# Amtrak Don't Turn Into the ****/KGB Express



## Choo Choo (Jul 7, 2010)

Of course, one of the draws of train travel is that it is more relaxed/laid back compared to the airports. Sadly, I no longer believe this to be the case.

A few examples:

a) Every time I travel through upstate New York, the Border Patrol storm troopers flood the train asking for papers late at night. 10 pm might not be considered late at night normally, but on a train when the lights are off, this is downright frightening and intimidating. In one instance, the officers didn't even identify themselves as LEO's, they merely started interrogating people in the dark. Did they have reasonable suspicion to question these people? And if they didn't, what they were doing considering the circumstances was certainly not consensual. From what I understand, this goes on in other places.

b) The DEA frequently storms the train in places like ABQ, pulling down bags, bringing in the scary dogs, etc. Again, they never identify themselves and they are not uniformed. For all I know, the train is being taken over by train pirates.

c) The TSA is starting to show up in train stations in NYC and DC to conduct drills and search bags.

This is not a necessarily a criticism of Amtrak, and they no doubt do not have control over what law enforcement does. I just wonder though if there is a less intrusive way to ferret out drugs/illegals/contraband without disturbing the laid back allure of train travel.


----------



## haolerider (Jul 7, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> Of course, one of the draws of train travel is that it is more relaxed/laid back compared to the airports. Sadly, I no longer believe this to be the case.
> 
> A few examples:
> 
> ...


I think you are being a little bit unrealistic in your comments. Border Patrol employees are on trains for a specific reason and that is to be sure passengers are documented properly and if not, taken off the train before they reach the borders - or escape undetected. DEA are trying to stem the flow of illegal drugs into the country and I have no problem with them. The transporters of drugs do not identify themselves and I again have no problem with DEA searching the trains. Trains, by their very nature, are easier to use for illegal drug transportation than planes. TSA is a bit of a different story, but so far their intrusions into train travel have been small and really non-intrusive. I also don't object to armed security people with trained dogs - or with random searches. This is a different world we are living in these days.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 7, 2010)

Before they reach what border? The LSL doesn't cross any border. People should know that their nice relaxing rail journey might include an in the dark/in the middle of the dark immigration interrogation interview.

Screening for drugs is one thing. Moving through a train, not identifying yourself as a LEO, and screaming at people by "asking" loudly to look through bags is another.

At last when you fly, this stuff is contained to the airport.


----------



## haolerider (Jul 7, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> Before they reach what border? The LSL doesn't cross any border. People should know that their nice relaxing rail journey might include an in the dark/in the middle of the dark immigration interrogation interview.
> 
> Screening for drugs is one thing. Moving through a train, not identifying yourself as a LEO, and screaming at people by "asking" loudly to look through bags is another.
> 
> At last when you fly, this stuff is contained to the airport.


The Border Patrol is allowed to inspect within a certain number of miles of the border. The northern region of NY is one of those areas that is within that limitation. If one is traveling undocumented and this is the way the BP finds them, that is OK with me. Do I want to be awakened in the middle of the night? No, but if it catches one of the illegals, I am also OK with that. Imagine if the BP announced when they would be doing the inspections. Do you think anyone looking to avoid them would not be there at the announced times? This is the advantage of random checks.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 7, 2010)

Yes, but what if you are on American citizen who looks foreign or has a foreign accent? As an American citizen, do you carry your passport with you when you are merely crossing state lines. As a citizen, are you required to answer their questions or even talk to them when they lack reasonable suspicion? Probably not, but you wouldn't think so when you are awakened, it is dark, someone with a gun is screaming at you, and beaming a flash light in your face in a strange town in upstate New York. Again, can't they work out another way to be less intrusive. Why not patrol the stations, question people prior to boarding?


----------



## rtabern (Jul 7, 2010)

In all of my Amtrak journeys... I haven't seen Amtrak Police, TSA, DEA, etc. do anything that I would consider out of line. The most I have seen them do is have drug/bomb dogs sniff passengers bags while they were waiting in line to board their train in Chicago -- very professionally done and very un-intrusive. I have seen Border Patrol agents do a sweep of the train at Del Rio, San Antonio, and El Paso while on the Texas Eagle/Sunset Limited -- again, very unintrusive... they just ran up and down the aisle of the train. They didnt even make me open the door of my sleeping car room or anything like that. Amtrak tells you over and over that you need to have a form of ID -- so if the border patrol or whoever wants to check it -- go right ahead!! If you're legal... you shouldn't have a problem... and the questioning shouldn't take all that long.

If you think train security is bad -- then don't even try and drive across the border!! That is where you will get questioned. Last October I had 3 days off work and decided to do an impromteu camping/road trip to Canada and northern Minnesota. The border patrol lady wasn't happy that I was going in to Canada without any specific campground/hotel reservations... she went through my car with a fine tooth comb and I got intense questioning, etc... even though I had an ID card and other papers on me (including passport) that showed I worked for a police department! Talk about intrusive!!


----------



## MattW (Jul 7, 2010)

I have a better idea, surround our borders with a 100ft tall 20ft thick fence and leave innocent U.S. citizens alone! If they would just do their jobs AT the border, then they wouldn't have to intrude farther inland. Am I saying it's the individual officer's fault? no, but are they any less responsible? NO! "Following orders" is NOT a good enough excuse, if the individuals won't rally against their superiors, then they are supporting their superiors' actions.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 7, 2010)

Amtrak merely requires you to be in possession of a government issued ID. That is very different from an ID that is acceptable for immigration purposes.


----------



## rtabern (Jul 7, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> Amtrak merely requires you to be in possession of a government issued ID. That is very different from an ID that is acceptable for immigration purposes.


Did they hassle you for not having a passport or birth certificate, etc. with you?? If so, I agree that would be out of line -- as long as you are a US citizen and your original and final destinations are within the US -- you don't need anything more than a driver license or a state ID card. Everytime I have seen the border patrol, Amtrak Police, etc. on the train -- they haven't even asked for my ID, let alone a passport or immigration papers or whatever.

On a trip I took 3 years ago, some DEA folks stormed my car on the California Zephyr (while it was still sitting in Union Station) and went to the roomette next to mine and hauled the guy in there off the train. The sleeping car attendant told me they found 2 guns in his carry-on luggage. Hey, I'm glad they pulled him off the train -- or else I would have been traveling next to a guy for 2 days who had a loaded gun in his roomette!! I am sure nothing would have happened, but who knows???


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2010)

Nothing wrong with professional/polite officers doing their jobs, but unfortunately some of these folks have a storm trooper attitude and ARE rude and loud! The point about checking people before they get on the train will lead to airport type security theater, none of us want that! Rob had a good point about crossing borders! (Mexico is even worse Rob!)

I have seen lots of people taken off of planes/trains and busses @ borders and airports,mostly for having no papers or for being on some "list"!My problem with security hysteria ("they"are going to take us over!)is best illustrated by the so called Arizona Immigration law, the idiotic Governor and her political stooges have been claiming that they would not be doing profileing, that you could tell "illegals" by their shoes, how they dressed etc. Glad Im not a person of color or dont have a "foriegn accent" ,

(whatever that is??)Ive never been overly harrased by federal law enforcement but have seen people who have! Thugs that pose as law enforcement should be fired, maybe even put in their beloved jails with the other criminals!

This is not an easy question, we do face external threats but most people riding trains @ the worst might be smuggling drugs, the dogs will find that, ive seen several people arrested on trains or trying to get on right in Dallas in broaddaylight! I agree, no TSA occupation of train stations, dogs and polite/proffesional officers checking trains are OK! It wouldnt hurt if OBS announced what was going on when they stop/board the trains either!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 7, 2010)

haolerider said:


> This is a different world we are living in these days.


Yeah, the world of 24-hour junk news trying to convince us we need to be more fearful of everyone we don't know while also being more trusting of every business that's trying to sell us sweatshop goods in between the horror stories. If only we could somehow combine the anti-stranger mob justice of the cowboy era with today's blind consumerism. Then we'd all be safe and happy again. </sarcasm>

Most Americans who travel seem to hate the TSA and would probably hate these nighttime raids as well if they rode trains. What they need to do is visit with their congressperson and their senators. It's not easy but it can be done. Call up the scheduling clerk and have them get you a time when you and your family, friends, and coworkers can show up and express your outrage over your treatment by domestic and boarder security services. Writing a letter or calling is fine but seeing them in person makes more of an impact.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 7, 2010)

Yeah, why all the theatre? Why not let the dogs do walk a through, sniff the luggage, and if they get a hit, do a search? Why all the bullying, "asking" to search luggage in an unconstitutional manner? So, what if a few drugs slip through. Do you have to ruin the trip and the relaxed atmosphere for law abiding citizens?


----------



## AlanB (Jul 7, 2010)

haolerider said:


> The Border Patrol is allowed to inspect within a certain number of miles of the border.


The Border Patrol can stop any train, car, bus, boat within 100 miles of a US border and board it for an inspection. And since both the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean constitute borders under the law, that means that most trains Amtrak runs can be stopped for an inspection if they so desire.

It does seem to happen more on runs like the EB, LSL, Sunset, and the Surfliners than other routes; but I have seen them stop a Silver train too.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 7, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> Why all the bullying, "asking" to search luggage in an unconstitutional manner?


There is nothing unconstitutional about random searches of luggage and/or bags. When NYC enacted random searches at its subway stations, several groups fought back against it in court on that ground and lost.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 7, 2010)

AlanB said:


> haolerider said:
> 
> 
> > The Border Patrol is allowed to inspect within a certain number of miles of the border.
> ...


I ran into a Border Patrol officer on the Silver Service, as well. He was questioning people OUTSIDE the train at one of the stations. I have absolutely no problem with this. Perfect example of a less intrusive, reasonable security procedure. It was in broad daylight, was not intimidating, and it was clear that he was a law enforcement officer. I do have a problem with officers storming the train late at night, in the dark, with a bullying demeanor in the middle of nowhere. This turns a legally consensual encounter into a harrowing, unpleasant one.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 7, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Choo Choo said:
> 
> 
> > Why all the bullying, "asking" to search luggage in an unconstitutional manner?
> ...


Yeah, because in NYC you have the option of refusing the search and leaving the station. Good luck doing that while on the train in the middle of the summer desert. Again, I have no problem if they did this before boarding while at the station. Once on the train, they should leave you alone!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 7, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Choo Choo said:
> 
> 
> > Why all the bullying, "asking" to search luggage in an unconstitutional manner?
> ...


Granting that being woken up in the middle of the bloody night by a guy with a flashlight is pretty damned unreasonable, I object on the following grounds:



Fourth Ammendment To The Constitution Of The United States Of America said:


> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


If some Judge upheld the border patrols search procedures on Amtrak in particular, I would petition for the man's impeachment.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 7, 2010)

And since we are speaking of the NYC subway, last time I checked NYC was well within 100 miles of the border. Why don't they go bother the people riding the E train in Queens? Those trains are probably packed full of illegal aliens. If I am on vacation (which I usually am while I ride Amtrak) don't poke me in the middle of night, beam a flashnight in my face, and start asking me questions.


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Jul 7, 2010)

haolerider said:


> Choo Choo said:
> 
> 
> > Before they reach what border? The LSL doesn't cross any border. People should know that their nice relaxing rail journey might include an in the dark/in the middle of the dark immigration interrogation interview.
> ...



I have been on 2 empire service trains where Border Patrol has come on board both times there was announcement made and they simply asked everyone their citizenship. I wouldn't call that in an interrogation though.


----------



## leemell (Jul 7, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Choo Choo said:
> ...




Federal immigration law says:

"Laws Governing The United States Border Patrol

These are the pertinent laws governing the actions and duties of the United States Border Patrol:

8 CFR PART 287 -- FIELD OFFICERS– POWERS AND DUTIES:

"The Government is authorized to question individuals to determine whether they have a legitimate right to enter or remain in the U.S. This is called the inspection process. However, this process is not just limited to the physical border. There is a provision in the immigration law that treats a distance of up to 100 miles from an international border as its “functional equivalent.” This allows Border Patrol and other immigration officials to enter and search vessels, buses, trains, and vehicles traveling inside the U.S. to determine whether those aboard are legally in the country. These searches extend to train and bus stations, and even airports which have no international flights."

Doesn't when, just where.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 7, 2010)

Technically, that is not a federal law, it is an executive federal regulation. Regardless, the US Constitution trumps both laws and regulations. While these officers certainly have the right to ask these questions, Americans also have a constitutional right not to answer them. You wouldn't think this is the case though when some bully is standing over you in the middle of the night, with a loaded firearm, yelling at you, all the while beaming a flashlight in your face.


----------



## jis (Jul 7, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Fourth Ammendment To The Constitution Of The United States Of America said:
> 
> 
> > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
> ...


Given today's general mood at the SCOTUS, you might be having fun trying to impeach the Supreme Court


----------



## leemell (Jul 7, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> Technically, that is not a federal law, it is an executive federal regulation. Regardless, the US Constitution trumps both laws and regulations. While these officers certainly have the right to ask these questions, Americans also have a constitutional right not to answer them. You wouldn't think this is the case though when some bully is standing over you in the middle of the night, with a loaded firearm, yelling at you, all the while beaming a flashlight in your face.


Except:

"Nonetheless, carrying an ID is generally required if you’re driving a vehicle or a passenger on a commercial airline [or a passenger on a train] These requirements have been upheld on the premise that individuals who prefer not to carry ID can choose not to drive or fly [or ride]."


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 7, 2010)

leemell said:


> Choo Choo said:
> 
> 
> > Technically, that is not a federal law, it is an executive federal regulation. Regardless, the US Constitution trumps both laws and regulations. While these officers certainly have the right to ask these questions, Americans also have a constitutional right not to answer them. You wouldn't think this is the case though when some bully is standing over you in the middle of the night, with a loaded firearm, yelling at you, all the while beaming a flashlight in your face.
> ...


That's not necessarily true. Passengers in a vehicle are not required to have identification. Even aircraft passengers aren't technically required to present identification. If you fail to present identification at the airport, TSA may subject you to secondary screening, but no law mandates that you present it.


----------



## jis (Jul 7, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> That's not necessarily true. Passengers in a vehicle are not required to have identification. Even aircraft passengers aren't technically required to present identification. If you fail to present identification at the airport, TSA may subject you to secondary screening, but no law mandates that you present it.


They can use that as an excuse to deny you boarding though. Same difference.


----------



## leemell (Jul 7, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > Choo Choo said:
> ...


From the TSA:

"Effective June 21, 2008, adult passengers (18 and over) are required to show a U.S. federal or state-issued photo ID that contains the following: name, date of birth, gender, expiration date and a tamper-resistant feature in order to be allowed to go through the checkpoint and onto their flight.

Passengers who do not or cannot present an acceptable ID will have to provide information to the Transportation Security Officer performing Travel Document Checking duties in order to verify their identity. Passengers who are cleared through this process may be subject to additional screening. Passengers whose identity cannot be verified by TSA may not be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint or onto an airplane."


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 7, 2010)

I'd rather be denied boarding than pulled off the train in the middle of the night in some rural town hundreds of miles from home.


----------



## Ispolkom (Jul 7, 2010)

What I don't understand about the ICE (or whatever the Border Patrol is now called) searches is this: I never carry proof of my citizenship. Who does? A regular driver's license certainly is no such proof. How can the officer determine my citizenship? My reading material? My taste in music? My dress? My accent? My skin color?


----------



## RailFanLNK (Jul 7, 2010)

I was on the Missour River Runner and all of a sudden a German Shepard was kinda bounding down the aisle. I looked at my buddy and said, "glad we aren't livin' the lifestyle we lived in the '80's or we would be going to jail!" :giggle: I didn't have a problem with it, they wouldn't be on the train if there hadn't been a reason for it. <_<


----------



## AlanB (Jul 7, 2010)

Ispolkom said:


> What I don't understand about the ICE (or whatever the Border Patrol is now called) searches is this: I never carry proof of my citizenship. Who does? A regular driver's license certainly is no such proof. How can the officer determine my citizenship? My reading material? My taste in music? My dress? My accent? My skin color?


Actually since most states require that you at least prove that you are legally living in the US before you can obtain a driver's license, showing that does help to prove that you are in the country legally. It doesn't prove citizenship, unless you happen to have an Enhanced Drivers License (like I do), but again it does help to prove that you are in the US legally.

Beyond that, it's largely up to the officer to evaluate your reactions as you answer the question and they are trained to watch for the typical facial warning signs that one is lying. If they don't like what they see, then they take steps to figure out for sure if you are indeed here legally. Those steps can include many things, but can be as extreme as removing you from the train and detaining you until such time as they can verify that you are indeed in the country legally.


----------



## TVRM610 (Jul 7, 2010)

I was on the LSL and had the border patrol come through, wake people up and ask em if they were citizens, and asked some for ID's. I could care less about it. Course.. the guy 2 seats up from me pitched a fit and said "How dare you question my citizenship, I served in the such and such war etc. etc.

I could care less.. I answered his question and went on enjoying the trip.

By the way... it's kinda silly to label this thread as "Amtrak Don't Turn into..." since Amtrak has no control in this matter.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 7, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Choo Choo said:
> ...


But you don't have to allow them to search your bag while on the train. It is voluntary. You are consenting to a voluntary search.

Of course if you don't consent you are very likely to find yourself standing in the station watching your train depart while they get a court order to search your bag.

But the bottom line is that while perhaps not a palatable choice, you still do have a choice. That keeps things legal.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 7, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Choo Choo said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...



Yeah, well that is keeping with the spirit and intent of the 4th amendment. <rolls eyes> If you don't "volunteer" for a search that is lacking in probable cause, get ready to be stranded in a strange town in the middle of nowhere for the next 24 hours.


----------



## rtabern (Jul 7, 2010)

TVRM610 said:


> I could care less.. I answered his question and went on enjoying the trip.


Much agreed!!!

First off, it doesn't surprise me they were using flashlights at 10PM at night on the train. When I am doing Trails & Rails and I have to walk down the aisles after they shut off the lights at night sometimes I will use the flashlight we are required to carry. I want to make sure I don't bump into people who have their feet (and other body parts) sticking out in the aisles of coaches. And you're complaining about the flashlights?? Would you rather the coach attendant throw back the main lights on when they border patrol comes on?? Using flashlights is the less intrusive method if you ask me. And honestly... if you dont want to be hassled by them and want more privacy... get a sleeper!! I don't think they start knocking on everyone's sleeping car doors... or atleast no one has reported that.

What is wrong with a 10PM inspection check? Quiet hours on Amtrak don't even start until 10PM!! So it's not like they are doing it at 3AM and waking everyone up. If you go to bed before 10PM on the train, you can still get woken up by announcments, etc. Plus, I am in favor of random checks at different points... if illegals or terrorists know there is a check at Albany EVERY TIME the LSL goes through or EVERY TIME at Del Rio when the Sunset goes through -- they are going to get around it.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 7, 2010)

rtabern said:


> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> > I could care less.. I answered his question and went on enjoying the trip.
> ...


Of course you could care less, you are white and don't fit a particular profile.

"Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--

because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--

because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me--

and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Too bad if you are naturalized American citizen with a foreign accent. You will be interrogated like a common criminal in the dark in front a train load of perfect strangers. Doesn't sound very American to me, especially when there are more reasonable and less intrusive ways to search for illegals.


----------



## TVRM610 (Jul 7, 2010)

rtabern said:


> When I am doing Trails & Rails and I have to walk down the aisles after they shut off the lights at night sometimes I will use the flashlight we are required to carry. I want to make sure I don't bump into people who have their feet (and other body parts) sticking out in the aisles of coaches.


Ha... now that you mention I used to carry a mini-mag light with me on the trains. Figured it would be a good idea if anything happened in the middle of the night it might save my life. ha.

I'm glad I don't carry it now, I might get thought of as a border patrol man.. since they don't identify themeselves


----------



## Edgefan (Jul 7, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Choo Choo said:
> ...


Amen

California Zephyr #6 Station Stop Reno, NV Date 5/3/10 Our bags were stowed in the unoccupied H-room. We did NOT discover that they were not only searched, they were trashed, until we were gathering them when we neared our station stop of Mt Pleasant, IA (two days later). I was furious, but the SCA acted like it was normal anymore. We did not take it out on Amtrak but upon arrival home we let the Reno law enforcement know what they did was out of line and unacceptable to us. We did get an apology. I later wrote Amtrak and posed the question of being present for future searches. No response back on that.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 7, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Choo Choo said:
> ...


Actually, refusal of consent cannot be used to establish probable cause.



> If reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search or seize has not been established prior to an individual’s withdrawal of consent, the reliance on the withdrawal of consent as a factor to establish the existence of reasonable suspicion or probable cause becomes an issue. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has stated that “[t]he constitutional right to withdraw one’s consent to a search would be of little value if the very fact of choosing to exercise that right could serve as any part of the basis for finding the reasonable suspicion that makes consent unnecessary.”49 And yet, another court addressing the issue noted that “[m]ere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”50


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 7, 2010)

Edgefan said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...



After doing a little Google research, I would take it out on Amtrak. Apparently, Amtrak gets a "tip" everytime they find drugs.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/amtrak-helps-dea-hunt-drug-couriers

Does Amtrak get a "tip" if they turn over an illegal? Does this mean your sleeping car attendant gets a bonus if they spy on you and turn you over to the authorities?


----------



## Ispolkom (Jul 7, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Actually since most states require that you at least prove that you are legally living in the US before you can obtain a driver's license, showing that does help to prove that you are in the country legally. It doesn't prove citizenship, unless you happen to have an Enhanced Drivers License (like I do), but again it does help to prove that you are in the US legally.


In my state, at least, it would at best prove that you were in the country legally when you got the license. The driver's license doesn't expire when the alien's visa does.

I understand that for some people it's not a big deal, but it is to me. I grew up within a hundred miles of the Canadian border and never was asked for my papers. Heck, I lived in the Soviet Union and, while I was occasionally followed by a small-town secret policeman with nothing else to do, I was never asked for my papers by any militsioner. I would be most irritated if some officer asked me for them on, say the Empire Builder.

Now, drug-sniffing dogs, that seems fine to me. YMMV, of course.


----------



## leemell (Jul 7, 2010)

Ispolkom said:


> What I don't understand about the ICE (or whatever the Border Patrol is now called) searches is this: I never carry proof of my citizenship. Who does? A regular driver's license certainly is no such proof. How can the officer determine my citizenship? My reading material? My taste in music? My dress? My accent? My skin color?


If the state conforms to the Real ID and issues enhanced DL's, it does in fact, prove citizenship.


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 7, 2010)

Edgefan said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


I am really not surprised that your bags were searched, since they were sitting in an unoccupied room. Apparently, that would make them look suspicious. Even on the train, I put those little TSA approved locks. I bought them specifically for the trip, since we had not traveled by PT since way before September 11th. Did you have them labeled with your name? I would expect that they could have had you present while they were searched if they were labeled. Do I like the idea that they can search??? NO!! But if they do, they won't find anything ilegal in my stuff, so I don't worry about it.


----------



## Ispolkom (Jul 7, 2010)

leemell said:


> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> > What I don't understand about the ICE (or whatever the Border Patrol is now called) searches is this: I never carry proof of my citizenship. Who does? A regular driver's license certainly is no such proof. How can the officer determine my citizenship? My reading material? My taste in music? My dress? My accent? My skin color?
> ...


Hence my use of the phrase "regular driver's license." Many states, including the one I reside in, do not issue enhanced driver's licenses. Even if Minnesota did, I wouldn't bother getting one. I carry a passport when I travel internationally, and thankfully don't yet see the need to carry proof of citizenship while I am at home.


----------



## rtabern (Jul 7, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> rtabern said:
> 
> 
> > TVRM610 said:
> ...


Uhhh... yeah, I am white, but that doesn't mean I don't get questioned by authorities and get a free pass on things. Like I shared earlier... when I went to Fort Frances, Ontario (Canada) in October 2009 on a driving trip I had my car totally searched while I got called in to the immigration officer and had to answer a series of questions. Maybe this happens to people who fit a certain "profile" more than others -- but they can question any of us -- as my experience shows. THE POINT IS -- if you just cooperate, answer their questions, and aren't doing anything wrong or illegel -- there won't be any problems most of the time. If you are doing something wrong or illegal -- then yeah -- you probably will get pulled off the train, etc.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 7, 2010)

So, you scheduled visits with your congressperson and your senators yet?


----------



## amamba (Jul 7, 2010)

Ispolkom said:


> What I don't understand about the ICE (or whatever the Border Patrol is now called) searches is this: I never carry proof of my citizenship. Who does? A regular driver's license certainly is no such proof. How can the officer determine my citizenship? My reading material? My taste in music? My dress? My accent? My skin color?


I completely agree. I do find the fact that they are coming through at 10 PM (which is late at night to me!) makes it even more intrusive.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 7, 2010)

rtabern said:


> Choo Choo said:
> 
> 
> > rtabern said:
> ...


You were crossing an international border. Totally different situation. "If you just cooperate, answer their questions, and aren't doing anything wrong - there won't be any problems most of the time." Yeah, that is what they used to say about the ****s. The fact of the matter is that in the United States of America you shouldn't have your baggage rummaged through without a warrant or probable cause, and you shouldn't be asked to answer questions in the middle of the night in an intimidating situation without a lawyer present. Hell, even the guy that was going to blow up Times Square was read Miranda and was provided access to counsel. The rationale that these late night conversations and searches are voluntary and you are free to get out of the train and hang out in some desolate cow field all night is completely ludicrous. Go sniff out illegals in the inner cities, or fine the employers, but don't harass everyday Americans trying to enjoy their vacations.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 7, 2010)

A couple weeks ago on the CL some Feds (not DOA, the DEA) boarded in ALC. They were plain-clothes. They were talking to the C while the AC boarded us.

Right outside PGH they went through the coaches and woke everybody up asking for IDs and ticket stubs. When I asked who they were, they would not answer. When I asked to see a badge he simply flashed it, at four-thirty on a dark train... after it became clear I wasn't going to comply he introduced himself in a proper manner.


----------



## Quarantine (Jul 7, 2010)

I once boarded a sleeper in Chicago and I was accosted by two angry DEA agents. They were not uniform and tore through my luggage. Everyone was staring at me, as my dirty underwear fell out onto the floor. Apparently, I changed my ticket at the last minute after deciding not to spend an extra day in Chicago. This must have tipped them off to the fact that I was a dangerous drug mule.


----------



## tp49 (Jul 7, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> rtabern said:
> 
> 
> > Choo Choo said:
> ...


After reading your posts on the subject it is clear you need a better understanding of 4th and 5th Amendment jurisprudence.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Jul 7, 2010)

How things have changed since the attack. I fondly remember numerous "booze sorties" into Mexico, parking in Laredo and walking across. Several hours later, we would stagger back across the International Bridge and as long as you could get "American" out when the US Immigration official asked, you were good to go. I never recall having to show papers or drivers license.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 7, 2010)

I don't use TSA locks. I didn't know they were required on Amtrak. Does that mean I have to throw out my beloved 40 year old Samsonite?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 7, 2010)

I don't think I would mind answering their questions and showing my identification, if the LEOs asked in a polite manner. We are citizens, and if our cooperation is requested we should provide it, but the key is in how our assistance is requested.

Our closest friend is a federal law enforcement officer, and for all of our discussions of the Bill of Rights (I'll let you guess his position), I have never seen him other than polite when dealing with the public, whether citing them or giving directions (I have done ride-alongs with him before 9/11 when they were allowed).

There is no excuse, nor any reason for them to raise their voices at passengers day or night, while seeking information or identification. And they always have to identify themselves.

Although I would actually give them the info they demand, I would be writing letters to my Congressman, Senators and the Agencies to which the LEOs belonged, even without knowing the names of the individuals involved. The time and place should be enough to identify them.


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 7, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I don't use TSA locks. I didn't know they were required on Amtrak. Does that mean I have to throw out my beloved 40 year old Samsonite?


I don't know if they do. I bought them because I didn't have any locks, & I knew they had to have locks in checked baggage. In the off chance that they would search the bags, I didn't want them cut off. We ended up having to take a plane ride just before we took our first train ride, so they did come in handy for that too.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 8, 2010)

Ispolkom said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Actually since most states require that you at least prove that you are legally living in the US before you can obtain a driver's license, showing that does help to prove that you are in the country legally. It doesn't prove citizenship, unless you happen to have an Enhanced Drivers License (like I do), but again it does help to prove that you are in the US legally.
> ...


That's why I said "it helps" to prove that you might be legal. I never said it was proof positive. But lack of a drivers license is far more likely to subject you to futher checks and questions.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 8, 2010)

Ispolkom said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > Ispolkom said:
> ...


I didn't get the Enhanced License so that I could prove citizenship while traveling around the states. I got it because its so much easier to carry when crossing into Canada, unlike a passport which doesn't fit conviently into my wallet.

Note: The Enhanced DL isn't good for flights to/from Canada. It's only valid for trains, boats, and land crossings into Canada.


----------



## TVRM610 (Jul 8, 2010)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> A couple weeks ago on the CL some Feds (not DOA, the DEA) boarded in ALC. They were plain-clothes. They were talking to the C while the AC boarded us.
> 
> Right outside PGH they went through the coaches and woke everybody up asking for IDs and ticket stubs. When I asked who they were, they would not answer. When I asked to see a badge he simply flashed it, at four-thirty on a dark train... after it became clear I wasn't going to comply he introduced himself in a proper manner.


See this post holds more water for me... A- its an actual board member posting, and B- the facts are stated in a clear non-exagerated manner.

This seems a bit more intense than what I saw on the LSL. But of course.. what were they looking for? Would you rather have a flashlight shined in your eye or the train blow up when it gets to WAS. I know thats most likely not what they were looking for but either way... the CL does go through some big cities, anything is possible.

The bottom line, being questioned like that seems crazy.


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 8, 2010)

TVRM610 said:


> Would you rather have a flashlight shined in your eye or the train blow up when it gets to WAS.


I don't see why those are the only two options (nor do I see what one really has to do with the other).


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 8, 2010)

Trogdor said:


> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> > Would you rather have a flashlight shined in your eye or the train blow up when it gets to WAS.
> ...


Yeah, either everyone gets roused up in the middle of the night and gets subjected to a flashlight police interrogation, or the train blows up in Washington. It's either, or. Pick your poison. Ridiculous. It's that kind of nonsensical thinking on a mass scale which makes it nearly impossible to have an adequate balance between civil liberties and security in this country.


----------



## jis (Jul 8, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> Yeah, either everyone gets roused up in the middle of the night and gets subjected to a flashlight police interrogation, or the train blows up in Washington. It's either, or. Pick your poison. Ridiculous. It's that kind of nonsensical thinking on a mass scale which makes it nearly impossible to have an adequate balance between civil liberties and security in this country.


And then there is the case where everyone gets subjected to a flashlight police interrogation and then the train blows up in Washington anyway, because the guy with the explosive got on at Harpers Ferry WV much after the said search.


----------



## dlagrua (Jul 8, 2010)

Federal officers boarding your train and asking for ID is a throwback to Hitler's **** Germany. You show your ID when you board, that should be quite sufficient. As for drugs they have drug sniffing dogs. No need to search anyone otherwise. The other question that needs to be asked is how many terrorists has TSA apprehended-ZERO.


----------



## JayPea (Jul 8, 2010)

jis said:


> Choo Choo said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, either everyone gets roused up in the middle of the night and gets subjected to a flashlight police interrogation, or the train blows up in Washington. It's either, or. Pick your poison. Ridiculous. It's that kind of nonsensical thinking on a mass scale which makes it nearly impossible to have an adequate balance between civil liberties and security in this country.
> ...



Or the train blows up after a thorough flashlight police interrogation because someone who is nowhere near the train at the time parks a truck full of explosives on a crossing and the train hits it at 79 MPH.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 8, 2010)

TVRM610 said:


> But of course.. what were they looking for? Would you rather have a flashlight shined in your eye or the train blow up when it gets to WAS. I know thats most likely not what they were looking for but either way... the CL does go through some big cities, anything is possible.


You have no idea how disappointing it was to read that. That has to be just about the most un-American thing I've read on here. Giving up actual liberty for some imaginary security is not how this country was started, but apparently is how it's going to end.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Jul 8, 2010)

The closest I've heard to any terror related activities involving Amtrak was on or right after 9-11 when some suspects tied to the attacks were removed from the _*Texas Eagle*_.


----------



## leemell (Jul 8, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Federal officers boarding your train and asking for ID is a throwback to Hitler's **** Germany. You show your ID when you board, that should be quite sufficient. As for drugs they have drug sniffing dogs. No need to search anyone otherwise. The other question that needs to be asked is how many terrorists has TSA apprehended-ZERO.


That we know of.


----------



## haolerider (Jul 8, 2010)

OlympianHiawatha said:


> The closest I've heard to any terror related activities involving Amtrak was on or right after 9-11 when some suspects tied to the attacks were removed from the _*Texas Eagle*_.


This thread almost makes it sound as though this is a daily occurence on all Amtrak trains. I have to assume that the middle of the night action has taken place a small number of times and is not routine. Perhaps there was a specific reason for whoever the officals were to suspect some illegal action on the train the OP was riding. If this becomes routine, then I will be very concerned, but as of now, it is a small insignificant item in my mind. "See Something - Say Something" is not an Amtrak originated statement. You see this on public transportation in Chicago for example and it is not a bad idea.


----------



## dlagrua (Jul 8, 2010)

It is virtually impossible to secure rail travel nor is it necessary. Plus there are 100's of stations (many unmanned), thousands of miles of trackage, & numerous tunnels and bridges. The only way to secure the rail system is to ask for passenger and crew vigilance. We all can keep a far better watchful eye on things than can the federal government.

Again with all the millions of dollars spent and all the millions of passengers flying, the TSA since instituting those dragonian search measures has not intercepted or apprehended a single terrorist. NOT A SINGLE ONE. If there will ever be another terrorist incident it will happen by skirting airport secuity and working from outside. Same with the rails.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 8, 2010)

It's a total waste of money and resources. The immigration coyotes surely know where these checkpoints are, I just did a google search and their locations are all over the internet. Do we really need to spend all that money on manpower so that we might just happen to capture Maria Fernanda the undocumented maid who is just happening to visit an ailing family member? Last time I checked, the 9/11 terrorists all had valid visas and the guy that was going to blow up Times Square had a valid green card. If it is not about terrorism and just about catching illegals, why not go after the employers, secure the borders, or concentrate on areas where illegals actually congregate in large numbers?

As far as drugs are concerned, I don't understand why we can't rely on dogs to catch the drug traffickers. In a vehicle, the Supreme Court has ruled that random drug searches on highways are unconstitutional, but I guess on a train they can wake you up in the middle night and interrogate you with a flashlight.


----------



## Ispolkom (Jul 8, 2010)

You forgot the grade crossings. Tens of thousands of grade crossings, all unguarded.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 8, 2010)

TVRM610 said:


> ALC_Rail_Writer said:
> 
> 
> > A couple weeks ago on the CL some Feds (not DOA, the DEA) boarded in ALC. They were plain-clothes. They were talking to the C while the AC boarded us.
> ...


As I said they were DEA. They had drug-sniffing dogs and apparently had a lead that somebody with drugs had boarded the train and was getting off in PGH. I heard most of this on my scanner as the C and AC talked back and forth about how they were going to handle this.

They detained all of us on board until they had run the dogs through the baggage car, the lower levels of every coach and sleeper, and we had to pass the dogs with our carry-ons when we got off. To the best of my knowledge ( by virtue of there being no commotion and them leaving by themselves without any luggage), they had found nothing.

I may have been more comfortable with it if it had been the day time, but it certainly was annoying, if not a little bit scary to be woken up all at once in a coach with everybody else at 4:30AM as these guys stomped (yes, stomped) through the coaches back and forth back and forth.

IMHO they had no clue on what they were doing. If they had a legitimate tip that they had a drug trafficker on board they wouldn't need to check everybody's ID and ticket stub. I guess they had no description as to what this person would look like-- what they were looking for, heck they didn't even know if it was a man or woman. They carded everybody except kids.

Of course the C and AC could have been wrong about these guys having a legitimate tip-- and this was a purely random search. But if it were, this was not exactly the best place and time to do it if they want to avoid the whole "we're here to serve and protect" image. "Annoy and intimidate" was more what it felt like.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 8, 2010)

And for the record they didn't "interrogate" me... I asked them more than they ask me-- albeit things they require you to provide, such as badge, agency, and just-cause for search.

They asked me for the following, in order:

1. My ID and ticket stub.

2. Where my final destination was.

3. Had I noticed anything out of the ordinary.

To the final question-- I replied "you four and the dogs is a bit strange," he didn't respond and moved to the next seat and did the whole thing again.

They had flashlights but didn't shine them in our faces, in fact they had to obtain the flashlights from the train crew-- apparently they had thought they wouldn't need them. The C refused to turn the lights on in the coaches as it wasn't 7AM yet and didn't want to **** off a trainload of pax more than he needed to I guess.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2010)

I'm SHOCKED!SHOCKED! that DEA, the most corrupt of all law enforcement agencies (they learned from pros in the Orient/Latin America etc.)pulled a security theater raid on a LD train! Meanwhile TONS of drugs were coming into the ports, airports and across the borders day and night! The phony "War on Drugs" was lost before it began and billions are being wasted on this and the other phony war in Iraq and orther muslim countries! Those of you too young to remember only need to be told one word to say it all: "Vietnam!"

Leave the trains alone and catch the real criminals which include lots of your fellow officers and politicians in this country and others!


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 8, 2010)

Sounds like a fishing expedition to me. Bring out the dogs at the station in PGH. Don't storm through the train in the middle of the night, and demand that people consent to unreasonable searches at that hour.


----------



## tp49 (Jul 8, 2010)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> As I said they were DEA. They had drug-sniffing dogs and apparently had a lead that somebody with drugs had boarded the train and was getting off in PGH. I heard most of this on my scanner as the C and AC talked back and forth about how they were going to handle this.
> 
> IMHO they had no clue on what they were doing. If they had a legitimate tip that they had a drug trafficker on board they wouldn't need to check everybody's ID and ticket stub. I guess they had no description as to what this person would look like-- what they were looking for, heck they didn't even know if it was a man or woman. They carded everybody except kids.
> 
> Of course the C and AC could have been wrong about these guys having a legitimate tip-- and this was a purely random search. But if it were, this was not exactly the best place and time to do it if they want to avoid the whole "we're here to serve and protect" image. "Annoy and intimidate" was more what it felt like.


They probably did have a tip. Generally speaking the DEA will not conduct operations that early in the morning on a train unless there was a chance that what they were looking for was going to get off before a reasonable hour in the morning. Warrants are usually not served until 6 or 7 AM though there are some exceptions to that. A "random" walk-through would be done later in the morning or in the afternoon.



Guest said:


> I'm SHOCKED!SHOCKED! that DEA, the most corrupt of all law enforcement agencies (they learned from pros in the Orient/Latin America etc.)pulled a security theater raid on a LD train! Meanwhile TONS of drugs were coming into the ports, airports and across the borders day and night! The phony "War on Drugs" was lost before it began and billions are being wasted on this and the other phony war in Iraq and orther muslim countries! Those of you too young to remember only need to be told one word to say it all: "Vietnam!"
> 
> Leave the trains alone and catch the real criminals which include lots of your fellow officers and politicians in this country and others!


**facepalm**

So you mean to tell me that the person who's case file I've examined who was arrested by the DEA on an Amtrak train allegedly trafficking drugs across country is not a real criminal, and that the DEA was wasting their time in conducting an operation on the train? Well the minimum of 20 years hard time in federal prison they are facing is very real.

Like it or not enough people are moving drugs on Amtrak trains to necessitate these types of operations. Just because you don't hear or read about these people getting arrested and convicted doesn't mean it is not happening.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 8, 2010)

So what you're saying is that we need to make these drugs legal and regulate them instead of wasting BILLIONS on yet another endless war America can ill afford and will never actually win. I agree. It could also cut down on all the gang wars as they fight over who can smuggle and sell to millions of brain-dead Americans. Better to have those addicts actually _paying_ taxes instead of wasting them on midnight ***** train inspections.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 8, 2010)

Leave me the hell alone on my vacation. Don't poke me, wake me up, shine a flashlight in my face, and expect that I am going to cooperate with you and answer your stupid questions. I get enough grief and abuse from my boss at work and I want to be left alone during the small time that I have off. Many of these public officials think they are our masters and that we work for them. We don't, I don't need to help you in meeting your drug mule quota, and I want to be left alone. The one DEA idiot I dealt with on the train took it personally when I didn't want to speak with him.


----------



## lthanlon (Jul 8, 2010)

haolerider said:


> This thread almost makes it sound as though this is a daily occurence on all Amtrak trains. I have to assume that the middle of the night action has taken place a small number of times and is not routine. Perhaps there was a specific reason for whoever the officals were to suspect some illegal action on the train the OP was riding. If this becomes routine, then I will be very concerned, but as of now, it is a small insignificant item in my mind. "See Something - Say Something" is not an Amtrak originated statement. You see this on public transportation in Chicago for example and it is not a bad idea.


My experience with seeing something on Metra and trying to say something was not especially encouraging.


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 8, 2010)

haolerider said:


> This thread almost makes it sound as though this is a daily occurence on all Amtrak trains. I have to assume that the middle of the night action has taken place a small number of times and is not routine. Perhaps there was a specific reason for whoever the officals were to suspect some illegal action on the train the OP was riding. If this becomes routine, then I will be very concerned, but as of now, it is a small insignificant item in my mind. "See Something - Say Something" is not an Amtrak originated statement. You see this on public transportation in Chicago for example and it is not a bad idea.


It may not happen regularly on all trains, but being stopped by Border Patrol is nearly a daily occurrence on the Lake Shore Limited.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 8, 2010)

Well if they had a tip, either it got back to the person or it didn't pan out right. In either event, it was annoying and a bit of a sham.

It was kind of funny because they boarded in ALC dressed in plain clothes-- I thought they were Mt. Union students, frat boys, they shot the sh*t with other pax waiting and had pretty good cover. So good that when we boarded I followed them. The AC had one coach opened, the C had the other one-- I thought they were boarding two lines (it was a full train) and I hung around them expecting my ticket to be pulled. As soon as they started asking for the pax manifests I figured something was up.

It took me a few hours until I realized that these guys were dumbasses. They didn't seem to notice me right behind them while they formulated plans with the C-- or at least not care.


----------



## Edgefan (Jul 8, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> Edgefan said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


I really am not trying to fan the flames of this thread but some more background to answer some of your questions Sunchaser;

My wife and I boarded the California Zephyr in Sacramento on May 3rd of this year. Our destination of Mt. Pleasant does not have checked baggage. Anyone who boarded in Sacramento found the luggage racks in our sleeper packed beyond capacity. Therefore all sleeper passengers who had luggage were directed to put them in the un-occupied H-room. My wife and I waited for all passengers boarding to go first. I find life much easier to be patient. When I placed our bags in the H-room, it was VERY full. Also, we have the Amtrak paper tags, our Select luggage tags from the last few years as well as our own personal luggage tags. We are identified no less than five times per bag! We had everything we needed for the two day trip in our "room" bag, so there was no need to even think about our bags in the H-room. I have pictures of the procedings from what I saw on the platform and later from our sleeper room window when they were calling it a day. I am subject to random drug testing from my present employer. I would never risk the welfare of my family, so ingesting illegal substances are out of the question. That being said, I still want to be present if my property is searched. I have my reasons that I won't go into here. And lastly, my Iowa drivers license has all the information needed to prove my citizenship. My name and birthdate gives them all they really could need. But the kicker is the magnetic strip found on the back of my license. All they have to do is swipe it and there is more info there than even I am aware of! Peace!


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 9, 2010)

Edgefan said:


> But the kicker is the magnetic strip found on the back of my license. All they have to do is swipe it and there is more info there than even I am aware of! Peace!


But do the agents walk around with with a scanner to swipe it in? I guess we all might as well carry our birth certificate with us sense technically a DL or state ID does prove citizenship. It happened to a member of this forum.A agent harassed him on the train saying his drivers license and school ID were quote "useless documents".


----------



## sunchaser (Jul 9, 2010)

Edgefan said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > Edgefan said:
> ...


I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to pick a fight. I misread your post, & assumed yours was the only ones there. I can see how if they were alone they might be suspicious, but to go through a pile of luggage like that-I think that's kinda crazy. They must have been looking for something. I totally agree I would like to be present too if someone is checking our luggage- & too will not go into my reasons either. I was not inferring that you or your family were doing anything wrong. Last October, on the CZ #5, there was two people who got off the train at our stop in SLC & fired up their pipe & informed me they had a prescription for it, & even offered it to me as I walked by!!!


----------



## Edgefan (Jul 9, 2010)

> I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to pick a fight. I misread your post, & assumed yours was the only ones there. I can see how if they were alone they might be suspicious, but to go through a pile of luggage like that-I think that's kinda crazy. They must have been looking for something. I totally agree I would like to be present too if someone is checking our luggage- & too will not go into my reasons either. I was not inferring that you or your family were doing anything wrong. Last October, on the CZ #5, there was two people who got off the train at our stop in SLC & fired up their pipe & informed me they had a prescription for it, & even offered it to me as I walked by!!!


Not a problem Sunchaser, no offense taken! I just felt a little clarification was needed. My father worked so hard to become a citizen of this country and taught his children the beauty of the documents that carved out this wonderous place of ours. We should all re-read them and embrace them.


----------



## tp49 (Jul 9, 2010)

Edgefan said:


> I really am not trying to fan the flames of this thread but some more background to answer some of your questions Sunchaser;
> 
> My wife and I boarded the California Zephyr in Sacramento on May 3rd of this year. Our destination of Mt. Pleasant does not have checked baggage. Anyone who boarded in Sacramento found the luggage racks in our sleeper packed beyond capacity. Therefore all sleeper passengers who had luggage were directed to put them in the un-occupied H-room. My wife and I waited for all passengers boarding to go first. I find life much easier to be patient. When I placed our bags in the H-room, it was VERY full. Also, we have the Amtrak paper tags, our Select luggage tags from the last few years as well as our own personal luggage tags. We are identified no less than five times per bag! We had everything we needed for the two day trip in our "room" bag, so there was no need to even think about our bags in the H-room. I have pictures of the procedings from what I saw on the platform and later from our sleeper room window when they were calling it a day. I am subject to random drug testing from my present employer. I would never risk the welfare of my family, so ingesting illegal substances are out of the question. That being said, I still want to be present if my property is searched. I have my reasons that I won't go into here. And lastly, my Iowa drivers license has all the information needed to prove my citizenship. My name and birthdate gives them all they really could need. But the kicker is the magnetic strip found on the back of my license. All they have to do is swipe it and there is more info there than even I am aware of! Peace!


I can explain to you why the bags were searched. This is based on the case files I have read where people transporting narcotics were arrested in similar sweeps on Amtrak, I also have read a few files where people were caught transporting drugs on Greyhound as well. Even if the bags have tags on them with your name and address because they are not with you, meaning with your person or in your presence. Here as you presented the fact that the luggage was located in the "H" room and not in your room which to them (and they would act similarly if the bag was located in the lower level rack not just the "H" room) means the bag is unattended.

Now, I totally understand why you would want to be present if your property is searched. That said, if the agent had a manifest they should have located you, asked you if that was your luggage and asked for consent to search. Even without a manifest they still should have asked the people in the car if they had luggage down in the "H" room and if so which bags belonged to them and ask for consent to search. It makes for better public relations.

For clarification, when the sweep was conducted did the agents come to the upper level of the car and start ask questions of any of the passengers there? It was not stated in your original post and gives me more room to better analyze the actions of the agents.


----------



## tp49 (Jul 9, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> But do the agents walk around with with a scanner to swipe it in? I guess we all might as well carry our birth certificate with us sense technically a DL or state ID does prove citizenship. It happened to a member of this forum.A agent harassed him on the train saying his drivers license and school ID were quote "useless documents".


That's because outside of the enhanced driver's license, a state issued driver's license is not sufficient to prove that someone who is not already a citizen is in the United States legally (the expired visa problem). A university ID is a completely useless document to prove legal presence in the United States.

Now to make this crystal clear, if a person is a non-citizen (in the US on a visa or have a green card) you are required to carry proof of legal presence in the United States on your person at all times (your visa or green card). Some people carry photocopies of their visas which can be acceptable as well. Once that person is a United States citizen they are no longer required to carry proof of legal presence.


----------



## Edgefan (Jul 9, 2010)

tp49 said:


> Edgefan said:
> 
> 
> > I really am not trying to fan the flames of this thread but some more background to answer some of your questions Sunchaser;
> ...


Permission was not asked of anyone in our vicinity. My wife and I were in Bedroom D car 631. We walked to the head end of the train to snap a couple pictures of the power as well as the goings on on the platform once we realized the amount of police presence. We counted no less than 6 uniformed, one dog, (german shepard) and several plainclothes officers. Not sure how many plainclothes were actually part of the operation as there were many passengers on the platform as well. Once back inside the train, I was passed by a uniformed officer. I greeted him, he seemed pre-occupied and didn't speak.


----------



## jis (Jul 9, 2010)

tp49 said:


> Now to make this crystal clear, if a person is a non-citizen (in the US on a visa or have a green card) you are required to carry proof of legal presence in the United States on your person at all times (your visa or green card). Some people carry photocopies of their visas which can be acceptable as well. Once that person is a United States citizen they are no longer required to carry proof of legal presence.


A Visa is a document that is used to cross the border. Technically, it by itself does not prove legality or lack thereof, of presence in the US. What you need is an I-94 or equivalent or a stamp in the passport showing when your current status in the US expires. It is possible for your Visa to expire and yet your Status to be legal in the US.

In my student days this used to happen all the time, since often the US Consulate in India would issue a one year visa, but at the US point of entry (typically JFK in my case)the border agent would look at the I-20 which lists the length of the study program, and then issue a what was then called "Duration of Status" I-94 with an expiry date 4 years out, since that was the program length specified in the I-20. So once you have that, unless you need to leave the US and re-enter, you did not need to get a new Visa stamped and could just use the I-94 to establish your legality in the US.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 9, 2010)

That's amazing. Without a warrant or probable cause, they should not be tearing your luggage apart. So much for the 4th amendment. I am sure they will claim that the dog smelled something, or that the bag was unattended, which it clearly wasn't - if they actually spoke to the SCA, they would realize this. The Constitution is all a technicality to them. If they get a hit, the agents meet their quota and Amtrak gets a retrieval bonus. It's the law-abiding, fare paying passengers that have to pay the price for these privacy invasions. I wonder if the Border Patrol agents also get a bonus in the upstate NY sector. Dumster diving for immigrants on the LSL surely must boost their numbers. Much easier than trolling through the deserts of Arizona where thousands of illegals stream in every year.


----------



## dlagrua (Jul 9, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> That's amazing. Without a warrant or probable cause, they should not be tearing your luggage apart. So much for the 4th amendment. I am sure they will claim that the dog smelled something, or that the bag was unattended, which it clearly wasn't - if they actually spoke to the SCA, they would realize this. The Constitution is all a technicality to them. If they get a hit, the agents meet their quota and Amtrak gets a retrieval bonus. It's the law-abiding, fare paying passengers that have to pay the price for these privacy invasions. I wonder if the Border Patrol agents also get a bonus in the upstate NY sector. Dumster diving for immigrants on the LSL surely must boost their numbers. Much easier than trolling through the deserts of Arizona where thousands of illegals stream in every year.



The next step is when we will be required to say "Zeig Heil" when the stormtroopers come aboard to search us and I tell you that if it keeps going like this we are on our way to complete tyranny. Ben Franklin once said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". We are on our way to a police state folks.


----------



## leemell (Jul 9, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Choo Choo said:
> 
> 
> > That's amazing. Without a warrant or probable cause, they should not be tearing your luggage apart. So much for the 4th amendment. I am sure they will claim that the dog smelled something, or that the bag was unattended, which it clearly wasn't - if they actually spoke to the SCA, they would realize this. The Constitution is all a technicality to them. If they get a hit, the agents meet their quota and Amtrak gets a retrieval bonus. It's the law-abiding, fare paying passengers that have to pay the price for these privacy invasions. I wonder if the Border Patrol agents also get a bonus in the upstate NY sector. Dumster diving for immigrants on the LSL surely must boost their numbers. Much easier than trolling through the deserts of Arizona where thousands of illegals stream in every year.
> ...


That's "Sieg heil". ;-)


----------



## tp49 (Jul 10, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> That's amazing. Without a warrant or probable cause, they should not be tearing your luggage apart. So much for the 4th amendment. I am sure they will claim that the dog smelled something, or that the bag was unattended, which it clearly wasn't - if they actually spoke to the SCA, they would realize this. The Constitution is all a technicality to them. If they get a hit, the agents meet their quota and Amtrak gets a retrieval bonus. It's the law-abiding, fare paying passengers that have to pay the price for these privacy invasions. I wonder if the Border Patrol agents also get a bonus in the upstate NY sector. Dumster diving for immigrants on the LSL surely must boost their numbers. Much easier than trolling through the deserts of Arizona where thousands of illegals stream in every year.


As I said before in this thread you seriously need to read 4th Amendment jurisprudence because you couldn't be further from reality with statements like this.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 10, 2010)

tp49 said:


> Choo Choo said:
> 
> 
> > That's amazing. Without a warrant or probable cause, they should not be tearing your luggage apart. So much for the 4th amendment. I am sure they will claim that the dog smelled something, or that the bag was unattended, which it clearly wasn't - if they actually spoke to the SCA, they would realize this. The Constitution is all a technicality to them. If they get a hit, the agents meet their quota and Amtrak gets a retrieval bonus. It's the law-abiding, fare paying passengers that have to pay the price for these privacy invasions. I wonder if the Border Patrol agents also get a bonus in the upstate NY sector. Dumster diving for immigrants on the LSL surely must boost their numbers. Much easier than trolling through the deserts of Arizona where thousands of illegals stream in every year.
> ...


I agree completely, but humbly suggest that you follow the advice in your signature.  It's much easier to cling to what folks imagine is in the Constitution than it is to learn about what it actually means and how its applied.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 10, 2010)

Ryan said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > Choo Choo said:
> ...


Don't take my word for it. Get a lawyer and ask the courts whether it is okay for someone to rummage through your belongings without your consent or probable cause. My guess is that it probably isn't, but law abiding citizens never challenge it, so the nonsense just goes on.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 10, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > tp49 said:
> ...


You just got advice from a lawyer; and I'd say it's a very safe bet that tp49 wouldn't take your case.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 10, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Choo Choo said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


Wrong. If they want to search your bag, they need to ask you first. If you refuse, they can deny you boarding, but they still have to ask. Give me a break, people. You don't have to go to law school to know this stuff. Pretty basic. If I came back to my sleeper and my bag was torn apart and there was no warrant, no consent, no excited dog, and the bags were properly labeled with my identfication, there would be a lawsuit filed in the nearest federal district court.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 10, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Choo Choo said:
> ...


Which part of "you just got told by a lawyer well versed in this area that your understanding of the 4th amendment is flawed" did you not understand?

As for searches on board trains; according to Amtrak's terms of carriage, if you refuse an inspection while on board, they can and most likely will leave you standing at the nearest station. Most likely you'll also be standing with those agents that you refused to allow to search your bags. When you buy a ticket on Amtrak, you are agreeing to these terms.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 10, 2010)

I am sorry, but that lawyer is clearly wrong. Refusing a search and being detrained is one thing, having your bags rummaged through without your permission as had happened to OP is clearly another.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 10, 2010)

You're absolutely right that they're two different things.

And they're both legal, which is why someone's complaining about it on the internet instead of actually doing something about it.


----------



## tp49 (Jul 10, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> Wrong. If they want to search your bag, they need to ask you first. If you refuse, they can deny you boarding, but they still have to ask. Give me a break, people. You don't have to go to law school to know this stuff. Pretty basic. If I came back to my sleeper and my bag was torn apart and there was no warrant, no consent, no excited dog, and the bags were properly labeled with my identfication, there would be a lawsuit filed in the nearest federal district court.


...and according to the person who posted that story the bags searched were not located in his sleeper but in fact in the lower level "H" room. Thus that lawsuit would not survive the first motion to dismiss.



Ryan said:


> I agree completely, but humbly suggest that you follow the advice in your signature.  It's much easier to cling to what folks imagine is in the Constitution than it is to learn about what it actually means and how its applied.


Yes, you're right I think I will follow that advice sage as it is.


----------



## jis (Jul 10, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> I am sorry, but that lawyer is clearly wrong. Refusing a search and being detrained is one thing, having your bags rummaged through without your permission as had happened to OP is clearly another.


And you basis for that claim of the lawyer being wrong is exactly what? Strong feelings on the matter? Or would you have some case law to cite?


----------



## leemell (Jul 10, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> I am sorry, but that lawyer is clearly wrong. Refusing a search and being detrained is one thing, having your bags rummaged through without your permission as had happened to OP is clearly another.


SEARCH AND SEIZURE: A GUIDE TO RULES, REQUIREMENTS, TESTS, DOCTRINES, AND EXCEPTIONS:

Moving Vehicle/Probable Cause Doctrine--an automobile, truck, van, motorhome, boat, airplane or other movable object can be searched IF there is (a) probable cause (b) the vehicle is moving or about to be moved, and © a warrant cannot be readily obtained. Every part of the vehicle can be searched, including closed containers in the trunk, although special justification is needed for trunks. Diminished expectations of privacy are assumed to exist with moving vehicles. Probable cause can be easily established via police dogs, who have a sense of smell six million times greater than that of a human.


----------



## PerRock (Jul 10, 2010)

leemell said:


> Choo Choo said:
> 
> 
> > I am sorry, but that lawyer is clearly wrong. Refusing a search and being detrained is one thing, having your bags rummaged through without your permission as had happened to OP is clearly another.
> ...


Where is this quote from? Is it a state's law, Amtrak policy, something you just made up?

peter


----------



## Border Line Case (Jul 10, 2010)

I was once questioned by some DC cops in Washington Union Station while they were changing engines for the trip into Virginia. The identified themselves and showed their badges and asked me if the bag in the overhead rack was mine. When I answered, they left me alone.

As far as the "internal checkpoints," I was once stopped on on while driving I-91 in Vermont, where they had a temporary one that caused a hell of a backup. The agent just asked me my nationality and when I said US, he waved me on. The whole thing seemed stupid, if I were escorting people who were in the country illegally, I would have just gotten off the Interstate at a previous exit and bypassed the circus using the numerous local roads in the area. They also have them down in Texas near the border, again, for the most part, they just wave me through after I speak to them in English with an American accent. I don't know if they hassle the local Mexican-Americans, though (in the areas near the border ~70% of the population is Mexican Americans who have been Americans since Texas became a state). But then, at least half the Border Patrol and ICE agents down there are Mexican American. As for people in cars with Mexican tags, I don't even want to know, though I guess these people have just passed though the Port of Entry, so they must have their paperwork at hand.

I should say that *usually* they wave me through, occasionally, they have asked me what I consider impertinent questions that have nothing to do with whether I have a legal right to be in the country. My guess is that they're suspicious of drug smuggling. Of course, I am totally polite to their impertinence and answer their questions truthfully and briefly, telling them no more than what is necessary to answer the question. I suspect if they think you have an "attitude" they'll give you a problem. While I think that most LE are professionals, I also think they are given too much power and their management has not set up any systematic controls on their behavior (like having internal affairs agents pass through checkpoints behaving "suspiciously" to see how the agents react.)


----------



## leemell (Jul 10, 2010)

PerRock said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > Choo Choo said:
> ...


Ferdico, J. (2009). Criminal procedure for the criminal justice professional


----------



## GoldenSpike (Jul 11, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> Of course, one of the draws of train travel is that it is more relaxed/laid back compared to the airports. Sadly, I no longer believe this to be the case.
> 
> A few examples:
> 
> ...


Amtrak turning into a KGB Express?

In '96 I flew into Moscow on a day Chechen terrorists blew up a few city buses in the downtown area; stayed there for four days getting around on their subways before traveling 7 days to Vladivostok on the Trans-Siberian Express; walked up and down the piers taking pictures of their warships; and flew back to Seattle from there on Alaska Airlines.

In all that time I was never stopped to check my status, subjected to questions, unannouced searches, etc. Only once did they ask to look at my luggage - pre-boarding security for my flight. Xraying my carry-on they saw a bike chain lock and politely asked me to open it so they could verify what it is.


----------



## GoldenSpike (Jul 11, 2010)

rtabern said:


> In all of my Amtrak journeys... I haven't seen Amtrak Police, TSA, DEA, etc. do anything that I would consider out of line.


Same here.

Passing through Havre MT on the EB many times, the Border Patrol has been very visible but low-key. Only a few times did

I see them make a sweep of the train.

Same on the CZ at the smoke-stop in Grand Junction CO. Well-armed and wearing Dept. of Homeland Security t-shirts,

about eight agents and two bomb dogs were there for our arrival. Talking to one of them, he said they are based out of Texas

and travel around the adjoing states to make random sweeps.

Same in DC. As a sleeper pax pre-boarding, we were let out of the lounge into a outside fenced area where a dog and officers

were waiting wth a long table set up.

Nothing was said as we stood around for several minuties. Obviously they just wanted to see if the dog got an alert and then we

were allowed to board.


----------



## GoldenSpike (Jul 11, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Ispolkom said:
> 
> 
> > What I don't understand about the ICE (or whatever the Border Patrol is now called) searches is this: I never carry proof of my citizenship. Who does? A regular driver's license certainly is no such proof. How can the officer determine my citizenship? My reading material? My taste in music? My dress? My accent? My skin color?
> ...


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 11, 2010)

In all the amtrak trains I been on I have yet to be searched or questioned. I have yet to be woken up in the middle of the night by a person with a AK-47 in my face wanting to play a game of 20 questions.I have witnessed on the SWC in may of 08 a guy being questioned and luggage looked through on the train. He was Arab looking.I have seen what looked like a boarder guy just do a walk through on the LSL on the way up to the Boston gathering but not on the way back. I was however asked on greyhound back in 07 coming back from Arizona. I think it was in ABQ. The guy had a badge attached to his pant leg. Just asked a few questions and that was it. No guns drawn or luggage searched he talked to everyone on the bus. We did however have to empty our pockets and show the waste of our pants before re-boarding greyhound after the service stop to make sure we didn't have any weapons hidden.However I think I will carry a copy of my birth certificate with me from now on just in case my luck runs out and I get woken up by Yosemite Sam and his cosines.


----------



## jis (Jul 11, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> However I think I will carry a copy of my birth certificate with me from now on just in case my luck runs out and I get woken up by Yosemite Sam and his cosines.


I don't think you really need to worry at all. Your skin and hair color and your manner of speaking English makes you relatively safe from being harassed in the current context. I consider even myself, who is brown skinned and black haired to be relatively safe from being unduly harassed because of my demeanor and the way I speak.

However, I as a matter of habit, ever since I left my country of birth for the first foreign trip, always carry my proof of citizenship with me. But that odd habit predates any of this hoo-haa, and it is just my craziness. That habit proved to be quite useful a couple of times, once in Paris in the north inner suburb of Porte de Clignancourt, a heavily immigrant population area, where the French police asked for my "papers". The other time was in Finland near the Russian border, and the last time was in Moscow at Kiyevskii Voxall (Kiyevski Station). The last one was after some terrorist attack in Russia when they were asking for Ids of everyone entering the train station just as an immediate reaction to the incident. Incidentally taking photos of things was never a matter that excited anyone in Russia. All three were involving railfanning. Heck I have had to show my papers more often traveling in restricted northern frontier areas of India than anywhere else so far.

People who talk about "KGB Express" in the US I suspect have not traveled too far and wide in the world, let alone in Federation of Russia or the Soviet Union.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 11, 2010)

leemell said:


> PerRock said:
> 
> 
> > leemell said:
> ...


Exactly. Your quote proves exactly what I was trying to point out. The guy that had his luggage rummaged through in bedroom H, where was the probable cause? Even in a moving vehicle, you still need probable cause. Did a dog tip the officer to the bag? If so, the search would have been proper.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 11, 2010)

Dogs aren't the only way that probably cause can be established.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2010)

Sounds like its a good thing I still have my Geneva Convention card form my days in the Army. I also remember having to show my ID just to eat in my normal mess hall.


----------



## Chris J. (Jul 12, 2010)

daxomni said:


> TVRM610 said:
> 
> 
> > But of course.. what were they looking for? Would you rather have a flashlight shined in your eye or the train blow up when it gets to WAS. I know thats most likely not what they were looking for but either way... the CL does go through some big cities, anything is possible.
> ...


"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 12, 2010)

"Dogs aren't the only way that probably cause can be established."

And what perchance could that be? I believe the law abiding guy said he was traveling with his family, and was directed by the SCA to put his baggage (which was clearly labeled, by the way) in the H room. Unless a dog went crazy or some other type of sensor was set off, I really see no basis for probable cause to assume that this guy was engaged in some sort of crime. At the very least, they could have easily tracked this guy down and asked for his consent, as I am sure he would have complied.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 12, 2010)

With all due respect, I believe it is your understanding of the 4th amendment that may be flawed. As I understand it, the vehicle/train/moving conveyance exception to the 4th amendment that you cited above, enables an officer to search without a warrant, but they still need probable cause. From what we were told, that was clearly lacking in this case.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 12, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> With all due respect, I believe it is your understanding of the 4th amendment that may be flawed. As I understand it, the vehicle/train/moving conveyance exception to the 4th amendment that you cited above, enables an officer to search without a warrant, but they still need probable cause.


I never claimed otherwise.


> From what we were told, that was clearly lacking in this case.


Every story has two sides, we're only getting half the picture here. It'd be the height of foolishness to speculate on why the officer conducted the search without their side of the story.


----------



## GoldenSpike (Jul 12, 2010)

Guest said:


> ....My problem with security hysteria ("they"are going to take us over!)is best illustrated by the so called Arizona Immigration law, the idiotic Governor and her political stooges have been claiming that they would not be doing profileing, that you could tell "illegals" by their shoes, how they dressed etc.


Though you confirm you are woefully clueless of the problems in AZ, please cite your sources if you're going to make a silly comment about how they intend to profile.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 12, 2010)

Rather than sling insults, spend 5 seconds with the search engine of your choice and see what Rep. Bilbray has to say about how he thinks that they should profile.


----------



## mercedeslove (Jul 12, 2010)

Ryan said:


> Rather than sling insults, spend 5 seconds with the search engine of your choice and see what Rep. Bilbray has to say about how he thinks that they should profile.



His theory about clothing is right. Maybe it's because I am female, but I can tell if someone is not from here by their clothes. Simply by the brands. It's very common with those from Europe. They have brands I have never seen before. Like I said this might be because I am a girl, but yeah its easy to identify someone by their clothes/style.

Also I 100% support the AZ law and hope that more states follow soon.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 12, 2010)

His theory on clothes is ridiculous bunk, we're not worried about anyone coming over here illegally from Europe, and being "not from here" is meaningless in determining legal status. The AZ law is wildly unconstitutional and is going to get utterly destroyed in court.


----------



## CNW (Jul 13, 2010)

Not too long ago the CBS nightly news did a story on the number of countries all over the world who make no apologies for "profiling". Didn't even consider it to be a bad thing at all. Interesting!


----------



## dlagrua (Jul 13, 2010)

CNW said:


> Not too long ago the CBS nightly news did a story on the number of countries all over the world who make no apologies for "profiling". Didn't even consider it to be a bad thing at all. Interesting!


We need to wake up and use common sense. For instance do we see Italian Americans, Jews and Blacks planning or committing acts of terrror on our nations transportation system or is it perhaps another group? If you disagree with this statement give me examples of where I am wrong. Nothing wrong with targeting a group whos religious book justifies and promotes violence in the name of their faith. These people do not conduct themselves according to the Judeochristian ethic.


----------



## Trogdor (Jul 13, 2010)

dlagrua, you are obviously ignorant about certain faiths.

As for racial profiling, please research:

Unabomber

Oklahoma City Bomber

Centennial Park (Atlanta 1996 Olympics) bomber

Army of God

Hutaree

That's just what I could think of in a minute or so.


----------



## Donctor (Jul 13, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> CNW said:
> 
> 
> > Not too long ago the CBS nightly news did a story on the number of countries all over the world who make no apologies for "profiling". Didn't even consider it to be a bad thing at all. Interesting!
> ...


I don't conduct myself according to Judeo-Christian ethics. Last time I checked, that didn't make me a terrorist.

You consider it to be "common sense." Many others would classify it as ignorance and discrimination.

Edit: I had more to say.


----------



## MrFSS (Jul 13, 2010)

Donctor said:


> I don't conduct myself according to Judeo-Christian ethics. Last time I checked, that didn't make me a terrorist.


What ethical system do you conduct yourself with, then?


----------



## Ryan (Jul 13, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> Nothing wrong with targeting a group whos religious book justifies and promotes violence in the name of their faith.


You should read your Bible some more then, there's some pretty gnarly stuff in there too. I guess that means that you're OK being profiled (I'm assuming that you're Christian)?


----------



## leemell (Jul 13, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> However I think I will carry a copy of my birth certificate with me from now on just in case my luck runs out and I get woken up by Yosemite Sam and his cosines.


What about Yosemite Sams tangents and secants? :giggle:


----------



## leemell (Jul 13, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> "Dogs aren't the only way that probably cause can be established."
> 
> And what perchance could that be? I believe the law abiding guy said he was traveling with his family, and was directed by the SCA to put his baggage (which was clearly labeled, by the way) in the H room. Unless a dog went crazy or some other type of sensor was set off, I really see no basis for probable cause to assume that this guy was engaged in some sort of crime. At the very least, they could have easily tracked this guy down and asked for his consent, as I am sure he would have complied.


Probable cause is not required in this case, tp49 hit it right on the head:

"I can explain to you why the bags were searched. This is based on the case files I have read where people transporting narcotics were arrested in similar sweeps on Amtrak, I also have read a few files where people were caught transporting drugs on Greyhound as well. *Even if the bags have tags on them with your name and address because they are not with you, meaning with your person or in your presence.* Here as you presented the fact that the luggage was located in the "H" room and not in your room which to them (and they would act similarly if the bag was located in the lower level rack not just the "H" room) means *the bag is unattended."*

US Supreme Court held in California v. Greenwood (1988): "Quoting Katz v. United States, the court concluded that "[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection."


----------



## mercedeslove (Jul 13, 2010)

Trogdor said:


> dlagrua, you are obviously ignorant about certain faiths.
> 
> As for racial profiling, please research:
> 
> ...



Ugh both The Army of God and the Hutaree make me sick Esp. Army of God. I don't know who I hate more them or those against Gay marriage. It's a hard choice because both have similar and disgusting bigoted views.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Jul 13, 2010)

MrFSS said:


> Donctor said:
> 
> 
> > I don't conduct myself according to Judeo-Christian ethics. Last time I checked, that didn't make me a terrorist.
> ...


Nihilism?

Though one could argue Nihilism is the natural antithesis of the Judeo-Christian ethical system meaning it is an inherent part of said system.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 14, 2010)

Please, lets try to keep this on topic and not venture off into non-train areas and issues.

Thank!


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 14, 2010)

So, instead of wandering off into political and religious battlefields, how about using this thread to document "excessive" Border Patrol searches? I would be interested in the frequency of such searches.

I have travelled to ABQ, SAV, DAL, CHI, LAX and even SAN and have yet to experience cops interrogating/questioning/searching anyone. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen - I know it does. But is the intensity and frequency so bad to leave such a horrible experience on one's mind?

Incidently, the only situation that I'm closest to was when I sent my daughter to VA. Some drunk woman got kicked off the train to an awaiting police cruiser. My kid's first trip. Why don't I get to experience that kind of action? I'm kinda jealous....


----------



## caravanman (Jul 14, 2010)

While on our recent visit to USA, we were aboard the Lake Shore Limited, travelling from Chicago to New York. At Depew, I stepped off the train for a little fresh air. My 16 year old son was asleep in the coach window seat. Several guys in boiler suits boarded the train, and a few minutes later one appeared with my son. He had been woken abruptly, was groggy from his sleep, and had no luck finding his passport. I intervened and matters were resolved.

It is more the attitude of intimidation towards the train passengers that is upsetting to us as visitors, one got the sour taste of living under suspicion, in a police state, not in the land of the free...

"Protect and Serve" sounds good, "Bully and Menace" not so good!

Ed


----------



## MrFSS (Jul 14, 2010)

Since I have never experienced any of this, what specific questions do they ask folks when they board the train? Does every passenger have to show some ID? Are they knocking on sleeping room doors and waking those folks up? Just curious. Thanks!!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 14, 2010)

Ryan said:


> His theory on clothes is ridiculous bunk, we're not worried about anyone coming over here illegally from Europe, and being "not from here" is meaningless in determining legal status. The AZ law is wildly unconstitutional and is going to get utterly destroyed in court.


From what I understand the same lawyer who helped write AZ's anti-immigrant law has helped other localities write similar laws, and they eventually got stuck with an unenforceable law and lots of expensive legal bills they could scarcely afford. I'm not against enforcing the law, I'm against the way AZ did it. Racial profiling is no good in the land of the free, at least in my view it's not. Neither is promotion of frivolous lawsuits against the authorities, which was also contained in the AZ law. Sure, they did some last minute cleanup to try and pacify the detractors, but I'm still not convinced it will be handled in a moral or ethical manner.


----------



## MattW (Jul 14, 2010)

Where does the AZ law call for racial profiling? Nowhere in the text of the law do I see anything about using race, in fact, it explicitly says that race shall not be used as a determining factor. Last I checked,illegal was not a race. If Mexicans happen to make up the majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona, then don't complain to Arizona, complain to the illegals, or Mexico, or CBP for being too lazy to properly secure the border!


----------



## Ryan (Jul 14, 2010)

MattW said:


> Where does the AZ law call for racial profiling? Nowhere in the text of the law do I see anything about using race, in fact, it explicitly says that race shall not be used as a determining factor. Last I checked,illegal was not a race. If Mexicans happen to make up the majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona, then don't complain to Arizona, complain to the illegals, or Mexico, or CBP for being too lazy to properly secure the border!





AlanB said:


> Please, lets try to keep this on topic and not venture off into non-train areas and issues.
> 
> Thank!


If you're truly interested in an answer, do some reading on how suspicion of being in this country illegally is going to be developed (and the issues with each of them).


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jul 14, 2010)

MrFSS said:


> Since I have never experienced any of this, what specific questions do they ask folks when they board the train? Does every passenger have to show some ID? Are they knocking on sleeping room doors and waking those folks up? Just curious. Thanks!!


Getting back on track hopefully: Good questions Tom! Living in the SW close to the border as I do, frequent sightings of DEA/Border Patrol and other law enforcement and military seconded to Border affairs is common. Ive also been on most of the LD trains in this country and my experience is as follows: IT DEPENDS! :blink:

Some of the checkpoint/sweep members are proffesional and even friendly, ALL of the dogs are scarey! (They even announce in thetrain station announcements:"Please do not attempt to pet the dogs!")Of course I am an Anglo, have a Texas accent and have never been asked for ID except when crossing into the US from foriegn nations.( includes Canada and Mexico)

The usual question is :" What country are you a citizen of?" If you say US they say have a good day or something similar and you move on!For those that answer something else, they are either asked to "show your papers" or come inside for farther interrigation!

Most of these people DO NOT have a sense of humour, so it's best not to joke around or make flip comments, just answer what you are asked, show your ID if requested and let them move on! It's guaranteed if you develop an attitude that they can make things very unpleasant and complicated for anyone! If someone treats you poorly ask for their name/badge number(they usualkly wear name tags) and/or their supervisor in a polite and calm manner and report your concerns! Confortation with law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties is not a good idea, as the old saying goes: "we have ways to make you talk!" As others have said: they DO have the right to search your bags,question you etc. on any public convience (train/plane/bus etc.) or in any station/terminal/airport etc. Just like in "Pulp Fiction", the best policy is to "Be cool.." I do not like attitudes and bullying by any government official but in my experience these are the exception rather than the rule, I still feel lots better on a train than any airport, driving through a road checkpoint or crossing a border! As the commercial says:"your mileage may vary."


----------



## AlanB (Jul 14, 2010)

Tom,

In all my travels I've seen the border patrol board the LSL several times, seems like it's a daily occurance there. I've also seen them in El Paso, along with DEA agents, although it seemed like there were more agents on the ground than on the train.

In the case of the LSL, I've yet to see them walk through the sleepers, they only seem to search/question the coach passengers.


----------



## MrFSS (Jul 14, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Tom,
> 
> In all my travels I've seen the border patrol board the LSL several times, seems like it's a daily occurance there. I've also seen them in El Paso, along with DEA agents, although it seemed like there were more agents on the ground than on the train.
> 
> In the case of the LSL, I've yet to see them walk through the sleepers, they only seem to search/question the coach passengers.


Probably why I've never seen them, then. I'm always in the sleeper!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 14, 2010)

That's so funny that only the coach pax are routinely questioned. Seems extremely easy to avoid the reach of the law just by getting a sleeper. But then, that's what some of us are talking about when we call this type of response "Security Theater." It also explains why I haven't noticed much of this on my own trains despite them heading through checkpoints near Acuña and Juárez.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 14, 2010)

"just answer what you are asked, show your ID if requested and let them move on! It's guaranteed if you develop an attitude that they can make things very unpleasant and complicated for anyone!"

No! How am I developing an "attitude" by not answering their stupid questions? They are the ones bothering me. I am merely sitting by myself minding my own business. Don't shine a flashnight in my face, and don't ask me questions as to where I am going/who I am seeing - it's none of your damn business!


----------



## CNW (Jul 14, 2010)

Alot of it boils down to how much a person wants to let it spoil his or her trip. Personally I would comply with the requests and give it no more thought and continue to enjoy my travels. However we all pick our battles and if this is the one you have picked that is your perogative. Good Luck.


----------



## haolerider (Jul 14, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> "just answer what you are asked, show your ID if requested and let them move on! It's guaranteed if you develop an attitude that they can make things very unpleasant and complicated for anyone!"
> 
> No! How am I developing an "attitude" by not answering their stupid questions? They are the ones bothering me. I am merely sitting by myself minding my own business. Don't shine a flashnight in my face, and don't ask me questions as to where I am going/who I am seeing - it's none of your damn business!


You seem to be fixated on the "don't shine a flashlight in my face" issue. Actually, if the people doing the questioning are charged with doing a specific job and part of that includes wanting to know where people are going and what they are doing it is their business - in fact it is their job! As I have said before with 25M + riding Amtrak, I imagine the incidence of this kind of questioning is very small - in fact probably statisticly insignificant. It bothers you and that is your business; however I think your trip would be more pleasant if you didn't make such a big deal about this. Relax and enjoy the journey!


----------



## JayPea (Jul 14, 2010)

I'd think it would be much simpler just to answer questions and go on. I don't think it's worth the battle. And no I'm not giving up my precious freedom if I answer questions. That said, I've never seen DEA on the trains I've been on. The worst hassle I ever had was at the Canadian border---by an American border agent. I'd driven from my home---about 3 1/2 hours from the border---into Canada, with no problems, did a little sight-seeing, and went back the same day. Problem was trying to get back into the US. The young gal at the border was incredibly rude and incredibly nasty. I don't believe in being confrontational to authorities, so even though she didn't appear to believe one thing I said, and was very confrontational herself, it was a one-way confrontation, as I bit my tongue and answered questions. She then demanded to search my trunk, which I allowed her to do, and then demanded to search my fishing tackle box, which I also allowed her to do. Guess what it held???? Fishing tackle! Among that tackle were fishooks, which I keep in a neat snarl within my box. A handful of fishhooks, while making her madder than ever, also put an end to the interrogation. :lol:


----------



## leemell (Jul 14, 2010)

jimhudson said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > Since I have never experienced any of this, what specific questions do they ask folks when they board the train? Does every passenger have to show some ID? Are they knocking on sleeping room doors and waking those folks up? Just curious. Thanks!!
> ...


Perfect summary.


----------



## leemell (Jul 14, 2010)

haolerider said:


> Choo Choo said:
> 
> 
> > "just answer what you are asked, show your ID if requested and let them move on! It's guaranteed if you develop an attitude that they can make things very unpleasant and complicated for anyone!"
> ...


If it is Border Patrol and within 100 miles of the border, they also have the right to ask any of those questions.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 14, 2010)

leemell said:


> haolerider said:
> 
> 
> > Choo Choo said:
> ...


Yeah, and I also have the right not to answer any of them.


----------



## tp49 (Jul 14, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > haolerider said:
> ...


and then they have the right to detain you. Do you really wish to continue with this foolishness?


----------



## leemell (Jul 14, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > haolerider said:
> ...


The Border essentially exists within 100 miles of the actual physical Border between countries. Within that space, Border Patrol officers are allow to stop and question individuals without needing a reason. You are legally obligated to answer questions about citizenship, and can be detained if you refuse. "...questioning about immigration status, in the absence of a seizure, does not require reasonable suspicion of alienage.” "Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 731. See also Cuevas-Ortega v. INS, 588 F.2d 1274 (9th Cir. 1979); Cordon de Ruano v. INS, 588 F.2d 1274 (9th Cir. 1977)."

That is both the obligation of questionee and limitation on the questioner.


----------



## Choo Choo (Jul 14, 2010)

leemell said:


> Choo Choo said:
> 
> 
> > leemell said:
> ...


You can be detained. "Can" is the operative word. YOU STILL NEED REASONABLE SUSPICION TO TEMPORARILY DETAIN SOMEONE. If you are going to detain someone indefinitely beyoung a reasonable time limit, you better have probable cause to suspect I am an illegal. The simple act of me refusing to talk to you hardly rises to that level. You can ask me all the questions in the world till the cows come home, but no law or judicial edict mandates that I talk to you.

"An immigration officer, like any other person, has the right to ask questions as long as the immigration officer does not restrain the freedom of an individual, not under arrest, to walk away."

United States v. Rodriguez-Franco, 749 F.2d 1555.

Now, leave me the hell alone, and get off the train so I can go back to sleep.


----------



## rrdude (Jul 14, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > Choo Choo said:
> ...


Or slowly reach into your bag, get our your flashlight, and shine it in THEIR face......Then ask them to get the off the train and leave you alone. Amen brother, Amen.


----------



## PerRock (Jul 14, 2010)

I see two sides to this.

If I were a BPoff and came to a bedroom which I knew someone was in; knocked on the door announced myself (this is at night) a couple times; and the person did not respond. I would probably start to think that the person is avoiding me. Hence when the person finally opens the door I would probably start snapping at them.

However;

If I were a passenger on a sleeper and a BPOff came thru I'm not sure I would necessarily want to be woken up to be asked to see my papers. Personally I'd probably grumble: "Coming." And rummage around opening the door. However I also know people who would say to the selves "Bug off." (ok they'd use a different word instead of 'bug') and just roll-over and go back to sleep.

We really can't draw any conclusions as to why they shone a light in your face and demanded stuff without knowing the officer's side of the story. If you really have an issue with it you should bring it up with BP (http://www.cbp.gov); your local elected officials; Amtrak (http://www.amtrak.com); or if you feel so strongly about it hire a lawyer. Complaining on a web forum isn't really going to do much good.

On to personal experience:

I've only been bothered by from BP once; we were traveling on the EB with a friend from India (who was here on a work visa and was going from her companies Boston Office to their Portland,OR one). She spoke very good English (albeit more British English) and really didn't look to much like a tourist (she had been in the states for a couple months now). We also had in the same car a gentleman from Africa here on a tourist visa; who spoke with a thick accent and even had war scars on his face. the BP checked everyones documents but spent extra time questioning us and our friend. I believe my parents (I was still young) wrote a letter to BP about the profiling they did. Never heard back from BP.

peter


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 15, 2010)

This country was founded by people who had the guts to risk it all in order to stand up to overbearing authority figures. Today it's populated by people who would never dare to rock the boat for fear they might annoy some ignorant prick with a shiny badge. Land of the free and home of the brave? Most of the trends I'm watching point to further erosion of our freedoms combined with an ever shrinking will to defend them. Yellow bellies make for a lousy future.


----------



## CNW (Jul 15, 2010)

There seem to be a lot of "wanna be patriots" who would like to be thought of as brave and fearless for standing up to the authority of the Border Patrol and defending their liberties. Trouble is many people don't see them that way at all. These are also the folks who will scream the loudest if something happens to jeopardize their safety. The OP wants the last word, but I'm sure by now has moved on to confrontations with other entities.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 15, 2010)

CNW said:


> These are also the folks who will scream the loudest if something happens to jeopardize their safety.


Don't you just love it when people attempt to manufacture hypocrisy out of thin air? You may _want_ to believe this, your myopic world view may even _require_ you to believe this, but in reality there is no idealogical link between those who choose to defend their civil liberties in an era of social indifference and those who cry for a police state response to the inherent insecurities of living in a truly free society. You simply made it up.


----------



## CNW (Jul 15, 2010)

Its not possible for us or anyone to live in a truly free society. It just isn't possible. Like I said before we pick our battles and if this makes you feel that you are "making a difference" then that is your reality and I'll end it with that.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 15, 2010)

Just admit you made it up and we can call it a day. No unexplained philosophical retort required.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 15, 2010)

daxomni said:


> CNW said:
> 
> 
> > These are also the folks who will scream the loudest if something happens to jeopardize their safety.
> ...


The Tea Party and the rest of the extreme right called and would like to disagree with you. Purported to be the defenders of the Constitution, but only for "real Americans".


----------



## GG-1 (Jul 15, 2010)

Aloha

Seems it is time to say Count to 10, Show some Aloha, and relax. OK If there is more bickering one of us will close this thread.


----------



## leemell (Jul 15, 2010)

Choo Choo said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > Choo Choo said:
> ...



"Accordingly, we hold that the stops and questioning at issue may be made in the absence of any individualized suspicion..." U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) 428 U.S. 543

"At issue" was in part the questioning about legal residence.

"...However, the law is quite clear that agents can interrogate any person who is an alien or who the agent believes to be an alien as to his right to be or remain in the United States. A refusal to answer could be construed as an articulabel fact supporting a level of suspicion to further investigate and possibly to arrest, depending on the totality of the circumstances at hand."

Not answering the legal residence question by the Border Patrol has been ruled by the USSC as the necessary reasonable suspicion to temporarily detain.


----------



## CNW (Jul 17, 2010)

daxomni said:


> Just admit you made it up and we can call it a day. No unexplained philosophical retort required.


The postings on this topic were OPINIONS. Yours, mine, and other peoples, we all have them. When I first joined the board I didn't realize certain topics would become so political. I get enough of policical controversy from other sources. I won't get caught up in discussions of this sort again, that was my mistake. In fact it has sort of spoiled the whole forum for me although I will continue to ride AMTRAK!


----------



## JayPea (Jul 17, 2010)

CNW said:


> [ When I first joined the board I didn't realize certain topics would become so political. I get enough of policical controversy from other sources. I won't get caught up in discussions of this sort again, that was my mistake. In fact it has sort of spoiled the whole forum for me although I will continue to ride AMTRAK!



HA! A kindred spirit! I'd like to see the political discussions that have absolutely NOTHING to do with Amtrak go away. But that won't happen so the best course of action is to avoid those posts.


----------



## MrFSS (Jul 17, 2010)

JayPea said:


> CNW said:
> 
> 
> > [ When I first joined the board I didn't realize certain topics would become so political. I get enough of political controversy from other sources. I won't get caught up in discussions of this sort again, that was my mistake. In fact it has sort of spoiled the whole forum for me although I will continue to ride AMTRAK!
> ...


And, that's what I tell folks who complain about what's on TV. They have a little switch right there on the front of the set that turns it off.

We try to be as free with comments as we can until they get to the place where they are abusive. Then we turn them off.


----------



## GoldenSpike (Jul 20, 2010)

Ryan said:


> theory on clothes is ridiculous bunk, we're not worried about anyone coming over here illegally from Europe, and being "not from here" is meaningless in determining legal status. The AZ law is wildly unconstitutional and is going to get utterly destroyed in court.


 



> Ryan...theory on clothes is ridiculous bunk


Please tell that to the professionals in the immigration enforcement field that may use it as one of their tools to evaluate a situation, where Rep. Bilbray learned of it.



> …we're not worried about anyone coming over here illegally from Europe


 Why not? Guess where the Underwear Bomber flight originated from last Christmas? Hint: Amsterdam 

Check out www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2008/table34d.xls and Table 34: 

DEPORTABLE ALIENS LOCATED BY REGION AND COUNTRY OF NATIONALITY: FISCAL YEAR 2008

Europe - 2,000+ that fell under this category. Just as important are those coming from ME countries.

'Not from here' hysteria? U.S. Border Patrol website: Mexican Officials Say They Can't (or Won't) Confirm Arrest of Hezbollah Operative on Border. 

 

What horror if somebody should 'Profile' somebody of this ilk! 

Table 35 

DEPORTABLE ALIENS LOCATED BY PROGRAM AND BORDER PATROL SECTOR AND INVESTIGATIONS SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE (SAC) JURISDICTION: FISCAL YEARS 1999 to 2008

Of all the border states the Tucson sector out classes the others. Is this why AZ is getting slammed?


----------



## GoldenSpike (Jul 20, 2010)

Ryan said:


> ...The AZ law is wildly unconstitutional and is going to get utterly destroyed in court.


While I burst your misinformed bubble, we don't hear from the Anti-AZ 'Profiler Crowd,' AZ is doing what is known as *concurrent enforcement*: a person can only be guilty under state law if guilty under the federal law. 

Correctly, the Lefty clowns at the 9th Circus Court of Appeals – the most overturned court in the system got it right and has gone along with that concept. 

The final gospel according to the Top Dogs at USSC - De Canas v. Bica (1976): _States may enact legislation to discourage illegal immigration within their jurisdictions__._

Utterly unconstitutional Ryan? 

 

With their blessing AZ's SB 1070 practically is a mirror image of 8 USC's components which has been on the books since 1940: requires non-citizens to carry documents proving they are here legally. (What a novel concept!)

So, Ryan how are they going to be utterly destroyed in court?

As most know both parties have largely ignored federal law it as it relates to Mexico for obvious reasons and worsened the problems – chickens now coming home to roost: 

 Republicans: Cheap labor.

 E-Verify and Real ID is a step in preventing this.

 Democrats: Cheap votes.

 Efforts to block requirements voters present ID to verify eligibility amongst other tactics.

 Politicizing

The howls of PROFILING!!! are a Straw Man scare tactic as diversion. There are governments, politicians and radical groups that don't wish the USA success any time soon and attempt to undermine our laws and values.

If you don't already know the terms, do a Web search for _Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals_ – one of them is to attack and marginalize the messenger: '*Paging Gov. Brewer*!' (He was a friend and mentor of our current Sec. of State while she was in college and so impressed she wrote her thesis on the subject). Her boss in the White House made his living on the same principle: street agitation; and the _Cloward-Piven strategy_ (Orchestrated Crisis). Those in the biased media sharpen their teeth on this stuff with slanted news and disinformation when needed. 

Yet, in glaring contrast those yelling the loudest are essentially silent of these facts:

Poll after poll show the U.S. public by a majority support AZ in their efforts knowing Profiling is not the issue.

Florida has filed a brief along with AL, MI, NE, PA SC, SD, TX, and VA, supporting AZ's RIGHT TO MAKE ITS OWN LAWS (the central issue).

MI, SC, MN, PA, and RI have proposed similar laws as AZ.

RI in particular via Boston.com in early July: _R.I. troopers embrace firm immigration role _. 

The article points out that in nearby Massachusetts after getting a Democrat governor will only deal with illegal immigrants when incarcerated, but in RI they face deportation during the normal course of police activity. The article correctly points out LEO's are caught between politics and public safety.

Little is said of the obvious profiling at the Mexico border by the BP in their use of 'traits' and other obvious events to evaluate a subject. But, horror upon horror, if they manage to sneak past them and come into contact with police a mile down after the law passes, it is profiling and human-rights atrocities! Undermine the police.

Despite Mexico's draconian immigration laws and blatant profiling, they sing another song in the U.S. As a random example involving Arizona in 2004 with Prop 200: proof of citizenship to vote and to receive some types of welfare. After it passed the Mexican counsel-general in AZ threw a fit and was going to sue in international court for human-rights violations, etc. 

How about Mexico's Calderon? Not surprised, he is invited to speak before Congress to take part in politicizing immigration. In an unprecedented Dog and Pony Comedy Show, a foreign leader on our soil falsely scolds AZ's Contitutional rights as nothing more than profiling. Egging him on is the usual from the D party with rousing applause. 

Then with stunning audacity and hypocrisy Senor Cal is interviewed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Mexico's immigration laws. Here is the redacted interview. Understandably CNN pulled the video once it started making the rounds because it ain't pretty folks:

BLITZER: I read an article in "The Washington Times" the other day. I'm going to read a paragraph to you and you tell me if this is true or not true. This is from "The Washington Times": "Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to reenter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals." Is that true? 

CALDERON: It was true, but it is not anymore…. 

BLITZER: So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, they can just walk in? 

CALDERON: No. They need to fulfill a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedent…. 

BLITZER: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants? 

CALDERON: Of course. Of course, in the border, we are asking the people, who are you? ……..once they are inside the country, what the Mexican police do is, of course, *enforce the law*. 

BLITZER: So in other words, if somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America, through the southern border of Mexico, they wind up in Mexico, they can go get a job… 

CALDERON: No, no… 

---------

The Dog and Pony Comedy Show continues with a laugh a minute. DOJ's Holder is suing Arizona despite they are relying on the law of the land - USSC, and even though he recently revealed he had not read the AZ law. But, it is in the tradition of how Obamacare got passed by Congress.

 

Some legal scholars feel Prez O may be opening a can of Unintented Consequences with the 57 states he says we have in the country. In what appears AZ will very likely prevail, it is going to give other states who have been silent because they are intimidated by the temper tantrums on the Left, they will pile on the band wagon as some are doing now.

Other leftist groups also have hidden agendas and are in the immigration fray to undermine our laws may also regret their spoiled child mantra. Take for instance the radical La Raza and MEChA bunch infesting our country since the '60's and behind many of the organized public protest marches. Even a LA Mayor belonged to this cabal at one time.

Their movement's motto is Racism and Profiling in spades!! "For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing." Their goal is to reclaim their land from the U.S. along with ethnic cleansing: Black, Asian…and White as in Europeans that took their lands.

Ahhh, I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning!

 

I look forward to Ryan's explanations while turning the channel back to Trains.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 21, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Please, lets try to keep this on topic and not venture off into non-train areas and issues.
> 
> Thank!



Wow, I really struck a nerve there, didn't I? How exactly does this relate to trains?

I'd suggest that you check your copy of the Constitution again - immigration is solely the providence of the federal government, so even if the law simply mirrored Federal law, it'd still be outside the lines (Article 1, Section 10 and Article 6 would be good places to start).

You can point to all the people and states that support this that you want - that doesn't change the facts of the case, and highlights exactly why we have a Constitution.

One you're done with that you can do some reading on Proposition 187 and Hines v. Davidowitz.

From Justice Black's majority opinion:



> First. *That the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution was pointed out by authors of The Federalist in 1787,9 and has since been given continuous recognition by this Court.* 10 When the national government by treaty or statute has established rules and [312 U.S. 52, 63] regulations touching the rights, privileges, obligations or burdens of aliens as such, the treaty or statute is the supreme law of the land. *No state can add to or take from the force and effect of such treaty or statute,* for Article VI of the Constitution provides that 'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.' The Federal Government, representing as it does the collective interests of the forty-eight states, is entrusted with full and exclusive responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties. 'For local interests the several states of the Union exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power.' 11 Our system of government is such that the interest of the cities, counties and states, no less than the interest of the people of the whole nation, imperatively requires that federal power in the field affecting foreign relations be left entirely free from local interference. As Mr. Justice Miller well observed of a California [312 U.S. 52, 64] statute burdening immigration: 'If (the United States) should get into a difficulty which would lead to war, or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union?'12


----------

