7 ms·

Sounds like the constitution free zone really is a constitution free zone. And most people in the USA live in it.

hprotagonist 7y ago
and by "most" we mean "at least 65%" https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/who-lives-in-border-patrols-100-mile-zone-probably-you-mapped/558275/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/who-lives-in-border-p...
refurb 7y ago
Constitution free is hyperbole. You still have constitutional rights.
- munk-a 7y ago
  No, it isn't hyperbole, officers of the law in these zones are given leeway to violate the fourth amendment without any of the normal exceptions (like exigent circumstances) applying. That said, it isn't usually exercised... but that sort of makes it worse since any usages of their elevated powers can be applied arbitrarily and without consistency which, IMO, is intensely worrying in a country where incarceration rates by race are so wildly out of balance with population proportions.
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    It is hyperbole, because the situation missing is the nexus with the border. Driving in Queens doesn't give CBP the ability to pull you over and rip apart your car. Picking up someone at JFK may give them the ability for them to do so on the way home.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      Except it actually does, they probably won't exercise that ability frequently, but they have the power to do that without any inherent legal restrictions or conditions. A CBP officer could yank you out of your car on the cross bronx expressway and then search the vehicle top to bottom and your legal recourse would be to hope that CBP feels bad and reimburses you somehow, you would be owed no legal damages because it isn't illegal. This isn't hyperbole, it's actually that ridiculous.
      - Spooky23 7y ago
        Only if there was a "significant temporal nexus" between the search and border crossing. From the Congressional Research Service: (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf, page 8) > Under the “extended border search” doctrine, government officials may conduct a warrantless search beyond the border or its functional equivalent if (1) the government officials have a reasonable certainty that a border was crossed or there exists a “high degree of probability” that a border was crossed; (2) they also have reasonable certainty that no change in the object of the search has occurred between the time of the border crossing and the search; and (3) they have “reasonable suspicion” that criminal activity was occurring. In online reporting, there is often significant confusion between the "Extended Border Area" (ie. the 100 mile zone) and the "Functional Equivalent of the Border" (ie. an airport customs zone).
        munk-a 7y ago
        So, prior to this thing there was always an exemption for warrantless searches carried out under exigent circumstances. The addition of this law does nothing but weaken an existing, and highly clarified, exemption.
        Spooky23 7y ago
        The current policy has been in effect since the Korean War. It’s difficult to compare pre-war policy to today. Border activity was mostly about taxation in those days. The only new thing is the increased size of the sprawling bureaucracy of Customs and the Border Control, and the increased tempo of operations. The real problem is the growth of executive power and the supine nature of the Congress and courts. This particular issue has attention due to the disgusting conduct of the current administration. We live in an era where the President believes that he posses banana republic like presidential immunity and executive privilege.
    - shalmanese 7y ago
      Immigration officials have been boarding purely domestic bus routes in New Hampshire/Maine and demanding document checks: https://bangordailynews.com/2019/07/23/news/portland/concord-coach-lines-violates-passengers-rights-by-allowing-immigration-searches-aclu-says/ https://bangordailynews.com/2019/07/23/news/portland/concord... These are just indiscriminate sweeps being justified by the 100 mile border exception.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Not if you can be detained arbitrarily, without suspicion, simply for not carrying an ID.
  - refurb 7y ago
    Just because the officers don’t respect your constitutional rights doesn’t mean it’s a constitution free zone.
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      No, that’s exactly what it means. Law enforcement officers are agents of the state. The state not respecting your constitutional rights is equivalent to not having them.
      - refurb 7y ago
        No, even if law enforcement doesn’t respect your rights, you still have them. That’s why if the cops are violating your rights, you follow up in court.
        joeblow9999 7y ago
        please
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
whiddershins 7y ago
Hyperbole doesn’t help. We need to push back against this interpretation of the powers of the CBP, and it doesn’t make that case well to just say “constitution free zone.” It’s a specific exception they are claiming, and I think most people feel that exception is being claimed too broadly. It’s not a “constitution free zone.” Most of the constitution obviously and clearly still applies.
- cestith 7y ago
  Just not the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, and fourteenth amendments apparently.

and by "most" we mean "at least 65%" https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/who-lives-in-border-patrols-100-mile-zone-probably-you-mapped/558275/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/who-lives-in-border-p...

refurb 7y ago

Constitution free is hyperbole. You still have constitutional rights.

munk-a 7y ago
No, it isn't hyperbole, officers of the law in these zones are given leeway to violate the fourth amendment without any of the normal exceptions (like exigent circumstances) applying. That said, it isn't usually exercised... but that sort of makes it worse since any usages of their elevated powers can be applied arbitrarily and without consistency which, IMO, is intensely worrying in a country where incarceration rates by race are so wildly out of balance with population proportions.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  It is hyperbole, because the situation missing is the nexus with the border. Driving in Queens doesn't give CBP the ability to pull you over and rip apart your car. Picking up someone at JFK may give them the ability for them to do so on the way home.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    Except it actually does, they probably won't exercise that ability frequently, but they have the power to do that without any inherent legal restrictions or conditions. A CBP officer could yank you out of your car on the cross bronx expressway and then search the vehicle top to bottom and your legal recourse would be to hope that CBP feels bad and reimburses you somehow, you would be owed no legal damages because it isn't illegal. This isn't hyperbole, it's actually that ridiculous.
    - Spooky23 7y ago
      Only if there was a "significant temporal nexus" between the search and border crossing. From the Congressional Research Service: (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf, page 8) > Under the “extended border search” doctrine, government officials may conduct a warrantless search beyond the border or its functional equivalent if (1) the government officials have a reasonable certainty that a border was crossed or there exists a “high degree of probability” that a border was crossed; (2) they also have reasonable certainty that no change in the object of the search has occurred between the time of the border crossing and the search; and (3) they have “reasonable suspicion” that criminal activity was occurring. In online reporting, there is often significant confusion between the "Extended Border Area" (ie. the 100 mile zone) and the "Functional Equivalent of the Border" (ie. an airport customs zone).
      - munk-a 7y ago
        So, prior to this thing there was always an exemption for warrantless searches carried out under exigent circumstances. The addition of this law does nothing but weaken an existing, and highly clarified, exemption.
        Spooky23 7y ago
        The current policy has been in effect since the Korean War. It’s difficult to compare pre-war policy to today. Border activity was mostly about taxation in those days. The only new thing is the increased size of the sprawling bureaucracy of Customs and the Border Control, and the increased tempo of operations. The real problem is the growth of executive power and the supine nature of the Congress and courts. This particular issue has attention due to the disgusting conduct of the current administration. We live in an era where the President believes that he posses banana republic like presidential immunity and executive privilege.
  - shalmanese 7y ago
    Immigration officials have been boarding purely domestic bus routes in New Hampshire/Maine and demanding document checks: https://bangordailynews.com/2019/07/23/news/portland/concord-coach-lines-violates-passengers-rights-by-allowing-immigration-searches-aclu-says/ https://bangordailynews.com/2019/07/23/news/portland/concord... These are just indiscriminate sweeps being justified by the 100 mile border exception.
pmiller2 7y ago
Not if you can be detained arbitrarily, without suspicion, simply for not carrying an ID.
- refurb 7y ago
  Just because the officers don’t respect your constitutional rights doesn’t mean it’s a constitution free zone.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    No, that’s exactly what it means. Law enforcement officers are agents of the state. The state not respecting your constitutional rights is equivalent to not having them.
    - refurb 7y ago
      No, even if law enforcement doesn’t respect your rights, you still have them. That’s why if the cops are violating your rights, you follow up in court.
      - joeblow9999 7y ago
        please
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

whiddershins 7y ago

Hyperbole doesn’t help. We need to push back against this interpretation of the powers of the CBP, and it doesn’t make that case well to just say “constitution free zone.” It’s a specific exception they are claiming, and I think most people feel that exception is being claimed too broadly. It’s not a “constitution free zone.” Most of the constitution obviously and clearly still applies.

cestith 7y ago
Just not the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, and fourteenth amendments apparently.