16 Feb 2015

"According to the ACLU, federal law allows the Border Patrol to make warrantless stops and seizures within a 'reasonable distance' of the border. Regulations have defined that distance as 100 miles from land and sea borders."

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Border Patrol's parent agency Tuesday for records on its activities away from the nation's border with Mexico.
The federal lawsuit seeks records on the agency's so-called "roving patrols" in the San Diego and El Centro sectors in Southern California. The plaintiffs say agents work a considerable distance from the border with Mexico and have reportedly stopped farm workers and residents for questioning in Fallbrook, about 70 miles north of Mexico, and Laguna Beach, nearly 90 miles north.
The complaint is the latest to question the Border Patrol's activities away from the border, whether at highway checkpoints or on roving patrols.
According to the ACLU, federal law allows the Border Patrol to make warrantless stops and seizures within a "reasonable distance" of the border. Regulations have defined that distance as 100 miles from land and sea borders, which encompasses about two-thirds of the nation's population and nine of the country's 10 largest cities.
The lawsuit names the Department of Homeland Security and its Customs and Border Protection unit, which includes the Border Patrol. It said the agencies haven't produced records requested under the Freedom of Information Act in July, including and internal guidance on roving patrols and stops made since 2011.
CBP had no immediate comment.
The plaintiffs are the ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties and the University of California, Irvine School of Law's Immigrant Rights Clinic.


  1. I don't follow. If they themselves admit that reasonable distance is 100 miles, and these two were 70 and 90, then what's the problem?

  2. The border is THREE miles,tops. Get your *sses ON the border ..... seal it ..... and STAY there.

  3. It is the collective opinion of all government employees that their CON-stitution and laws automatically apply to everyone BUT when you ask them what first hand evidence they rely on that proves their assertion, they go blank, they cannot understand why you would ever question their alleged authority.
    Everyone has been told that the CONstitution and law automatically apply to everyone. it's everyones opinion that it applies, everyone feels it applies, everyone believes it applies, everyone assumes and presumes it applies. HOWEVER;
    hearsay, opinions, feelings, beliefs, assumptions and presumptions aren’t proof of a damn thing.

    What factual, first hand, irrefutable evidence can anyone offer that proves that their CONstitution and laws apply to the private person simply because they are physically in what we commonly refer to as a state.

    Keeping in mind that slavery and involuntary servitude is illegal. Further, no private person is a party to their CONstitution nor is any private person a signatory to their CONstitution, nor has any private person sworn an oath to be bound by or to obey the CONstitution and laws.

    Your proof MUST be factual and first hand, your proof/evidence shall not be comprised of hearsay, your opinions or someone else's opinions, beliefs, feelings, assumptions, presumptions, hypotheticals, conjecture, sophistry, fraud, lies, scenarios or what if’s.

    Good luck!

    P.S. Indoctrination is defined as follows: “to teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically, especially with the goal of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions”.

    When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong.
    A crowd yields to instincts which an individual, acting alone, represses.
    People instinctively follow the impulses of the herd.
    A crowd never reasons, but follows its emotions; it accepts without proof what is "suggested" or "asserted".

  4. JUST a cOUNTRY bOY16 February 2015 at 14:44