4 ms·

That is a stretch of the reading of those provisions, the court has generally (and wrongly IMO) allowed Federal Law enforcement to stop people with in the bord

by syshum 6y ago

That is a stretch of the reading of those provisions, the court has generally (and wrongly IMO) allowed Federal Law enforcement to stop people with in the border zones to establish if they crossed the border illegally, once Citizenship is established then normal protections snap back into place Even at border crossing the government has been allowed to seize Devices and other things but they generally can not prevent a US Citizen from entering, they can stop you from bringing your stuff, but they cant stop you (outside the limited questioning detainment certainly not 14 days) unless they have an arrest warrant or some other cause of action to arrest you

jedberg 6y ago
I agree that they were wrong. But that is how things stand now. And they do have a cause to detain you -- you might be carrying a deadly virus. Until you can prove otherwise, they can detain you.
- syshum 6y ago
  That is flipping due process on its head, the state has the duty to prove I am a danger to others, I have not duty to prove I am not Having a position that I have to prove my innocence is completely devoid of any due process and is unconstitutional
  - solarengineer 6y ago
    Given that Virus and Biology have no obligation to be compatible with various national and international laws, it is upon human society and governments to work around the virus. Thus, for e.g., people in South East and Far East Asia learned from the earlier pandemics and voluntarily wear face masks to protect themselves and those around them even when one has "just a cold or a cough". People also agreed to socially and physically distance when asked. The messages from scientists and doctors have been enough proof of the dangers that the virus poses.
    - syshum 6y ago
      That is fine, my problem is recently we have just be ignoring the constitution when it is deemed to be a problem The fact remains the federal government has no constitutional authority nor do most state government. If we need "pandemic response" authority then we need to amend the constition to add the power to the government not just simply declare it so because "The Experts™" have declared that is what is best for us. if that is the measure of our rights, we have no rights at all. If rights can be stripped with a simple declaration of emergency, on which there is no power to challenge that declaration then we have no rights at all To believe the government will not use this unprecedented event for which they have usurped a wide range of never used before power in ever increasing ways is naive and ignores all of human history. It will not be long before the seasonal flu or cold will be enough to warrant draconian measure and limited on personal freedoms, or be used for privacy invading policies like contact tracing all the time (which will then be used for Law Enforcement like in Singapore) it amazes me out people can not see what is next, or maybe than can but simply believe the promise (false promise) of safety is more important than liberty
  - pertymcpert 6y ago
    Good thing that you're not in charge of anything.
    - syshum 6y ago
      I know right, Freedom is scary we must have Authoritarian control over our lives... For your own safety if not we may get it our heads we are autonomous individuals and not part of the borg
      - pertymcpert 6y ago
        Borg sounds pretty good to me! A lot of people would agree!
    - dang 6y ago
      Personal attacks are not cool here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. We ban accounts that do that. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site to heart, we'd be grateful. Edit: looks like we've had to ask you this more than once before. Please don't do it again!
      - pertymcpert 6y ago
        This was not a personal attack. This was an attack of their position. A: "We should be doing [stupid thing] X" B: "Good thing you're not the one deciding." B is not a personal attack. The entire premise of the point is that it's because of what they said/think, not something personal about that particular individual.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    Pandemic+unknown disease status is proof of danger. You can argue that isn't a high enough standard, but it's a pretty clear one, and given the exponential spread, it's a real actual danger that can be controlled at the point of entry.
eT8AZithxooKei6 6y ago
They wouldn't prevent you from entering. They'd just make you quarantine once you did.
deeeeplearning 6y ago
> the court has generally (and wrongly IMO) Well thank god you are not in charge of Policy in the US.
bigiain 6y ago
> That is a stretch of the reading of those provisions Any, you know, the government and law enforcement have _never_ been known to do that... "It's not 'collection' if we permanently record every phonemail/textmessage/email ever sent. It only counts as 'collection' if a human reads/listens to it!" :sigh:

by syshum 6y ago

jedberg 6y ago

I agree that they were wrong. But that is how things stand now. And they do have a cause to detain you -- you might be carrying a deadly virus. Until you can prove otherwise, they can detain you.

syshum 6y ago
That is flipping due process on its head, the state has the duty to prove I am a danger to others, I have not duty to prove I am not Having a position that I have to prove my innocence is completely devoid of any due process and is unconstitutional
- solarengineer 6y ago
  Given that Virus and Biology have no obligation to be compatible with various national and international laws, it is upon human society and governments to work around the virus. Thus, for e.g., people in South East and Far East Asia learned from the earlier pandemics and voluntarily wear face masks to protect themselves and those around them even when one has "just a cold or a cough". People also agreed to socially and physically distance when asked. The messages from scientists and doctors have been enough proof of the dangers that the virus poses.
  - syshum 6y ago
    That is fine, my problem is recently we have just be ignoring the constitution when it is deemed to be a problem The fact remains the federal government has no constitutional authority nor do most state government. If we need "pandemic response" authority then we need to amend the constition to add the power to the government not just simply declare it so because "The Experts™" have declared that is what is best for us. if that is the measure of our rights, we have no rights at all. If rights can be stripped with a simple declaration of emergency, on which there is no power to challenge that declaration then we have no rights at all To believe the government will not use this unprecedented event for which they have usurped a wide range of never used before power in ever increasing ways is naive and ignores all of human history. It will not be long before the seasonal flu or cold will be enough to warrant draconian measure and limited on personal freedoms, or be used for privacy invading policies like contact tracing all the time (which will then be used for Law Enforcement like in Singapore) it amazes me out people can not see what is next, or maybe than can but simply believe the promise (false promise) of safety is more important than liberty
- pertymcpert 6y ago
  Good thing that you're not in charge of anything.
  - syshum 6y ago
    I know right, Freedom is scary we must have Authoritarian control over our lives... For your own safety if not we may get it our heads we are autonomous individuals and not part of the borg
    - pertymcpert 6y ago
      Borg sounds pretty good to me! A lot of people would agree!
  - dang 6y ago
    Personal attacks are not cool here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. We ban accounts that do that. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site to heart, we'd be grateful. Edit: looks like we've had to ask you this more than once before. Please don't do it again!
    - pertymcpert 6y ago
      This was not a personal attack. This was an attack of their position. A: "We should be doing [stupid thing] X" B: "Good thing you're not the one deciding." B is not a personal attack. The entire premise of the point is that it's because of what they said/think, not something personal about that particular individual.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  Pandemic+unknown disease status is proof of danger. You can argue that isn't a high enough standard, but it's a pretty clear one, and given the exponential spread, it's a real actual danger that can be controlled at the point of entry.

eT8AZithxooKei6 6y ago

They wouldn't prevent you from entering. They'd just make you quarantine once you did.

deeeeplearning 6y ago

> the court has generally (and wrongly IMO) Well thank god you are not in charge of Policy in the US.

bigiain 6y ago

> That is a stretch of the reading of those provisions Any, you know, the government and law enforcement have _never_ been known to do that... "It's not 'collection' if we permanently record every phonemail/textmessage/email ever sent. It only counts as 'collection' if a human reads/listens to it!" :sigh: