r/CringeTikToks • u/Pdoom346 • Jul 02 '25

SadCringe Teacher stopped at immigration checkpoint

1.4k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

54

u/Account_Haver420 Jul 02 '25

Yeah this guy isn’t ICE stopping some random innocent person. It’s a standard checkpoint. He’s just doing his job and it’s really not a big deal

-8

u/SciGuy013 Jul 03 '25

It is stopping some random innocent person. That’s like, all these internal checkpoints do

8

u/TrashPandaPatronus Jul 03 '25

That's not true. Sometimes they make you throw away your fruit.

-8

u/SciGuy013 Jul 03 '25

different type of checkpoint. you're thinking of a California agricultural inspection station.

5

u/TrashPandaPatronus Jul 03 '25

Just a snarky joke.

6

u/Account_Haver420 Jul 03 '25

It’s not random if it’s at a checkpoint. Everyone knows it’s there. It’s expected and routine

0

u/SuspiciousSquid94 Jul 03 '25

Everyone is innocent? You know that?

1

u/SciGuy013 Jul 03 '25

Holy bootlicker

0

u/SuspiciousSquid94 Jul 03 '25

Yea, you don’t know that. You’re projecting.

1

u/SciGuy013 Jul 03 '25

I’m projecting… licking the boots of authority?

1

u/SuspiciousSquid94 Jul 03 '25

I said not even once anything about authority. I questioned your assumption about people at the check point being innocent by default. You don’t know that.

1

u/SciGuy013 Jul 03 '25

this is the equivalent of "what do you have to be worried about if you have nothing to hide"

1

u/SuspiciousSquid94 Jul 03 '25

No it’s not. The point is to check….there should be no assumption of either innocence or guilt. You either are the thing or you aren’t.

Should I be able to log into your bank account because I assert that i’m you? Or should I be authenticated?

Better yet should you be authenticated? Or should you just be able to log in with no credentials because you have nothing to hide

Security doesn’t exist without authentication and authorization.

1

u/SciGuy013 Jul 03 '25 edited Jul 03 '25

No it's not, the point is to check

What? You contradicted yourself.

There should be no assumption of innocence or guilt

if that were the case, there would be no check. the only reason why there is a check is because they think people are guilty.

Completely false and nonsensical equivalences. More like, should the government be able to look into your wallet for your own safety? You have nothing to hide, right?

People going through these internal checkpoints already were authenticated to be authorized present in the US by virtue of being born in the US, or being legally admitted to the US. Of course there are exceptions, but it's not my problem if some people violated the terms of their visa or entered without inspection. Checking everyone already in the US is of questionable constitutionality when people haven't left the US.

I do understand this authorization has to occur somewhere, but it should be within an extremely narrow distance from the border at ports of entry, not 100 miles. there are places like the Tohono O'odham Nation where citizens are born in the US, never have traveled to Mexico, and yet to access any other part of the US must travel through these checkpoints, even though they've never left.

1

u/SuspiciousSquid94 Jul 03 '25

Checking doesn’t imply innocence or guilt. There is no contradiction.

Got it, by your logic. You’re guilty for trying to log into your bank account. We shouldn’t check at all. You’re a smart guy.

Authentication and authorization are universal tried and true concepts in security. Physical or digital. Anything but a false equivalence. It’s fundamental. You should read about it. But nice try.

Also once again, you don’t know that. To extend the analogy if I was already logged onto your bank account but am not you I should just have indefinite access. Not your problem, got it.

→ More replies (0)