While I don't care to see checkpoints set up all over America, if it is for a singularly declared purpose, and it is to address a temporary problem, the invasion of privacy is limited to the scope of the original intent of the checkpoints, they are reasonable. Another example is agricultural inspection stations. While the stations are often permanent, they are not always manned. The invasion of your privacy is limited to the immediate pest they are trying to control. During periods of high agricultural product transportation, they might stop all cars, whereas during off season, you only have to slow down as you pass through.
Alex Jones is being quite dramatic, as is the usual attitude of these shock-jocks. Mark Williams is similar. There was no violation of his 4th amendment rights as described because he granted permission to the agent. If he felt strongly about his 4th amendment right, he would have said no. Lots of non-citizens are not illegal aliens. The non-citizen might be required to state their status when asked by a federal agent somewhere in the law, but not necessarily true when questioned by a non-federal officer or agent.
With all that said, it is hard to argue one point Jones has: The real border is not being patrolled where the real illegal entry happens, and where they might be catching the most foreigners without having to screen thousands or millions of legally present or US citizens too. Likewise for setting up checkpoints in invader rich areas of certain cities. It's a bit impure and becomes suspect when the feds use immigration law as an excuse to reduce the privacy expectations of all Americans without first exhausting all other remedies.
|