5 ms·

Border entry points aren't legally in United States and you have absolutely no rights whatsoever, even if a US citizen, when at those locations. There is nothi

Border entry points aren't legally in United States and you have absolutely no rights whatsoever, even if a US citizen, when at those locations. There is nothing new about this, but it's been getting worse ever since the evul hackers started subverting the US Government by encrypting and leaking the Government's illegal activities.

zeroer 10y ago
I missed that part in the constitution where it said these rights not available in all areas.
- rhizome 10y ago
  Not in the Constitution per se, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
  - zeroer 10y ago
    That was kind of my point. It's not in the constitution and conflicts with the constitution.
    - Nrsolis 10y ago
      It doesn't conflict with the Constitution and this is a common misunderstanding by laymen about how the law works in the USA. "Case Law" vs "Statutory Law" is the name of the game here. To not beat a dead horse: every single decision made by the Supreme Court is effectively in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Any part of the Constitution can be interpreted, modified, or nullified by a decision of the Supreme Court. So, when the SCOTUS decides that an exemption against prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure applies at the border, you can be assured that they view it as "constitutional".
      - syshum 10y ago
        Which is contrary to how many of the framers wanted the nation to be run... I cite Jefferson >>"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson [1804] >>"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson [1820] >>"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson [1825] Over the last 200 years to much reverence and power has been placed in the hands of the Supreme Court, and the federal government in general.
        Nrsolis 10y ago
        I'm not arguing for one side or the other. I'm telling you how it works in practice. Complain all you like. Our Constitution spells out in very clear terms that blacks are to be considered 3/5th of a white man for the purposes of representation in Congress. If that term itself isn't an example of how wrong it is to be a strict textualist I don't know a better example. I wouldn't make the mistake of pretending that the Constitution is a perfect document. You shouldn't either.
        syshum 10y ago
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  The rights are applicable, the practical application is different. E.g., the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is still present, but the fact of a border crossing itself is held to make nearly any search reasonable.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Border entry points aren't legally in United States Yes, they are. > and you have absolutely no rights whatsoever, even if a US citizen, when at those locations. Also incorrect, though there are a number of limitations in the practical application of generally applicable rights in the context of the border (and not just official "entry points".)
- stefantalpalaru 10y ago
  > a number of limitations in the practical application of generally applicable rights in the context of the border That's one way to put it. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone : > Federal border agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing, and often in ways that our Constitution does not permit.

zeroer 10y ago

I missed that part in the constitution where it said these rights not available in all areas.

rhizome 10y ago
Not in the Constitution per se, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
- zeroer 10y ago
  That was kind of my point. It's not in the constitution and conflicts with the constitution.
  - Nrsolis 10y ago
    It doesn't conflict with the Constitution and this is a common misunderstanding by laymen about how the law works in the USA. "Case Law" vs "Statutory Law" is the name of the game here. To not beat a dead horse: every single decision made by the Supreme Court is effectively in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Any part of the Constitution can be interpreted, modified, or nullified by a decision of the Supreme Court. So, when the SCOTUS decides that an exemption against prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure applies at the border, you can be assured that they view it as "constitutional".
    - syshum 10y ago
      Which is contrary to how many of the framers wanted the nation to be run... I cite Jefferson >>"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." --Thomas Jefferson [1804] >>"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson [1820] >>"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson [1825] Over the last 200 years to much reverence and power has been placed in the hands of the Supreme Court, and the federal government in general.
      - Nrsolis 10y ago
        I'm not arguing for one side or the other. I'm telling you how it works in practice. Complain all you like. Our Constitution spells out in very clear terms that blacks are to be considered 3/5th of a white man for the purposes of representation in Congress. If that term itself isn't an example of how wrong it is to be a strict textualist I don't know a better example. I wouldn't make the mistake of pretending that the Constitution is a perfect document. You shouldn't either.
        syshum 10y ago
dragonwriter 10y ago
The rights are applicable, the practical application is different. E.g., the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is still present, but the fact of a border crossing itself is held to make nearly any search reasonable.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Border entry points aren't legally in United States Yes, they are. > and you have absolutely no rights whatsoever, even if a US citizen, when at those locations. Also incorrect, though there are a number of limitations in the practical application of generally applicable rights in the context of the border (and not just official "entry points".)

stefantalpalaru 10y ago
> a number of limitations in the practical application of generally applicable rights in the context of the border That's one way to put it. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone : > Federal border agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing, and often in ways that our Constitution does not permit.