Does ACLU Tim agree with the ACLU that Border Patrol checkpoints are unconstitutional?



This is disturbing. The ACLU is calling on Congress to pass legislation prohibiting the Border Patrol from inspecting cars at checkpoints, unless they have a specific reason. No longer would Border Patrol agents be able to search a car they “thought” looked suspicious, like it could be hiding illegal immigrants or drugs. Does county attorney candidate and former ACLU attorney Tim Nelson agree with this? Most likely. Can you imagine him feuding with Sheriff Arpaio over the illegal immigration issue? He is incompatible as county attorney with Sheriff Arpaio, and Arizonans like Arpaio and want our illegal immigration laws enforced, not ignored or challenged by fringe ACLU attorneys. ACLU Tim still thinks he’s on the OTHER side, but he can’t be if he’s running for prosecutor.


Comments

  1. I guess Pat is too ignorant to bother with facts. What the ACLU opposes is the Border Patrols claim that it can search any car without probable cause up to 100 miles from the closest border. Every day American citizens are being stopped and searched far from the border for no reason at all. As usual Pat has no idea what he/she is talking about. I guess Pat would rather we live in a police state. I wonder if Andy Thomas is of like mind.

  2. I think this would be a much more educational post if the author actually answered the question he is asking as opposed to speculating.
    It might also help to address the points made by Todd because if those are true, then the entire post seems borderline pointless. Actually, its almost 100 miles south of pointless.

  3. Uh, as bloggers/reporters, we report the news, we don’t speak for the candidates. Nelson needs to come out and say whether or not he agrees with the ACLU’s opinion on border checkpoints. It’s not exactly our responsibility to figure out his position for him.

    I don’t have a problem with the border patrol searching people near the border because they suspect they’re illegal immigrants. The ACLU does. Nice try to use semantics to criticize this post.

  4. Pat – you still don’t seem to understand what the ACLU is objecting to. This is not about “border checkpoints” this is about stopping, searching and questioning Americans citizens up to 100 miles away from the nearest border without need for suspicion of anything. I can’t understand your claim about semantics, I am claiming you are wrong on your facts.

    You claim you are not “speaking for the candidates.” What rubbish, you are not reporting the news this is propaganda for Andy Thomas.

    I must say the level of intellectual dishonesty displayed on SA is astounding.

  5. Uh, I don’t think you are actually reporting the news. Uh, unless your definition of “news” doesn’t include reporting the actual facts about a recent event. Uh, since its not your responsibility to figure out Nelson’s position for him, then why bother doing so?
    Uh, and shame Todd for apparently trying to use the meaning of words to comprehend this post.

  6. Why does Tim Nelson have to take a position on this? As I understand it, the Border Patrol’s cases are prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, not the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. Also, is Maricopa County within 100 miles of the border?

  7. With regard to Pat’s comments: I actually know people – US citizens who don’t even vaguely resemble illegal immigrants – who were stopped by the Border Patrol as they were driving from Tucson to San Diego.
    Pat, the reason the ACLU and others work so hard defending the Constitution is because they and we do not want this kind of intrusion in OUR lives.

Speak Your Mind

*