3 ms·

One thing that has always confused me on this is - how can an agent enforce a law on a person if that person isn't within jurisdiction of that law, whilst at th

One thing that has always confused me on this is - how can an agent enforce a law on a person if that person isn't within jurisdiction of that law, whilst at the same time that person isn't entitled to the rights that they would have within that jurisdiction. Basically, how can you enforce a law on someone and at the same time ignore the rights that apply to someone where that law can be enforced. If the person hasn't entered the country, then the law of that country doesn't apply. If the person has entered the country, then the rights and protections of that country also apply..

NegativeK 3y ago
That sounds a bit like an overreading into technicalities. It makes sense for border control to exist to _some_ degree. That means that property and potentially people will need to be searched. It also makes sense for border entry points to not exist at the moving shore of a nation or in the actual air. That means that an administrative concept should exist where people on one side of a line are considered to be have been granted entry and people on the other side aren't -- even if both sides of the line are within a nation's territory. That administrative concept can be (but can also not be) compatible with both the goals of human rights and with the goals of nation states. And at the end of the day, laws should be more focused on achieving goals than fiddling with nitpicking.
- awesome_dude 3y ago
  I don't think you've understood the post at all. There's nothing in my post about stopping them from exercising border control. There's nothing about where that might take place. The point is, if you have enforceable laws then those that the laws are being enforced on also enjoy the rights available to them under the same laws. A search (of electronic equipment) requires cause (this is why the warrent is needed), and detainment also requires some degree of cause. Arbitrary search and detainment is what we ascribe to totalitarian nations.
AHOHA 3y ago
You got a strong argument here, I like your logic, will definitely try it if needed!

NegativeK 3y ago

That sounds a bit like an overreading into technicalities. It makes sense for border control to exist to _some_ degree. That means that property and potentially people will need to be searched. It also makes sense for border entry points to not exist at the moving shore of a nation or in the actual air. That means that an administrative concept should exist where people on one side of a line are considered to be have been granted entry and people on the other side aren't -- even if both sides of the line are within a nation's territory. That administrative concept can be (but can also not be) compatible with both the goals of human rights and with the goals of nation states. And at the end of the day, laws should be more focused on achieving goals than fiddling with nitpicking.

awesome_dude 3y ago
I don't think you've understood the post at all. There's nothing in my post about stopping them from exercising border control. There's nothing about where that might take place. The point is, if you have enforceable laws then those that the laws are being enforced on also enjoy the rights available to them under the same laws. A search (of electronic equipment) requires cause (this is why the warrent is needed), and detainment also requires some degree of cause. Arbitrary search and detainment is what we ascribe to totalitarian nations.

AHOHA 3y ago

You got a strong argument here, I like your logic, will definitely try it if needed!