• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Two US citizens detained by border patrol for speaking Spanish

Fishking said:
Well, I'm on a debate forum here talking about it because...wait for it...it's a debate forum. It make come as a shock to you but there are all kinds of discussions and disagreements here regarding various positions on current laws, and it all happens without congressional petitions.
Click to expand...
I understand what your position is, I simply don't agree with you, which is why I stated what I did about the laws and you petitioning Congress. I agree with the laws, I wish they were enforced even more so than what they are.
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
What would you say? Some LEO politely stops you and tells you to prove your citizenship. Do you do it? Go through what's in your wallet looking for something that will satisfy them?
Click to expand...

They can not ask you to prove your citizenship, what they ask for is your ID. Either way you would have a drivers license if you are a citizen or some form of state ID. If you were an immigrant you are mandated to carry your passport on you along with your I-94 form stating you are here legally. No ID, you can be detained until your identity is verified. If found to be here illegally, you can be detained, tried, and possibly deported.
 
Attusblack said:
They can not ask you to prove your citizenship, what they ask for is your ID. Either way you would have a drivers license if you are a citizen or some form of state ID. If you were an immigrant you are mandated to carry your passport on you along with your I-94 form stating you are here legally. No ID, you can be detained until your identity is verified. If found to be here illegally, you can be detained, tried, and possibly deported.
Click to expand...

Are you required to identify yourself to any cop who asks?
 
Like someone above said, the key to curb illegal immigration is not building costly walls (which can be easily defeated and damaged and will need ongoing repairs) but rather labor law enforcement and more agile provisions for non-immigrant work permits for those who want to come here, work, send money to the home country, and eventually return to the home country (no path to citizenship) therefore these people would find it easier to do it legally than to risk being the prey of exploitative human smugglers at the border. These work permits would be regulated according to need, for the industries and sectors of the economy that do need it (construction, harvesting, hospitality, etc.). Meanwhile legal immigration with a path to citizenship would be reserved to skilled workers that the nation needs such as nurses and computer engineers, like all developed nations do.
 
GreatNews2night said:
It sounds like the crime of "grocery-shopping while brown" got a make-up and is now the crime of "grocery-shopping while speaking Spanish." Two Mexican-American US citizens who have been legally here for decades had an embarrassing moment when a border patrol officer detained them for 45 minutes in the parking lot of a gas station convenience store south of the US-Canada border, with passers by onlooking, for speaking Spanish while waiting in line to pay for eggs and milk.

Maybe this is the real witch hunt...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-them-speak-spanish/?utm_term=.a8239740da8b

Unbeknownst to many, it is estimated that there are 41 million legal Hispanic people in the United States versus 9 million illegal ones (the other 2 million that round up the number of illegal aliens are not Hispanic). So it is more than 4 times more likely that someone is legal rather than illegal, when the person is overheard speaking Spanish. The knee-jerk reaction "Spanish Speaker = must be illegal alien" is therefore statistically misguided. The correct knee-jerk should be "Spanish Speaker = vast odds are that he/she is a legal immigrant or a citizen of the United States." Unfortunately for this population of hardworking, family oriented folks who contribute to the economy and pay taxes (and these two are bilingual and perfectly able to also speak English), that's not what people typically think when they see them.

I'm not for illegal immigration (much the opposite)... but are we evolving into a "show me your papers" police state? Shame...

More productive would be to strongly audit, fine, and throw in jail the bosses, CEOs, and entrepreneurs who offer jobs to illegal aliens. But of course nobody is interested in that (the lobbies wouldn't want it), so, instead, we witch-hunt and harass our legal Hispanic folks. By the way walls wouldn't help that much, either (a 20-foot wall is only good as long are there isn't a 21-foot ladder, small plane, boat, hot-air balloon, tunnel, and checkpoints - the latter are responsible for 50% of the illegal aliens here who come in with valid visas and overstay them; these won't be deterred by a wall; most likely the wall would just result in that percentage increasing). Not to forget that the Mexican drug cartels would make damaging the wall a matter of pride - I can imagine them renting bulldozers and damaging the wall in various remote points).

We should stop harassing people who are legally here and speak Spanish, and start focusing on the job offers. Stop offering jobs, they'll stop coming. Offer jobs, and they will come one way or the other, wall or not.
Click to expand...


2 out of 41 million = 'show me your papers' police state? A bit dramatic
 
itsforthekids said:
CAN they speak English?
Click to expand...

GreatNews2night said:
Yes, but even if they couldn't, they were born here and have been US citizens for decades. Their rights are as good as yours.
Click to expand...


So, two of them, born here, speak english, see a guy in a border patrol uniform and decide to **** with him by speaking spanish in front of him. I get it know!
 
holbritter said:
So, two of them, born here, speak english, see a guy in a border patrol uniform and decide to **** with him by speaking spanish in front of him. I get it know!
Click to expand...

Yea...two more members of the victim class.
 
holbritter said:
So, two of them, born here, speak english, see a guy in a border patrol uniform and decide to **** with him by speaking spanish in front of him. I get it know!
Click to expand...

First of all you are misrepresenting it. The two were simply chatting among themselves and the border patrol officer approached from behind, when they were about to pay for their purchases. There is nothing indicating that they maliciously decided to "****" with him as you said. Second, even if what you are saying were true, speaking in a foreign language is no crime.

By the way, a border patrol chief has already said that it isn't justified to ask for papers simply because someone is speaking Spanish. Like someone said here, would it have happened if they were speaking French?

Why do you go to the knee-jerk reaction of blaming the women? They are as much US citizens as you presumably are and enjoy as many rights as you presumably do, if you are a citizen of this country. Why should their rights be disrespected? I'd ask, is it because they are brown?

Why should they live in fear of a border patrol officer, given that they are US-born citizens of the United State who have lived here for decades?

There is absolutely nothing that justifies your position.
 
itsforthekids said:
CAN they speak English?
Click to expand...

GreatNews2night said:
First of all you are misrepresenting it. The two were simply chatting among themselves and the border patrol officer approached from behind, when they were about to pay for their purchases. There is nothing indicating that they maliciously decided to "****" with him as you said. Second, even if what you are saying were true, speaking in a foreign language is no crime.

By the way, a border patrol chief has already said that it isn't justified to ask for papers simply because someone is speaking Spanish. Like someone said here, would it have happened if they were speaking French?

Why do you go to the knee-jerk reaction of blaming the women? They are as much US citizens as you presumably are and enjoy as many rights as you presumably do, if you are a citizen of this country. Why should their rights be disrespected? I'd ask, is it because they are brown?

Why should they live in fear of a border patrol officer, given that they are US-born citizens of the United State who have lived here for decades?

There is absolutely nothing that justifies your position.
Click to expand...

Why do you go to the knee-jerk reaction of blaming the officer? IMO, he had a right to be suspicious.

It was around midnight, in a predominately English speaking town, meaning they don't see many Spanish people there, close to the border in a country where illegal immigration is a problem.

"Ma'am, the reason I asked you for your ID is because I came in here, and I saw that you guys are speaking Spanish, which is very unheard of up here,"
When Suda, 37, asked if she and her friend were being racially profiled, the agent responded no.
"It has nothing to do with that," he said. "It's the fact that it has to do with you guys speaking Spanish in the store, in a state where it's predominantly English-speaking."


If illegal immigration wasn't such a problem, this would not even be an issue. Blame the illegals that are making it a problem.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Well, I see a difference between verifying people's work credentials when they show up to legally work, and going around in town asking to see papers of American citizens who happen to speak more than one language (which is not illegal and not regulated). Don't you see a difference?

Let's look at an analogy. If you want to drive, you're implicitly accepting that to protect all other citizens, the State will look into whether or not you qualify for driving safely, for your sake and that of your passengers and people sharing the roads and streets with you, by making you go through driving tests and quizzes about road signs, so that the State issues you a license, and when you are driving it is fair for a highway patrol cop to verify that you are indeed licensed. But if you are not driving, the State doesn't go around trying to see if you qualify for driving by asking for your driver's license when you are merely walking the streets. The law establishes that to drive, you need to be licensed to drive. If you choose not to drive, nobody bothers you about that. Well, to work, the law establishes that you need to be a legal resident of the United States or a citizen or be in possession of a valid work visa. So if you don't apply for a job it's not fair to demand those things of you, but if you do want to work, then the law applies to you and it is fair to check.

So if you show up to work (which nobody is forcing you to do), it's fair to verify that you have the credentials and the skills to legally work (similar to checking that a doctor who applies for a job at a hospital does possess a medical school diploma). It doesn't mean that when you are not working but merely buying milk and eggs with your hard-earned money, you should be subjected to the same checks.

Wouldn't you agree, now?
Click to expand...

Yes, the State is omnipotent and makes us all safe. Greed and torture are good, and our state is beneficent and wise. Until the state was invented, man wandered in the darkness. State & Religion should be one, so that we can render unto Caesar and unto God all at the same time.
 
Attusblack said:
BP have jurisdiction within 100 miles of the border surrounding the US, it's called the CFZ.
Click to expand...

To set up permanent or temporary checkpoints. As I read it the decision that granted them that power didn't also grant BP the power to randomly stop people in supermarkets.
 
Last edited:
GreatNews2night said:
Yes, but even if they couldn't, they were born here and have been US citizens for decades. Their rights are as good as yours.
Click to expand...

To your point my father, who was born here, spoke English so poorly that he was left behind in the first grade (a good thing in retrospect or he'd have never met my mother). Growing up in NY's lower east side in the 30s all anyone spoke was Italian. Even in the 60s my parents still predominantly spoke Italian within the family because the uncles and grandparents and other assorted older relatives were more comfortable in that language.

My mother-in-law, who was a naturalized US citizen, was also always more comfortable with Spanish than she was with English, though she was functionally literate in the latter.
 
Last edited:
GreatNews2night said:
Yes, but even if they couldn't, they were born here and have been US citizens for decades. Their rights are as good as yours.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, their rights are as good as everyone else's. Can they be questioned like everyone else? Yes.
I remember an incident at the airport a few years ago. They singled me out, asked me to come to some back room where my luggage was being looked through. I then was patted down by some woman. I wondered what I did wrong. It turned out that I changed my flight on short notice and that put me on their radar, not the fact that I am not lily white. I thanked them for doing their job instead of making a big deal out of it, like going on facebook because I am so important.
 
Grand Mal said:
Are you required to identify yourself to any cop who asks?
Click to expand...
Just about, local LEO maybe the only exception, and that depends on the individual States Stop and ID law.

The question whether it is constitutionally permissible for the police to demand that a detainee provide his or her name was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Hiibel Court also held that, because Hiibel had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him, the name disclosure did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment right might apply in situations where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.[
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
 
Gaius46 said:
To set up permanent or temporary checkpoints. As I read it the decision that granted them that power didn't also grant BP the power to randomly stop people in supermarkets.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to a Terry Stop? From my understanding the court case that allows for it is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada and Terry v. Ohio.

Nevada has a "stop-and-identify" law that allows police officers to detain any person they encounter "under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime"; the person may be detained only to "ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad." In turn, the law requires the person detained to "identify himself", but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer. The Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted that "identify himself" to mean to merely state his name. As of April 2008, 23 other states[2] have similar laws.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
 
Last edited:
Attusblack said:
You are referring to a Terry Stop. From my understanding the court case that allows for it is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.
Click to expand...

Hiibel deals with whether stop and identify laws violate the 4th amendment. How does that speak to whether a BP agent can perform a stop outside a BP checkpoint?
 
Gaius46 said:
Hiibel deals with whether stop and identify laws violate the 4th amendment. How does that speak to whether a BP agent can perform a stop outside a BP checkpoint?
Click to expand...

BP have jurisdiction within 100 miles of a border, they are not limited to just check points. Hibel and Terry both deal with Stop and Identify issues, both cases allow Officers to ascertain a persons identity in instances under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. These women speaking Spanish in a predominantly English speaking state such as Montana could be claimed as having possibly committed a crime via improper entry, thus allowing for the asking of their identity.

Hibel and Terry both deal with much more than the 4A issue.
 
Attusblack said:
BP have jurisdiction within 100 miles of a border, they are not limited to just check points. Hibel and Terry both deal with Stop and Identify issues, both cases allow Officers to ascertain a persons identity in instances under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. These women speaking Spanish in a predominantly English speaking state such as Montana could be claimed as having possibly committed a crime via improper entry, thus allowing for the asking of their identity.

Hibel and Terry both deal with much more than the 4A issue.
Click to expand...

As I understand it under the relevant SC cases that power extends to vehicles only within 100 air miles of the border. It does not extend to people who just happen to be walking around. Also as I understand it ethnicity alone isn't sufficient for probable cause. If that's not enough the fact that someone is speaking Spanish, regardless of how rare it is in the community, isn't either.
 
Gaius46 said:
As I understand it under the relevant SC cases that power extends to vehicles only within 100 air miles of the border. It does not extend to people who just happen to be walking around. Also as I understand it ethnicity alone isn't sufficient for probable cause. If that's not enough the fact that someone is speaking Spanish, regardless of how rare it is in the community, isn't either.
Click to expand...

A Terry Stop would extend to vehicles, officers still have the ability to stop and ask for identity under both Terry and Hibel. These women gave suspicion (Improper Entry) when speaking Spanish in a predominately English speaking town and state, thus the BP officer had the right to ask for identity, he even clearly stated their ethnicity had no bearing on his suspicion. After they gave him their ID's he left them about their business. Most Spanish speaking peoples identify as white.
 
GreatNews2night said:
It sounds like the crime of "grocery-shopping while brown" got a make-up and is now the crime of "grocery-shopping while speaking Spanish." Two Mexican-American US citizens who have been legally here for decades had an embarrassing moment when a border patrol officer detained them for 45 minutes in the parking lot of a gas station convenience store south of the US-Canada border, with passers by onlooking, for speaking Spanish while waiting in line to pay for eggs and milk.

Maybe this is the real witch hunt...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-them-speak-spanish/?utm_term=.a8239740da8b

Unbeknownst to many, it is estimated that there are 41 million legal Hispanic people in the United States versus 9 million illegal ones (the other 2 million that round up the number of illegal aliens are not Hispanic). So it is more than 4 times more likely that someone is legal rather than illegal, when the person is overheard speaking Spanish. The knee-jerk reaction "Spanish Speaker = must be illegal alien" is therefore statistically misguided. The correct knee-jerk should be "Spanish Speaker = vast odds are that he/she is a legal immigrant or a citizen of the United States." Unfortunately for this population of hardworking, family oriented folks who contribute to the economy and pay taxes (and these two are bilingual and perfectly able to also speak English), that's not what people typically think when they see them.

I'm not for illegal immigration (much the opposite)... but are we evolving into a "show me your papers" police state? Shame...

More productive would be to strongly audit, fine, and throw in jail the bosses, CEOs, and entrepreneurs who offer jobs to illegal aliens. But of course nobody is interested in that (the lobbies wouldn't want it), so, instead, we witch-hunt and harass our legal Hispanic folks. By the way walls wouldn't help that much, either (a 20-foot wall is only good as long are there isn't a 21-foot ladder, small plane, boat, hot-air balloon, tunnel, and checkpoints - the latter are responsible for 50% of the illegal aliens here who come in with valid visas and overstay them; these won't be deterred by a wall; most likely the wall would just result in that percentage increasing). Not to forget that the Mexican drug cartels would make damaging the wall a matter of pride - I can imagine them renting bulldozers and damaging the wall in various remote points).

We should stop harassing people who are legally here and speak Spanish, and start focusing on the job offers. Stop offering jobs, they'll stop coming. Offer jobs, and they will come one way or the other, wall or not.
Click to expand...

And if your sister or mom hires one as a gardener, what penalty would you recommend?

Because most of these “illegals” aren’t working for companies other than day laborers....they own and operate their own businesses off the grid, and most do not have licenses for such nor pay taxes, insurance, or workers comp

Even if we make the certify program nationwide, it is slow...we don’t get answers on it for weeks at times

We need to do both....
 
cuban smokes said:
they should have worn 'white face' and spoken English = in like Flint ..........
Click to expand...



For those uninitiated I believe that border crossing is much like many in rural areas, where it is routine to run out for cigarettes, crossing an international border like its your own street. Things are VERY casual. Like Point Roberts, which is not connected with the US mainland, people get known, and often passed though with a wave. Once riding with a native we crossed and when he pulled up the guard said "what'd you forget Steve?" "Coffee and egs" was the reply and we crossed into the US.
 
Attusblack said:
A Terry Stop would extend to vehicles, officers still have the ability to stop and ask for identity under both Terry and Hibel. These women gave suspicion (Improper Entry) when speaking Spanish in a predominately English speaking town and state, thus the BP officer had the right to ask for identity, he even clearly stated their ethnicity had no bearing on his suspicion. After they gave him their ID's he left them about their business. Most Spanish speaking peoples identify as white.
Click to expand...

So you're suggesting that merely speaking Spanish in an area where there aren't many Spanish speakers is reasonable suspicion, the Terry standard, of illegal entry? That's highly dubious if you ask me.

A question for you. My wife is of Spanish descent, her family is originally from Spain and emigrated to Bogota Colombia about 200 years ago. My wife's mother came to the US in the 50s. My wife is clearly Caucasian
and happens to be a fluent Spanish speaker. I'm also white, though somewhat darker skinned as my family originally came from Sicily. My Spanish is passable. If my wife and I are passing through Harve Montana and we stop at a diner to get some lunch and happen to pass a few words in Spanish to each other as we sometimes do that would give CPB the legal right to ask for our identification?
 
Gaius46 said:
So you're suggesting that merely speaking Spanish in an area where there aren't many Spanish speakers is reasonable suspicion, the Terry standard, of illegal entry? That's highly dubious if you ask me.

A question for you. My wife is of Spanish descent, her family is originally from Spain and emigrated to Bogota Colombia about 200 years ago. My wife's mother came to the US in the 50s. My wife is clearly Caucasian
and happens to be a fluent Spanish speaker. I'm also white, though somewhat darker skinned as my family originally came from Sicily. My Spanish is passable. If my wife and I are passing through Harve Montana and we stop at a diner to get some lunch and happen to pass a few words in Spanish to each other as we sometimes do that would give CPB the legal right to ask for our identification?
Click to expand...

It may be highly dubious, yet the officer did it and there won't be anything done to him for doing so, nor will any law be changed because of it.

It would give BP the ability to raise suspicion, and yes, he may just ask for your identity. To which you have the choice to make. You could end up like Pastor Anderson on the Southern Border with his youtube videos showing him getting extracted from his vehicle and tazed for not complying with the law enforcement officers request, to which he lost in court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom