RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Border Patrol returns with two checkpoints



A Border Patrol agent who asked not to be identified takes a motorist into custody Friday at the checkpoint on Interstate 89 near Exit 18 in Lebanon, N. H., for allegedly being in the country illegally after overstaying his visa. The man’s companion (left) who was not detained, said the men were truck drivers from Massachusetts returning home after a trip to Norwich.

JASON JOHNS / VALLEY NEWS

Toolbox

By KATIE BETH RYAN VALLEY NEWS - Published: November 9, 2009

The interstate checkpoint operated by the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol not only returned to the Upper Valley this week, it came back in a double dose: Federal agents were stopping cars yesterday and Thursday along Interstate 91 and Interstate 89.

Although the checkpoints previously provoked a range of complaints — some said they posed a threat to civil liberties while others decried them as a nuisance — a number of motorists interviewed yesterday said they weren't bothered in the least.

Chad Butler, a student at Norwich University in Northfield, Vt., was headed to an out-of-state wedding and was a little confused by the traffic stop on the interstate.

"But I understand because they're just checking stuff out," he said.

For other people passing through the area, the border patrol stop, though a nuisance, was a reminder of the nation's safety protocols.

"I felt protected," said Haverhill, Mass.-bound Reid Grayson, of Burlington. "I don't think they're doing anything bad. I think they're doing something good."

The I-91 checkpoint, set up on the southbound lane in the Hartford rest area, became a familiar sight in the years after the World Trade Center attacks. The I-89 stop, in the southbound rest area in Lebanon between exits 19 and 18, has been in much less frequent use. The Upper Valley is under the jurisdiction of the Swanton, Vt., section of the Border Patrol, which set up both checkpoints on Thursday.

The checkpoints have drawn the ire of civil libertarians and have frustrated many Upper Valley commuters. In May, U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., called the checkpoints "a pain in the neck for Vermonters and others" during an oversight hearing for the Department of Homeland Security. He asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to look into whether the department's resources could be used more effectively at the border itself.

Mark Henry, a public information officer with the Border Patrol in Swanton, said that the goal of the checkpoints is to stop the flow of drugs, weapons and terrorist suspects to more urban areas.

"Our first priority is always terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. That's our first thing," said Henry. "Then after that, it's (illegal) immigration."

Henry said the stops are warranted based on surveillance. In a separate interview on Thursday, he said that drugs like ecstasy and marijuana have been uncovered at both the I-91 and I-89 checkpoints over the years.

The checkpoints, which the Border Patrol is authorized to set up within 100 aeronautical miles of the border, have been part of an ongoing focus on internal surveillance that increased after 9/11. Border Patrol officials have said that their continued operations are necessary to counter terrorist infiltrations and drug activity.

Yesterday, border patrol agents pulled over several vehicles, including a large rented truck containing three occupants heading back to Massachusetts after a trip to Norwich. One of the occupants was apprehended by agents, allegedly for overstaying his visa, while the other two men were released.

Though she wasn't pulled over, Peggy Stock of Royalton didn't mince words when it came to the checkpoint.

"It was a pain in the neck," she said. "If I had seen it, I would have gotten off at (exit) 19."

Stock, the former president of Colby-Sawyer College in New London, said that she understood the need to guard the U.S. border from illegal drug and human trafficking operations, but that arrests for marijuana possession concerned her.

"I think there are more important things they could be doing," she said.

Emergency vehicles are always allowed to pass through, "no questions asked," said Henry. He said that border patrol agents tend to look for certain irregularities in the cars, drivers and passengers coming through the checkpoints and in the time of day people are traveling.

"There can be as many reasons as there are cars pulled over," he said. "They observe the totality of the circumstances … based on their experience."








READER COMMENTS


BOR, it could be better,douldn't it? I don't know how new all of this really is though. Twenty years ago, I was pulled over for the first time on a VT state road for no reason while I was heading home from Canada. My car was searched for no reason beyond the officers' whim at the time. Perhaps it was because I had a beat up car. Maybe it was because the person that I was traveling with was of a questionable skin color..It sure wasn't because of anything that I did! I let them search my car, after being put into a state police car and grilled by one officer while the other one grilled my travel companion, because I felt intimidated. It happened again about six months later in Mass. (this time I was interrogated about weapons instead of drugs) and again, I let the officer search my car because I felt intimidated and was raised to be cooperative with law enforcement. Then I fianally talked to my brother, the police officer about it and he told me that it was ridiculous and that I should simply tell them that they do not have my permission. I tried this when an officer in NY actually reached into my bag and started pulling things out of it while I was searching for my ID. That is when I finally got ****** and put a stop to it.
Anyway, my point is that there was never really a time in our history when we have had all of the freedoms and rights, that we are supposed to have, honored by gov't and/or law enforcement. We may have rights on paper, but in a practical sense.... It gets better and it gets worse. Look at the struggle a gay person has to go through just to get married or to have a partners end of life wishes honored. (among other things) Jeezum, we had to make a special law just to say it is not okay to kill someone for being gay! The constitution and it's bill of rights are all well and good, but the fact is that we, as a nation have never really honored many of the principles put forth in them. This is something that we need to work toward. Though it is something worth striving for, the constitution is not something that America has perfectly adhered to ever.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Wed, Nov 11, 2009, 5:57 pm EST

report this comment



Comfy, this is apparently the "new" America, and it isn't exactly an improvement!
-
-- Posted by Bill O. Rights on Wed, Nov 11, 2009, 3:16 pm EST

report this comment



Too bad they are not busting anyone for the hard drugs that are actually creating addicts, driving people to commit violent crimes and generally ruining our society. I guess it's easier and safer to go after marijuana.
Too bad we haven't heard of any terrorists getting busted by these guys. Isn't that their purpose?
I too thought it was odd when I got caught in a border patrol roadblock over an hour after crossing the border. I was inclined to assume that there was a reason for this that I am not aware of...after all, I am not a law enforcement specialist...but still, I left scratching my head. At first I thought I made a wrong turn and was not in my home country as I thought I was. I actually asked the officer, during my brief interrogation, if I had gotten lost and inadvertantly left the country again! (and I wasn't being sarcastic) Nope. This is America folks!
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Wed, Nov 11, 2009, 1:01 pm EST

report this comment



Border stops snag drugs, no terrorists
US tactics near Canada anger Vermont residents
By Alan Wirzbicki, Globe Correspondent | December 19, 2006

SWANTON, Vt. -- Security stops of cars in rural New England near the US border with Canada, which became more frequent after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, have yet to snare a single terrorist -- but they have contributed to a huge, unexpected increase in marijuana seizures, according to homeland security authorities.

Again, our government is being disingenuous about its Border Patrol operations. They deploy these checkpoints under the pretense of "counter-terrrorism" but have nothing to show for those efforts, so they resort to bragging about the amount of marijuana and the number of illegal immigrants they'd seized instead.

We are paying through the nose in taxes for other agencies to supposedly be dealing with drug enforcement and immigration, so why is it that the Border Patrol now needs to infringe on our liberties 100 miles within our borders? The real answer is that they don't. This is just another case of giving the government an inch and allowing them to take a mile. Now that they've taken 100 miles, get ready for further encroachments.

It's time to put the Border Patrol back on the border and let the other appropriate law enforcement agencies coordinate and deal with the ancillary issues that the Border Patrol is now using to justify their increasing infringements on our liberty.
-- Posted by Bill O. Rights on Wed, Nov 11, 2009, 12:53 pm EST

report this comment



693,000 worh of marijuana and 721 illegal immigrants since 2003 at he White River Junction checkpoint sounds like there doing a great job to me.Keep up the good work and thank all of you GOD BLESS
-- Posted by Donald Roberts on Wed, Nov 11, 2009, 11:35 am EST

report this comment



You people remind a lot of CNN, a lot of Thunder, blazing graphics and plenty of sensationalism.

Stay off the Public Paid for highways and build your own Private roads and drive on those. Otherwise you will be subject to Public Laws govern by the People YOU elected.

Border Patrol Agents are trained to watch body language when people respond to questions. They are trained to respond to body language as you approach the check points and know from this if there is reason to stop and investigate further. You may seem to be just waved through, but your eye contact and body language is what revealed to the agents that you were good to go.

Explain to me, in somewhat detail how do you expect the Border Patrol to do their jobs?

Remember you can't stop any minority, because according to some, that would be RACIAL PROFILING.

You can't stop those that aren't part of the minorities, because that is invasion of so called Rights.

You can't stop vehicles to ask questions, because that is harassment.

So how do you suppose they are to do their jobs? I want CLOSED BORDERS and I want the illegals off of my payrolls and sent back to whence they came from.

I would like all Military bases lined up along the borders with Target Ranges, Bomb Ranges etc along there as well. I have Zero Tolerance for Law Breakers, unlike Liberals who are so worried about being Politically correct to the point, NOTHING gets done.

Did you ever happen to think there are video cameras set up down the road so they are watching reactions of passengers etc as they approach the check points. They know before you see them, whether they are going to stop you or not. LOL I love technology.
-- Posted by Name Change on Wed, Nov 11, 2009, 10:54 am EST

report this comment



Imagine a nation where internal travel is halted by special police units who will detain and question citizens without any probable cause, even far from the actual border.

But am I talking about Vermont, or am I talking about East Germany, on this day of celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall?
..
-- Posted by mark on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 11:28 pm EST

report this comment



I have sat in this line on I91 many times and all they do is wave you through without even asking you to roll down your window once you rweach the checkpoint after you have sat there wasting time and gas for 20 minutes. Total waste of time and tax dollars.
-- Posted by Katherine Silta on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 9:44 pm EST

report this comment



My wife and I were stopped Saturday night heading south. We were asked if we were US citizens. Where were we going? Where were we coming from? Why are you towing an empty trailer? Did you drop something off? Do you often drive around with an empty trailer? All questions were answered. Here's my question - what happens if I decide that this is really not the business of the border patrol and answer with "I respectfully decline to answer that question". ??? Will the BP accept this answer and let me go or pull me over for closer inspection? I have no problem with very intense border checks - at the border. I came in from Canada in Buffalo on Friday - no problem - ask what you need to keep the bad guys out. But when I'm going about my business, you don't get to quiz me on my comings and goings. You're right - it's too much like "papers please".
-- Posted by Keith Carey on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 8:42 pm EST

report this comment



I suspect that the dopes from the ACLU have already challenged these checkpoints somewhere in the country. Evidently they must be constitutional since the police still use them. So stop whinning about whether or not they are constitutional or not.

If your child or spouse was run over and killed or maimed by one of that 5% you would be screaming about DUI enforcement.

Every illegal that is picked up at a checkpoint or a workplace raid is one less roaming the country unaccounted for.
-- Posted by northstar62 on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 5:42 pm EST

report this comment



Stay on PRIVATE ROADS with your vehicles and you won't have to worry. Once you decide to use the Public Roadways, then you fall under Public control. That is just the way it is.
-- Posted by Name Change on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 4:59 pm EST

report this comment



If these Check Points consisted of kicking people's front door, I would have a problem. That may be coming soon enough with the current Administration. The facts are that it is NOT kicking down doors of PRIVATE residences.

What is happening is on the Federal and State TaxPayer paid for, Public highways, vehicles are being stopped. What is the difference from a Check Point looking for Illegals and Drugs from a Weigh Station that every trucker in the U.S. has had to face on more than one occassion? They without warrants have their cabs searched and the cargo searched as well. This has taken place long before any Bush became President and I have heard no outcries. I remember one instance in Tenn where they had the Exits covered for miles in both directions and they not only checked cargo, cabs, log book but also administered Urine Tests. Now! you people 4 wheelers complain that YOUR rights are being infringed because they are searching for illegals and drugs and you are subject, if you look like a suspect. My Heart is crying loudly for you. ROFLMAO

You, I am also sure OK with the fact that if I was walking downn a road near your home with a rifle in man hands and it wasn't any Hunting season, you would be FIRST to call the police and have me checked out. I might have been out plinking, but who cares, you would have me checked out and you would justify it as being NORMAL PROCEDURE. Well! guess what? A Firearm can be a Firearm or a Weapon and so can't a vehicle. Driving is a PRIVELEGE and not a RIGHT. It is a privilege issued by the State and the Federal Governments and you need a license to operate. When you are on Public Roads, you are subject as you are to a body search if you walk into a State or Federal building and act suspicious. So get over it folks, your errosion of Rights do NOT exist and in the interests of the Public, you will live, you might be a minute or two late for that date, but you will live and we may have a few more tons of drugs off the road and one more job that may have been taken by an illegal may have been saved. If you approve Check points for Drunk drivers, what is the difference.

YOu seem to argue over one type of check point and don't even address the others. DUH!
-- Posted by Name Change on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 4:54 pm EST

report this comment



CA,

I agree...at some points it gets tough to judge...however, do you think that checkpoints eliminate such deaths/ so its not a zero sum game...
as to alcohol checkpoints...I worked in bar during college and reaked like alcohol as I drove through the same checkpoint and got harressed each night...
I get anxious when i feel like the rights of the 95% get infringed for the sake of getting at the bad 5%...
in the end...I think the decision has been made already in that the constitution is set up to let a thousand go free so that one will not be improperly convicted...following that logic it would seem that we should indeed let the worng happen and deal with its consequences (and perhaps education for DWI).
What i really object to is operating in the name of national security and then using that "in" to bust kiddies with a dimebag of pot...its not right. If national security forces are to be allowed access it has to be apart from domestic criminal issues!
Are you trying to save me or bust me....
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 3:35 pm EST

report this comment



Eric, I am torn between agreeing with you and that nagging old question that keeps bothering me. Where do we draw the line in terms of the right of an individual to (for example) drive around intoxicated until they are caught red-handed vs. the right that everyone else should have to not be killed by a drunk driver in the course of day to day living? It is a question that seems to come up over and over again.
I get the part where it is wrong and anti-libertarian and it really bothers me that I can't go about the course of my day as a law abiding citizen without being scrutinized and checked up on. I personally feel that people should be able to treat one another with more respect than that. I know how it feels to be accused of things that people imagine that you will do in the future and it is quite unpleasant.
And yet, we have this very real problem of people driving while intoxicated and a lot of innocent people suffer becuase of it. I guess I just think that those people should be protected too...can you think of a more acceptable way to deal with this problem? I am trying and I'm stumped. Do you think the answer is to just accept that a certain number of people are going to be killed by drunks each year and there is nothing to be done about it? It is an option, but it doesn't strike me as being less flawed than the checkpoint idea. Can we find a solution that can protect everyones interests? I don't even know if that is possible.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 3:18 pm EST

report this comment



I so agree with Comfy Anon and mark - and a few points from others. How do we balance the need to provide security and the need to respect rights?
It feels as we are ALL guilty now, until proven innocent!
I so disagree with None None of the 2nd and 5th post - it is not simple self absorption that causes us to question these tactics. [Point to be made - if your job has you drive about the state each day, between construction and accident delays, you work day can expand significantly!]
An aside - the computer has allowed us to more quickly maneuver [ordering gifts, looking up information, registering, etc.] while our physical transportation modes have become logger jammed [sp?] more and more often.
-- Posted by chere tournet on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 3:16 pm EST

report this comment



"...it feels AS IF we...
-- Posted by chere tournet on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 3:16 pm EST

report this comment



"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 2:58 pm EST

report this comment



Native

It could have been compressed to one post if I was answering only one poster.

What the means of you rpost, other than to complain about a poster and not the issues. I did the issue, in all of my posts. Except this one where I am answering you.
-- Posted by Name Change on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 12:12 pm EST

report this comment



I don't get it: How can people call themselves Americans and endorse a practice that violates the essence of what makes us "American"?

Police stops that lack probable cause violate the 4th amendment of the Constitution; it really doesn't get much simpler than that.

The only variable is cowardice: yes, if you want to feel safer (either in reality or merely as an illusion), then you can turn your country into Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. But if you don't comprehend how that's a bad thing, then there's nothing left for me to say.
..
-- Posted by mark on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 11:03 am EST

report this comment



I think som eof you just like to complain to hear yourselves.
-- Posted by Name Change on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 10:15 am EST

Yes, and surely your triple contribution couldn't have been condensed into one logical post.
-- Posted by Native Wallingfordian on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 10:43 am EST

report this comment



Would it be Racial Profiling if a Black Neighborhood stop cars with White Folks in it to ask them their intent, you know the NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH Program? Or is it ONLY Racial Profiling if a White neighborhood does it to a Black in a car?
-- Posted by Name Change on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 10:19 am EST

report this comment



It is the job of the Local Police Dept to ensure Public Safety and they are a REACTIONARY FORCE, yet they randomly check people walking in neighborhoods, they stop and ask where you are going, they stop you if your are seen walkiing down the road with a firearm and ask questions, they impose on our liberties all of the time and I don't see any of the people on here who are calling the Check Points unjust complaining and you are losing your liberties right here without moving a step out of town. Look at the Man from Kenya and the Liberties he has taken away from us in just the last 10 months and who is complaining?

I think som eof you just like to complain to hear yourselves.
-- Posted by Name Change on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 10:15 am EST

report this comment



I don't want to hear a word about Lost Liberties or Racial Profilling as long as the Man from Kenya is being allowed to turn us all into a Socialistic Country and take over business, Insurance etc. from the same people.

If you support the Man from Kenya's Policies shut up and SIT at the check points, until you are cleared to proceed, or until you a Policital Party Profiled and bashed too death. Why even on these threads Policital Party Profiling is the normal and that is alll ok. ROFLMAO but heaven forbid a black man gets stop because the border patrol knows this is the route taken by a Coyote for Jamaicans. ROFLMAO Geyt Real people, you want the problem to go away, then JUST DO IT. Search them all and send them back, bill their country of origin for the costs and then maybe that country wil police their own borders better.
-- Posted by Name Change on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 10:11 am EST

report this comment



It is like fishing with a net. You start out away from where the school/border is and draw it in. The are they routinely use for this checkpoint is far enough from the border so their guards get let down and you are getting people who are already in the US and traveling freely. I feel they don't use them enough. Those who have a problem with it generally are the ones either doing something wrong or would much rather see this country overrun with illegals and run aground by "victemless" crimes..
-- Posted by Don D on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 10:07 am EST

report this comment



It is RACIAL PROFILING???

How about Nationality Profiling or Hey! they ain't from around here Profiling?

Race? how do you get Race into it when it is more about where people are from and not their race. Last I knew there were only THREE RACES or did I sleep in that class as well?

Would it be criminal Profiling if you only stop people who had masks on their face?

I guess what some are saying because of some notion that if you look like you might be from elsewhere, that if you look like you might be from Jamaica it would be racial profiling to ask you? WOW! I guess it would be best just to sit and watch and not do anything under that silly claim.

I think it is a real cop out to call it Racial Profiling. In Calif, dark skinned people, such as the Med Line of people, Italians, Greeks etc called it Racial Profiling at the Calif Check Points. So they closed them and now we have 30 million illegals. I was as confused then as I am now, I didn't know Italians and Greeks were considered a Race, I thought they were a Nationality. Stopping a Black would not be Racial Profiling considering we have huge number of illegals from Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico etc. Did that woman from Iceland use that Racial Profiling excuse because she had Blonde Hair? ROFLMAO
-- Posted by Name Change on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 10:05 am EST

report this comment



I see NOTHING wrong with these check points.

I was in Calif for a few years and at the time people, just like Mark below complained about the check points such as San Clemente etc. They said they were Unconstitutional. I would like for Mark and anyone else who is in the belief that these check points infringe on your rights to please explain. Why do you feel check points are ok for finding Drunk Drivers and they are even ok when there is a Criminal in the area, but suddenly when they are looking for Illegals, they are Unsconstitutional?

Through public Pressure the ones in Calif were shut down and can you all guess what happened, when they were closed? Mexicans spread the word and they strated coming over the border in BIGGER DROVES.

Look around, we all know farmers who have Illegals working for them and for whatever reason that seems to be justified. Why? Can't these farmers go to the Unemployement office or to other states or even do what the Apple Growers do and get LEGAL people to work?

Maybe Mark and others need to open their eyes and find out how much these Illegals costs us. I don't just mean in Border Patrol costs, but in Medical, Welfare, Job loss, housing, police coverage, Gangs etc.

Look at the stats for the number of Harden Criminals and Gangs that are actually mad eup of ILLEGALS. Maybe you would sing a different tune.

These Check Points can stop me all they want, I will not complain as long as I can see Illegals being BUSTED.
-- Posted by Name Change on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 9:36 am EST

report this comment



This reminds me of the DUI checkpoints and my mixed feelings about them. On the one hand, I resent having my rights violated...more so I think I resent being treated like a criminal for no reason. On the other, DUI is a really serious problem and a lot of innocent people get hurt as a result. These checkpoints (if they really do save lives by stopping people from driving under the influence) are not all bad, but the question of our rights remains. Again we find ourselves facing the question of balance between protecting the rights of the individual to proceed through life relatively unaccosted and protecting the rights of everyone else to drive on the road with some certainty that they wont be taken out by a drunk. That person is just as innocent when they get hit as I or any other sober person who has to go through a DUI checkpoint.
I don't claim to know the right answer to this one, just throwin' a thought or two out there.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 9:04 am EST

report this comment



Racial profiling? Wasn't it just about a week ago they picked up a woman from Iceland and a guy from France.

I support the checkpoints 100%. They are set up within 100 miles of the border and therefore legal. ICE is not restricted to operating close to the border. The Police can and do set up "safety" checkpints. They also set up "sobriety" checkpoints. Not a problem to anyone unless you have something to hide. The officers that I have encountered have been polite and professional. If you want to deal with them with a chip on your shoulder I guess you might expect that it might raise suspicions and cause delays.
-- Posted by northstar62 on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 9:00 am EST

report this comment



Reminds me of the WW2 movies of events behind German lines

"your papers, bitte Ist all in order??"

When I was in Egypt 15 years ago, I used to see people in uniforms writing down the license plate numbers of all the vehicles passing on the highway. Seemed so totalitarian. Not much different here these days. The greatest terror seems to be the acceptance of a police state, because "people who are not guilty have nothing to fear". I think, in history, that one has been said before.

Its so silly, because if there were any bona fide terrorists, they most likely would be arriving through our airports or at other border check points. Exactly how does a foreign terrorist get 100 miles into Vermont without crossing the border first? Or is directed at people who have been on this side of the border all along?
-- Posted by Ray Makul on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 7:00 am EST

report this comment



The White River Junction checkpoint, more than an hour's drive from the border, has snared $693,000 worth of marijuana and 721 illegal immigrants since 2003, border patrol officials said
-- Posted by Justin Farrar on Tue, Nov 10, 2009, 5:57 am EST

report this comment



"Mark Henry, a public information officer with the Border Patrol in Swanton, said that the goal of the checkpoints is to stop the flow of drugs, weapons and terrorist suspects to more urban areas."

Feeble explanation Markey boy! If that was the goal, then you'd be randomizing your operations and not establishing them in the same locations time after time.

The drug dealers, weapons smugglers, and terrorists are certainly more sophisticated than to just blunder into your well-known and well-publicized checkpoints.

Get back on the borders where you belong and begin halting the incursions there.
-
-- Posted by Bill O. Rights on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, 5:12 pm EST

report this comment



why are they making drug busts if their stated purpose is national security?

Why bust some teen with pot and take the officer off the street from looking for a dude with a bomb?

and rebecca, your middle name must be aint if you dont get stopped at these checkpoints, they never let a dark one through...
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, 4:35 pm EST

report this comment



To those who argue that these useless checkpoints are a good thing you might do well to remember the wise words of one of countries founding fathers
"Those who give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security." - Ben Franklin
-- Posted by nh forester on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, 4:17 pm EST

report this comment



I don't see it as giving up my rights to have someone with a flashlight glance into my car. Heck ya have truck drivers glaring down into cars all the time. They are not there just for the illegal's, they are also out for the drug busts. I have no problem with them doing their jobs.
-- Posted by Rebecca Brown on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, 4:03 pm EST

report this comment



forgive my prior typing trainwreck post...

but also, when did it become alright for news to always cite to a source who wishes to remain nameless...take out anonymous quotes and there is nothing left in the paper...its been so long that i forgot why papers didnt used to do that...wasn't it something about reliability of someone who wont give their name?

folks here go crazy about posters not giving their real names...why is it ok when people are cited in the paper anonymously?
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, 3:52 pm EST

report this comment



"let them look bcausu i have nothing" to hide is anti-american...can I come and look in your closets to make sure?

it amazes me how quick people will relinquish their liberty for a small taste of comfort from fear...

Lets just let the border patrol search all of our houses to make sure we are safe...I mean what is freedom anyway...
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, 3:49 pm EST

report this comment



How do you think they get through to start with? They sneak threw on the borders and don't expect it near the intersections of major highways. I drive through them each time they are set up and I have no problem, maybe because there is nothing for me to hide. It took me an extra 15 minutes Friday night to get home, big deal! I'd rather see them set up busting the illegals and the drugs. (Yes I said drugs!) Heck maybe this winter I will even bring them coffee on my way through! Keep up the good work Border Patrol!
-- Posted by Rebecca Brown on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, 2:12 pm EST

report this comment



the article didnt say it so i will...
racial profiling...
I am white...but I did travel through the old stops with a caribbean frined, we got stopped EVRYTIME...
when its just me...I haven't even slowed down my car...
notice the color of the illegal caught?

terrorism and criminal need to be completley separated...
people should be less inclined to allow for this typeof search when its criminal as oposed to national security based...

and yes, this are unconstitutional searches...

there should be 3 distinct branches of law enforcement
criminal, national security and traffic...there should be no overlap...
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, 1:20 pm EST

report this comment



Very well said, Whit.
-- Posted by mark on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, 11:02 am EST

report this comment



I agree with None None on this. I just don't understand whay people have a problem with illegals being sent back to where they come from?

Look up the word illegal! I have no problem with those who get inline to come to OUR country the right way. Stop crying for those who come in the back door or over stay.

I'm not going to go into your without your say so don't come into mine. I don't want to hear about all the reasons why your here.

Illegal is Illegal.

Go Boader Patrol keep at it!
-- Posted by M Mobae on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, 9:49 am EST

report this comment



I agree with northstar62 and the first None None. Any checking is better than none at all. If you have nothing to hide, why complain? Is 5 minutes out of your life too much to ask, while waiting at the check point? Everyone is so self absorbed nowadays they have no room for anything that might benefit others, (themselves included if they only stopped to think about it). Oh, wait, I'm so important I shouldn't have to sit one minute at a check point. You are taking my time. Me, me , me. Get a Grip!!
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, 9:47 am EST

report this comment



These checkpoints don't belong this far from the border. Anyone doing anything seriously dangerous to the country has advance advice on both where to cross the border and which routes to travel once over it. Once a terrorist is across the border, he'll be on back roads for the first 100 miles. They know our operations.

A checkpoint on any road in America will find some undocumented aliens and some people with pot in the car. But that's not the Border Patrol's job. They shouldn't be credited with doing their mission when running these checkpoints so far from the border. It's obviously pleasanter work for them than actually securing the border better, and far less dangerous to them to arrest a farm worker or a kid with pot than if they were somewhere they might really face a terrorist. That's no excuse.
-- Posted by Whit Blauvelt on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, 8:46 am EST

report this comment



These stops are ridiculous. For one thing, the Border Patrol might try looking at a map: the Upper Valley is a pretty long way from the border.

Might the "Border" Patrol actually be needed at the...border?

Also, and I realize that no one cares about the US Constitution anymore, but these stops violate it.
..
-- Posted by mark on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, 8:13 am EST

report this comment



Its encouraging to see at least part of one federal agency is doing their job. There should be no complaints from anyone here legally and obeying the law. The alternative is illegals that drain our economy and attack our country. I would rather tolerate a slight inconvenience then experience more of 911. I seems that the people that complain would be the first to ***** if someone snuck through and committed an act of terrorism.
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, 7:21 am EST

report this comment



Security is sometimes inconvenient. The Border Patrol has the right to use this method in providing that security and I don't mind. The story did say that they did net at least one illegal in the first day. Judging by recent stories of the arrest of the Icelandic woman and the French criminal in recent days it seems a reasonable technique.

All of the illegal entries are not coming across the southern border and they are not all Latino.
-- Posted by northstar62 on Mon, Nov 9, 2009, 6:49 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout