That whole “search and seizure” thing was so pesky anyway!”
Apparently, they got tired of us just being a "job free" zone:
I see the Paizo offices are covered too: Map.
Go ACLU! Just when you thought silliness couldn't get any bigger, here they come!
Why the sheer nerve and utter horror of the government actually defending the borders.
Trust the ACLU to find some warped way to construe that as unconstitutional and turn their propaganda machine loose on it.
It is unconstitutional to use dogs to sniff around your car, even though the supreme court said it was in fact constitutional! How dare they!
How much do you wanna bet when the Fairness Doctrine gets put into effect after Obama's election, we won't hear a peep from the ACLU?
"Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves." ~D.H. Lawrence, 1922
|
The Borders which, according to the administration, is a 100 mile wide strip that wraps around the external boundary of the US.
The ACLU isn't challenging the border search exemption to the 4th Amendment. It's challenging the governments position. The Border Patrol has been setting up checkpoints inland to stop and search citizens. Now, as the ACLU's map shows, the 100 mile wide strip covers a massive percentage of the population of the US. 197.4 million people live there. 197.4 million people who's 4th Amendment rights can be violated and in some cases have been thanks to the current administrations position on what the Border counts as.
|
It is unconstitutional to use dogs to sniff around your car, even though the supreme court said it was in fact constitutional! How dare they!
Indeed.
People rant about activist judges legislating from the bench.The ACLU is dedicated to being an activist organization, exercising judicial authority from the broadsheet.
How lucky can we get!
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Why the sheer nerve and utter horror of the government actually defending the borders.
Trust the ACLU to find some warped way to construe that as unconstitutional and turn their propaganda machine loose on it.
Hey, Sam.
With respect, the situation here isn't taking place at the borders. The DHS has reserved the right to conduct warrantless searches without probable cause, on anyone, anywhere in, say, New York, Washington DC, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, San Antonio, or Atlanta.
When someone's entering the country, please, feel free to search them.
If you have probable cause that someone's doing something illegal, please, go investigate.
In any other cases, please, get a warrant.
And if you'd argue that, of course, the DHS would never really use those powers to investigate Americans who are just going about their lawful business, then let's make those things that we feel the government shouldn't do, into things it can't do.
|
|
Normally, I'd agree with Sam on this issue- the ACLU has made some absolutely ridiculous decisions in the past. However, in this case, I truly believe the government has overstepped their bounds. I can understand protecting the borders of the United States from attack and/or infiltration (in fact, I think that protection from attack should be one of the only main functions of the government), but a giant, hundred-or-so mile "Constitution-Free Zone" is the absolute definition of superfluous. I can easily see this zone being extended in future years to "better protect the people."
Note to Congress: back the f#+~ off.
Note to ACLU: wow, one of your million crazy conspiracy theories actually paid off. Don't get cocky.
I honestly hope this is either a.) a joke, or b.) a mistake on the part of the ACLU. If it's not, the proverbial s!!% will hit the proverbial fan.
In related news, I heard a rumor that Congress is thinking about reviving the H.U.A.C (House Un-American Activites Committee). Has anyone else heard this, or is it just a rumor?
We saw what you posted on paizo.com now open the door."
...errr....No Esta aqui!....
Of course they won't use their fancy new powers...until the next "emergency," anyway.
Note to ACLU: wow, one of your million crazy conspiracy theories actually paid off. Don't get cocky.
Rofl, amen.
I honestly hope this is either a.) a joke, or b.) a mistake on the part of the ACLU. If it's not, the proverbial s#&% will hit the proverbial fan.
Well, here's the deal: They're using what I'd call a "broad interpretation" of the bill's language to include coastal borders, but that still doesn't save my state, or yours. Then again, England just used a "broad interpretation" of the anti-terror laws to seize all of Iceland's assets.
|
|
We saw what you posted on paizo.com now open the door."...errr....No Esta aqui!....
Of course they won't use their fancy new powers...until the next "emergency," anyway.
Why choose some random guy to f@!# with? It just blows my mind. Reminds me a lot of the stories Henry Rollins told in "Get in the Van" about LA cops arresting and beating kids for no reason. Why?
|
It is unconstitutional to use dogs to sniff around your car, even though the supreme court said it was in fact constitutional! How dare they!Indeed.
People rant about activist judges legislating from the bench.
The ACLU is dedicated to being an activist organization, exercising judicial authority from the broadsheet.
How lucky can we get!
This is not directed at you Sam... just made me think is all.
yeah never understood the problem with "activist judges." Ummm according to the Constitution they are a THIRD method of Checks and Balances. I suppose if you first eliminate the power of the judiciary, it will then make it easier to later eliminate the power of the Congress. And that will leave us without those pesky checks and balances. Let the executive branch have full power!
I say if you have a problem with activist judges, read the constitution or move to a country you prefer that does not try to protect its citizens' rights.
Now as to activist organizations... it is called citizens rights to fee speech and citizens actively trying to protect our constitutional rights. Now if you have a problem with the citizenry exercising their rights and trying to protect their rights against an administration hell-bent on eliminating those rights then again, maybe you would be more comfortable living in a more totalitarian regime.
Makes little sense to me to have our soldiers dying overseas to protect our rights and then NOT have someone here to protect our rights. The last eight years approached McCarthyism in hysteria. And if you don't know what that is you should learn. Because the greatest threat to our civil liberties is here on our home soil.
|
|
Speaking of McCarthyism and the HUAC..
P.s. It's the other way round mwbeeler. The UK seized Icelandic assets under anti-terror laws. But the point still stands.
P.s. It's the other way round mwbeeler.
Thanks! Was typing quick while my son ate a PB&J. ;)
|
|
This is not directed at you Sam... just made me think is all.
yeah never understood the problem with "activist judges." Ummm according to the Constitution they are a THIRD method of Checks and Balances. I suppose if you first eliminate the power of the judiciary, it will then make it easier to later eliminate the power of the Congress. And that will leave us without those pesky checks and balances. Let the executive branch have full power!
I say if you have a problem with activist judges, read the constitution or move to a country you prefer that does not try to protect its citizens' rights.
There are two complaints that get mixed up in that.
One is a complaint against judicial review, which very much is intended (read the Federalist), and is intended as a balance on the power of Congress.The other is a complaint against some judges who go too far, and order specific legislated remedies for problems, above and beyond simply saying "No, you cannot have that law, make another law."
The first is fine, the second is definitely not.
Now as to activist organizations... it is called citizens rights to fee speech and citizens actively trying to protect our constitutional rights. Now if you have a problem with the citizenry exercising their rights and trying to protect their rights against an administration hell-bent on eliminating those rights then again, maybe you would be more comfortable living in a more totalitarian regime.
They certainly do have a right to express their political views, and to petition for redress of grievances.
The problem arises when certain organizations take their activism to the level of overt hypocrisy, condemning violations of rights while promoting the same the themselves. In this case, the ACLU is ranting about a "Constitution free zone" while attempting to usurp the functions of both the legislature and the judiciary in their rhetoric.It is the same absurdity as colleges and universities that talk about "freedom of academic expression" while allowing radical student groups to chase invited speakers away with physical intimidation.
Makes little sense to me to have our soldiers dying overseas to protect our rights and then NOT have someone here to protect our rights. The last eight years approached McCarthyism in hysteria. And if you don't know what that is you should learn. Because the greatest threat to our civil liberties is here on our home soil.
And that is exactly how I would categorize the ACLU in this case.
They are employing McCarthyite tactics of hysteria to advance their agenda, wrapping themselves in the flag with the Constitution as a belt to try and justify themselves.I reject such hysterical advocacy from all sides.
|
|
Hey, Sam.
With respect, the situation here isn't taking place at the borders. The DHS has reserved the right to conduct warrantless searches without probable cause, on anyone, anywhere in, say, New York, Washington DC, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, San Antonio, or Atlanta.
When someone's entering the country, please, feel free to search them.
If you have probable cause that someone's doing something illegal, please, go investigate.
In any other cases, please, get a warrant.
And if you'd argue that, of course, the DHS would never really use those powers to investigate Americans who are just going about their lawful business, then let's make those things that we feel the government shouldn't do, into things it can't do.
In general, I agree.
There are several problems, both theoretical and with the ACLU's specific position:1. How exactly do you phrase the limits on such a power?
2. More critically, given the nature of our borders and the technology available to cross them, how do you phrase it while accounting for people who do not pass through a properly constituted entry point?
3. The ACLU are specifically attacking searches, and consequently any seizures derived from it, at border crossings. Check one of their "testimonials".
4. Also listen to their youtube video. It is filled with fear-mongering rhetoric, as well as some rather amusing birth-derived assumption of privilege, and a rather pathetic assumption of guilt by accusation.
5. The ACLU is also attacking, without distinction, all of the technologies and methods used.
So while I might have issues with such far-reaching powers if they actually existed, I will most certainly not take the ACLU's word that they are a problem, particularly since they are more concerned with objecting to any legitimate measures, particularly if they inconvenience any of their more paranoid and histrionic members.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Thanks for the considered response, Sam.
I'm not king of the world, and I don't have all the answers, but in general, I would remember that entering the country outside a valid entry point (even Canadian kids running into North Dakota to retrieve a ball) is a crime. If you have probable cause that someone has committed a crime, please, proceed to investigate.
The youtube testamonial I saw was about a search (no siezure) on a California highway well within American territory, not at a border crossing.
No warrant, no probable cause.
Histrionic, yes. Fear-mongering, yep. Part of the claims were hurt by the fellow daying, essentially, "The DHS guy was rude to us and was a jerk to my wife." Which is neither a crime nor an abuse of power.
But, again, Congress has allowed the DHS to search anybody within 100 miles of the border. Whether there has been abuse of this authority or not, even a polite and even-handed exercise of the power seems to be an infringement of the 4th Amendment. Either Congress ought to retract that permission, or the Supreme Court ought to find the statute to be unconstitutional.
|
|
Thanks for the considered response, Sam.
You are welcome.
I'm not king of the world, and I don't have all the answers, but in general, I would remember that entering the country outside a valid entry point (even Canadian kids running into North Dakota to retrieve a ball) is a crime. If you have probable cause that someone has committed a crime, please, proceed to investigate.
So then it is quite within the realm of reason that any such searches derived from this do have probable cause, even if they are mistaken.
That is noticeably missing from the ACLU presentation.The youtube testamonial I saw was about a search (no siezure) on a California highway well within American territory, not at a border crossing.
No warrant, no probable cause.
They have a text statement as well, about someone who claims to have been subject to full body searches while returning from Mexico.
I included seizures as they would almost certainly occur if there was a criminal prosecution.
There was no warrant. As for no cause, how do we know that? We have only the statement of that man, with all of its baggage. I would certainly have significant reasonable doubts about his testimony in a court.
Histrionic, yes. Fear-mongering, yep. Part of the claims were hurt by the fellow daying, essentially, "The DHS guy was rude to us and was a jerk to my wife." Which is neither a crime nor an abuse of power.
Among other things, yes. Also that to discuss his video would break Godwin's Law right from the start.
But, again, Congress has allowed the DHS to search anybody within 100 miles of the border. Whether there has been abuse of this authority or not, even a polite and even-handed exercise of the power seems to be an infringement of the 4th Amendment. Either Congress ought to retract that permission, or the Supreme Court ought to find the statute to be unconstitutional.
I agree.
I simply would not use that ACLU page to establish such a violation exists, or even to express that the law is in fact phrased in such an open ended manner. The other content makes everything unreliable.
I disagree with them, not the Constitutional principle involved.
Am I a bad person because I immediately wondered why Michigan lost its constitution score when I first read the thread title?
Easy, Michigan's Constitution score was drained away by Canada!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Am I a bad person because I immediately wondered why Michigan lost its constitution score when I first read the thread title?Easy, Michigan's Constitution score was drained away by Canada!
Oh, so Canada is a vampire? A constitution draining bloodsucker? Is that what you're saying? If this is what you mean, then ...
... you understand our tax laws very well for an American.
|
|
[tinfoil hat] It's those viking raiders. They disguise themselves as internet banks, and plunder the savings of hard-working honest UK shirefolk, to buy every one of their own citizens a high definition wide screen televeision and a geyser. Oh, and they throw the loose change away, gambling on US mortgage markets. It's the 9th century all over again. To arms, men of Wessex, TO ARMS! <Uh, does anyone smell any cakes burning?>[/tinfoil hat]
:D
Then again, England just used a "broad interpretation" of the anti-terror laws to seize all of Iceland's assets.
Huh?
Want to give a link to what your talking about? I don't recall reading anything like this.
|
|
Then again, England just used a "broad interpretation" of the anti-terror laws to seize all of Iceland's assets.Huh?
Want to give a link to what your talking about? I don't recall reading anything like this.
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=WORLD-qqqs=news-qqqid=370 12-qqqx=1.asp
first google news search that popped up.
it was in the news a week or two ago.
|
|
Then again, England just used a "broad interpretation" of the anti-terror laws to seize all of Iceland's assets.Huh?
Want to give a link to what your talking about? I don't recall reading anything like this.
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=WORLD-qqqs=news-qqqid=370 12-qqqx=1.asp
first google news search that popped up.
it was in the news a week or two ago.
No, the UK (not England. There are three other states to the country. It's like referring to New York and meaning America) didn't use a broad interpretation of it's anti-terror laws for that. The law it used explicitly says it can seize assets from any business posing a threat to the economy of the UK. The interpretation isn't broad, the law is. It's also not strictly an anti-terror law, being incorporated into the Serious Crime and Disorder bill which included many anti-terror provisions, hence the confusion among the media who now ant-terror gets ratings.
EDIT: Link added.
|
|
Paul is correct. What's important to know though is when the UK Government asked for these powers, they said they would only be used against Terrorists, and when the need is dire.
Governments do tend to misuse powers. That's just an empirical fact. All the ACLU are doing here are pointing out the consequences of a power the US Administration has claimed for itself, which is that 197.4 Million American's live in an area where their fourth amendment rights can be violated, by a very odd interpretation of the border exception.
Is there anything factually incorrect about the ACLU's claim? All they seem to have done is present their claim in a way that's more likely to generate interest in their point. Which is not hysteria at all.
Let's not devolve into a semantics argument (especially considering I have serious Irish / Welsh nationalist leanings).
It was an abuse of power used to keep the councils from forcing a vote of no confidence (personally I like Gordon Brown, but then I'm not living under his government, so grain of salt and all that).
|
It amazes me how anything remotely liberal blinds pres man and Sam from what otherwise might be considered a rational policy.
I find it especially ironic, as this level of government interference in the lives of the citizens OF ENTIRE STATES is inimical to basic republican theories of smaller government. You do realize that multiple states are within this zone, don't you?
Its been proven by past behavior that when new powers are extended to the government, they are often used in fashions outside those they were intended for. As an example, the Patriot act has been used to shut down servers that hosted pirated TV shows and music without warrant or due cause because "pirated media supports terrorists". Right. That nerdy white dude from California is taking the add revenue from his Star gate fan site and funding Al Queda. Suuuurre he is.
Look guys, its clear that the intention is good here, but the implementation wipes its ass with the constitution. Lets agree that something needs to be done, but that it should respect the basic laws of the land. is that too much to ask?
ACLU has a talent for bringing out false dichotomy arguments.
Many of us agree that most of what they say is rubbish.
But people take that a step further: "everything they say is rubbish."
And a step further after that: "By extension, anything they support must also be rubbish."
And again: "Anything I read an article about must be evil and un-American if the article anywhere mentions the letters 'ACLU'."
To pick an intentionally farfetched example, let's say Heathansson proposes a law requiring all girls (and all ice weasels and all dinosaurs) to be handed over to Sebastian for mandatory defloration when they turn 18. This is obviously a violation of all kinds of laws, morality, and plain good sense. The ACLU would rightly oppose it, but, being who they are, would be unable to resist throwing in a bunch of nonsense in their arguments unrelated to the proposed law. Worse, people see that the ACLU, with a bunch of nonsense arguments, is against the proposed law. The proposed law must therefore be noble, virtuous, and all-American. Anyone who is against the law is obviously a left-wing shill, just like the ACLU. Right?
|
I tend to go with the ACLU on this one (gads I can't believe I just said that). I am all for the government protecting our borders with searches and so forth, but the 100-mile zone is far, far too much.
What I find ironic about the whole thing is that the ACLU is not also filing suit to strengthen lax voter registration laws that allow illegal immigrants (you know, those people we *failed* to catch thanks to a porous border and constitutional demands that prevent deeper searches) to vote. They also haven't filed suit to force the government to actually carry out the existing laws preventing distribution of social services and public education to illegal immigrants or filed suit to force the INS to hire more workers and conduct more raids for immigrants working illegally in the United States.
If the ACLU was really interested in maintaining civil liberties, they would move hard to stop the pollution of our political process and general way of life by 12 million (or more) criminals. So while I am glad the ACLU moved against the government in this case, I hardly think it is for our well being as a nation; it is to promote a very specific social agenda.
|
|
I tend to go with the ACLU on this one (gads I can't believe I just said that). I am all for the government protecting our borders with searches and so forth, but the 100-mile zone is far, far too much.
What I find ironic about the whole thing is that the ACLU is not also filing suit to strengthen lax voter registration laws that allow illegal immigrants (you know, those people we *failed* to catch thanks to a porous border and constitutional demands that prevent deeper searches) to vote. They also haven't filed suit to force the government to actually carry out the existing laws preventing distribution of social services and public education to illegal immigrants or filed suit to force the INS to hire more workers and conduct more raids for immigrants working illegally in the United States.
If the ACLU was really interested in maintaining civil liberties, they would move hard to stop the pollution of our political process and general way of life by 12 million (or more) criminals. So while I am glad the ACLU moved against the government in this case, I hardly think it is for our well being as a nation; it is to promote a very specific social agenda.
I won't dispute that the ACLU has an agenda. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of adhering to a platform that advocates smaller and less intrusive government and then supporting a policy that violates that principle for about 2/3 of ths US population (based off of geography). Especially when the major rationale appears to be that the ACLU doesn't like it, and therefore its a good policy.
I think this may be a good policy, but the range that it covers needs to be severely amended. A multiple mile zone near the land borders may make sense, but by the coasts, you should limit it to the major ports. people don't swim the Atlantic and land on a beach - they come in a port where we already have security apparatus in place. The zone as currently configured extends the potential of abuse to cover too many American citizens.
|
|
I won't dispute that the ACLU has an agenda. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of adhering to a platform that advocates smaller and less intrusive government and then supporting a policy that violates that principle for about 2/3 of ths US population (based off of geography). Especially when the major rationale appears to be that the ACLU doesn't like it, and therefore its a good policy.
I think this may be a good policy, but the range that it covers needs to be severely amended. A multiple mile zone near the land borders may make sense, but by the coasts, you should limit it to the major ports. people don't swim the Atlantic and land on a beach - they come in a port where we already have security apparatus in place. The zone as currently configured extends the potential of abuse to cover too many American citizens.
I agree with you 100% on this, underling. I think the ACLU almost poisons the cases it takes on because they are not balanced in their defense of freedom. In this case they did the right thing, and I am certain that they do good work at other times, but because they clearly aren't interested in protecting all freedoms, just the freedoms that match their vision of America, even when they do the Right Thing, they aren't trusted. And rightly so.
ACLU has a talent for bringing out false dichotomy arguments.
Many of us agree that most of what they say is rubbish.
But people take that a step further: "everything they say is rubbish."
And a step further after that: "By extension, anything they support must also be rubbish."
And again: "Anything I read an article about must be evil and un-American if the article anywhere mentions the letters 'ACLU'."
I agree. I tend to disagree with them on so many issues that I sometimes forget that they do a lot of good as well. It's the same with PETA and Greenpeace. I disagree with these organizations on many issues but they help out animals by stopping cruelty(especially whale hunting).
|
|
I agree. I tend to disagree with them on so many issues that I sometimes forget that they do a lot of good as well. It's the same with PETA and Greenpeace. I disagree with these organizations on many issues but they help out animals by stopping cruelty(especially whale hunting).ACLU has a talent for bringing out false dichotomy arguments.
Many of us agree that most of what they say is rubbish.
But people take that a step further: "everything they say is rubbish."
And a step further after that: "By extension, anything they support must also be rubbish."
And again: "Anything I read an article about must be evil and un-American if the article anywhere mentions the letters 'ACLU'."
Greenpeace does some good, but often goes too far. PETA is pure evil. In fact, that's what I think the P and E stand for. However, your point is well taken.
It amazes me how anything remotely liberal blinds pres man and Sam from what otherwise might be considered a rational policy.
Blinds? Hardly. I went and watched the little video they had. The police asked the guy, "Can we search your trunk?" They didn't beat him with a hose, strip him and his wife, break the trunk open, stuff both of them in there and then run the car off a cliff. No, they asked, as permitted by supreme court decisions (i.e. is constitutional). They then walked a dog around the car when denied (again this is constitutional). When the dog smelled something, then they searched (once again, this is constitutional).
This whole use of terms like, "Constitution Free Zone" is just fanatic speech. There is nothing in anyway that suggest that is the case and a lot that suggest it is not the case. A better argument would be that it interfers with state authority too much and is annoying. The fact is, it has captured a lot of drugs entering/traveling in our country. Is that justification enough to have this policy, well I'd like to have it discussed out in the open and see what people say.
As for the ACLU, it is a bully organization. It loves to go into small towns with small budgets and extorts the town by using threats of lawsuits that will bankrupt the community. I am not suggesting that some lawsuits are not reasonable, but not when the "harm" is very abstract ("I saw a statue of baby jesus and so I am harmed by that"). The organizations primary means of action isn't public education, isn't trying to change policies through discussion, it is through using extortion tactics through the court system.
|
|
Greenpeace does some good, but often goes too far. PETA is pure evil. In fact, that's what I think the P and E stand for. However, your point is well taken.I agree. I tend to disagree with them on so many issues that I sometimes forget that they do a lot of good as well. It's the same with PETA and Greenpeace. I disagree with these organizations on many issues but they help out animals by stopping cruelty(especially whale hunting).ACLU has a talent for bringing out false dichotomy arguments.
Many of us agree that most of what they say is rubbish.
But people take that a step further: "everything they say is rubbish."
And a step further after that: "By extension, anything they support must also be rubbish."
And again: "Anything I read an article about must be evil and un-American if the article anywhere mentions the letters 'ACLU'."
Fanatics are fanatics regardless of what they are fanatical about. Greenpeace is a fanatical ecological group, PETA is a fanatical animal rights group and The ACLU are fanatical left wing liberals. The main difference is that the ACLU isn't violent. Each group is trying to remake America into their idealized image. IMO the ACLU has done more to defend American civil rights than any lawmaker regardless of party affiliation has. The court cases the ACLU chose to defend/oppose reflect their ideals and therefore are suspect by mainstream America.
|
|
Like I said, damn those ACLU guys for defending the constitution.
As I also said above, using terms like Constitution Free Zone generates debate. Debate gets people interested, aware of the issues and perhaps willing to take action. It's advertising, and while it's sad that the ACLU need to do that, any pressure group needs to do it these days to get peoples attention. Further, it doesn't take anything away from their argument, which I see that people are avoiding.
|
|
It amazes me how anything remotely liberal blinds pres man and Sam from what otherwise might be considered a rational policy.
The only blindness is yours, ignoring what has been written by us, and what appears on the ACLU website in connection with that page.
I find it especially ironic, as this level of government interference in the lives of the citizens OF ENTIRE STATES is inimical to basic republican theories of smaller government. You do realize that multiple states are within this zone, don't you?
There would only be irony if all republics were exclusively focused on smaller government. As they do not, the only irony is in your presumption to lecture on government theory, particularly when it must be understood that Congress has the authority to legislate for interstate commerce that affects the lieve of EVERY CITIZEN in EVERY STATE!
Look guys, its clear that the intention is good here, but the implementation wipes its ass with the constitution. Lets agree that something needs to be done, but that it should respect the basic laws of the land. is that too much to ask?
If the intention is good, then it doubly condemns the methods used by the ACLU, as their denunciation is as overly broad as they assert the limits of the program are.
Did you actually read anything they had connected to that page?How about this:
"Data Collection and Retention:
Through a program called the Border Crossing Information System, the government has been collecting and compiling information on all U.S. citizens crossing the border by land for potential later use in criminal and intelligence investigations. Data including name, birth date, gender, date and time of crossing, and a photo of every U.S. citizen crossing a land border may be retained for 15 years."
Wait . . . what?
Keeping records of how crosses the border for 15 years?
Date and time of crossing are pretty much mandatory.
Name is equally mandatory.
If a passport is involves, birth date, gender, and photo go along as a matter of course.
Such abomination!
How about:
"Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI):
WHTI regulations authorize the states to create an enhanced drivers’ license (EDL) for the purpose of crossing the border. This document would contain the citizenship status of the cardholder and other personal data. The WHTI would violate our privacy by vastly expanding the use of unproven biometrics such as facial recognition and creating a tracking database of travel by US citizens that could be linked to our private information."
So a drivers' license that saves on the cost of a passport is yet another abomination?
That it is voluntary on the part of the states, who cares.
That states can already monitor drivers' licenses, so what.
That passports contain vital information, never mind.
If we let the states and federal government work together on such a project?
It is Nazi Germany all over again!
(At least according to that guy in their video it is.)
The rest of that page is hardly better.
Read it for yourself.
So no, if I were soaking wet and the ACLU told me it was raining, I would still look up for clouds to confirm it for myself. They long ago abandoned defending civil liberties in favor of promoting a specific political agenda. I see no reason I should have to treat anyt of their propaganda with any respect, or take citing of it as proof of some actual civil rights violation.
So no, if I were soaking wet and the ACLU told me it was raining, I would still look up for clouds to confirm it for myself. They long ago abandoned defending civil liberties in favor of promoting a specific political agenda. I see no reason I should have to treat anyt of their propaganda with any respect, or take citing of it as proof of some actual civil rights violation.
Just so long as you did check to confirm. To continue your analogy, most people, if the ACLU tells them it's raining, immediately conclude that water is fictional and does not exist.