I fucking love QT moviesSteve-0 wrote:
depends which country you*re in.SuperJail Warden wrote:
That's nice. But you don't have to dismantle the country's entire domestic security apparatus to make sure police don't kill black people.
hey Superjail warden, how do you feel about quentin tarantino?
Your wife earns more than you doesn't she Jay - isn't this where all this is coming from?Jay wrote:
Congratulations, I guess. Jobs like that honestly attract losers. Your supervisors will be time serving morons who will make your life miserable. You'll get constant directions from people above who are trying to advance their career via politics at the expense of the people beneath them. The locals will despise you as a nuisance. But hey, maybe you'll get a photo op with President Trump when he's running for re-election.
You signed up for workfare at what was probably the peak of the economic cycle, what right do you have to criticise someone for taking an actual job at the low point?I did the military thing. I did the government service thing. I couldn't think of any job less appealing to me. But hey, if you can't think of anything else to do with your life, have at it.
Cybargs wrote:
lol no. you talk about habeus corpus but I don't think you really know what the legal doctrine means.Jay wrote:
Because it's a shit job and I despise border patrol. Conducting dragnet searches anywhere within 100 miles of the border is such a disgusting destruction of habeus corpus.
https://www.aclu.org/constitution-100-mile-border-zoneThe Problem
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from random and arbitrary stops and searches.
According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle.
Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary."
In this 100-mile zone, Border Patrol agents have certain extra-Constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol can operate immigration checkpoints.
Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred).
In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority in the course of individual stops, resulting in violations of the constitutional rights of innocent people. These problems are compounded by inadequate training for Border Patrol agents, a lack of oversight by CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the consistent failure of CBP to hold agents accountable for abuse. Thus, although the 100-mile border zone is not literally "Constitution free," the U.S. government frequently acts like it is.
Much of U.S. population affected
Many people think that border-related policies only impact people living in border towns like El Paso or San Diego. The reality is that Border Patrol's interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.
Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the 100-mile zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal border. That's about 200 million people.
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont lie entirely or almost entirely within this area.
Nine of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas, as determined by the 2010 Census, also fall within this zone: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and San Jose.
Outdated Legal Authority and Lack of Oversight
The regulations establishing the 100-mile border zone were adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1953—without any public comments or debate. At the time, there were fewer than 1,100 Border Patrol agents nationwide; today, there are over 21,000.
The Border Patrol often ignores this regulation and rejects any geographic limitation on agents' authority. At least two federal circuit courts condone Border Patrol operations outside the 100-mile zone, federal regulations and Supreme Court precedent notwithstanding.
Federal border agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing, and often in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
For example, Border Patrol, according to news reports, operates approximately 170 interior checkpoints throughout the country (the actual number in operation at any given time is not publicly known). The ACLU believes that these checkpoints amount to dragnet, suspicionless stops that cannot be reconciled with Fourth Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status. Checkpoints cannot be primarily used for drug-search or general law enforcement efforts. In practice, however, Border Patrol agents often do not limit themselves to brief immigration inquiries and regularly conduct criminal investigations and illegal searches at checkpoints. The Border Patrol also frequently pulls over motorists in "roving patrol" stops, often without any suspicion that an immigration violation has occurred.
The ACLU has documented numerous cases of abuse by Border Patrol and filed lawsuits to obtain more information about the agency's practices. Given Border Patrol's lack of transparency, and in the absence of any meaningful oversight, there is still much that we don't know about the full extent and impact of these interior "border enforcement" operations.
Part of a Broader Problem
The spread of border-related powers inland is inseparable from the broader expansion of government intrusion in the lives of ordinary Americans. For example, CBP claims the authority to conduct suspicionless searches of travelers' electronic devices—such as laptops and cell phones—at ports of entry, including international arrivals at airports. These searches are particularly invasive as a result of the wealth of personal information stored on such devices. At least one circuit court has held that federal officers must have at least "reasonable suspicion" prior to conducting such searches and recent Supreme Court precedent seems to support that view.
These practices also coincide with the spread of numerous border technologies, including watch list and database systems (such as the Automated Targeting System traveler risk assessment program), advanced identification and tracking systems (including electronic passports), and intrusive technological schemes such as the "virtual border fence" and unmanned aerial vehicles (aka "drone aircraft"). With many of these technologies in the hands of private companies, there are powerful financial incentives for the continued "militarization" of the border zone.
The expansion of government power both at and near the border is part of a trend toward expanding police and national security powers without regard to the effect of such expansion on our most fundamental and treasured Constitutional rights. The federal government's dragnet approach to law enforcement and national security is one that is increasingly turning us all into suspects. If Americans do not continue to challenge the expansion of federal power over the individual, we risk forfeiting the fundamental rights and freedoms that we inherited—including the right to simply go about our business free from government interference, harassment and abuse.
Are you still mad I hurt your ego by calling lowing a welfare queen for working as a government contractor in the defense industry? Seiously, you don't have a leg to stand on with this argument. Your father was a welfare queen and so are you. Get a real job creating wealth instead of destroying it.Dilbert_X wrote:
Your wife earns more than you doesn't she Jay - isn't this where all this is coming from?Jay wrote:
Congratulations, I guess. Jobs like that honestly attract losers. Your supervisors will be time serving morons who will make your life miserable. You'll get constant directions from people above who are trying to advance their career via politics at the expense of the people beneath them. The locals will despise you as a nuisance. But hey, maybe you'll get a photo op with President Trump when he's running for re-election.You signed up for workfare at what was probably the peak of the economic cycle, what right do you have to criticise someone for taking an actual job at the low point?I did the military thing. I did the government service thing. I couldn't think of any job less appealing to me. But hey, if you can't think of anything else to do with your life, have at it.
Habeus corpus just means when someone is detained unlawfully they can seek a relief on being released. You know, kinda like your example of people 'being arrested by border patrol', they demonstrate legal residence and CBP let them go.Jay wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
lol no. you talk about habeus corpus but I don't think you really know what the legal doctrine means.Jay wrote:
Because it's a shit job and I despise border patrol. Conducting dragnet searches anywhere within 100 miles of the border is such a disgusting destruction of habeus corpus.https://www.aclu.org/constitution-100-mile-border-zoneThe Problem
jay post about nothing to do with habeus corpus
Unlawful detention stemming from warrantless searches, among other things. You haven't a clue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpusit is addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example) and demands that a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the prisoner
Unsure what a waitress's political views would have to do with whether or not she got a tip in a tipping culture. Seems pretty irrelevant to me.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Anyway, under what circumstances would you not tip a waitress?
If you didn't like her political beliefs, would you not tip her? Even if she didn't bring them up but you know her views from elsewhere and think they are so terrible that she is making the world a worse place to live?
We never tip overseas.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Anyway, under what circumstances would you not tip a waitress?
If you didn't like her political beliefs, would you not tip her? Even if she didn't bring them up but you know her views from elsewhere and think they are so terrible that she is making the world a worse place to live?
Would you give a tip to a Nazi? You are 100% sure she is either one or associates with them.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Unsure what a waitress's political views would have to do with whether or not she got a tip in a tipping culture. Seems pretty irrelevant to me.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Anyway, under what circumstances would you not tip a waitress?
If you didn't like her political beliefs, would you not tip her? Even if she didn't bring them up but you know her views from elsewhere and think they are so terrible that she is making the world a worse place to live?
Cybargs wrote:
Habeus corpus just means when someone is detained unlawfully they can seek a relief on being released. You know, kinda like your example of people 'being arrested by border patrol', they demonstrate legal residence and CBP let them go.Jay wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
lol no. you talk about habeus corpus but I don't think you really know what the legal doctrine means.https://www.aclu.org/constitution-100-mile-border-zoneThe Problem
jay post about nothing to do with habeus corpus
Unlawful detention stemming from warrantless searches, among other things. You haven't a clue.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpusit is addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example) and demands that a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the prisoner
You're just throwing legal terms without actually knowing what it means.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-f … cords-showEach year, the Border Patrol, a division of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), holds hundreds of thousands of people in detention facilities near the southern border that are extremely cold, frequently overcrowded, and routinely lacking in adequate food, water, medical care, and access to legal counsel. Although CBP intends these facilities only for short-term detention—meaning that a person should be held there less than 12 hours—data obtained by the American Immigration Council through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) shows that the Border Patrol regularly uses them to detain people for prolonged periods. Over 80 percent of people detained by the Border Patrol in its Tucson Sector are held for over 24 hours, meaning that men, women and children are forced to sleep on concrete floors and hard benches in holding cells that lack beds and are not equipped for sleeping.
i know a few people whose grandparents were SS officers and even one had a grandpa and grandad's brother in the einsatzgruppen. he's a cool guy and i forwarded a lot of building management work to him.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Would you give a tip to a Nazi? You are 100% sure she is either one or associates with them.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Unsure what a waitress's political views would have to do with whether or not she got a tip in a tipping culture. Seems pretty irrelevant to me.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Anyway, under what circumstances would you not tip a waitress?
If you didn't like her political beliefs, would you not tip her? Even if she didn't bring them up but you know her views from elsewhere and think they are so terrible that she is making the world a worse place to live?
I tip all the time, cyborg. I'm cool with it. I'm just wondering if it would be justifiable to not tip a person for being a Nazi sympathizer.
access to legal counsel has nothing to do with habeus corpus.Jay wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Habeus corpus just means when someone is detained unlawfully they can seek a relief on being released. You know, kinda like your example of people 'being arrested by border patrol', they demonstrate legal residence and CBP let them go.Jay wrote:
https://www.aclu.org/constitution-100-mile-border-zoneCybargs wrote:
lol no. you talk about habeus corpus but I don't think you really know what the legal doctrine means.
Unlawful detention stemming from warrantless searches, among other things. You haven't a clue.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpusit is addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example) and demands that a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the prisoner
You're just throwing legal terms without actually knowing what it means.http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-f … cords-showEach year, the Border Patrol, a division of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), holds hundreds of thousands of people in detention facilities near the southern border that are extremely cold, frequently overcrowded, and routinely lacking in adequate food, water, medical care, and access to legal counsel. Although CBP intends these facilities only for short-term detention—meaning that a person should be held there less than 12 hours—data obtained by the American Immigration Council through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) shows that the Border Patrol regularly uses them to detain people for prolonged periods. Over 80 percent of people detained by the Border Patrol in its Tucson Sector are held for over 24 hours, meaning that men, women and children are forced to sleep on concrete floors and hard benches in holding cells that lack beds and are not equipped for sleeping.
Why are you still responding to me? Just go away. You literally haven't a single clue.
I meant modern day Nazis. I don't expect to ever come across a SS waitress.Cybargs wrote:
i know a few people whose grandparents were SS officers and even one had a grandpa and grandad's brother in the einsatzgruppen. he's a cool guy and i forwarded a lot of building management work to him.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Would you give a tip to a Nazi? You are 100% sure she is either one or associates with them.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Unsure what a waitress's political views would have to do with whether or not she got a tip in a tipping culture. Seems pretty irrelevant to me.
I tip all the time, cyborg. I'm cool with it. I'm just wondering if it would be justifiable to not tip a person for being a Nazi sympathizer.
People are being stopped without probable cause, detained indefinitely, and not given access to legal counsel. You live in Australia. I live in America. One of the rights that we have enshrined is the right to a speedy trial. We also have the right to legal counsel. Nowhere is it enumerated that the border patrol is to be used to police US citizens. They are customs agents. They are supposed to stop smuggling (human and material), not conduct dragnet sweeps harassing anyone that looks suspicious to them.Cybargs wrote:
access to legal counsel has nothing to do with habeus corpus.Jay wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Habeus corpus just means when someone is detained unlawfully they can seek a relief on being released. You know, kinda like your example of people 'being arrested by border patrol', they demonstrate legal residence and CBP let them go.Jay wrote:
https://www.aclu.org/constitution-100-mile-border-zoneCybargs wrote:
lol no. you talk about habeus corpus but I don't think you really know what the legal doctrine means.
Unlawful detention stemming from warrantless searches, among other things. You haven't a clue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
You're just throwing legal terms without actually knowing what it means.http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-f … cords-showEach year, the Border Patrol, a division of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), holds hundreds of thousands of people in detention facilities near the southern border that are extremely cold, frequently overcrowded, and routinely lacking in adequate food, water, medical care, and access to legal counsel. Although CBP intends these facilities only for short-term detention—meaning that a person should be held there less than 12 hours—data obtained by the American Immigration Council through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) shows that the Border Patrol regularly uses them to detain people for prolonged periods. Over 80 percent of people detained by the Border Patrol in its Tucson Sector are held for over 24 hours, meaning that men, women and children are forced to sleep on concrete floors and hard benches in holding cells that lack beds and are not equipped for sleeping.
Why are you still responding to me? Just go away. You literally haven't a single clue.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357Jay wrote:
People are being stopped without probable cause, detained indefinitely, and not given access to legal counsel. You live in Australia. I live in America. One of the rights that we have enshrined is the right to a speedy trial. We also have the right to legal counsel. Nowhere is it enumerated that the border patrol is to be used to police US citizens. They are customs agents. They are supposed to stop smuggling (human and material), not conduct dragnet sweeps harassing anyone that looks suspicious to them.Cybargs wrote:
access to legal counsel has nothing to do with habeus corpus.Jay wrote:
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-f … cords-showCybargs wrote:
Habeus corpus just means when someone is detained unlawfully they can seek a relief on being released. You know, kinda like your example of people 'being arrested by border patrol', they demonstrate legal residence and CBP let them go.Jay wrote:
https://www.aclu.org/constitution-100-mile-border-zoneCybargs wrote:
lol no. you talk about habeus corpus but I don't think you really know what the legal doctrine means.
Unlawful detention stemming from warrantless searches, among other things. You haven't a clue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
You're just throwing legal terms without actually knowing what it means.
Why are you still responding to me? Just go away. You literally haven't a single clue.
It's justifiable to not tip anyone. If you think otherwise it's no longer a tip.SuperJail Warden wrote:
I tip all the time, cyborg. I'm cool with it. I'm just wondering if it would be justifiable to not tip a person for being a Nazi sympathizer.
I'm impressed at how fast you took it to Nazis. I wouldn't know, I don't eat out at skinhead diners.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Would you give a tip to a Nazi? You are 100% sure she is either one or associates with them.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Unsure what a waitress's political views would have to do with whether or not she got a tip in a tipping culture. Seems pretty irrelevant to me.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Anyway, under what circumstances would you not tip a waitress?
If you didn't like her political beliefs, would you not tip her? Even if she didn't bring them up but you know her views from elsewhere and think they are so terrible that she is making the world a worse place to live?
I tip all the time, cyborg. I'm cool with it. I'm just wondering if it would be justifiable to not tip a person for being a Nazi sympathizer.
Newbie, my tipping issue is related to Nazis.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'm impressed at how fast you took it to Nazis. I wouldn't know, I don't eat out at skinhead diners.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Would you give a tip to a Nazi? You are 100% sure she is either one or associates with them.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Unsure what a waitress's political views would have to do with whether or not she got a tip in a tipping culture. Seems pretty irrelevant to me.
I tip all the time, cyborg. I'm cool with it. I'm just wondering if it would be justifiable to not tip a person for being a Nazi sympathizer.
He can't, I'm white. It would be on Fox News inside of five minutes.Adams_BJ wrote:
mac try and pester jay when you get this job
That's what you think. Once Hillary Clinton becomes president, it is straight to the FEMA death camp with straight white men.Jay wrote:
He can't, I'm white. It would be on Fox News inside of five minutes.Adams_BJ wrote:
mac try and pester jay when you get this job
