Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Left-Libertarian War On The Border Patrol

The relationship between libertarians and the radical left, the Libertarian Party and the Democrat Party, are very similar to the relationship between Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin, the lesser of the two, the Libertarian Party, exists as a minor critique of the other, but never an open opposition.  The Libertarian Party exists because of the internal contradictions of the left, its screeches for more freedom for evil and juxtaposed to the left’s demands for conformity.  Some leftists care more about getting high than about Social Justice, some think sex is more important than the minimum wage; there is always a battle for the attention of the left, and given the effects of marijuana and other drugs, the left has a hard time keeping the attention of its constituents. Potheads really don't care about anything else but drugs and that is pretty much what left-libertarianism is all about.  On most issues they punt, but for drugs and sex, generally fears that Republicans will keep them from having it, they will fight any battle.

Of course, along with using drugs, comes obtaining drugs, without which a libertarian has no reason to exist, and that means an open border with Mexico, as it is either as a source country or a transit country.

Consequently, left-libertarians have consistently aligned themselves with liberty's enemies, the Evil Party; gun rights, property rights, civil rights be damned.  Furthermore, left-libertarians have aligned themselves with affirmative action and anti-white racism, as exemplified by Rand Paul.

Left-libertarians, e.g. most libertarians, have aligned themselves also with the war on the historic American nation.  What little liberty left in the United States is dependent on whites.  Blacks, homosexuals, Hispanics, and feminists hate the historic American nation.  And left libertarians want to assist with the destruction of the historic American nation.  Nothing more exemplifies that than left-libertarians’ war on the border of the United States, and the courageous men who man the thin green line of the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP).  

Part of their war on the historic American nation and the control over our borders is the left-libertarian war on the interior checkpoints maintained by the USBP within 100 miles of a land border. These interior checkpoints are designed to catch illegal aliens who have successfully crossed the borders of the United States.  Most checkpoints are along the southern border with Mexico. Temporary checkpoints are also along the northern border, but are few and far between. Despite a scare map claiming that from the ACLU that 2/3 of Americans live near a border, that scary claim includes the coast lines of the United States that don’t have any immigration checkpoints.



No documentation for American citizens is required and all an American citizen needs to do to pass through a checkpoint is to make an oral declaration of citizenship.  Border Patrol Agents (BPA) and Customs and Border Protection Officers (CBPO) who man those checkpoints are trained and instructed to ask one simple question, "What is your citizenship?"  An affirmative answer is all that is needed.  There is no request for "papers:" driver's license, passport, or otherwise.  Aliens, of course, are required to produce legally required documentation.  There, of course, lies the rub.  Illegal aliens get caught up in those check points and therein lies the problem that left-libertarians, the Trotskyites of America busting, have.  But that is not their greatest concern; that concern is all about the drugs.  Left-libertarians can't get enough of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, molly, and methamphetamines. Any threat to that source, which is Mexico, is a threat to their lifestyle, and if America has to go down, so be it for us. 

A secondary purpose of checkpoints is to look for illegal drugs.  Now at these checkpoints the common rules for law enforcement searches apply.  To wit, no search of a person or conveyance may be made without probable cause.  BPAs look for evidence, e.g. articulable facts, that establish probable cause.  This is a long settled issue with the Supreme Court, both in the area of immigration checks and searches.  Those are two different things, but closely related, and often confused, or, in the case Reason magazine, who deliberately mislead the public. Quite often, when asking a simple question of occupants of a vehicle, a skilled observer can develop probable cause to search a vehicle, usually for drug smuggling.  And left-libertarians can't abide by that.  They want their drugs, and they want them now! [See: Reason, Detained for 19 Days: Immigration Checkpoint Refusal Gone Wrong, Zach Weissmueller, January 6, 2015] And they will lie about the law and any facts about any particular case.

Accompanying their article is a video on checkpoints about what are called checkpoint activists. Generally they are lefties in Texas who hate their fathers and project that hatred on the BPAs who man the checkpoints. When these activists are asked their citizenship, they respond with tirades of scorn and abuse.

In most cases, the "checkpoint activists" are just being jerks, a genetic trait of left-libertarians.  Because you know they don't care about freedom of association.  They don’t go around and video themselves deliberately refusing service to blacks or Hispanics to prove the point of freedom of association protected by the First Amendment.  They don't care about that right, because they hate the historic American nation, just like Rand Paul and his mentor Al Sharpton. In the end, most BPAs just let these jerks go, because after a few minutes ranting about their rights, you can tell they are Americans by their American accented English.  Which is important for the Reason video story.  Those jerks are generally let on their way after making their childish point.



The Reason video begins with their martyr, Greg Rosenberg, also known as Gegham Avetisyan, an immigrant, apparently legal, to the United States, from Armenia.  “Greg” though has a pronounced accent, as well as a chip on his shoulder.  He thinks that a simple question is like the Soviet Union, and “Greg” is very, very, disappointed in the United States for asking him that question, as he’s a “checkpoint activist.”  And a trucker in Texas.  Interestingly enough “Greg” has an Indian immigrant immigration lawyer as well, who, by the way, doesn’t know criminal law or constitutional law.

The incident goes down like this, “Greg” doesn’t want to answer the “What is your citizenship?” question.  Strike one.  BPAs are authorized by statute supported by precedent decision from the Supreme Court to ask that question.  “Greg” is referred to secondary inspection and decides to film his actions.  He claims video was deleted from his phone, but he is able to recover part of the encounter.  Unlikely.  More likely, his initial refusal to answer a simple question makes him look bad, so he only gives Reason the part that makes the BPA look a little bad, as during the back and forth he seems unsure if he has statutory or precedent authority to question “Greg.”  What he has is both.  Despite the editing though, “Greg” still seems the ass, as he just shouts “Did you read the Constitution?” several times, rather than say he’s a naturalized U.S. citizen.  Since “Greg” has a rather pronounced accent, the BPA has reasonable suspicion that “Greg” isn’t a U.S. citizen.  So he informs “Greg” that he is being detained for further questioning.  Note that he is not being detained so his truck can be searched which is what Reason goes on claim, deliberately confusing the watching public on the issue at hand, search authority or questioning authority. 

However, detaining “Greg” for further questioning as to his citizenship is based on Terry v. Ohio, as the checkpoint questioning led to development of reasonable suspicion, the level of evidence necessary for any law enforcement officer to detain someone.

However, the Reason video and “Greg’s” immigration attorney, one Prema Lal, claim that the issue is a search of “Greg” that was prohibited by Supreme Court decision United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976).

In Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, supra, the question was whether a roving patrol unit constitutionally could search a vehicle for illegal aliens simply because it was in the general vicinity of the border. We recognized that important law enforcement interests were at stake, but held that searches by roving patrols impinged so significantly on Fourth Amendment privacy interests that a search could be conducted without consent only if there was probable cause to believe that a car contained illegal aliens, at least in the absence of a judicial warrant authorizing random searches by roving patrols in a given area. Compare 413 U.S. at 413 U. S. 273, with id. at 413 U. S. 283-285 (POWELL, J., concurring), and id. at 413 U. S. 288 (WHITE, J., dissenting). We held in United States v. Ortiz, supra, that the same limitations applied to vehicle searches conducted at a permanent checkpoint.

As much as US v. Martinez-Fuerte did address searches, Reason was correct, but that was lying by misdirection.  This case is not about searches, as “Greg” was not stopped to be searched, but about questioning of persons at checkpoints, which was the main purpose of the US v. Martinez-Fuerte decision that upheld questioning at checkpoints:

The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. Pp. 428 U. S. 556-564.

Reason’s next lie was next about “Greg’s” criminal arrest for violation of Title 18 United States Code (USC), Section 111, Assaulting, Resisting, Or Impeding Certain Officers Or Employees.  Given that there was reasonable suspicion to question “Greg” further about his citizenship, alienage, and right to remain in the United States, his refusal to answer those questions is sufficient probable cause to arrest him for the impeding section of 18 USC 111.  Reason claimed that he did not resist arrest, but he did impede, which is one of three actions prohibited by the statute.

Then Reason and “Greg’s” immigration attorney go on to claim that “Greg” was held incommunicado for 19 days and not allowed to see his attorney.  Flagrant lie.  This writer is intimately familiar with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Laredo Division, where “Greg” was arrested.  When “Greg” was arrested, he was taken with no unnecessary delay to his initial appearance, to that District Court where he was processed by the U.S. Marshal’s Office, e.g. fingerprinted, searched, and photographed, was given a free attorney from the Federal Public Defender’s Office, interviewed by the Pre-Trial Services Office, and appeared before a Magistrate Judge, who made a determination on release, bond, or custody.  It appears that “Greg” was held, which is highly unusual in such cases.  Most likely, given his obdurateness, he refused to sign an agreement to appear for his preliminary hearing, that occurs within 14 days, as most cases like this the defendants are released on their own recognizance or a minimal bond. It takes a special person not to be released after a Federal arrest, generally only drug defendants and illegal aliens are held without bond.

And unlike what Lal claimed, there is no civil rights violation for being held 19 days, as a Magistrate Judge determined that “Greg” should be held, not the USBP.  Both Reason and Lal make much that charges were dropped, but U.S. Attorney’s Offices (USAO) drop charges quite frequently.  This is especially so for the USAO for the Southern District of Texas is quite busy, mostly with drug cases, and prosecuting a simple case of impeding an officer is not one of their priorities.  Nothing special there nor indicative of any lack of evidence. Just case and time management.

But it does go to the war Left-Libertarians are waging on the U.S. Border Patrol, no lie or misdirection is too small for them for their alien led war on the historic American nation. Reason, “Greg”, and Lal clearly have it in for the United States if they compare a simple question to the tyranny of the Soviet Union. But they are desperate to open the borders not only for drugs, but also to elect a new people.



No comments: