5 ms·

Disclaimer: not an american, but I too am a citizen of a country with borders. As far as I understand, there's 3 categories here, citizens, non-citizen residen

Disclaimer: not an american, but I too am a citizen of a country with borders. As far as I understand, there's 3 categories here, citizens, non-citizen residents, and non-citizens non-residents. The greatest spikes in constitutional and legal rights and guarantees come from being a resident. Being a citizen gives you political rights like voting and participating in the three branches sure, but for the average man it's nothing compared to the rights bestowed by simply walking down a street freely and engaging in free commerce. This might be one of those restrictions of freedom that allow for greater freedoms to be guaranteed down the line. Once a non citizen goes through the border, they enjoy a huge spike in rights and guarantees, if you losen the border, you dilute the rights of the residents and citizens, and you add costs (especially if you let aliens in that don't even pay taxes, enjoying only rights but no responsibility) Ironically, if you value your freedoms as a resident, you should value restricting freedoms at the border. Similar to how GPL briefly restricts user rights by requiring them to share the source code.

ethin 1y ago
> Ironically, if you value your freedoms as a resident, you should value restricting freedoms at the border. Can you clarify this? This doesn't make any sense to me. Freedoms like those granted in the US bill of rights are specifically designed to be universally applied regardless of citizenship status as long as you are within the geographical boundaries of the US or otherwise subject to it's jurisdiction, from my understanding.
- TZubiri 1y ago
  Correct, we are in agreement. As a resident or citizen you get most consitutional rights. Before they cross the border they don't have those rights, the moment they cross the border, non-citizens enjoy those rights (looks possible to reverse or deny resident rights by deporting). So just by crossing the line into the US a person would enjoy almost all of the rights of a citizen. But critically, they don't have these rights BEFORE crossing the border, the border control is the point at which those rights are granted. IANAL
  - nobody9999 1y ago
    >Before they cross the border they don't have those rights, the moment they cross the border, non-citizens enjoy those rights (looks possible to reverse or deny resident rights by deporting). And all persons in the United States, regardless of status have essentially had their civil liberties significantly curtailed/removed within 100 miles of a border crossing[0]. You might think, "well we need to catch those folks who illegally cross the border, so we need a buffer zone to do so." But the wording (and more importantly the implementation) of these "border zones" include all points of entry like airports. Which means that civil liberties are negated/limited within 100 miles of airports where international flights land. Which creates reduced civil rights zones around the majority of the US population. Meaning that if I'm within 100 miles of Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International airport (which is many hundreds of miles away from any land border, as are most International airports), civil rights for all persons, citizen, resident or otherwise, are curtailed -- permanently and without recourse. [0] https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
    - TZubiri 1y ago
      I'm not aware of these 100mile regulations, but it makes sense in modern times, borders (and transport in general) have ceased to be euclidean, the borders of a country are no longer the geometric perimiter, but include airports. And naturally a border must have a "thickness" (even if 100 miles might be on the thick side) and there must be a grey area where border officials have jurisdiction of, but entrants are not yet considered admitted. In the same manner that you shouldn't expect to conduct everyday business near the border of a country or near military operations or near power plant facilities, maybe we will start treating airports with such a respect. Yes sir, no sir, don't say "bomb" as a joke, etc... Sure, you can fight for your rights against government oppression, but I think that resisting control just provides an alibi for illegal actors, and on the converse, cooperating reduces the need for excessive measures by making it easy to identify adversarial actors that do not cooperate. It's a matter of subjective values, what do you think is more dangerous, an overzealous government or power plant disasters? I think we should be more concerned about power plant disasters, so I will not go exercise my rights near a power plant. Similarly, what do I think is more important, fighting drug trade and tax evasion? Or hiding my porn purchases from my banker? I think fighting drug trade and tax evasion are more important, so I try not to use cryptocurrency for porn purchases. Similarly, I think terrorism and illegal immigration are more important than border officers looking at my personal messages. And no you cannot have it both ways, you either cooperate and help one side, or you refuse to cooperate and provide alibies for enemies of the state. We have not discussed at this point what your values are, I do not know whether you think drug trading or theft or tax evasion, or terrorism are ok, or child pornography, I presume not, it is more likely you are an individual concerned about personal privacy, but consider that I have no way to distinguish whether you support any of the above, and when you speak with people who support your right to privacy, or more so, individuals that try to convince you that your privacy is of utmost importance, consider whether they themselves are guilty of one of these crimes? Think of which side you are on, whether by being guilty of one crime, you are associating with a coalition of slightly guilty citizens, or whether a couple of your pseudonymous friends are actually massively criminal and your behaviour pooling protects them. We can also acknowledge that there exists a conflict and a tradeoff between personal liberties and crime countermeasures. And that tradeoff is everchanging, post-911 lots of people would have agreed that some personal liberties needed to be sacrificed, and many would agree that eventually we overcorrected and needed to dial it back. We had a period of peace in the middle where some crimes were mostly used as a symbol for "criminals", but nowadays we have a lot of war going on, how sure are you that your peers in crypto exchanges are not involved with war trade? I don't think drone trade is being done with fiat trade at all. International drug trade probably uses crypto exchanges, offshore accounts, and undoubtedly smugglers cross borders as well. Have you ever considered how your role in drug trade, child abuse, and war? I'm making no claims that exercising your constitutional rights "helps" or "fights" crime (I find it reasonable that if I make such moral objections, you might be forced to exercise the rights to protect them), but provided that those rights are recognized and guaranteed, consider whether they must always be exercised to the extreme? If you were able to forfeit some of your rights and help fight crime, wouldn't you do it? It is one of the most extreme forms of liberties to sacrifice it, to always instinctively exhert your rights in any opportunity possible is actually a sign that the right is in trouble, and therefore I would claim that since I can occasionally forfeit my right to not being searched, I have a stronger form of freedom (in that sense, you may have more freedom in others). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z6vsYELcjw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z6vsYELcjw Here's a scene from Mad Men that I like on the subject. The main character (very right wing traditional) is in the middle of a pot smoking beatnik party. The beatniks are exercising their right to not be searched in their private domicile, and they are partaking in a somewhat harmless illegal activity, but in doing so the police outside of their building becomes the enemy, instead of an ally that is investigating a crime. Not only is the Beatnik placed on the same 'side' as a night-time gunfighter, but also their exercise of their liberty to smoke weed interferes with their liberty to just go outside of their apartment. The main character smoking the legal herb I think cements the bipartisan political divide and their relationship with the law. Data and logic are great and all, but I wouldn't sleep on art as a means to think.
jacobolus 1y ago
> if you loosen the border, you dilute the rights of the residents Strip searching tourists, interrogating them about which social media jokes they shared, or locking them up for weeks without charges and then deporting them based on nothing more than their political views does not strengthen the rights of residents. > especially if you let aliens in that don't even pay taxes, enjoying only rights but no responsibility If you are talking about people working in the US without visas, this is a serious misconception. The large majority of undocumented people working in the US pay the same taxes as anyone else, including income and payroll taxes (sometimes under a borrowed social security number, but sometimes with an ITIN, "individual taxpayer ID no."; the IRS is happy to take the money without worrying about immigration status), but don't reap the benefits of those. So it's rather the opposite: all the responsibilities but dramatically fewer rights. In aggregate, undocumented immigrants pay on the order of $100 billion of US taxes every year.
- TZubiri 1y ago
  The context of my post was phone searches at the US border, inmigration is a wide scope, strip searching tourists and interrogating about jokes is really out of context and not was was the topic of the article shared. Searching phones is not really related to reviewing social media is it? You don't need to search a phone to access a public profile. No, searching a phone searches for private messages, maybe you talked with an employer on the US and you are on a tourist visa? Maybe there's talks about drug use or money laundering? or worse? >If you are talking about people working in the US without visas, this is a serious misconception. You talk as if there were some sort of authorative objective dataset, but by nature, how can you measure unreported income? You can search for FUTON sources all you want, but I've worked with immigrants that don't report income on my country. And just because something "doesn't happen" would be a terribe reason not to protect against it. Would you leave your port 22 open without password just because "it is a misconception" that russians are brute forcing into systems? No, you would simply protect against it, you don't need evidence to implement security mesaures.
  - text0404 1y ago
    Where are your numbers? You're claiming that immigrants steal public services and don't pay taxes, but haven't provided proof except for anecdotes and conjecture.
WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
> As far as I understand, there's 3 categories here, citizens, non-citizen residents, and non-citizens non-residents. The US Constitution applies to persons within US jurisdiction. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. This protection extends to individuals' persons, houses, papers, and effects.
- TZubiri 1y ago
  Right, so a "Phone search at the US border" would be conducted on an individual not yet in US jurisdiction, thus the 4th amendment wouldn't apply. I am not a lawyer, but I think that's pretty undisputed and basic.
  - nobody9999 1y ago
    >I am not a lawyer, but I think that's pretty undisputed and basic. I and a whole bunch of lawyers do dispute that claim[0]. [0] https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - TZubiri 1y ago
      The cited article is about searching phones at port of entries before admission to the states, not within a 100 mile radius. There may not be consensus on where the border is binary, or whether it's phased, whether it's 100 miles thick or 1 centimeter thick, whether it's here or there. But we have consensus that there exists a border and that you can people that have not yet entered do not have the constitutional rights of persons in the jursidiction yet.

ethin 1y ago

> Ironically, if you value your freedoms as a resident, you should value restricting freedoms at the border. Can you clarify this? This doesn't make any sense to me. Freedoms like those granted in the US bill of rights are specifically designed to be universally applied regardless of citizenship status as long as you are within the geographical boundaries of the US or otherwise subject to it's jurisdiction, from my understanding.

TZubiri 1y ago
Correct, we are in agreement. As a resident or citizen you get most consitutional rights. Before they cross the border they don't have those rights, the moment they cross the border, non-citizens enjoy those rights (looks possible to reverse or deny resident rights by deporting). So just by crossing the line into the US a person would enjoy almost all of the rights of a citizen. But critically, they don't have these rights BEFORE crossing the border, the border control is the point at which those rights are granted. IANAL
- nobody9999 1y ago
  >Before they cross the border they don't have those rights, the moment they cross the border, non-citizens enjoy those rights (looks possible to reverse or deny resident rights by deporting). And all persons in the United States, regardless of status have essentially had their civil liberties significantly curtailed/removed within 100 miles of a border crossing[0]. You might think, "well we need to catch those folks who illegally cross the border, so we need a buffer zone to do so." But the wording (and more importantly the implementation) of these "border zones" include all points of entry like airports. Which means that civil liberties are negated/limited within 100 miles of airports where international flights land. Which creates reduced civil rights zones around the majority of the US population. Meaning that if I'm within 100 miles of Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International airport (which is many hundreds of miles away from any land border, as are most International airports), civil rights for all persons, citizen, resident or otherwise, are curtailed -- permanently and without recourse. [0] https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
  - TZubiri 1y ago
    I'm not aware of these 100mile regulations, but it makes sense in modern times, borders (and transport in general) have ceased to be euclidean, the borders of a country are no longer the geometric perimiter, but include airports. And naturally a border must have a "thickness" (even if 100 miles might be on the thick side) and there must be a grey area where border officials have jurisdiction of, but entrants are not yet considered admitted. In the same manner that you shouldn't expect to conduct everyday business near the border of a country or near military operations or near power plant facilities, maybe we will start treating airports with such a respect. Yes sir, no sir, don't say "bomb" as a joke, etc... Sure, you can fight for your rights against government oppression, but I think that resisting control just provides an alibi for illegal actors, and on the converse, cooperating reduces the need for excessive measures by making it easy to identify adversarial actors that do not cooperate. It's a matter of subjective values, what do you think is more dangerous, an overzealous government or power plant disasters? I think we should be more concerned about power plant disasters, so I will not go exercise my rights near a power plant. Similarly, what do I think is more important, fighting drug trade and tax evasion? Or hiding my porn purchases from my banker? I think fighting drug trade and tax evasion are more important, so I try not to use cryptocurrency for porn purchases. Similarly, I think terrorism and illegal immigration are more important than border officers looking at my personal messages. And no you cannot have it both ways, you either cooperate and help one side, or you refuse to cooperate and provide alibies for enemies of the state. We have not discussed at this point what your values are, I do not know whether you think drug trading or theft or tax evasion, or terrorism are ok, or child pornography, I presume not, it is more likely you are an individual concerned about personal privacy, but consider that I have no way to distinguish whether you support any of the above, and when you speak with people who support your right to privacy, or more so, individuals that try to convince you that your privacy is of utmost importance, consider whether they themselves are guilty of one of these crimes? Think of which side you are on, whether by being guilty of one crime, you are associating with a coalition of slightly guilty citizens, or whether a couple of your pseudonymous friends are actually massively criminal and your behaviour pooling protects them. We can also acknowledge that there exists a conflict and a tradeoff between personal liberties and crime countermeasures. And that tradeoff is everchanging, post-911 lots of people would have agreed that some personal liberties needed to be sacrificed, and many would agree that eventually we overcorrected and needed to dial it back. We had a period of peace in the middle where some crimes were mostly used as a symbol for "criminals", but nowadays we have a lot of war going on, how sure are you that your peers in crypto exchanges are not involved with war trade? I don't think drone trade is being done with fiat trade at all. International drug trade probably uses crypto exchanges, offshore accounts, and undoubtedly smugglers cross borders as well. Have you ever considered how your role in drug trade, child abuse, and war? I'm making no claims that exercising your constitutional rights "helps" or "fights" crime (I find it reasonable that if I make such moral objections, you might be forced to exercise the rights to protect them), but provided that those rights are recognized and guaranteed, consider whether they must always be exercised to the extreme? If you were able to forfeit some of your rights and help fight crime, wouldn't you do it? It is one of the most extreme forms of liberties to sacrifice it, to always instinctively exhert your rights in any opportunity possible is actually a sign that the right is in trouble, and therefore I would claim that since I can occasionally forfeit my right to not being searched, I have a stronger form of freedom (in that sense, you may have more freedom in others). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z6vsYELcjw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z6vsYELcjw Here's a scene from Mad Men that I like on the subject. The main character (very right wing traditional) is in the middle of a pot smoking beatnik party. The beatniks are exercising their right to not be searched in their private domicile, and they are partaking in a somewhat harmless illegal activity, but in doing so the police outside of their building becomes the enemy, instead of an ally that is investigating a crime. Not only is the Beatnik placed on the same 'side' as a night-time gunfighter, but also their exercise of their liberty to smoke weed interferes with their liberty to just go outside of their apartment. The main character smoking the legal herb I think cements the bipartisan political divide and their relationship with the law. Data and logic are great and all, but I wouldn't sleep on art as a means to think.

jacobolus 1y ago

> if you loosen the border, you dilute the rights of the residents Strip searching tourists, interrogating them about which social media jokes they shared, or locking them up for weeks without charges and then deporting them based on nothing more than their political views does not strengthen the rights of residents. > especially if you let aliens in that don't even pay taxes, enjoying only rights but no responsibility If you are talking about people working in the US without visas, this is a serious misconception. The large majority of undocumented people working in the US pay the same taxes as anyone else, including income and payroll taxes (sometimes under a borrowed social security number, but sometimes with an ITIN, "individual taxpayer ID no."; the IRS is happy to take the money without worrying about immigration status), but don't reap the benefits of those. So it's rather the opposite: all the responsibilities but dramatically fewer rights. In aggregate, undocumented immigrants pay on the order of $100 billion of US taxes every year.

TZubiri 1y ago
The context of my post was phone searches at the US border, inmigration is a wide scope, strip searching tourists and interrogating about jokes is really out of context and not was was the topic of the article shared. Searching phones is not really related to reviewing social media is it? You don't need to search a phone to access a public profile. No, searching a phone searches for private messages, maybe you talked with an employer on the US and you are on a tourist visa? Maybe there's talks about drug use or money laundering? or worse? >If you are talking about people working in the US without visas, this is a serious misconception. You talk as if there were some sort of authorative objective dataset, but by nature, how can you measure unreported income? You can search for FUTON sources all you want, but I've worked with immigrants that don't report income on my country. And just because something "doesn't happen" would be a terribe reason not to protect against it. Would you leave your port 22 open without password just because "it is a misconception" that russians are brute forcing into systems? No, you would simply protect against it, you don't need evidence to implement security mesaures.
- text0404 1y ago
  Where are your numbers? You're claiming that immigrants steal public services and don't pay taxes, but haven't provided proof except for anecdotes and conjecture.

WarOnPrivacy 1y ago

> As far as I understand, there's 3 categories here, citizens, non-citizen residents, and non-citizens non-residents. The US Constitution applies to persons within US jurisdiction. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. This protection extends to individuals' persons, houses, papers, and effects.

TZubiri 1y ago
Right, so a "Phone search at the US border" would be conducted on an individual not yet in US jurisdiction, thus the 4th amendment wouldn't apply. I am not a lawyer, but I think that's pretty undisputed and basic.
- nobody9999 1y ago
  >I am not a lawyer, but I think that's pretty undisputed and basic. I and a whole bunch of lawyers do dispute that claim[0]. [0] https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - TZubiri 1y ago
    The cited article is about searching phones at port of entries before admission to the states, not within a 100 mile radius. There may not be consensus on where the border is binary, or whether it's phased, whether it's 100 miles thick or 1 centimeter thick, whether it's here or there. But we have consensus that there exists a border and that you can people that have not yet entered do not have the constitutional rights of persons in the jursidiction yet.