More on CBP's war on US pilots traveling to Mexico

Status
Not open for further replies.
WOW! and I thought I had reason to complain due to living near the SFRA. This is just horrible. I wonder if any legislators have gotten involved. Do they do this to trucks that corss the boarder on a regular basis?

I also wonder out loud as to whether this is an administrative policy to treat these folks like dirt or if its Just I've got a badge and I can be an Arse if I want to kind of thing.
 
Amazing, just amazing. Hearing (reading) stuff like that just burns my brown-eye.
 
Only one person can stop this....and it ain't gonna be Mr. Hoffman not anyone in the CBP.
 
Nobody likes or wants to be treated like that, but even assuming that every single word in that letter is an accurate representation of what happened and why it happened, there's not much recourse for the people subject to it. Wiki's got a kind-of-decent article on the border exception, if anyone cares to check it out.

To change it, one of three things is required: 1) amend the Constitution to clarify that the 4th Amendment always applies to American citizens when the American government is acting (which creates its own problems vis-a-vis other provisions in the Constitution; 2) an order from the Prez that border agents don't get to act like this absent good cause (use at least reasonable suspicion as the definition for that - i.e., actual facts); or 3) legislative action to the same effect (which might not work, because of the separation of powers doctrine).

But, as it stands right now, them's the rules when you're travelling internationally. You only get to challenge the stop itself...not the manner in which the stop is carried out.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Nobody likes or wants to be treated like that, but even assuming that every single word in that letter is an accurate representation of what happened and why it happened, there's not much recourse for the people subject to it. Wiki's got a kind-of-decent article on the border exception, if anyone cares to check it out.

To change it, one of three things is required: 1) amend the Constitution to clarify that the 4th Amendment always applies to American citizens when the American government is acting (which creates its own problems vis-a-vis other provisions in the Constitution; 2) an order from the Prez that border agents don't get to act like this absent good cause (use at least reasonable suspicion as the definition for that - i.e., actual facts); or 3) legislative action to the same effect (which might not work, because of the separation of powers doctrine).

But, as it stands right now, them's the rules when you're travelling internationally. You only get to challenge the stop itself...not the manner in which the stop is carried out.
Click to expand...

David,

I agree - this is not likely to stop. No one in Washington has the b***s to do anything about it. Bend over and take it.

Having said that, the last email in that document seems to indicate that the plane was flying from Brownsville, TX to San Diego. If that is the case, then there may be an issue depending on the flight path and how the search was conducted.

It just points up that the citizens of the US are not really free.

Sigh.
 
While I appreciate the sentiment in the letter, he can be assured that it will be considered about as productive as a spittle spewing verbal rant in someone's office. That is, not considered. Shame he couldn't resist the dig at the end.
 
wsuffa said:
David,

I agree - this is not likely to stop. No one in Washington has the b***s to do anything about it. Bend over and take it.

Having said that, the last email in that document seems to indicate that the plane was flying from Brownsville, TX to San Diego. If that is the case, then there may be an issue depending on the flight path and how the search was conducted.

It just points up that the citizens of the US are not really free.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

I see you read it in more detail than I did. :)
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Nobody likes or wants to be treated like that, but even assuming that every single word in that letter is an accurate representation of what happened and why it happened, there's not much recourse for the people subject to it. Wiki's got a kind-of-decent article on the border exception, if anyone cares to check it out.

To change it, one of three things is required: 1) amend the Constitution to clarify that the 4th Amendment always applies to American citizens when the American government is acting (which creates its own problems vis-a-vis other provisions in the Constitution; 2) an order from the Prez that border agents don't get to act like this absent good cause (use at least reasonable suspicion as the definition for that - i.e., actual facts); or 3) legislative action to the same effect (which might not work, because of the separation of powers doctrine).

But, as it stands right now, them's the rules when you're travelling internationally. You only get to challenge the stop itself...not the manner in which the stop is carried out.
Click to expand...


David your correct that there is a boarder exception to the 4th amendment. BUT the issue here is not the search IMHO although I am not really thrilled about it the issue in my mind is the WAY IN WHICH A US CITIZEN IS TREATED, by his / her own government. There is no doubt in my mind that these searches can be conducted in a polite, civil and professional manner! Remember these are folks who supposedly have been subjec to a " random inspection" NOT folks who are suspected of running cocaine or guns in or out of the US. Has the USC&BP taken to wearing brown shirts?

Why should these folks be treated any differently that the thousands of American Pax on Commercial Airlines that leave and re-enter the US on a daily basis or the Family who loads up the Family Truckster to take a camping trip to Baja California?

This is why I asked if any legislators had been involved. They are not going to stop the boarder exception and they shouldn't but the way they treat US Citizens not suspected of ANY crime must change. There are two ways to make this happen. 1) Is get a Legislator up their rear ends 2) Is to get the Media all over this.:mad3:
 
AdamZ said:
David your correct that there is a boarder exception to the 4th amendment. BUT the issue here is not the search IMHO although I am not really thrilled about it the issue in my mind is the WAY IN WHICH A US CITIZEN IS TREATED, by his / her own government. There is no doubt in my mind that these searches can be conducted in a polite, civil and professional manner! Remember these are folks who supposedly have been subjec to a " random inspection" NOT folks who are suspected of running cocaine or guns in or out of the US. Has the USC&BP taken to wearing brown shirts?

Why should these folks be treated any differently that the thousands of American Pax on Commercial Airlines that leave and re-enter the US on a daily basis or the Family who loads up the Family Truckster to take a camping trip to Baja California?

This is why I asked if any legislators had been involved. They are not going to stop the boarder exception and they shouldn't but the way they treat US Citizens not suspected of ANY crime must change. There are two ways to make this happen. 1) Is get a Legislator up their rear ends 2) Is to get the Media all over this.:mad3:
Click to expand...

I agree - I don't like it at all. It's like when the sheriffs will execute search warrants - sometimes they'll be wearing camoflauge fatigues, playing army for the day. It's just not necessary absent special circumstances and, legal or not, it sends the wrong message and further alienates and already-alienated community.

But, legally speaking as the situation is now, there's not a leg to stand on. I'd certainly support efforts to change that, but in the end, I think we all know that it's not going to happen....
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
But, legally speaking as the situation is now, there's not a leg to stand on. I'd certainly support efforts to change that, but in the end, I think we all know that it's not going to happen....
Click to expand...

Ah but you and I both know that changing things through public opinion and public pressure is a much quicker and more effective way of getting things done. ( which sometimes is a pretty sad comment)
 
AdamZ said:
Ah but you and I both know that changing things through public opinion and public pressure is a much quicker and more effective way of getting things done. ( which sometimes is a pretty sad comment)
Click to expand...

Until it happens to more people and not just "rich pilots", nothing will change.

By then, DHS will have entrenched so much that it will be nearly impossible to eliminate. See, for example, TSA screeners going beyond the reasonable limits of "administrative search"...
 
alaskaflyer said:
While I appreciate the sentiment in the letter, he can be assured that it will be considered about as productive as a spittle spewing verbal rant in someone's office. That is, not considered. Shame he couldn't resist the dig at the end.
Click to expand...
What dig? You mean where he quotes, in part, the US Constitution?

If it is considered as spittle, it will only be because the politicians have so insulated themselves from the chaff of society. I thought it a very articulate and restrained letter. Perhaps some would prefer the writer to pull a 'Boyer' as they all join hands to sing Kumbaya.
 
Anyone who crosses the boarder in an aircraft should take a video camera as standard equipment. These days they're cheaper than a handheld GPS. You run into problems with customs, film away. Refuse to stop, they can't prevent you from documenting their behavior. They use Gestapo tactics, you'll get more hits on Youtube than you can imagine. Just the thought of their behavior being documented should bring these stormtroopers back into line.
 
Richard said:
What dig? You mean where he quotes, in part, the US Constitution?

....
Click to expand...

To me, that showed the author of that letter was full of hot air. The 4th Amendment just isn't a consideration at the border. If I'm an attorney representing the government, I read that, laugh, and think "what plaintiff's lawyer is going to sucker this association into paying $400/hr. only to have the case, be it for an injunction or for damages, thrown out on a 12(b)(6) or summary judgment $80-100K later." Seriously, folks - you'll make a plaintiff's lawyers year when you come in with the ability to pay (these are pilots, after all, don't pay and there'll be a lien against your plane) and a grudge that won't allow you to listen to what the law says. Happens every day, and a lot of people get wealthy off it.

As Adam has pointed out, completely correctly, the only argument against this is the "we're red-blooded Americans, what the h--- do you think you're doing here," and hoping there's enough public ire stirred up.

To which Bill then responded correctly - the response on the part of the public will be, "just a bunch of rich pilots flying back and forth from Mexico, WTF, do they expect otherwise?"

It ain't fair, I don't like it, but that's how it is.
 
Richard said:
What dig? You mean where he quotes, in part, the US Constitution?
Click to expand...
Nope I was referring to his expansion of Godwin's Law into the snail mail form.

If it is considered as spittle, it will only be because the politicians have so insulated themselves from the chaff of society. I thought it a very articulate and restrained letter. Perhaps some would prefer the writer to pull a 'Boyer' as they all join hands to sing Kumbaya.
Click to expand...

You and I have different definitions of "articulate" and "restrained" I guess :dunno: I think his organization's efforts on behalf of all of us are great. He would do even better by drafting letters that come off as professional.
 
alaskaflyer said:
You and I have different definitions of "articulate" and "restrained" I guess :dunno: I think his organization's efforts on behalf of all of us are great. He would do even better by drafting letters that come off as professional.
Click to expand...

I agree. But that sort of thing happens all the time: Instead of being a productive part of solving the problem (which is often a somewhat slow and perhaps tedious process), some folks would rather presuppose nefarious motives in the folks on the other half of an issue, thereby making it an "us" vs. "them" situation (or making it more of one); rather than being a level-headed, temperate partner in taking on and settling a disagreement, they'd prefer to shadowbox with an "enemy" that exists only in their own minds.

One can see it happen in many ways in many venues, but the most likely explanation for such behavior is common among them: Instead of putting their head down and doing the hard work of fixing problems and creating solutions, some people would prefer to vaingloriously cast themselves as the hero in a Good vs. Evil struggle that doesn't exist, and enjoy the quickly and easily self-rewarded -- but ultimately cheap and hollow -- congratulations consequent to doing so. In all, it's little more than an act of childish solipsism, and is almost always so counterproductive that one has to wonder if actually perpetuating such issues is part of these folks' real aim.

Perhaps the trickiest part in navigating such issues is ignoring such noise, separating it from the voices of those who have more than just a beef, but also an interest in and the capacity to take part in resolving it.
 
Where is the dig? I quote:

I have had multiple reports of some very ugly actions taken by USCBP agents of which
one or more of these actions were in your district. It is easy to discount one or two
reports as verbal frustration with the new eAPIS requirements however; these incidents
were separate and at different locations at different dates. In addition, I personally know
the people involved as well as know much of their flying history.
It must also be reported that on all reported incidents, nothing was found that was illegal
nor were any penalty accessed due to the actions of the crew and / or passengers.
The following are excerpts from letters received, complete letters follow.
Click to expand...

That's like the last 3rd and I see no dig.

Can someone quote this dig?

I might be retarded. Is this the reference to "Gestapo?"

Because it is jackbooted and that is an accurate statement.
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
Where is the dig? I quote:



That's like the last 3rd and I see no dig.

Can someone quote this dig?

I might be retarded. Is this the reference to "Gestapo?"

Because it is jackbooted and that is an accurate statement.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Claiming that someone you disagree with "has adopted Gestapo tactics" isn't exactly the most productive foundation on which to begin a dialogue, now is it?
 
ReverendSlappy said:
Yeah. Claiming that someone you disagree with "has adopted Gestapo tactics" isn't exactly the most productive foundation on which to begin a dialogue, now is it?
Click to expand...

Well not if its not accurate, but it doesn't have anything to do with disagreement - they are literally holding law abiding citizens at gunpoint while they search the airplane, much like the Gestapo did with the law-abiding citizens of Germany.
 
SkyHog said:
Well not if its not accurate, but it doesn't have anything to do with disagreement - they are literally holding law abiding citizens at gunpoint while they search the airplane, much like the Gestapo did with the law-abiding citizens of Germany.
Click to expand...

Even if that weren't a bit of absolute hyperbole -- and it is -- what do you think the result of calling somebody on the other side of an issue a Nazi is going to be? Do you think you'll have more or less credibility -- to your opponents and impartial people on neither side -- after doing so?
 
Since 9-11 we have been forfeiting our rights and freedoms a little at a time in the name of security. We allow our government to ignore our Constitution, so that we can feel safe.

At first it was terrorists who we feared, now a few of us fear our own government more than we fear potential terrorists. Since it is only a few Americans who feel threatened by overzealous government agencies, not many people care or are interested. And they won't be until it is their turn.

You can write all the letters you want, it is probably too late to change much of anything. We have handed our freedoms and rights to the governing few, and they have gladly accepted them.

I forget who said something along the lines of: "A people who will trade their freedom for temporary security, deserve neither."

We have made the trade. We should have made our voices heard when they first introduced the patriot act, but we didn't.

John
 
John Baker said:
I forget who said something along the lines of: "A people who will trade their freedom for temporary security, deserve neither."

We have made the trade. We should have made our voices heard when they first introduced the patriot act, but we didn't.

John
Click to expand...
Scientist, orator, postmaster, ambassador, ...
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin said:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  • This was written by Franklin, with quotation marks but almost certainly his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). A variant of this was published as:
    • Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
      • This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts that were used in it.

  • An earlier variant by Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanack (1738): "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
  • The saying has also appeared in many paraphrased forms:
    • They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
      Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
      He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
      He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
      People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
      If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
      Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
      He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
      Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
      Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
Click to expand...
 
John Baker said:
We have made the trade. We should have made our voices heard when they first introduced the patriot act, but we didn't.
Click to expand...

The Patriot Act passed the US Senate 99-1. I'm a big fan of my state's Senator Russ Feingold for having the balls to stand up and be that one.

And he uses GA, too. :yes:
 
John Baker said:
Since 9-11 we have been forfeiting our rights and freedoms a little at a time in the name of security. We allow our government to ignore our Constitution, so that we can feel safe.

At first it was terrorists who we feared, now a few of us fear our own government more than we fear potential terrorists. Since it is only a few Americans who feel threatened by overzealous government agencies, not many people care or are interested. And they won't be until it is their turn.

You can write all the letters you want, it is probably too late to change much of anything. We have handed our freedoms and rights to the governing few, and they have gladly accepted them.
Click to expand...

This is precisely the kind of shrill, hysterical, hyperbolic nonsense that only serves to discredit the person ranting and -- unfortunately for those of us with the capacity and will to actually try to affect some change for the better -- the cause they're speaking for.

I suppose it must be easy to dismiss out of hand our entire legislative system as consisting of little more than "writing letters" and simply throw one's hands up, being content to instead simply complain from the cheap seats. But that has never been -- and will never be -- the tack that takes any amount of intellectual honesty, any amount of hard work, nor any amount of courage, and it'll never result in any significant change. Consequently, it's one that I personally find abhorrent in its defeatism and destructiveness, not to mention a few other descriptors which I'll omit as a matter of politeness.
 
What rights have been eliminated by the Patriot Act? Who has been wronged by the Patriot Act?

And as for Russ Feingold. Remember the McCain-Feingold legislation? Loser.
 
Those who were wronged by the patriot act were mostly Muslim Americans. The patriot act did not seem to affect most of us, so why would we care? What we did, by not speaking up, en massed, with outrage, was demonstrate to our own government just how far they could go. We said yes, it is OK to put wire taps on all suspected terrorists, terrorists being code for Muslim Americans. We said yes, it is OK to hold American citizens indefinitely, without charges being filed, in military prisons. We agreed that prisoners of our country could be tried by military tribunals. We agreed that government information could be held from their defense attorneys for state security. This goes on and on.

"This is precisely the kind of shrill, hysterical, hyperbolic nonsense that only serves to discredit the person ranting and -- unfortunately for those of us with the capacity and will to actually try to affect some change...."

The ReverandSlappy seems to have forgotten that this is a public forum. A forum is an arena where ideas can be discussed and dissected, yea or nay-ed, by the members of the forum. It seems to me that if someone contradicts his own line of thought, the ReverandSlappy feels compelled to belittle whoever makes the offending statement, rather than engaging in constructive dialog.

The very act of discussing issues that concern our governing authorities on a public, open, forum, is indeed doing something. ReverandSlappy, if you think that the authorities do not monitor public forums, then I'm afraid that you are residing in your own little happy land, where all is right, warm, and safe.

John
 
John Baker said:
The ReverandSlappy seems to have forgotten that this is a public forum. A forum is an arena where ideas can be discussed and dissected, yea or nay-ed, by the members of the forum. It seems to me that if someone contradicts his own line of thought, the ReverandSlappy feels compelled to belittle whoever makes the offending statement, rather than engaging in constructive dialog.

The very act of discussing issues that concern our governing authorities on a public, open, forum, is indeed doing something. ReverandSlappy, if you think that the authorities do not monitor public forums, then I'm afraid that you are residing in your own little happy land, where all is right, warm, and safe.

John
Click to expand...

Again, if you believe whining in a public forum -- not to mention comparing the people on the other side of the issue to terrorists -- is an effective means by which to bring about the kind of changes you wish to see, then I'd encourage you to try it out. Then evaluate the result and let me know who it actually is that is residing somewhere other than simple reality.
 
John Baker said:
ReverandSlappy, you have a government job, don't you. :)

John
Click to expand...

Not even close. :)

I do have a job, however -- and I'm guessing many others do, too -- in which I've routinely encountered folks who, when faced with a problem or disagreement, follow these steps:

  1. Sit around and complain about the problem rather than engage in the kind of behavior most likely to result in fixing it
  2. Manufacture some non-existent nefarious motive in the folks on the other side of the issue and cast them as The Bad Guy
  3. Cast themselves as The Good Guy
  4. Congratulate themselves for being The Good Guy
  5. Maybe complain some more
  6. Call it a day
And that's fine if people want to do that. All I'm saying is that they're going to be quite profoundly disappointed, as believing themselves to be The Good Guy isn't enough to actually fix things.
 
ReverandSlappy, thank you for your constructive criticism. So, what exact efforts are you making on behalf of those who wish to travel to Mexico, in their own aircraft, without being threatened by over zealous government officials? I'm asking so that I too may learn just how to go about bringing these injustices to a screeching halt.

John
 
John Baker said:
ReverandSlappy, thank you for your constructive criticism. So, what exact efforts are you making on behalf of those who wish to travel to Mexico, in their own aircraft, without being threatened by over zealous government officials? I'm asking so that I too may learn just how to go about bringing these injustices to a screeching halt.

John
Click to expand...

Most recently? I'm sure you recall H.R. 2200 (which we discussed here), some amendments to which represented some curbing of the TSA's authority. I contacted my congressman and senators, as well as members of the appropriate House and Senate committees and subcommittees and encouraged them to pass the bill with those amendments intact. They did.

Outside of that, I'm an AOPA member and support their advocacy efforts. Additionally, in the opportunities I've had to speak with both elected officials and office-seekers, I've made my views on the range of issues facing GA known to them, and routinely communicate my views on issues in general to my elected representatives. I assume you do the same, right?

And I'm not sure what you mean by "screeching halt", but I'd suggest that perhaps you're not familiar with the nature of the issues at hand; these are political issues. As Max Weber put it, "Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective." Lacking "passion", "perspective", or, IMO, patience and persistence is a certain route to disappointment and will only result in solidifying the status quo. Expecting the "injusticies" you see to come "to a screeching halt" simply by screeching about their being "injusticies" is, of course, lacking all the above (save passion) and, consequently, folly.
 
Last edited:
ReverandSlappy, I want to thank you for your contributions to General Aviation and our country. Without dedicated people such as yourself I am positive that our state of affairs would be in much worse shape.

Although my AOPA card states that I am a donor, I can not dare compare myself to someone such as yourself. The last time I wrote my congressperson, I received a form letter thanking me for my interest. So, no, I have not taken your rout to solving the problems of America.

I do believe I have the right to state my views on this forum without you twisting it into "the kind of shrill, hysterical, hyperbolic nonsense" you seem to feel my input consists of.

Although I am sure I can never reach the lofty heights of your own esteemed contributions to this forum, I still believe my input on this forum contains at least some items that would be of interest to a few others.

I again thank you for your constructive criticism and I will endeavor to do my best to try and not offend your sensibilities in the future. I want you to know I feel just awful about this whole thing............no really. :)

John
 
SkyHog said:
Well not if its not accurate, but it doesn't have anything to do with disagreement - they are literally holding law abiding citizens at gunpoint while they search the airplane, much like the Gestapo did with the law-abiding citizens of Germany.
Click to expand...

Reductio ad Hitlerum. Great basis for an argument :rolleyes:
 
John Baker said:
ReverandSlappy, I want to thank you for your contributions to General Aviation and our country. Without dedicated people such as yourself I am positive that our state of affairs would be in much worse shape.

Although my AOPA card states that I am a donor, I can not dare compare myself to someone such as yourself. The last time I wrote my congressperson, I received a form letter thanking me for my interest. So, no, I have not taken your rout to solving the problems of America.

I do believe I have the right to state my views on this forum without you twisting it into "the kind of shrill, hysterical, hyperbolic nonsense" you seem to feel my input consists of.

Although I am sure I can never reach the lofty heights of your own esteemed contributions to this forum, I still believe my input on this forum contains at least some items that would be of interest to a few others.

I again thank you for your constructive criticism and I will endeavor to do my best to try and not offend your sensibilities in the future. I want you to know I feel just awful about this whole thing............no really. :)

John
Click to expand...

Affecting the kinds of positive change you claim to be interested in requires a certain perspective, a certain attitude, and a certain disposition. While I'm happy to leave it to everyone's individual judgment to determine whether or not the above and the post I initially quoted indicate the presence of that perspective, attitude, and disposition, I'm quite confident that the majority will share my view that they're entirely lacking.
 
Last edited:
John Baker said:
ReverandSlappy, you have a government job, don't you. :)

John
Click to expand...

I have a government job and I can tell you that the letter linked in the OP will get us nowhere. If you want a press release write a press release. If you want to write a letter to CBP then write a letter to CBP instead of the press.
 
ReverendSlappy said:
Again, if you believe whining in a public forum -- not to mention comparing the people on the other side of the issue to terrorists -- is an effective means by which to bring about the kind of changes you wish to see, then I'd encourage you to try it out. Then evaluate the result and let me know who it actually is that is residing somewhere other than simple reality.
Click to expand...

Here is why "whining on a public forum" works:

A single person petitioning for a redress of grievances is good, but if he can convince others to join him, that is far more effective. Never underestimate the power of the Internet.

I like to think that the Internet takes my good ideas and runs with them, and ignores my bad ideas. (At least I hope it ignores them! :smile:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top