4 ms·

The only part of these provisions I object to, is the social media scanning. That looks a lot like thought police to me.

by jack9 9y ago

speedplane 9y ago
Especially of U.S. citizens. Never understood why the 4th amendment of the U.S. constitution ("unreasonable search and seizure") doesn't protect citizens from being searched at the border.
- Brotkrumen 9y ago
  And by "border" you mean the actual border + 100 miles inland, right? https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-border-zone-map https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-b...
  - harryh 9y ago
    No. The 100 mile thing just means that you don't have to be exactly at the border and that if the search area is moved a bit for geographic convenience that's fine. You still have to have recently crossed a border to be searched. There is no reason to be alarmist.
    - Brotkrumen 9y ago
      Big difference between "not exactly at the border" and 100 miles away from it. Also not very helpful that the search is illegal if you haven't crossed a border and have to get relief in court against a federal agency.
      - harryh 9y ago
        No one is being searched by border patrol who hasn't actually crossed a border. There's no need for anyone to get relief. There is no reason to be alarmist.
        Brotkrumen 9y ago
        >who hasn't actually crossed a border You mean like ever in their lifes? If not, some people might disagree with you: http://www.concordmonitor.com/New-Hampshire-interstate-border-patrol-checkpoint-drugs-legal-debate-12162389 http://www.concordmonitor.com/New-Hampshire-interstate-borde... Or you can claim that border patrol tracked these people for 75 miles and then held them up at the road block.
    - wan23 9y ago
      Border Patrol also stops people in the 100 mile zone to inquire about their immigration status. You can be detained or searched in this way regardless of anything having to do with a border crossing.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Because “unreasonable” is the qualifier, and searches at the border have (since the 4th Amendment was written) been considered per se reasonable as an exercise of a sovereign nation’s powers to create and maintain a border.
  - speedplane 9y ago
    Yes, I understand the qualifier is what gives the government legal wiggle room, but I don't understand why it's reasonable that you lose constitutional rights the second you cross a border and come back. Constitutional rights should travel with you.

The only part of these provisions I object to, is the social media scanning. That looks a lot like thought police to me.

by jack9 9y ago

The only part of these provisions I object to, is the social media scanning. That looks a lot like thought police to me.

speedplane 9y ago

Especially of U.S. citizens. Never understood why the 4th amendment of the U.S. constitution ("unreasonable search and seizure") doesn't protect citizens from being searched at the border.

Brotkrumen 9y ago
And by "border" you mean the actual border + 100 miles inland, right? https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-border-zone-map https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-governments-100-mile-b...
- harryh 9y ago
  No. The 100 mile thing just means that you don't have to be exactly at the border and that if the search area is moved a bit for geographic convenience that's fine. You still have to have recently crossed a border to be searched. There is no reason to be alarmist.
  - Brotkrumen 9y ago
    Big difference between "not exactly at the border" and 100 miles away from it. Also not very helpful that the search is illegal if you haven't crossed a border and have to get relief in court against a federal agency.
    - harryh 9y ago
      No one is being searched by border patrol who hasn't actually crossed a border. There's no need for anyone to get relief. There is no reason to be alarmist.
      - Brotkrumen 9y ago
        >who hasn't actually crossed a border You mean like ever in their lifes? If not, some people might disagree with you: http://www.concordmonitor.com/New-Hampshire-interstate-border-patrol-checkpoint-drugs-legal-debate-12162389 http://www.concordmonitor.com/New-Hampshire-interstate-borde... Or you can claim that border patrol tracked these people for 75 miles and then held them up at the road block.
  - wan23 9y ago
    Border Patrol also stops people in the 100 mile zone to inquire about their immigration status. You can be detained or searched in this way regardless of anything having to do with a border crossing.
rayiner 9y ago
Because “unreasonable” is the qualifier, and searches at the border have (since the 4th Amendment was written) been considered per se reasonable as an exercise of a sovereign nation’s powers to create and maintain a border.
- speedplane 9y ago
  Yes, I understand the qualifier is what gives the government legal wiggle room, but I don't understand why it's reasonable that you lose constitutional rights the second you cross a border and come back. Constitutional rights should travel with you.