opinion in our case, however, reaches the opposite conclusion — holding that a Bivens remedy is unavailable to undocumented immigrants challenging stops and arrests in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Because I disagree with the panel’s analysis and believe that the decision to take the extraordinary step of denying Bivens remedies for routine traffic stops and arrests to an entire class of people warrants review by the entire court, I respectfully dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc. 1 . The panel’s opinion refers to foreign nationals present in the United States without lawful immigration status as “illegal aliens”; I choose to refer to these individuals as "undocumented immigrants” instead. 2 . See Martinez-Aguero v. Gonzalez, 459 F.3d 618, 620-21, 625 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The panel’s justification for ignoring Fifth
holding that excessive force by a school official should be analyzed under the fourth amendment holding that a mexican national who alleged that she had been illegally arrested and beaten by a border patrol agent may bring a bivens claim for unlawful arrest and the excessive use of force under the fourth amendment recognizing that the fourth amendment protects against the use of excessive force by police officers in carrying out an arrest holding that excessive force claims are to be treated under the fourth amendment recognizing aliens bivens claim for damages under the fourth amendment against the chief border patrol agent arising from the us border patrol buffalo sectors policy which rewarded usbp buffalo sec tor agents with cash vacation time and gift cards for high arrest numbers but not for the legality of arrests