I agree with the post. Take the sum total of motivation (resulting from this incident) for them vs. the sum total of motivation for us, and I think they win. That means this is a loss.
From the Guardian on MSN:
Walter Shaub, federal ethics chief under Barack Obama and briefly Trump and now a fierce critic of the administration, responded: “Sanders used her official govt account to condemn a private business for personal reasons … she can lob attacks on her own time but not using her official position.”
6 Likes
It shows how abysmally stupid conservatives when they claim that people working for POTUS should be a protected class under the law (!), such as religious people, gays or people of color.
For that matter, us Liberals comparing the two incidents (bakery refusal of service = restaurant mgr asking someone to leave) isn’t too accurate, since the law tries to protect people who are traditionally mistreated because of their race or sexual orientation, not everyone who is a jerks. In some cases its a tricky distinction, but not this one.
And I believe that if Ms. Huckabee & party refused to leave, they’d have been allowed to stay. It would have been a pretty uncomfortable dinner, though.
1 Like
We’ve lost nothing. The right wing continues to lose its soul every day.
They’re shouting their hatred, we’re showing our love for our fellow man.
Mike Huckabee is a Christian minister and he tweeted this.
The rules at the checkpoint are absolutely not the same as the rules at the border. At the border, you are seeking admission to the US. If you don’t satisfy the agents at the border, you don’t get in. Even if you have a valid passport, they can use your refusal to answer any questions to justify further inquiry/investigation before admitting you.
Within the US, such as at checkpoints, the special powers of immigration officials are mostly limited to some exclusions to the need for warrants and some additional powers when they are dealing with aliens. Beyond that, they must abide by virtually all the same restrictions that other law-enforcement officers must abide by in the US, such as probable cause and the 5th amendment.
The issue of answering questions at checkpoints is dealt with at the very start of the code:
(a) Powers without warrant
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant—
(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;
If you are not an alien, the agent requires probable cause to interrogate you. If you read further, you will find that probable cause applies also to other dealings with individuals. From what I have read, courts have held that refusal to answer questions may not be used a “probable cause.”
2 Likes
Of course this post is true, and I thank you for finding the article and bringing me the link. But I can’t imagine that anyone in this administration will ever
- Think ethics rules apply to them
- Suffer any consequences for breaking said rules
- Stop laughing at those of us who think “ethics” is a good thing
More’s the pity.
2 Likes
I don’t believe I said anything about probable cause for searches. The rules about that have to do with what can be seen from outside the car. But the border patrol has many resources with which to generate a reason to send someone to secondary inspection, such as sniffer dogs.
Your citation does not address what is required of persons going through a checkpoint. You are required to answer questions about your citizenship, and I think also about where you are going and where you are traveling from.
By “like” I did not mean that the laws are identical to those at border crossings. I meant to suggest that they were different from what we ordinarily understand as our rights. I am certain of this, and am sorry for my failure to communicate this more effectively.
I don’t think she should have been kicked out of the restaurant. If she was being obstreperous, yes - but apparently she was just there to eat. It’s the sort of mean-spirited thing Trumpsters do - and we surely are better people than to stoop to that level. She is doing a job. I don’t like the lies, either, but that doesn’t mean she can’t eat dinner in a public restaurant. Liars eat out all the time. Businesses open to the public should not refuse to serve people just because they don’t like them. That’s not what we’re about as a country. If you want to pick and chose your customers, keep your business private.
No it was not at all mean-spirited. The owner let the servers vote on it - Sarah lost. As the owner told Sarah, it was a matter of principle. That is not being mean.
By god decent people should not accept Nazis in their midst.
You mean like a restaurant that says: No shirt No Shoes No Service? Everybody picks and chooses their customers.
1 Like
…is an American hero.
2 Likes
No Sarah, they kicked you out because you work for Trump.
1 Like
I guess now she feels how those two gay dudes felt when that homophobe wouldn’t back a kake for their wedding
I addressed this in two ways.
First, I quoted the code which says that immigration agents may interrogate “any alien or person believed to be an alien…” A citizen is not an alien, and without probable cause, is not a “person believed to be an alien.”
Second, I noted that the legal code exempts immigration officials from certain specific restrictions that apply to other law-enforcement agents. but that those exemptions do not include the 5th amendment. I provided a link to the code. The 5th amendment provides us the right to refuse to answer the questions at a checkpoint.
I’ve reached the limits of what I can contribute to the discussion. It is not an area where I claim expertise, and it is not necessary for us to reach full agreement. I appreciate your civility and sincerity, and will close my end of this with a couple links to ACLU materials on the subject. As they note, agents and agencies often assume greater powers than the law seems to provide, and it sometimes takes court cases to establish the limits.
2 Likes
Show me your papers.
It’s legal to stop all drivers to check for intoxication, sort of a “reasonable suspicion”. But how is this kind of universal stop and search in any way legal? Just driving down the interstate is not grounds for suspicion about your citizenship status. And there is no requirement to carry proof of who you are other than DL for the driver, I suppose, and that doesn’t show citizenship, does it?
This seems precisely to be the kind of thing the 4th amendment is supposed to protect us from.
Update: This twit of Huckleberry’s has been ruled unethical by the person in charge of Congressional ethics because it violated the injunction against using your political position to either aid or scourge someone else economically.
3 Likes
I don’t know much about the Red Hen restaurant, it appears to be pretty good and in the unlikely event I need to grab some lunch in that part of Virginia, I’ll certainly patronize them. It is certainly better than Chick-Fil-A.
I suspect the restaurant is in the clear: SHS and company are likely to stiff them for the bill and likely to disrupt the business.
They didn’t have to pay (they offered) their tab, because the owner frankly wanted them out of there.
I think there are laws or regulations in place which permit this based on how many miles from the border you are. The closer you are, to Canada in this instance, it sounds like it’s permissible. But I’m not lawyer.
Yeah, we settled that “just following orders” isn’t cover for perpetrating or enabling crimes against humanity 70 years ago, so the whole “just doing a job” excuse for presenting lies and apologia for this administrations crimes doesn’t really cut it.
The vast majority of the U.S. population lives within 100 miles of the border (including seacoasts).
1 Like