5 ms·

> 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

by 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.

by ethin 1y ago

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.