It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.
The government is assuming extraordinary powers to stop and search individuals within this zone. This is not just about the border: This " Constitution-Free Zone" includes most of the nation's largest metropolitan areas.
•Normally under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the American people are not generally subject to random and arbitrary stops and searches.
•The border, however, has always been an exception. There, the longstanding view is that the normal rules do not apply. For example the authorities do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a “routine search.”
•But what is “the border”? According to the government, it is a 100-mile wide strip that wraps around the “external boundary” of the United States.
•As a result of this claimed authority, individuals who are far away from the border, American citizens traveling from one place in America to another, are being stopped and harassed in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
reply to post by Catalyst317
Actually, the ACLU fails to note that the U.S. government can technically consider any international airport to be part of "the border" as it is an entry point to the U.S. and they can't very well stop and search people as they enter U.S. airspace. So the map should be enhances to include a 100 mile radius around any international airport with a customs division. Hence, Indianapolis is largely included and you can probably up the ACLU's number to something like 3 out of every 4.
Originally posted by lynxpilot
ALL US citizens are ALWAYS protected by the US Constitution. It's just a matter of who is willing to fight for it.
Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I have gone through an immigration checkpoint on this side of the border on the way home from a trip to Mexico, but was not searched or anything- just had to show ID to prove we were citizens and not illegals. I think the ACLU article is trying to scare people into believing this is something that it is not.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
(Snip - Doesn't apply after reading the other post on the thread)
Just got to yours and now I do remember this since you said the date. I was still very much trucking then and it didn't effectively change anything. I did start seeing immigration checks out on I-8 and I-10 where I hadn't seen them before...but nothing much else for this if it's the same I recall.edit on 15-3-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)edit on 15-3-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)
Two analysis papers from the Congressional Research Service from 2009 offer some legal insight into what tactics agents can follow within the 100-mile-wide extended border, and why the distinction between the extended border and the other two borders is important.
Searches within the 100-mile extended border zone, and outside of the immediate border-stop location, must meet three criteria: a person must have recently crossed a border; an agent should know that the object of a search hasn’t changed; and that “reasonable suspicion” of a criminal activity must exist, says the CRS. (The service had done the legal analyses to prepare Congress members for legislation.)
The fact that agents need to show “reasonable suspicion” outside direct border stops and airports puts their actions closer to the scope of the Fourth Amendment, says the CRS.
“The Fourth Amendment mandates that a search or seizure conducted by a government agent must be ‘reasonable.’ As a general rule, courts have construed Fourth Amendment reasonableness as requiring probable cause and a judicially granted warrant. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has recognized several exceptions to these requirements, one of which is the border search exception.”
The argument about a Constitution-free zone may better apply to direct border stops and airports, where agents don’t need to explain why they are searching a computer or cell phone. So, there could still be a “Constitution-free zone,” based on the outcome of legal appeals. It would just be much smaller than that 100-mile band around the U.S.