforcement zone could reveal whether the enforcement zone has been applied selectively based on viewpoint. Finally, information regarding traffic stops at the checkpoint was relevant to determine the accuracy of data gathered by appellants and their alternative opportunities for observation, as would be required to justify their exclusion from a public forum.
This decision allows the residents of Arivaca to move forward with their lawsuit and start demanding records from the CBP. The first point of attack against the "nonpublic forum" argument begins with the CBP's own antagonistic actions. As the court notes, the inconsistent approach taken by the CBP in regards to its makeshift protester barriers raises a lot of questions about the supposed "neutral viewpoint" of the CBP's enforcement.
The government’s stated policy is that “pedestrians are allowed inside the checkpoint only for official purposes,” but without the benefit of discovery Appellants have already adduced evidence that calls that policy into question. While BP has consistently excluded Appellants and other protesters from the enforcement zone, the record shows that other visitors who were not protesting have been allowed inside. Whether the enforcement zone is a public or a nonpublic forum, evidence that civilians friendly or neutral to BP have been permitted into the enforcement zone while other civilians with a hostile message have been excluded—beyond the incidents already in the record—would tend to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the viewpoint neutrality of the government’s policy.
Hopefully, this will result in a win for the plaintiffs. Their protests and documentation are the only way they can fight back against the CBP's inland encroachment. The continued observation will likely show the only purpose these checkpoints serve is to disrupt the lives of American citizens traveling entirely within the borders of the United States.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: arivaca, arizona, cbp, checkpoints, civil rights, customs and border patrol, dhs, encroachment, first amendment
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If the constitution doesn't apply near the border...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If the constitution doesn't apply near the border...
It's not an excuse. Controlling borders is a big part of national defense. There's also the Coast Guard always on patrol, besides Navy at times.
Simply wrong. The border has been determined to be a necessary transition zone, as EVERY country practices, and while extended powers the 100 mile range inside it seems extreme, it's clearly necessary too.
No. Do you locks on your house and car, snowflake? Same principle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If the constitution doesn't apply near the border...
Clearly necessary for violating the constitutional rights of citizens you mean. For as much as you seem to hate foreigners, you seem to hate citizens just as much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If the constitution doesn't apply near the border...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The constitution is most necessary near the border...for everyone!
In fact, as it gets harder and harder to tell who is who or where someone is on the internet, the implication is that the NSA should operate using warrants just like the FBI is supposed to, even if it is Vladimir Putin being spied upon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If the constitution doesn't apply near the border...
Alright, let's go step by step.
Absolutely correct. If you don't exert any amount of control over who comes in and out of your country, you don't really have a country. You can't determine where your citizens are, or even who your citizens are.
Not quite the same as the CBP. The Coast Guard and the Navy operate outside the actual coastline borders of the United States. It is much, much, much more difficult for them to intercept a US citizen who is proceeding directly from one point in the country to another the way that the mentioned CBP officers do. They are much more akin to airport security than the CBP, because the only place that there is a lane that they can block, is at the ports.
As stated above, it certainly is important to exercise control over what crosses your border...
...but not every country does, no. The Schengen Area in Europe has practically no border control as far as people go. Once you're inside the European Union, you're inside the European Union. You don't need an extra check to get from Germany to France.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. It's absolutely extreme. Now we're not talking about the border anymore. The border is the edge of the nation, with no physical width. Not 100 miles inland. If we were talking about state borders instead of the nation's border, that would mean that the entire states of Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia consist of nothing but their border! South Carolina would have about 20 square miles in the city of Columbia that are not part of the border! Georgia would have a similarly sized pocket east of Macon, and Arkansas would only have a 10-by-10 spot north of Conway! A little patch of forest would be the only free space in Idaho! That's how huge of a constitutionally-ignoring zone we're talking about here.
I very, very highly doubt this.
How is the border patrol more effective -- necessary amounts of more effective -- when it is spread out over 100 miles instead of stationed within a more reasonable amount, like 2 miles of the border? Even 5? How many more people have they caught improperly entering the US after they've already gotten 50 miles inland? And how many of those that they did, might have been stopped earlier if the border patrol had increased their density by moving closer to the border they're patrolling?
I think you misunderstood his question. If every law in the US is given the force of law via the constitution... and the CBP is given power by the laws of the US... then the CBP's power comes from the constitution. And if the constitution has no power 100 miles from the border... the CBP has no power 100 miles from the border, either.
As far as locking my house, I don't know about you, but I put a lock and doorbell on the outside doors, not 10 feet inside the house. I don't need to lock the kitchen door or put a doorbell on my bathroom door.
TL:DR; Control of the border is important. 100 miles inland is not the border.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If the constitution doesn't apply near the border...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If the constitution doesn't apply near the border...
Stop being a jackass and I'll think about listening to your arguments, keep being a jackass and be dismissed as a jackass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If the constitution doesn't apply near the border...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If the constitution doesn't apply near the border...
I was going to say this, but you beat me to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If the constitution doesn't apply near the border...
At "snowflake" you showed your fascist colors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If the constitution doesn't apply near the border...
You are a fucking idiot or a CBP agent (which is means you are an arrogant idiot)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If the constitution doesn't apply near the border...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If the constitution doesn't apply near the border...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If the constitution doesn't apply near the border...
If the Constitution does not apply in any given area -- such as outside of the national border or within a certain distance inside of it -- then nothing authorized by the Constitution or by statutes the Constitution has authorized or by regulations authorized by those Constitution-authorized statutes does not apply there either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BUT the PROBLEM IS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. BLAME THE CRIMINALS, NOT THE POLICE. -- This will surely at least reduce when Trump gets the wall up, and it's apparently begun.
I'm sure it's a pain for the residents of the god-forsaken isolated desert that illegals frequent, BUT you entirely omit the CAUSE.
Next, how you construe LOSING THE CRUCIAL FIRST ROUND and going ahead with appeal as "moving forward" and cause for celebration is a question of abnormal psychology. And a hoot.
Still on topic: did you notice that the wacky liberal 9th Circuit was overturned on 6 month hearings for detained illegals?
"Supreme Court rules immigrants can be detained indefinitely"
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/375791-supreme-court-rules-immigrants -can-be-detained-indefinitely
Since can be detained INDEFINITELY -- I guess that's if refuse to just LEAVE -- then clearly immigrants do not have anywhere near the same rights as citizens. Just DROP that notion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BUT the PROBLEM IS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. BLAME THE CRIMINALS, NOT THE POLICE. -- This will surely at least reduce when Trump gets the wall up, and it's apparently begun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BUT the PROBLEM IS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. BLAME THE CRIMINALS, NOT THE POLICE. -- This will surely at least reduce when Trump gets the wall up, and it's apparently begun.
Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. Code (U.S.C.), Section 275 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.)
Seem to think it is a crime for which penalties are set forth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: BUT the PROBLEM IS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. BLAME THE CRIMINALS, NOT THE POLICE. -- This will surely at least reduce when Trump gets the wall up, and it's apparently begun.
The code you reference only talks about entering the USA. Many "illegals" simply overstay their visa, which would not be covered by that code.
GP was correct to say that "Being present in the US without permission is not a criminal offense".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: BUT the PROBLEM IS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. BLAME THE CRIMINALS, NOT THE POLICE. -- This will surely at least reduce when Trump gets the wall up, and it's apparently begun.
If you accrue unlawful presence of more than 180 continuous days but less than one year, but you leave before any official, formal removal procedures (i.e. deportation) are instituted against you, you will be barred from reentering the United States for a period of three years.
If you accrue unlawful presence of more than 365 continuous days, then leave prior to any deportation or other formal procedures being instituted against you, you will be subsequently barred from reentering the United States for a period of ten years.
alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/consequences-of-overstaying-on-temporary-visa.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BUT the PROBLEM IS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. BLAME THE CRIMINALS, NOT THE POLICE. -- This will surely at least reduce when Trump gets the wall up, and it's apparently begun.
If you're not a US citizen, you either need to have a visa, or you need to be from one of about two dozen countries (primarily the EU, part of the Caribbean, Canada, Australia, and Japan) and stay less than 90 days, or be from a handful of island nations we have a free trade agreement with, like Palau.
Otherwise, sneaking across the border, overstaying your visa, or lying while applying for a visa can get you jailed for 6 months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does it mean to be a US citizen?
Note: I am not a US citizen and found this very strange.
Look up the fine print rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What does it mean to be a US citizen?
Otherwise, you're a US citizen if any of the following apply:
- You're born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of it. (This excludes the children of diplomats.)
- You're born in the United States to any Native American tribe.
- You were found in the U.S. with unknown parentage under the age of 5, and weren't proven to be foreign-born before you turned 21.
- You were born outside the U.S. to married parents, both of whom are U.S. citizens, one of whom has resided in the U.S.
- You were born outside the U.S. to married parents, one of whom is a U.S. citizen who has lived in the United States for at least one continuous year, and the other of whom is a U.S. national.
- You were born outside the U.S. to married parents, one of whom is a U.S. citizen who was physically present in the United States for five years, two of which must be after the parent turned 14 years old.
- You were born outside the U.S. to married parents, and have a grandparent who is a U.S. citizen and was physically present in the United States for five years, two of which must be after the grandparent turned 14 years old.
- You were born outside the U.S. to a mother who is an American citizen, who has lived in the United States for a continuous period of one year.
- You were born outside the U.S. to a father who is an American citizen, who has lived in the United States for a continuous period of one year, who has agreed to provide financial support for you until you turn 18, and who has claimed paternity under oath or has been established as the father by a court of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What does it mean to be a US citizen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BUT the PROBLEM IS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. BLAME THE CRIMINALS, NOT THE POLICE. -- This will surely at least reduce when Trump gets the wall up, and it's apparently begun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: BUT the PROBLEM IS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. BLAME THE CRIMINALS, NOT THE POLICE. -- This will surely at least reduce when Trump gets the wall up, and it's apparently begun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: BUT the PROBLEM IS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. BLAME THE CRIMINALS, NOT THE POLICE. -- This will surely at least reduce when Trump gets the wall up, and it's apparently begun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Common law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BUT the PROBLEM IS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. BLAME THE CRIMINALS, NOT THE POLICE. -- This will surely at least reduce when Trump gets the wall up, and it's apparently begun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BUT the PROBLEM IS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. BLAME THE CRIMINALS, NOT THE POLICE. -- This will surely at least reduce when Trump gets the wall up, and it's apparently begun.
It sadly has reached the point where I find myself having to question. Who are these terrorists? Are we really under some great threat from outsiders, or is it our own Government making a power grab by making of fear a mostly imaginary threat?
Even more sad is the fact that I look at it and find the whole "war on terrorism" stupid any way you do the math. We are spending billions fighting guys in caves.... Imagine if we took all that money and spent it making our roads safer. We could easily save far more lives than the terrorist could kill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: BUT the PROBLEM IS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. BLAME THE CRIMINALS, NOT THE POLICE. -- This will surely at least reduce when Trump gets the wall up, and it's apparently begun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BUT the PROBLEM IS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. BLAME THE CRIMINALS, NOT THE POLICE. -- This will surely at least reduce when Trump gets the wall up, and it's apparently begun.
You're still going to be poor white trailer trash. The only thing that will change is that you can finally be the bean picker you've always wanted to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More money = more agents/more harassment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
QUIT USING GOOGLE IN BACKGROUND NOW
CYA ITS GONNA SCREW YOU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The place being described is a small town on rural roads far from any main roads. Every body knows every body else and has all their life. Every body speaks both English and Spanish to some degree.
The individual being described is an outsider. The article states he has lived there for over a year which means less than two years. Which raises big questions in ever local's mind "What is he doing here?", "Where did he come from?", and "What is he up to?". And, you would be surprised at the answers that will be dreamed up so it is not surprising that the feds want to keep track on him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The answers are for question 1, one. For question 2, yes there is. For question 3, it definitely depends upon ones point of view, if one is anti Latino, then no, if one is pro Constitution, then the answer is yes.
The Constitution does not claim any 100 mile exclusion zone, though some courts have claimed that zone to be reasonable. For me, there should be no exclusion zones, only the Constitution. If there are things that need to be done, close to the borders that are not able to be done elsewhere, then the legislature should make laws that make those exceptions, and then expect Constitutional challenges to them. Which, I suspect due to the clumsiness of legislative language will be determined to be unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As far as the people in the village accepting you realize that the people in the village are not law enforcement whose job it is to be suspicious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Home of the Fucked
Bend over sheeple
thee are not free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here are the checkpoints
Here on the stops I could find: (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Arivaca,+AZ+85601/@31.7260266,-111.0794236,478m/data=!3m1!1 e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86d417cae7dea7d7:0x219c08f3bdfac74c!8m2!3d31.5773351!4d-111.3314522)
(https://www.goo gle.com/maps/place/Arivaca,+AZ+85601/@31.8283134,-111.4251487,183m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86d417c ae7dea7d7:0x219c08f3bdfac74c!8m2!3d31.5773351!4d-111.3314522)
(https://www.google.com/maps/place/US+ Border+Patrol/@31.6600517,-111.0608655,790m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86d46b940dc20b6f:0x1c452f9ac1d 40f39!8m2!3d31.4836948!4d-111.544565)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here are the checkpoints
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here are the checkpoints
And exposure.
They want to rule over their fiefdom without worrying about the thing known as accountability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If this bullshit was done under Trump, it would be expected. It happened under Obama.
I am a former Marine. I swore to uphold the Constitution, as does every member of the Military, as does every Politician, as does every government agency (CIA, FBI, NSA) and law enforcement member.
I don't support the NRA, but don't support the current gun control efforts, because I believe that sooner or later, people who do support the Constitution will have to take up arms against those in the government who has ignored the Constitution.
These actions by the CBP are a disgrace. Enforce immigration at the border. Build a wall, fly drones at the border, whatever. What is happening to citizens here is a disgrace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The US / Mexico border has never been anything less than contested. Oh the border is marked and it doesn't move. It is just the people act like the Hatfields and McCoys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You do realize that an AR will not do you much good against an Abrams or a guided missile, right? At best, you can make yourself a nuisance as a guerrilla fighter until they figure out who you are, then wipe you off the map.
The idea that there will be some massive uprising of citizens who can fight back the modern military is asinine. The only way it works is if the military branches themselves turn against the government, and that's a coup, not a citizen revolt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Who do you think makes up the military? Who do you think drives those Abrams? Mostly white people from flyover country. Quite a few of them would agree with me.
Also, do you think if the Jews in Germany had answered the door when the SS Soldiers had arrived to take them off to the camps and pumped a few rounds into the solders, think maybe something might have changed?
You don't have to win the war, just cause enough problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
wtf is wrong with you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
By the time the death camps were started, Jews had been stripped not only of the right to own weaponry, but the right to own property, the right to get married, the right to be employed.
They were not German citizens anymore, in the eyes of the Reich.
Those that did resist (and there were many) did not change anything. Their gunshots were answered with many more in return, not just in their direction but to anyone associated with them. Parents, children, cousins, friends.
Even in France and Norway, a powerful citizen resistance did little to actually keep the Germans out or make them back down. All it did was help the Allied army get footholds into them.
And on your point of the military... California, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Washington State, South Carolina, New York, and Colorado provide over half of all military recruits, so your "flyover country" statement is untrue.
In fact, if you refer strictly to the Army by your mention of tanks, recruits from Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Washington State, and Virginia alone make up over half the active Army.
40% of military recruits are racial or ethnic minorities, so your "white" statement is untrue.
While I definitely do entertain doubts that much of the army would follow any orders to attack US civilians, please make sure you know what you're talking about before you try to argue a topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your papers, Comrad
involve the Border Patrol.
Going to school in the 50's and 60's we were taught that the
countries that had border controls were the bad guys, America was great because we could do what ever we wanted when ever we wanted. Guess that did not work?
How would you like it if the BP clowns got in your face while you are in line at Subway, Wal-Mart,or the DMV? The state of New Mexico allows medical marijuana but if you are holding when you go through the BP check point you are going to lose your meds.
We have lived in nine different countries and never saw this kind of treatment of the citizens, not even when we lived in China! How do you spell shit hole country?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your papers, Comrad
Also, about marijuana, New Mexico allows it, but federal law (which is constitutionally superior) does not. Federal officers following federal law, when it is in conflict with state law, does not strike me as a problem, incidentally.
Other than that, in total agreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your papers, Comrad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But in the interest of equal rights and non-discrimination, everyone is required to be stopped and run through the same grinder regardless, even when agents can immediately tell there's practically zero chance that a person is an illegal alien. (assuming that the border agents are not actually looking for drug/weapon/contraband possession, but that's another can of worms)
Local police tend to be much less intrusive (at least in my personal experience) when manning checkpoints leading into and out of Mexican-heavy neighborhoods, such as only asking to see a driver's license, or in some cases letting you through quickly after just seeing you and having a few words, similar to sobriety checkpoints.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really? Like no one from Latin America ever appears to be white? Is that it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]