Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ACLU Creates Map of US "Constitution-Free Zone"

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the stay-well-inland dept.

Privacy 979

trackpick points out a recent ACLU initiative to publicize a recent expansion of authority claimed by the Border Patrol to stop and search individuals up to 100 miles from any US border. They have created a map of what they call the US Constitution-Free Zone. "Using data provided by the US 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.'"

cancel ×

979 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Considering the last 8 years... (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502025)

Wouldn't it be easier to make a "Constitution Applies" zone?

Here's a list: (5, Funny)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502123)

The constitution applies in the following zones:

Re:Considering the last 8 years... (2, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502125)

No.

There is no "Constitution Applies Zone" anywhere. Most of the US Constitution has been voided without protest by those that support the various way's it has been voided.

You want to support the Constitution? Start with supporting 2nd Ammendment. If we have right to "lawyers" (nowhere in the Constitution) then why aren't we supporting giving arms to everyone who can't afford them?

That is the last thing the government wants, and armed (and getting angry populace). Imagine the response we'd get from congress if a million ARMED people showed up in DC demanding that they STOP funding the bailout.

I know I'd go, if there were 999,9999 others willing to do the same thing.

However doubtful that is, Congress remains in office with a sub 10% approval rating, thinking that they're awesome.

Re:Considering the last 8 years... (2, Insightful)

Harin_Teb (1005123) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502231)

The right to a defense attorney in a CRIMINAL trial is implicit in the right to due process of law. I'm sure why you used that as your analogy for the right to bear arms. Due process of law (the garunteed right) is impossible if a party does not have the opportunity to have competent counsel.

Yes we do have the right to bear arms. That right however is not abridged when the government does not give everyone a gun. Just like you don't get a lawyer for civil trials, or misdemeanors.

The difference: Bering arms is a proactive right (ie you have the right to do X). The right to due process however is a reactive right (you have the right for the government not to do Y to you). The government does not abridge your rights by failing to help you do X, they do abridge your rights by doing Y to you.

Make sense?

help you do X (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502515)

The government does not abridge your rights by failing to help you do X, they do abridge your rights by doing Y to you.

Make sense?

But if they make the rules to do X unreasonable, they are abridging.

Re:Considering the last 8 years... (2, Funny)

Harin_Teb (1005123) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502519)

And this post, my dear friends, exemplifies why you should always preview your posts before posting them. Which I did not.

Re:Considering the last 8 years... (5, Insightful)

LearnToSpell (694184) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502251)

I know I'd go, if there were 999,9999 others willing to do the same thing.

And there you have modern America in a nutshell, folks.

Re:Considering the last 8 years... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502315)

What, the sheep herd mentality or the misplaced and missing commas?

Re:Considering the last 8 years... (1)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502293)

I'm in. When you get the other 999,998 people, please let me know.

Re:Considering the last 8 years... (5, Informative)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502385)

If we have right to "lawyers" (nowhere in the Constitution) then why aren't we supporting giving arms to everyone who can't afford them?

6th Amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." (emphasis mine)

I will never understand why people who are so concerned about the 2nd Amendment tend to be so contemptuous of the other nine in the Bill of Rights, and vice versa. It's all of a piece, folks. If you support all of them, you support freedom. If you pick and choose, then you support freedom only for people who think exactly like you do, which of course is no freedom at all.

Re:Considering the last 8 years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502411)

Please stay out of my home town with your 999,999 angry gunman, who will probably end up shooting eachother (and us innocent DC residents). The men you want are over the river, in the big houses in Virginia.

Stupid Guns (5, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502423)

You want to support the Constitution? Start with supporting 2nd Ammendment.

Oh please. I'll acknowledge that you have the right to own guns for self protection and for hunting. But I'm tired of hearing the claim that private guns somehow safeguard our civil rights. Quite the opposite. As any Iraqi will tell you, rights that are enforced by private thuggery only deliver rights to those with the most thugs.

Especially absurd is the recurring theory that private guns prevent the national government from becoming dictatorship. Unless you're one of those fringe idiots who advocates private ownership of nukes and other WMDs, the idea of a some plucky band of guerillas restoring democracy is pure fantasy.

Re:Considering the last 8 years... (5, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502453)

Why such fixation on handguns?

Can you remember the last time a constitution violation has been protested by a violent mob carrying guns, shooting police officers and lynching everyone in Capitol?

Re:Considering the last 8 years... (0, Flamebait)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502501)

I live inside the "Constitution Free Zone" and I have the legal right to carry a firearm. I guess that must not be part of the Constitution in the ACLU's world...

Re:Considering the last 8 years... (1)

putch (469506) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502505)

how the hell did this get +5 insightful? maybe +5 funny.

Re:Considering the last 8 years... (1)

Relic of the Future (118669) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502555)

Considering your sig, I find it hilarious that you bring up the "Congress' approval is To paraphrase: Every *congressman* has a high approval rating. *Congress* has a low approval rating, and you know it.

(Where "high" is >50%, approval rating is only counted among their constituency, and "every" means "every except Joe Lieberman".)

Re:Considering the last 8 years... (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502279)

Here it is:

Re:Considering the last 8 years... (0, Flamebait)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502399)

please mod the parent as "sad"

Re:Considering the last 8 years... (2, Funny)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502449)

Why would I want a map of Canada?

I like that... (3, Funny)

Harin_Teb (1005123) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502041)

I like that Michigan is one of the few elite states that is entirely within the constitution free zone. WOOO go us!

Re:I like that... (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502113)

Indeed, as is Vermont.

Re:I like that... (4, Informative)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502261)

Vermont is the only New England state that isn't completely encompassed. There's a small southwestern corner that's more than 100 miles from the border. It's hard to tell, but according to the pop-up, all of Massachusetts is covered. (The "Syracuse" label could be covering up a small chunk of gray in Massachusetts, it comes near the little corner of Vermont.)

So the list of "completely covered" states is:

  • Connecticutt
  • Delaware
  • Florida
  • Hawaii
  • Maine
  • Massachusetts
  • Michigan
  • New Hampshire
  • New Jersey
  • Rhode Island

According to the popup, Maryland is not 100% covered, but it comes close.

Re:I like that... (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502471)

According to the popup, Maryland is not 100% covered, but it comes close.

How many people live in western MD? i've been there - there isn't much to do.

Re:I like that... (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502535)

And California apparently is covered for 99.73% percent of its population. A few other states have similar distributions, even though they aren't %100 covered geographically.

Re:I like that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502145)

they don't care about poor people

Re:I like that... (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502189)

I like that Michigan is one of the few elite states that is entirely within the constitution free zone. WOOO go us!

As a fellow Michigan resident, I'm not so thrilled.

Re:I like that... (0)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502257)

Florida, too. On this one, reading TFA will chill your spine. Not mine; it seems that Springfield, even though it's in the middle of the US and hundreds of miles from Canada (where all the ebil ter'ists lib;) is a Constitution-free zone [slashdot.org] . It saddens me that slashdotters read that journal and say "well you should have not been in the ghetto" (so much for freedom of travel and assembly) and "well your former gf is to blame".

I wrote a few years ago in Liberty? What Liberty? [kuro5hin.org] that none of the ten of the bill of rights has any meaning these days.

I'm sadened at what has become of my country.

Re:I like that... (2, Insightful)

Zenaku (821866) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502259)

The ACLU is making their point very effectively, but I think they drew up this map of theirs rather indiscriminately. I agree with their stance, but. . . their reasoning is sloppy.

I question the total coverage of Michigan, as they appear to be treating the shores of all the great lakes, including Lake Michigan, as a "costal border," even though Lake Michigan lies entirely within the United State. And they are including much more of Minnesota and Wisconsin than they should as well, again by treating the lake shores as a border. Pop over to google maps and see where the actual border going through Lake Superior is. . . it's nowhere near the US shore.

Re:I like that... (1)

Harin_Teb (1005123) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502287)

All the lakes DO however have international shipping lanes in them which is how they could justify it. But I see your point.

Re:I like that... (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502289)

All of New England (Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut), Florida, and Delaware are also wholy included (though Vermont has a tiny sliver to the south-west that is not).

Most of New York and all of the most populace parts of California (SF, LA, SD, etc.) are covered.

This is a truly egregious expansion of non-Constitutional authority.

Re:I like that... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502451)

Michigan? why not ?
What town in Michigan likely houses the highest number of terrorists in the USA ?
, GEEZ think man.
  If homeland security didn't put a 60 foot wall around that one town and an army of undercover police it would be criminal,
If you can name the town I'm tailing about, then you know what I mean ,

Illin with the panicillin? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502045)

Is she illin with the panicillin?
Is she reelin in the panicillin?
Is it feelin with the panicillin?
Are you steelin in the panacillin?

Panka Panka

Is she liable no suitifiable no not on trial but so suitifiable
Is she viable no suitifiable pliable style is so suitifiable
so reliable no suitifiable shes not on file but so suitifiable
im on the dial its so suitifiable its like im liable but more suitifiable

The gray part is considered... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502079)

...the "Constitution-Lite Zone"

What about... (4, Interesting)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502081)

Airports?

Re:What about... (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502103)

Don't give them new ideas :)

Re:What about... (3, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502235)

Also, areas close to party conventions.

Re:What about... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502551)

...or areas that infringe on other amendments [wikipedia.org] of the U. S. constitution...ie, the entire states of Hawaii, California, New York, New Jersey, and in fact to a large extent, the entire country since 1934 [wikipedia.org] . (oops...ACLU doesn't like [aclu.org] that one!)

I guess I was wrong.... (1)

cavis (1283146) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502093)

Gee... I thought the whole country was a Constitution-Free zone at this point. I guess that the remaining third of the country is in a Limited-Constitution zone.

The longer that I dwell on his words, the more relevant this quote (falsely attributed to Benjamin Franklin) is to me: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."

D.C. (5, Funny)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502101)

You don't need to tell me that Washington D.C. is within 100 miles of the coast to prove it's a Constitution-Free Zone.

Re:D.C. (0)

zxnos (813588) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502307)

has the constitution ever applied to D.C.? I am too lazy to look it up, but from what i recall, D.C. has never technically been part of the U.S.

Re:D.C. (1)

mu51c10rd (187182) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502443)

It is part of the US, it just doesn't belong to any state. It was designed to prevent any one state from having too much power by housing the federal government.

Re:D.C. (4, Interesting)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502323)

Nah, the Supreme Court finally told the D.C. government that at least part of the Constitution [wikipedia.org] actually does apply there.

Re:D.C. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502557)

Nah, the Supreme Court finally told the D.C. government that at least part of the Constitution [wikipedia.org] actually does apply there.

Unfortunately for the ACLU it is the part of the Constitution that they most loathe.

no, this map makes perfect sense. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502107)

The large interior part looks just like Palin's map of "Real America".

Re:no, this map makes perfect sense. (4, Funny)

LearnToSpell (694184) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502395)

Yeah, or something like this. [kennworld.net]

This just isn't enough (-1, Flamebait)

alta (1263) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502109)

With the recent kidnapping of a 6yo boy 300 miles from the mexican border, I think they need to pull that southern boundry up a few hundred miles. You guys keep thinking of it that way, while the rest of us consider this as the zone most threatened, and thankfully the most guarded.

Just trying (1)

omfglearntoplay (1163771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502129)

Just trying to figure out if this is some political message. (Of course it is). But like, what are they really trying to say?

a. Conservatives are better because they typically lax border patrols because really they love cheap labor.

b. Conservatives are worse because under Bush the average American who isn't illegal has been screwed over by laws like these.

I could probably read tfa, but that wouldn't be any fun when I can just draw so many conclusions from a headline list 90 of the population does anyway.

Re:Just trying (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502305)

Lucky for you TFA is mostly a map so you'll not need to do much reading.

I think the ACLU's message here is the same as with their other publications: DONATE MONEY TO US. Which is fine, they have to eat too.

But I'll start taking them seriously when they step on and do work on behalf of the Heller decision.

Re:Just trying (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502359)

There's nothing conservatove about destroying the Constitution.

Re:Just trying (4, Interesting)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502365)

The message is simple, "You have no rights."

Seriously, does anyone think that this really has anything to do with illegal immigration? There are plenty of laws on the books to stop them from coming in and to deport them, however there is a severe lack of Federal authorities using those laws. This has everything to do with getting people used to being searched illegally.

Many times local police will pick up an illegal immigrant for drunk driving or another offense, they'll call the feds, and the feds will do nothing.

A year ago in MN a woman ran into a school bus, killing 3. It turned out she was here illegally and had been arrested before. The local police called INS (during the first arrest) and they wouldn't do anything about it.

Scaling is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502143)

This may be off topic but on that map, the scaling is way off. The highlighted border is much thicker than 100 miles.

Re:Scaling is wrong (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502241)

That's because north of the border it gets converted to 160.9344 kilometers.

Re:Scaling is wrong (1)

CraftyJack (1031736) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502487)

I noticed that too. The "coastal borders" seem to intrude pretty far inland of what I think of as the US silhouette. Lynchburg, VA is almost 100 miles from Richmond, which is about 50 miles from what I would call the main body of Chesapeake Bay, but both Lynchburg and Richmond are within 100 miles of whatever you want to call the body of water that feeds Hampton Roads Bay.

We must do this! (2, Insightful)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502149)

It's the only way to make Real America (TM) safe from the liberal terrorists inhabiting the border regions!

Why worry? (0)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502167)

If you've got nothing to hide then this is not a problem!
(Flame suit ready, even though my tongue is boring a hole in my cheek.)

A map of our new country. (1)

TheLazySci-FiAuthor (1089561) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502171)

I see they've drawn a map of the new Reconstituted United States which will emerge after federal destruction of rights prompts the coming revolution.

Make out your wills and break-out the ham radios and home made weapons boys.....oh, don't forget the tin foil helmets.

Re:A map of our new country. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502267)

Keep posting so we know exactly when they come and haul you away.

Re:A map of our new country. (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502435)

I see they've drawn a map of the new Reconstituted United States which will emerge after federal destruction of rights prompts the coming revolution.

I think it's the other way around -- the coming revolution (on Nov 4) will prompt the federal destruction of whatever rights we have left (what the Bush admininstration under the War on Terror, and what Left-wing judges in thinking that the Judiciary is a 3rd leg of the Legislative, haven't already stripped us of).

Coming soon an updated map of the Constitution-Free Zone: The entire United States.

Military Service (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502205)

This and other stories along a similar path is the main reason that I haven't joined the US military yet. As a soldier, I would have to swear an oath to defend the constitution. How can I take that oath if my own government won't respect what it says? I want to join, but not if that means helping to destroy that which my fore-fathers fought to protect.

Re:Military Service (1)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502513)

I would tell you to wait until we're not at war before you join up, but you'll probably be well past retirement age at that point.

Jurisdiction (3, Insightful)

Detritus (11846) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502223)

What happens if I'm 50 miles away from the border and I tell some nosy Border Patrol agent to get stuffed, I'm under no obligation to answer his questions. If he was stupid enough to make an issue of it, what could he charge me with? I legally don't have to talk to my state and local police, other than to identify myself.

Re:Jurisdiction (5, Insightful)

Pichu0102 (916292) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502335)

If he was stupid enough to make an issue of it, what could he charge me with?

Everyone has committed a number a crimes throughout their lifetime, even if they don't know it, due to the large number of laws on the books.

It's just a matter of combing through your life and finding which of those laws you've broken.

Re:Jurisdiction (1)

daigu (111684) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502533)

There's a world of difference between having committed a crime and a lawyer being able to prove it. And if you are going to go this route, why bother proving anything anyway? Just send people to jail and make up reasons. If you are going to go look for any random wrong-doing then it's all a formality anyway.

Re:Jurisdiction (2, Interesting)

Reece400 (584378) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502391)

Well, considering they don't feel the constitution applies, they probably don't feel too strongly about about any of your right. You probably don't want to try this.

Re:Jurisdiction (1)

LearnToSpell (694184) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502459)

Yeah, except Border Patrol is DHS, which is federal. Sorry.

Re:Jurisdiction (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502541)

Federal does not mean unlimited jurisdiction.

Re:Jurisdiction (4, Interesting)

marcop (205587) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502569)

I wouldn't tell them to get stuffed. However, you could try what this guy does...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv8hoQYeVl0 [youtube.com]

One of his last ones he was stopped there for like 7 minutes until they let him go.

The first one is good too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6uw7506xMw&feature=related [youtube.com]

All major cities in Denmark are Constitution-Free (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502225)

Here in Denmark, we have this thing called visitation zones. In visitation zones, the police are allowed to search and question you without cause.

The three biggest cities in Denmark; Copenhagen, Odense and Ã...rhus are all visitaion zones and have been for some while now, and we have no idea when this will stop.

Still is against our constitution, but apparently that dosent matter.

Re:All major cities in Denmark are Constitution-Fr (4, Insightful)

Altus (1034) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502383)

we have no idea when this will stop.

It wont

Too bad skin heads, neo-nazi, hitler types are (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502233)

inland. They must have been tipped off by someone on the inside that this was going down.

Re:Too bad skin heads, neo-nazi, hitler types are (1)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502311)

You never lived in Miami I take it.

Which border? (3, Interesting)

a whoabot (706122) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502263)

Which "US land or coastal border" is Milwaukee 100 miles from? Chicago?

Re:Which border? (2, Informative)

MHz-Man (1066086) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502425)

It looks like they are counting any coastal areas, including rivers and lakes that eventually connect to the ocean. I was surprised to see my entire area around Washington D.C. in there. If they counted it from the ocean on the other side of Maryland, DC might POSSIBLY be included, but it looks like they are considering 100 miles inland from the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay as a Constitution Free zone as well, which means some parts of West Virginia are included too.

It seems like a bit of a stretch as I haven't heard of any DHS stops around here like what the ones that were happening in Washington State, but it's still good to know exactly which areas DHS believes they can legally rape us in.

Face it - the States is cooked (5, Informative)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502269)

It's done. Stick a fork in it.

Do yourself a favour: GET THE FUCK OUT NOW.

The country's been insolvent since January. [federalreserve.gov]

It's not run under the rule of law as there is no guarantee of habeus corpus. [about.com]

It invaded another country, unprovoked. [wikipedia.org]

One election was a failure. [wikipedia.org]

And another seems to have been stolen. [rollingstone.com]

and after all of this an eloquent thoughtful (and by world standards) centrist is actually facing significant opposition from a third rate pilot and POW turned right wing hack and his "prom queen" veep choice? What the fuck is wrong with you people?

If you have any sense, get out now, before the border closes, and the country sinks into a blackhole of debt, financial ruin, infrastructural collapse, and fascist tail chasing. Seriously. Just pack your bags and go. If you'e reading this site, it is likely you have skillsets that are desirable all over the world.

And if you think Obama's gonna fix it all, you're fucking dreaming.

RS

Re:Face it - the States is cooked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502339)

"the country sinks into a blackhole of debt, financial ruin, infrastructural collapse, and fascist tail chasing."

I know that's your wildest fantasy, but it just isn't going to happen.

Re:Face it - the States is cooked (2, Insightful)

Pichu0102 (916292) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502367)

Where are we going to go? How many countries can you name that are not worse than the US, or aren't following the US' lead in these matters?

Re:Face it - the States is cooked (2, Insightful)

dragoncortez (603226) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502393)

I'm not real worried about fleeing the country. I'm sure we'll take the rest of the world down with us.

Re:Face it - the States is cooked (1, Flamebait)

Kid Zero (4866) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502431)

Dear Ralph:

There's four borders in this country. Pick one and head out. We don't need whiners like you in a small mess like this. Real Americans can take a look around, and say "I've seen worse." and rebuild. If you're not interested in that, move.

signed:

Real American.

Re:Face it - the States is cooked (1)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502521)

Agreed. I'm getting my university degree and getting the fuck out. There's a place for me, and it's not here.

I love the ACLU (1)

Legion_SB (1300215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502277)

I'm strongly in favor of groups that protect individuals' rights, even ones as over-the-top as the ACLU.

"Constitution-Free Zone?" So the 4th amendment is the entire Constitution? Taking the rhetoric a bit far, aren't we, friends?

Don't worry, I still love you, and next year's check is still coming.

Re:I love the ACLU (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502499)

Actually, they're pretty accurate. You're considered to have no rights in those zones, it's not just the unreasonable search and seizure parts that are violated.

Border Patrol checkpoints (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502295)

I grew up in Las Cruces, New Mexico, and have been through border patrol checkpoints literally hundreds of times. Since I'm white, they always just look in my car (looking for anyone that "looks" illegal, meaning brown people), and wave me on. However, I often see cars pulled over to the side being searched, presumably for drugs.

The ACLU claims that the Border Patrol regularly exceeds its authority in these checkpoints to look for things other than illegal immigrants or contraband from across the border, and they are absolutely right. It is interesting to note that occasionally one of these border patrol stations will have a sign up telling you what they've accomplished lately. It's never about how many illegal aliens they've captured, but rather how many pounds of narcotics they've confiscated. They claim the right to search your car because you are near the border, and any contraband they find is assumed to have been smuggled across the border, whether it actually was or not.

To people that have grown up around the Mexican border, it's no surprise that the border patrol can do pretty much whatever they want in these zones. They will pull you aside at these checkpoints for anything that looks suspicious, whether it's related to border security or not, especially if you are Hispanic.

These checkpoints have always been unsettling to me. While I understand that the Border Patrol needs to be able to operate at least to some degree within our borders in order to protect the border, it is ridiculous that I have to pass through checkpoints just to get from one city in America to another city in America, and that American citizens who happen to be of Hispanic descent are treated as criminals while traveling entirely within the United States just because of their skin color.

The checkpoint I've been through the most is just north of Las Cruces, New Mexico, and a good 60 miles away from the border. In order to go from Las Cruces (the second largest city in New Mexico) to points north (including Albuquerque, the largest city in New Mexico), you have to pass through this checkpoint. This means that thousands of people every day, most of whom are residents of the state of New Mexico and were not in Mexico at any point in the recent past, get to be harassed by the Border Patrol just because they want to travel within their own state.

Re:Border Patrol checkpoints (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502403)

The checkpoint I've been through the most is just north of Las Cruces, New Mexico, and a good 60 miles away from the border. In order to go from Las Cruces (the second largest city in New Mexico) to points north (including Albuquerque, the largest city in New Mexico), you have to pass through this checkpoint. This means that thousands of people every day, most of whom are residents of the state of New Mexico and were not in Mexico at any point in the recent past, get to be harassed by the Border Patrol just because they want to travel within their own state.

Were's the New Mexico BAR? Or is there so much political backing for this kind of action in New Mexico that it's a moot point?

Re:Border Patrol checkpoints (3, Informative)

mu51c10rd (187182) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502511)

This may explain their actions...look how much a BP officer is paid:

Q: What is the pay and benefits package?
A: New agents are hired at the GL-5, GL-7 or GL-9 level depending on education and experience and are paid at a special salary rate for Federal law enforcement personnel. The base starting salary is GL-5 ($36,658), GL-7 ($41,729), and GL-9 ($46,542) grade levels, with excellent opportunity for overtime pay. In addition, you'll receive a uniform allowance of $1500.00 and an excellent Federal Government benefits package including life insurance, health insurance, liberal retirement benefits, and a thrift savings plan (401-K).

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/careers/customs_careers/border_careers/bp_agent/faqs_working_for_the_usbp.xml#PayandBenefits [cbp.gov]

Re:Border Patrol checkpoints (4, Informative)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502579)

I also had the luxury to pass through a Las Cruces, NM Border Control Checkpoint.
Earlier this year, Three friends and I packed into a Pontiac Vibe went down Route 66, and ended up crossing from Phoenix over to Roswell.
I guess when we passed through the checkpoint we were only about 20 miles from the border, here is precisely how the stop went:

(Soldier holding machine gun doesn't even approach vehicle as we pull up)
Soldier: (Yells) Y'all American Citizens?
Us: (Pause and reply) Yes
Soldier: (Yells) Okkaaayy

We leave.

Original 13 Colonies? (2, Interesting)

dcollins (135727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502301)

What I'd like to see is an analysis of what percentage of the original 13 colonies is in the Constitution-free zone? Just eyeballing it looks like around 80%.

Glad the zone is within the US (1)

sugarmotor (621907) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502333)

I'm glad the "zone" is within the US - when I first read the posting, I thought they want to check people outside of the border - within Canada / Mexico ...

Well, now we know where "real America" is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502341)

More than 100 miles inside the border.

Let's hope it doesn't get any smaller.

These are parts of the country... (5, Funny)

krakround (1065064) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502349)

that are not the real America. Only in pro-America America does the Constitution apply. The rest of America hates America.

After Eldred and Kelo... (0, Redundant)

coats (1068) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502355)

... the whole US is a Constitution-free zone.

Who tagged this suckithawaii? (1)

Cowmonaut (989226) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502387)

Who tagged this suckithawaii?

I nearly choked laughing. Funniest thing I've read all afternoon. I just heard it like Sean Connery would of read it (ala SNL skit of Jeopardy).

New Map (0, Redundant)

BountyX (1227176) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502405)

I fixed the map to make it more accurate. here it is [gameguardian.net]

Map is wrong, in any case (5, Insightful)

nightsweat (604367) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502429)

Lake Michigan is entirely within the bounds of the US. Chicago is nowhere near the border.

Praise be to Obama ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502437)

Who will stop the Bush administration's never ending destruction of the Constitution.

Am I trolling? Why, yes I am.

another alarm going off (1)

u4ya (1248548) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502455)

if heard of the law of accelerating returns... is there a law of accelerating totalitarianism too?

Vermont (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502475)

About 10 persons will be out of the zone in vermont :P

In one of the videos, (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502479)

a guy refused the border patrol access to his trunk - after passing successfully through the border 50 miles ago. They ordered him to sit down on a bench while they had the dogs sniff. The border patrol then opened the trunk because "the dogs smelled something." I would like to point out that the police will cue a dog to "go crazy" so that they can have "cause" to violate your rights. The cops will lie upwards and downwards in court. Proving that they perjured themselves, though, is problematic because the cuing is so subtle that tape doesn't catch it.

100Miles? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502481)

WTF? Why not just say 200 miles and grab more cities that have nothing to do with 'the border'.

100 miles is just stupid.

James Madison quote. . . (5, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 5 years ago | (#25502517)

If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.

I'll take the ACLU seriously (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25502545)

when they start defending my other Constitutional rights. What's the ACLU's position on the 2nd Amendment or the 10th Amendment, for example? Yeah, I thought so. Face it, they're a far left-wing organization with no concern for the Constitution except when it suits their purposes.

Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman founded the ACLU in 1920 along with three other organizations dedicated to the most leftist of causes. The histories of these two individuals belie their claims of patriotism and respect for the Constitution.

Baldwin openly sought the utter destruction of American society. Fifteen years after the founding of the ACLU, Baldwin wrote: "I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

Earl Browder, the general secretary of the Communist Party of the United States, admitted that the ACLU served as a "transmission belt" for the party. Baldwin agreed, claiming, "I don't regret being a part of the communist tactic which increased the effectiveness of a good cause."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?