3 ms·

I am not lawyer, however the border-zone sure seems unconstitutional to me...and if arguments for it Constitutionality rely on the idea that the border zone rep

I am not lawyer, however the border-zone sure seems unconstitutional to me...and if arguments for it Constitutionality rely on the idea that the border zone represents a very restricted edge case, then this excellent article clearly makes that position a farce.

onetimemanytime 8y ago
IMO, the idea was that smugglers passed the border and now are moving inland. They should not be safe just because they crossed that line. So they drew another one. In general a good idea but as always the government abuses it.
- Retric 8y ago
  If the line was say 5 miles you might have a point. But, 100 miles is long enough to basicly be meaningless.
  - refurb 8y ago
    Agreed. Having a zone is reasonable, otherwise people could make it a mile over the border and CBP would have limited enforcement ability. However, 100 miles seems excessive. That said, it’s more complicated than “a 100 mile constitution free zone”. CBP can have checkpoints and can briefly question people, but they can’t search a vehicle without a warrant.[1] [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
    - LanceH 8y ago
      Sure, but then there are the warrant issuing dogs.
- devereaux 8y ago
  The government abuses laws set to restrict its power? Color me shocked! If a first border line was insufficient, they will eventually complain about the second one being insufficient as well. Just how many do you think they need to be satisfied?? (answer: no amount will do, because the answer to how much $whatever$ the government needs will always be 'more', and limitations will always be abused) If they really want to bother people in say St Louis, MO that's not near a border by any stretch of imagination, they will create some legal fiction like any airport being a potential border.

3 ms·

I am not lawyer, however the border-zone sure seems unconstitutional to me...and if arguments for it Constitutionality rely on the idea that the border zone rep

by SubiculumCode 8y ago

onetimemanytime 8y ago
IMO, the idea was that smugglers passed the border and now are moving inland. They should not be safe just because they crossed that line. So they drew another one. In general a good idea but as always the government abuses it.
- Retric 8y ago
  If the line was say 5 miles you might have a point. But, 100 miles is long enough to basicly be meaningless.
  - refurb 8y ago
    Agreed. Having a zone is reasonable, otherwise people could make it a mile over the border and CBP would have limited enforcement ability. However, 100 miles seems excessive. That said, it’s more complicated than “a 100 mile constitution free zone”. CBP can have checkpoints and can briefly question people, but they can’t search a vehicle without a warrant.[1] [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
    - LanceH 8y ago
      Sure, but then there are the warrant issuing dogs.
- devereaux 8y ago
  The government abuses laws set to restrict its power? Color me shocked! If a first border line was insufficient, they will eventually complain about the second one being insufficient as well. Just how many do you think they need to be satisfied?? (answer: no amount will do, because the answer to how much $whatever$ the government needs will always be 'more', and limitations will always be abused) If they really want to bother people in say St Louis, MO that's not near a border by any stretch of imagination, they will create some legal fiction like any airport being a potential border.