Meh
Lv 7
Meh asked in Politics & GovernmentImmigration · 10 years ago

Legal to stop on only apparent heritage?

Would it surprise you to learn that the Supreme Court has already ruled that stops were Constitutional even if largely based on apparent Mexican ancestry, in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte?

Interesting.

Update:

Does this put an end to racial profiling claims?

5 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago
    Best Answer

    The case involved stops at established Border checkpoints. Much like I found several miles into Mexico and at intervals thereafter. In fact my wife and I, who are blue eyed blonds had to stop at the ones in Texas and AZ also. The road is blocked and everyone gets pulled over at the ones I have encountered.

    So yes. The Border Patrol here is allowed to do about the same thing the Mexican Federales do at their checkpoints, except there is normally not "The Bite" to be paid when you are stopped on the USA side.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that allowed the United States Border Patrol to set up permanent or fixed checkpoints on public highways leading to or away from the Mexican border, and that these checkpoints are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment

    The defendant, Martinez-Fuerte, had agreed to transport two illegal Mexican aliens who had entered the United States through the Port of San Ysidro in San Diego, California. They traveled north and were stopped at a permanent checkpoint on Interstate 5 between Oceanside and San Clemente, then questioned. The two passengers admitted their status and the defendant was charged with two counts of illegally transporting aliens. He moved to have the evidence suppressed, on the grounds that the checkpoint stop had violated the 4th Amendment. The motion was denied and he was convicted of both counts

    The court ruled 7 to 2 that the internal checkpoints were not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but rather were consistent with the amendment. They went on to say that it would be impracticable for the officers to seek warrants for every vehicle searched and that to do so would eliminate any deterrent towards smuggling and illegal immigration. The court felt that any intrusion to motorists was a minimal one and that the government and public interest outweighed the constitutional rights of the individual.

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    That's great. But unfortunately the media is depicting a bad image of Hispanics in genereal because of this illegal immigration problem. And all those racist organizations like La Raza, MeCHA, etc only contribute to all the negative stereotypes. All those illegal aliens who march the streets waving Mexican flags really create a negative image towards Latinos in general. It's sad really because I'm sure most legal Latino Americans feel frustrated, embarrassed and maybe a bit angry about all the negative attention this is creating.

  • 10 years ago

    Many of our federal and state laws allow law enforcement officers to stop people when they are suspected of committing a crime or give question as to the persons actions. The racial profiling became a "politically incorrect" term used by those who need a crutch to face society. Everyone and anyone is subject to being stopped and questioned anytime they appear to be suspicious; always have been and hopefully always will be! Those who fear this or think they are above the law need to pack up and leave the country!

  • 10 years ago

    the racial profiling claims are bogus anyway, so providing facts will not put an end to them

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 10 years ago

    Good job Rebel.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.