
The Engineer vs. the Border Patrol - jseliger
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/terry-bressi-wants-to-take-customs-and-border-protections-internal-immigration-checkpoints-to-the-supreme-court.html
======
jasonwatkinspdx
A friend was in a similar situation for a while: crossing a CBP checkpoint
multiple times every day for work in south Texas.

At some point he decided to try to stand up for what he considered his rights
in a similar way: not being combative, just not cooperating. He was thrown in
jail for 3 days, then the charges were dropped.

He talked with lawyers and the ACLU. The ACLU were quite frank that they have
limited resources, and so they have to prioritize cases that have the ideal
defendant and political optics. If he fought it personally, the cost would
start at five figures.

The folks doing this _know_ there's a high barrier to holding them accountable
and leverage it wantonly.

The worst thing about these "contempt of cop" style arrests is, despite the
charges being dropped, once you're in the system's pipeline, if you mess up
about any of the restrictions, paperwork, court appearances, etc, you become a
criminal. It's easy to imagine a lot of folks might fall into that trap for
innocent and mundane reasons.

~~~
sonnyblarney
If police can stop you randomly for 'drunk driving checks' \- and they can
stop you randomly if there is an 'active crime scene' (i.e. they are looking
for dangerous baddies on the run) then I don't see why spot-checks for other
crimes/problems is somehow considered out of bounds.

The problem with the argument is that it leans political: I think people are
interested in just allowing people across the border willy nilly, without
having to be stopped by such checks.

Otherwise, the ACLU might be similarly up in arms over DD checks? Wouldn't
that be the case?

I try to be pragmatic about it:

\+ If there's a high occurrence of Drunk Driving, then cops can do spot
checks, esp. on long weekends.

\+ If there are 'escaped dangerous cons' on the run, well, spot checks in a
specific zone makes sense.

\+ If there is a specific problem with large numbers of people who are in the
country illegally travelling through - then random checks are a reasonable and
proportional response to that.

Constitutional? Legal? I have no clue. But unless it gets really out of hand I
don't see how it's totalitarian.

FYI I was never stopped randomly in the 5 years I lived in the US, and I was
stopped quite a few times in France by the local Gendarmes. Sometimes
obviously for DD checks, but other times I had no idea why but I had to show
my passport and visa.

~~~
lwf
The ACLU _is_ similarly up in arms over DD checks:

> The ACLU welcomes today's Supreme Court's decision in Missouri v. McNeely.
> Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor upheld the 4th Amendment's
> privacy protections by rejecting the proposition that states may routinely
> compel drivers to submit to a blood test in drunk-driving cases without
> consent and without a warrant.

> We know from experience that drunk-driving laws can be strictly enforced
> without abandoning constitutional rights. Today's decision appropriately
> recognizes what half the states have already demonstrated – that maintaining
> highway safety does not require sacrificing personal privacy.

[https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/victory-
suprem...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/victory-supreme-
court-finds-drunk-driving-laws-can-be-strictly-enforced)

From 1984:

> [...] the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit to stop a new
> sobriety-checkpoint program in California. The ACLU says the program is a
> "substantial invasion of . . . fundamental constitutional rights."

> In its California brief, pending at the state Court of Appeals in San
> Francisco, the ACLU argues that if sobriety checkpoints are upheld "it will
> not be long before the police establish roadblocks and checkpoints for
> investigations of other sorts of serious crimes."

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/12/16/a...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/12/16/aclu-
sues-on-use-of-roadblocks/48753b6c-0852-4b63-85ef-db0d38d37135/)

~~~
sonnyblarney
Thanks for the data points.

As a Canadian, I know we have legal DD stops and I'm thankful for them, as
society went from a period of 'DD was normal' to 'not ok'. It took a while, it
was a real social problem.

I guess we (Canadians?) just view public safety a little differently, it's
usually a matter of 'what makes sense' not so much a thing about
constitutionality. That said, our cops are way, way more low key than US cops.

I have no problem with being randomly pulled over for a reasonable reason by
reasonable cops.

I guess it gets more complicated when a) cops abuse power b) the randomness is
not random c) when there's an underlying political tension d) you can be
charged with 'anything' almost ...

~~~
rayiner
The US cares so much about constitutionality (and hard and fast rules
generally), and eschews leaving things to peoples’ “reasonable” discretion,
because a large subset of the population is completely nuts. One of our au
pair’s au pair friend got pulled over by state police and had a gun pulled on
her. Coming from Germany she of course freaked out. (Luckily she was a white
European young lady instead of a person of color.) Americans not only see
nothing wrong with that, but keep voting for the sheriffs who allow their
departments to run that way.

------
deegles
As an immigrant (with legal status), I couldn't imagine showing the slightest
bit of resistance to any sort of CBP officers. I cannot put myself at risk
trying to combat unfair policies due to the imbalance of power. Thank you to
those US citizens who are doing what they can.

~~~
madeofpalk
This is why I have zero interest in travelling to or through the US as a
tourist. The risk to reward ratio is too great for me - there's much better
places to go visit where there's a smaller chance of being fucked over by a
border patrol agent.

~~~
spiznnx
Just hand over your papers. As a tourist people will be nice enough, but you
should expect searches and to obey authority like if you were visiting China
or Russia.

This kind of thing happens to residents who are trying to push for change in
their country and accepting personal risks.

~~~
GordonS
I've been to the US plenty times on business, and once as a tourist - _every_
time the border guards were deeply unpleasant and behaved like egomanical
bullies. Maybe I've just been unlucky, but a lot of people seem to have a
similar tale.

I should also add, I've been to dozens of countries and never experienced
anything like this.

~~~
mattlondon
Same experience here. Standing in a queue for 3 or 4 hours and occasionally
getting shouted at by aggressive guards with their hand on their gun holster
because you had the temerity to use your phone to let your
colleagues/family/hotel etc to let them know why you're 3 hours delayed
despite the plane landing on time. Then you finally reach the booth and are
given Interrogation Lite (tm) about why you are there, if you have a return
ticket paid for, where you are staying and generally eyed suspiciously before
being finger-printed and having mugshots taken like you've just been arrested.

But you know, welcome to the land of the free!

FWIW, Global Entry for non-US citizens has made it so much better. You just
whizz right through in about 30 seconds without having to deal with anyone
apart from just give them a receipt from the machine.

~~~
GFischer
I didn't know Global Entry was available for non-US citizens... oh, my country
is not on the list:

[https://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-traveler-
programs/global-...](https://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-traveler-
programs/global-entry/eligibility)

~~~
madeofpalk
Wow that's a relatively small list. I was surprised to see Australia not on
it, especially considering we have our special E3 visa, and other countries
like UK and Singapore are on it.

The UK has a similar program, Registered Traveller [1], which has a more
exhaustive country list. Having an Australian passport, I often get curious
looks when I use the smart gates, but I'm always able to go through (though I
am always nervous it won't work and ill look like a silly foreigner for going
I the wrong queue).

[1]: [https://www.gov.uk/registered-
traveller/eligibility](https://www.gov.uk/registered-traveller/eligibility)

~~~
Latteland
No Canada?

------
mrnobody_67
It strikes me that anybody who says America is a "free" country is absolutely
delusional.

-America has the highest percentage of it's people locked up in jail

-People spend time in jail even though they are not convicted because they cannot post bail, which disproportionately punishes the the poor

-The laws are so complex, and so many, almost everyone breaks the law multiple times a month. Enforcement is highly subjective and at the whim of prosecutors and law enforcement officials

\- This story

~~~
superkuh
All those things are true and yet the freedom you mock isn't a delusion. It's
just not evenly distributed. And that's the key idea of the USA. Instead of
concentrating on using government force to ensure equal outcomes for everyone
instead it's about equal opportunities in a free for all. Free to fail and
free to succeed. There's a lot of extremes here and the USA is a much larger,
more heterogeneous place than many imagine from watching the exported news and
media.

re: this story, for example: nothing like this exists in states that are not
on the southern border. From state to state there are huge differences in
culture, demographics, and governance.

~~~
anigbrowl
_about equal opportunities in a free for all. Free to fail and free to
succeed._

But that's self-evidently not the case. Formal and informal discrimination
massively limit participation, and quite often commercial success is rooted in
an ability to dump externalities rather than create value.

~~~
roenxi
Perfect can be the enemy of good, in the sense that in a city of people there
must be compromises so that everyone can coexist in a small space.

Sure, the US isn't fair. In practice it is grossly unfair. But talk to anyone
with, eg, a congenital disability and it is apparent that this isn't because
the US is doing something wrong, it is because life is unfair.

The US is very free. Some people have to work orders of magnitude harder to
excercise their freedom, but in freedom of speech and action the US compares
well with, eg, the UK, China, Russia, Middle Eastern countries, etc, etc.
There are a few very small nations (eg, Luxembourg, Sweden, New Zealand, etc),
where the numbers are smaller and the results are arguably better. But recall
that human communities are governed by absolute numbers (see Dunbar's number)
and reflect that the US does pretty well for its size.

Basically, don't conflate freedom and fairness. The US has a lot of freedom,
but freedom is a pretty basic idea, and exercising it is crazy hard for some
people.

------
arkem
I had an experience with a border patrol checkpoint in Arizona in 2009. I was
driving from Yuma, AZ towards Vegas (probably on US-95) in a rented brown
Prius with Washington state plates as I was flagged down by the border patrol.

At the checkpoint the officers looked at me with disinterest (probably a
combination of the dull routine and because I looked like a white US citizen).
First they asked me if I was a US citizen and I said no, and suddenly they
were looked far more interested. They asked to see my passport and informed me
they'd need to search my vehicle and I was to open the trunk. I complied,
opening the trunk and passing my passport to one officer while the other went
to the rear of the vehicle to start a search. A few seconds later the officer
with my passport notices something and urgently signals the other officer. At
this point I was worried that my paperwork must not be in order and that I was
in trouble. Once the other officer rejoins the first they briefly confer and
then they hand me back my passport and apologize profusely for the
inconvenience saying that they didn't realize that I was a diplomat before
sending me on my way.

The kicker is that I wasn't a diplomat, merely a bureaucrat on an official
trip to the US and any "diplomatic immunity" I had was the thinnest kind of
intergovernmental courtesy.

At first this story was funny to me as the time I accidentally wielded
diplomatic immunity. However, more recently I find it less amusing as instead
I consider it a tale about how the changing assumptions of the officers
significantly affected the nature of the interaction and how different the
interaction could have been if their assumptions had been less favorable.

~~~
avar
I don't understand how you think the officers in question did anything wrong.

I'm not American, so I have no stake in defending the US border patrol, but
this is what I'd expect border patrol anywhere in the world to do. Their
entire job function is to prevent illegal entry, toll violations etc.

By your own account you were in possession of a valid passport clearly
indicating that you're working in an official capacity for a foreign state.
Why would border patrol anywhere in the world continue to detain you at that
point?

Is there some illegal immigration problem in any country on Earth stemming
from people in possession of official government passports indicating that
they work for their respective states that I'm unaware of? How is this not as
clear of a signal as anything short of the agent personally recognizing you as
a foreign ambassador that you should be sent on your way?

~~~
mikestew
_Their entire job function is to prevent illegal entry, toll violations etc._

To me, one of the key elements of the story is this: getting from Yuma, AZ to
Las Vegas, NV does not involve crossing an international border. So this level
of harassment a few hours drive from an actual border seems a bit uncalled
for.

~~~
SamReidHughes
It's a lot easier to have checkpoints at the chokepoints outside of the metro
region, because all the illegals and smugglers have to pass through them at
some point. There's too much surface area to defend in Yuma proper.

~~~
stickfigure
It's "a lot easier" to set up video surveillance in everyone's home, but we
don't let the state do that either.

~~~
SamReidHughes
I'd say there's a trade off to be made. If we didn't have any illegal
immigration or smuggling, obviously it would be unreasonable. On the other
hand, if we had a million professional gang members entering each year via
various tunnels into Yuma, it would be reasonable to put checkpoints on the
outside of the city to help curb the problem. Or evacuate the city and nuke it
from orbit.

------
Zak
It seems to me that Martinez-Fuerte was wrongly decided. The court treated it
as a dilemma between stopping all traffic passing a particular point with no
suspicion at all, and requiring a warrant from a judge based on probable
cause. There was already legal precedent for a middle ground at that time: the
Terry stop, requiring only reasonable suspicion based on evidence as
determined by the officer and subject to _later_ review by a judge.

More generally, I don't think government agents should ever be able to detain
and question people in public places without reasonable individualized
suspicion based on evidence. To whatever extent the law fails to prohibit such
actions, it should be changed.

~~~
koheripbal
The Martinez-Fuerte ruling specifically applies to a section of US territory
along the border.

The ruling accepts that illegal border crossings DO occur and that therefor
Border Patrol need jurisdiction to stop and question people within a
reasonable distance from the border in areas where illegal border crossings
occur.

A less penetrable border would be the cleanest solution here.

~~~
kurthr
Since the "border" extends 100 miles inland, covers the majority of large
cities and 2/3 of the US population, I don't think this is a clean solution.
It only seems that way when you aren't personally affected.

~~~
tptacek
Border stops have to have a connection to an actual border crossing regardless
of where they occur. CBP can't conduct suspicionless searches of 2/3rds of the
US population.

~~~
Zak
They can't search with no suspicion, but they can operate checkpoints at which
they stop and question everyone in every passing vehicle under US v. Martinez-
Fuerte. That ruling is a little vague, requiring that the placement of the
checkpoints be "reasonable".

It further allowed CPB officers to "refer motorists selectively to the
secondary inspection area at the San Clemente checkpoint on the basis of
criteria that would not sustain a roving patrol stop" (Terry stop). This is
not a suspicionless search, but it's a much lower level of suspicion than is
required for a search under other circumstances.

Federal regulations allow CPB to operate within 100 miles of the border. That
doesn't necessarily mean it's legal to operate a checkpoint _anywhere_ in that
zone, but the restrictions on where they can be placed are pretty vague.

~~~
tptacek
Check out Martinez-Fuerte at 560, which ACLU (at least in California) says is
controlling, and which states that secondary inspection areas can be used only
for routine and limited inquiries into residence status, and that the areas
are used exclusively for traffic alleviation, not to facilitate actual
searches, which the case (at 558) says are disallowed.

I'm certainly never going to claim that CBP doesn't push its authority, or
even abuse it outright. I assume they somewhat routinely do that. Patrick
Leahy got pulled over 125 miles from a border a few years ago (that had to
have been fun to watch).

I'm just saying that there's a mythology about the "100 mile wide
Constitution-free zone" which is not useful or productive and deserves to be
punctured whenever it's brought up. A lot of what people believe CBP can do by
dint of being within 50 miles of a border would, if it occurred, in fact be
unlawful, and should be challenged on those terms. Not in a Wesley Snipesian
idiosyncratic "originalist" sense of the word unlawful, but straight-up
normal-lawyer bring-a-case unlawful.

------
devtul
If someone needs a simple and clear example of "corrupted by power", just read
the excerpt below.

In a Jan. 28, 2008, letter to university president Robert Shelton, local
Border Patrol union president Ed Tuffly stated, “We will be aggressively
pursuing action against Mr. Bressi and/or the University on behalf of our
agents for the internet postings which Bressi has undertaken using video
obtained while he was acting as a University employee. If it is determined
that the [Arizona] law does not apply to Federal law enforcement officers, we
will lobby for an amendment to the State law to ensure that we are protected.”

~~~
mherdeg
The pre-election date on that letter was interesting. The Slate article is
kind of silent on what happened during the Obama presidency on this. Did they
continue Operation Stonegarden as-is throughout those two terms?

------
mindslight
Good for him! But even if he "wins", I'm guessing all of the past criminality
will remain unpunished - as opposed to throwing the kidnappers in jail, and
civilly compensating all of their victims, and similarly prosecuting the
leaders for conspiracy. When asked to oversee agents of USG itself, courts
seem to take the attitude that eg telling a murderer to not do it again is
good enough.

And lacking the threat of punishment, the thugs will just move on to the next
profitable harassment scheme that hasn't yet been cracked down on. Given that
we've all been victims of this same pattern for decades, all I can really
wonder is are those newfangled assassination markets ready yet? Kickstarter
for justice seems to be the only way we'll be able to get it.

------
newman8r
I think they meant 'extemporaneous' instead of 'contemporaneous' although I'm
not 100% sure.

I've been stopped at one of these checkpoints in California and had my vehicle
searched. I'm just glad that I didn't have any cannabis in my car because they
promptly informed me that even though it was legal in the state, the
checkpoints are federal - so you could be in hot water.

~~~
late2part
Why did you consent to the search?

~~~
jasonwatkinspdx
Doesn't matter. In Kansas outside Salina, highway patrol pulled me over
because my new car had a temporary tag, which they claimed was in the wrong
location. It wasn't: KS and OR differ in where they want you to put it. I
declined consent for a search, at which point they put hands on guns and
ordered me out of the car. They spent about an hour tossing everything they
could remove into the ditch.

There are some real top to bottom jerks around with badges, and with those
folks, knowing your rights is effectively meaningless.

~~~
tptacek
Did you follow up on this with the department?

~~~
anigbrowl
People who have had their rights infringed shouldn't be asked to invest more
of their time and/or money in procedural wrangling with diminishing
probabilities of restitution for their original injury. there are strong
correlations between biased enforcement and biased litigation outcomes, and
that doctrine of qualified immunity virtually guarantees litigation will be
highly asymmetrical from the outset.

~~~
tptacek
I asked him "if", not "to".

~~~
anigbrowl
OK, but questions like that are freighted with 'should' whether or not you
said so.

~~~
tptacek
I don't know what the particular rhetorical dance I need to enact in order to
ask that question positively rather than normatively is so I'm just going to
disregard that problem.

------
mcone
I visited Tucson, Arizona several years ago with my parents and the area south
of town resembles a war zone. There were blackhawk helicopters searching for
illegal immigrants, hundreds of CBP vehicles all over the place, dozens of
buses waiting to transport the illegal immigrants to detention facilities, and
of course the military-style checkpoints where officers with assault rifles
can essentially do anything they want to you (many of these checkpoints are in
the middle of nowhere). I'm a natural-born citizen and I was afraid. I can't
imagine living down there and going through those type of checkpoints every
day.

~~~
Natsu
"War zone" really gives people the wrong idea. South Tucson has some very nice
neighborhoods, including one of the best schools in the state. There is a fair
bit of air traffic due to a nearby air force base[1] but this is not something
most of the residents are generally concerned with.

The checkpoints are legitimately annoying, though. Most people simply identify
themselves and pass through peacefully--the Supreme Court has already decided
that you must identify yourself. If you want your right to remain silent, you
have to actually _say_ that, oddly enough. Granted, it's clear that he wanted
to be arrested for civil disobedience, just mentioning that for anyone who
prefers to go on their way.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Monthan_Air_Forc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Monthan_Air_Force_Base)

------
hfdgiutdryg
Here's my thought: the only thing that will save us from this insanity is
driverless cars.

When the Constitution was written, there weren't cars. You walked or rode a
horse. There were no licenses or insurance, there were no DUIs. There was no
legal requirement to prove that you were legally entitled to operate a motor
vehicle on a public road.

These stops seem to largely depend on our relationship with driving cars. The
necessary evil of DUI checkpoints is obviously a crutch they're leaning on
heavily.

At a minimum, self-driving cars will force them to work a bit harder to scheme
up clever legal interpretations allowing them to continue operating.

~~~
slededit
> necessary evil of DUI checkpoints

WA doesn't have them (against the constitution), and it gets along just fine.
In fact with the NHTSA's own data Washington's ratio of traffic fatalities
attributed to alcohol is closely inline with states that do have checkpoints.
[1]

The evidence simply doesn't show that DUI checkpoints are necessary or
effective.

[https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/8124...](https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812450)

~~~
StudentStuff
Similar wrt undercover police cars, we have some restrictions that make 'em
much less common: [https://reason.com/blog/2014/10/20/washington-man-busts-
cop-...](https://reason.com/blog/2014/10/20/washington-man-busts-cop-in-
unmarked-car)

------
arenaninja
As a non-white naturalized US citizen whose ethnicity is heavily targeted by
CBP activities, they make me nervous and I'm not surprised to hear that they
repeatedly overstep their boundaries (irony!).

I see the current enforcement of our immigration laws fueling a parental
crisis similar to what we currently see in black communities, the bill will be
due in a decade or two.

------
Moodles
A hilarious video on how to quickly get through border security:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFxijuRjX1U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFxijuRjX1U)

~~~
Asooka
I'm downvoting you not because I disagree with people exercising their rights,
but because you're spreading information that, if followed in the places where
it matters, will be the quickest way to get your teeth kicked in and land you
jail.

~~~
late2part
Better to have your teeth kicked in and land in jail than to passively support
corruption and abuses of power.

~~~
Asooka
You are free to do that, of course and I applaud you for fighting for your
rights. However, the video gives the wrong impression that this is a method
via which one can go through a checkpoint with _less_ hassle, whereas in
reality if this method works, you're dealing with cops that won't bother you
needlessly anyway; but if it doesn't, you're dealing with cops that will make
your day a living hell for standing up for your rights. From a game-theory
perspective it's absolutely the worst choice. No matter of standing up for
your rights seems to have any systemic effect anyway.

My perspective might be different because I grew up in the Eastern Bloc, where
the winning strategy was always complying while hiding contraband and bribing
officials. No amount of anyone fighting for any rights ever had any effect,
what happened in the end is that the economy collapsed and things had to
change at the top forcibly. If you want to fight because of some personal
sense of honour, of course you should do that. But from an everyday practical
game-theory perspective, the winning strategy for both the game and the meta-
game is to comply with whatever the cop wants to see.

------
dsfyu404ed
Sadly it looks to me like the best case of "winning" is that they'll just keep
doing the same thing and call them "DUI checkpoints" instead. It's not about
catching people breaking the law, it's about harassing just enough people that
the general population fears them and complies with any demand and writing
citations and making money while doing it.

~~~
fwsgonzo
Yep. [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/08/10/dea-travel-
rec...](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/08/10/dea-travel-record-
airport-seizures/88474282/)

------
itchyjunk
In a more abstract view, is it the incentive of money thats drawing in these
bad actors? Is it the power of authority that drawn in bad actors? Can you
generalize that all CBP checkpoints are bad? What are some of the good stuff
they have done? Should there be a way to crowd fund legal case?

I find reading articles like these makes me question too many things but I
don't know how really to process it. Outside of hitting the up vote button,
there isn't much I can do to contribute to improving this or most situations.

~~~
sjg007
They get Federal grants to pay for the police cooperation / joint activity.
The politics will be local and the locals get a pass since they usually
cooperate or become well known. Even a license plate reader will say the car
is local. These areas tend to be conservative as well so they view the law
enforcement presence as useful.

------
chiph
> The CBP checkpoints are good at one thing: catching American motorists with
> dime bags of pot

Like Willie Nelson. [https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-best-little-
checkp...](https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-best-little-checkpoint-
in-texas/)

------
hartator
A good move from the democrats will be to ageee to the border wall against the
removal of these unconstitutional checkpoints.

~~~
anigbrowl
Insofar as you consider them to be unconstitutional, why are you bargaining
(at great fiscal, diplomatic, and social expense) for relief from something
you con't consider to be legitimate in the first place?

~~~
throwaway29990
It's possible to believe that having an immigration policy and laws is a
legitimate and constitutional need for the country, and still think that the
way they're being enforced is neither legitimate nor constitutional.

Instead of having a secure border line, where we enforce immigration law, and
legitimately ask everyone to identify themselves, we have this giant zone
extending well into the country where people are presumed to be crossing the
border. If we simply physically controlled the line itself, this zone would
not be necessary, and the conflict between enforcing immigration law and the
fourth amendment would go away.

------
ctoth
[https://craphound.com/scroogled.html](https://craphound.com/scroogled.html)

------
mattlondon
Does anyone have a mirror of the article without the consent-wall?

------
0x445442
It's these types of issues I believe a massive coalition could be built
around.

Without attempting to ignite a flame war here, I'll just say it would not
surprise me at all if this fellow was a Trump supporter nor would it surprise
me if he were not.

What I have noticed over my 34 voting years is an extremely well coordinated
effort by every major media source to distract the electorate from these types
of issues.

For example, a quick search on Bing/news finds hits on the referenced Slate
article and an article on Reason which illustrates my point. But the only
other references I get hits for are local news sources.

------
tomohawk
If there was adequate enforcement of immigration at the border, there would be
no need for these internal checkpoints.

------
HurrdurrHodor
1\. Click on link. 2\. Get huge GDPR banner. 3\. Close tab.

GDPR, the new productivity booster.

~~~
rb12345
It's not even a compliant banner at that, given the opt in is a requirement
for viewing the site...

------
HissingMachine
I don't want to derail anything, but does anyone sense the irony of that
little addendum at the end of the article. The one that refers to Trump being
such a clear danger to rule of law that Slate felt the need to increase
reporting on rights violations, and it being at the end of an article that
mainly deals with BS that went through Obama administration without audit or
inquiry.

~~~
late2part
You're being downvoted because people don't like it when you remind them that
the Emperor has no clothes.

~~~
anigbrowl
I'm downvoting because the addendum is clearly separate from the article
content rather than derivative of it, and because it's arguably objectively
correct: many abuses in immigration and other areas of law enforcement did
indeed take place under the previous administration, but trends in enforcement
and litigation have reversed. I'd also point out that the strict immigration
enforcement under Obama was meant as a concession to immigration
restrictionists who demanded a 'secure border' before they would consider any
reform or revision of immigration, and was thus conducted in spite of rather
than in pursuance of the Democratic party's policies in an effort at
bipartisanship, which has turned out to be singularly lacking in
reciprocation. Despite the relative heavy-handedness of enforcement under the
Obama administration and a subsequent (but not necessarily consequent, due to
economic factors) transition to negative net migration, immigration
restrictionists simply doubled down on their demands and started asking for a
physical wall.

