Federal Court Nixes Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance

An anonymous reader writes with this news from the EFF's Deep Links: The public got an early holiday gift today when a federal court agreed with us that six weeks of continually video recording the front yard of someone's home without a search warrant violates the Fourth Amendment. In United States v. Vargas local police in rural Washington suspected Vargas of drug trafficking. In April 2013, police installed a camera on top of a utility pole overlooking his home. Even though police did not have a warrant, they nonetheless pointed the camera at his front door and driveway and began watching every day. A month later, police observed Vargas shoot some beer bottles with a gun and because Vargas was an undocumented immigrant, they had probable cause to believe he was illegally possessing a firearm. They used the video surveillance to obtain a warrant to search his home, which uncovered drugs and guns, leading to a federal indictment against Vargas.

Comments

What?

[Jiro]

If he's an undocumented immigrant, why don't they just deport him instead of going through all of this?

Re:What?

[heezer7]

Sadly, because america :(

Re:What?

[sribe]

If he's an undocumented immigrant, why don't they just deport him instead of going through all of this?

Because it's impossible to secure 3,000 miles of border, and he would just sneak back in if that's all we did.

Re:What?

[sribe]

From a front door pointing camera they saw him shoot a gun at bottles??? I'm not from the US but is that considered ok and safe to shoot stuff in front of your house with neighbors around?

Depends on the location. It's perfectly legal for me, because "in front of my house" is still way far away from my neighbors.

But for the same reason you couldn't perform video surveillance on my front yard from any publicly accessible location.

So in this particular case, it does seem highly likely that it would be dangerous and illegal.

Or maybe it's a one-story house and a high utility pole and they also got footage of his back yard. It would be nice to know a bit more than what the very thin article says.

Re:What?

[Tokolosh]

Because nowhere in the Constitution does the government have the authority to decide who is worthy to live here, and who is not.

Re:What?

[TWX]

Did neighbors make a complaint?

You know the addage about the debate as to the sound made by a tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it?

Without evidence of a wrongdoing even as simple as a report by a witness, the police are not supposed to be able to act. If the only evidence they has was their now-ruled-illegal video, then everything from the tipping point of the video onward is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and is not admissable.

I'm a little surprised that the recent ruling about being pulled over for a tail light out and the subsequent drug bust, when it was not illegal to have a tail light out, hasn't also fallen into the same category, actually.

Re:What?

[DocSavage64109]

The police must have had a reason to put a camera on the pole. Their mistake was in not bothering to get a warrant to do so (or they tried and failed to get a warrant).

Re:What?

[enjar]

The article mentions that the house was in rural Washington. It's entirely possible that the neighbor's house was quite a distance away. My in-laws live in rural western New York on 10 acres of land. They are largely surrounded by farms and forest. It's very common for people to be out shooting guns, especially in hunting season. It's not unusual to hear guns going off, or see people in hunting attire walking along the road or in a field with a firearm. I've also lived in the southern and western US and similar behavior happens there.

I live in a suburban area of Massachusetts now, and this would NOT be common here at all, since the population density here is considerably higher than a rural area, to the point hunting is not allowed in the town limits because there is no place in town where you would be far enough from a dwelling to discharge a firearm safely. There are some shooting ranges in the town but they are very self-contained. If I would go closer to the city of Boston things just get more densely packed, and people would not be shooting guns for entertainment in public.

Re:What?

[jythie]

Without details there are all sorts of possible reasons, including they only 'suspected' he was an undocumented immigrant, or the person was covered under one of the 'not a high priority' cases where if the person is caught doing something else they are worth deporting but simple knowledge of their existence does not justify the cost involved.

Re:What?

[moonlandingchap]

best let them all in then, what's the point in trying eh?

Re:What?

[ganjadude]

that is the question I am wondering. The cops knew he was here illegally, thats all that should be needed to deport him. period. Why the waste of money and resources on something that should take the department 30 seconds to get immigration to come pick him up??? When I was in german (and i am/look german) I was stopped no less than 10 times in a week for them to check my passport. why is that so hard to do in america???

Re:What?

[morgauxo]

No. He's out in the country. There probably aren't any neighbors around.

Re:What?

[CanHasDIY]

FWIW, the Constitution does make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens in regards to rights, evidenced in the Amendments - some of them only apply to citizens (ie the 2nd), whereas others (5th, 6th) specifically point out that the right belongs to everyone within US borders, citizen or otherwise.

Not sure if or how that augments the argument, just making a statement of fact.

Re:What?

[Loki_1929]

Because it's impossible to secure 3,000 miles of border, and he would just sneak back in if that's all we did.

Pardon me, but that's bullshit.

Let's just take the forces we already have today. We have 1.4 Million in active duty military personnel and 850,000 reserves. Obviously we can't take every single one, so let's take half: 1.1 Million people. Now stick them on a 3-man rotation minus 1/3 for duty rotations and leave and spread them out across the 1,954 mile border with Mexico. That puts 125 people plus their equipment per mile of border, plus all their R&D budget going into technologies to increase protection. Those personnel aren't just idle all day; they're building fences, digging trenches, laying sensor grids, and basically doing all the stuff that completely shut down the San Diego zone for crossings and they're doing it 24/7/365 at 125 per mile or one person every 14 yards.

I think that's all way overboard for what we'd need to actually secure (~99% reduction in successful unauthorized crossings) that border, but in any event, don't try to say it's impossible to do. Say we lack the political will. Say we choose not to do it. Say we just aren't interested enough in the problem to do what's necessary to solve it. But don't say it's impossible; that's absurd. I'm not even getting terribly creative here; just sticking boots on the ground and a whole lot more boots than we'd ever actually need at that.

Re:What?

[TWX]

Sure they had a reason. That's not in dispute. Either way, they failed to secure the warrant for their activities, and thus their activities were inadmissible.

Re:What?

[Tokolosh]

Anything not forbidden to the Federal Government by the Constitution is allowed, assuming the appropriate laws are passed

You have this backwards. Everything is forbidden to the Federal Government, except that explicitly granted by the Constitution.

Re:What?

[ShanghaiBill]

why is that so hard to do in america???

Because there are many of us that believe that America should be a free country, and welcome anyone who wants to come here and build a better life for themselves and their families. So we are willing to throw any monkey wrench we can into the machinery of deportation.

Re:What?

[jbmartin6]

Anything not forbidden to the Federal Government by the Constitution is allowed, assuming the appropriate laws are passed

This is incorrect, anything not allowed the Federal Gov by the Constitution is forbidden. That's the opposite of what you said. The 9th and 10th amendments were added to clarify this point. This is why we have arguments about the scope of things like the general welfare clause.

Re:What?

[ganjadude]

i believe in that as well, doesnt mean people can do whatever they want because.... Murca... however

Re:What?

[Tiger4]

Anything not forbidden to the Federal Government by the Constitution is allowed, assuming the appropriate laws are passed.

Uhh, no. Rather it is quite the opposite.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." http://www.law.cornell.edu/con...

Limited government, and explicitly so at the Federal level

Re:What?

[TechyImmigrant]

>If he's an undocumented immigrant, why don't they just deport him instead of going through all of this?

What do you have against immigrants?

Re:What?

[CrankyFool]

Not to start an argument, but are you sure about the 2nd amendment?

I'm a documented permanent legal alien here (Green Card); I own numerous guns. While as a non-citizen I have to show one extra piece of ID when purchasing a firearm, even in California (known for restrictive gun laws) I have the ability to purchase every firearm that a citizen can. I've never seen any indication of permanent residents being treated differently in terms of the ability to own firearms compared to citizens, and it feels like if the 2nd amendment (which refers to "people," not "citizens") could be construed to not include residents, someone would have already passed a law taking that particular capability out of my hands.

Re:What?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Look how that worked out for the Indians (or whatever they're called this week). ;-)

Re:What?

[TechyImmigrant]

best let them all in then, what's the point in trying eh?

Yes. Try it. It's great. We can look to Europe, who opened the borders internally. Notably us white Northerners were not suddenly beset with swarthy skinned Southerners taking our jobs. It was easier finding staff for restaurants and those who wanted to go a live and work somewhere else can, but everyone didn't just up and leave.

You might ask why your American governments don't afford you the same freedoms.

Re:What?

[causality]

The article mentions that the house was in rural Washington. It's entirely possible that the neighbor's house was quite a distance away. My in-laws live in rural western New York on 10 acres of land. They are largely surrounded by farms and forest. It's very common for people to be out shooting guns, especially in hunting season. It's not unusual to hear guns going off, or see people in hunting attire walking along the road or in a field with a firearm. I've also lived in the southern and western US and similar behavior happens there.

Indeed, if you want to do some target practice to achieve proficiency with your weapons, a friend who lives out in the cut is the best way to do it. It beats the hell out of paying shooting-range fees, you can use whatever you want for targets, and you can also practice at longer distances than anything an indoor facility could offer.

Re:What?

[myowntrueself]

Won't work, the US military is too busy 'securing' other countries...

Re:What?

[Shakrai]

Notably us white Northerners were not suddenly beset with swarthy skinned Southerners taking our jobs.

Which explains why David Cameron is trying to amend the freedom of movement to gain the ability to deport EU nationals that move to the UK without first securing employment. Or the borderline racism I personally observed in Sweden and Finland directed at EU nationals who moved there from the former Eastern Bloc.

You might ask why your American governments don't afford you the same freedoms.

You can freely move through the 50 States with more ease than EU nationals can establish themselves in another EU State. Common language and all, plus there's no such thing in the States as a residency permit for American citizens. But don't let the facts get in the way of your conceptions. :)

Re:What?

[zwede]

2nd amendment applies to all legal residents. You don't even need a green card to own a gun, a visa is enough. I had guns when I lived here on a H1B, a green card and now as a citizen. I got my concealed carry license while on the green card.

Re:What?

[TechyImmigrant]

>You can freely move through the 50 States with more ease than EU nationals can establish themselves in another EU State.

But what about all the other American countries?
As a Brit I could move to France without asking permission. I don't think that's true for a US citizen to move to Mexico or Canada.

Re:What?

[DoofusOfDeath]

Because it's impossible to secure 3,000 miles of border, and he would just sneak back in if that's all we did.

Not if they're dead.

Seriously - why do we allow this? If illegal immigrants consider the penalties to be acceptable, the problem is the penalties aren't strong enough to persuade them.

It's not like the penalties are an entrance fee, where once you pay it, we're all good.

Re:What?

[DoofusOfDeath]

You might ask why your American governments don't afford you the same freedoms.

So it's okay for me to go live in Switzerland without any documentation? Sweet!

Re:What?

[lymond01]

That read like an XKCD What If? response.

Re:What?

[aardvarkjoe]

What do you have against immigrants?

There's a difference between having something against immigrants, and having something against illegals. Pretending that the two are equivalent is a typical dishonest tactic of the supporters of illegal immigration.

Re:What?

[Ryan McLaughlin]

The great wall of china is 5,500 miles long. If they could build that a thousand years ago, surely we could do better now?

Re:What?

[HBI]

This all misses the point. The way most illegal immigrants come into and stay in the US is not by sneaking through the desert. It's by passing in on a tourist visa and then just not leaving.

Figure out a way to fix that problem that doesn't involve house to house searching and random checkpoints, and you get a gold star.

Re:What?

[Ryan McLaughlin]

Have you ever read the 10 amendment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

Re:What?

[RabidReindeer]

About 30 years back, the US border with Canada was more or less a line drawn with chalk and the Mexican border was not much less porous itself. Most of the Carribean was easy-entry as well, excepting, of course Cuba.

Then after 9/11, the US began to build its version of the Berlin wall.

It's hard to remember that the original reason for beefing up the fences and guarding them with deadly force was fear that brown-skinned terrorists should slip over it. We got all caught up in the illegal-immigrants-taking-our-jobs meme, instead.

Re:What?

[Charliemopps]

If he's an undocumented immigrant, why don't they just deport him instead of going through all of this?

They get paid to arrest one... and have to pay to deport the other.

Re:What?

[Shakrai]

As a Brit I could move to France without asking permission. I don't think that's true for a US citizen to move to Mexico or Canada.

They're not part of the United States. *shrug*

I'm not sure why you're trying to equate the relationship between the US and her neighbors to the relationship between EU members. A better equation is between the 50 States and in that instance we can move about with more ease than EU citizens can. If you insist on said equation I could point out that you're not exactly free to move to Russia without documentation as an EU citizen...

Incidentally, if you're British you should be aware of what your PM is doing. To listen to him tell it people are using the freedom of movement to abuse your social safety net. I don't know enough about British domestic politics to say whether or not this is true or he's using it to advance another political agenda; I have followed it at a distance though. I did see people from the former East Bloc abusing freedom of movement in the Nordic Countries and it did result in a fair amount of resentment from the locals.

Re:What?

[Loki_1929]

You have the political will to gun down/blow up kids running for the fence? That's what Eastern Germany did.

You are making a strawman argument. Never did I suggest doing any such thing.

Funny, that's what Eastern Germany said too. Fat lot of good it did them trying to keep people in.

You can attempt to draw all the offensive comparisons you want while ignoring the fact it isn't a terribly challenging problem to solve when your wall isn't right through the middle of a major city and isn't easily climbable and isn't the only line of defense. Look at what happened when they put in a complex fencing system in the San Diego zone in the mid 90s: suddenly crossing attempts dropped by over 90%. Nobody got through there, so they all went into the mountains to go around the system.

Simply extend the San Diego system across the rest of the border and have heavy patrols. Anyone damaging the system is imprisoned for a period, then deported to their country of origin. Those who manage to make it through the system are quickly rounded up by the regular patrols and immediately deported to their country of origin. Most will stop trying. The few that remain will be far more easily managed.

Re:What?

[RavenLrD20k]

This has been my argument since my first exposure to the American "Free Movement" propaganda in the 4th grade. Teachers didn't like that. Especially when I made statements on the order of "the U.S.S.R doesn't have checks on their people moving from providence to providence either." Hell, even to go into Canada, I remember having to pass through a checkpoint where they reviewed my dad's license before permitting access (passport wasn't required back then).

Re:What?

[TechyImmigrant]

>Incidentally, if you're British you should be aware of what your PM is doing
No. I left.

Re:What?

[Shakrai]

Then after 9/11, the US began to build its version of the Berlin wall.

Umm, the Berlin Wall was to meant to keep East Bloc citizens in, not to keep Westerners out. I've never had any issues whatsoever leaving the United States. In fact it's easier to exit the United States than it is to exit the Schengen Area; we don't make you wait in line to get your passport stamped on your way out of our country.

Re:What?

[blue9steel]

Didn't work particularly well then either.

Re:What?

[thaylin]

There is no American Union outside the United states.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure why you were modded a troll. Its pretty clear that you are correct. The stupidity rampant in the bureaucracy and law enforcement in this country is unbelievable.

Re:What?

[TheCarp]

I am ok with that. Now I propose YOU are also an undocumented immigrant.
Sure we could go to trial and give you a chance to prove otherwise, but, if we just deport you instead then we don't have to bother going through all that.

Or you know...the police could do the job they are paid to do and do the fucking paperwork...and if they can't convince a court....they can move the fuck on and remain within the law....you know, since they take a paycheck to do that.

Re:What?

[thaylin]

So you want to activate the reserves, upending massive amounts of family just to keep people in?

Re:What?

[x0]

If he's an undocumented democrat, why don't they just deport him instead of going through all of this?

Fixed that for you.

m

Re:What?

[msc.buff]

You were moderated Informative with this "gem" in your comment:

"Anything not forbidden to the Federal Government by the Constitution is allowed..."

It is exactly that train of thought which has lead to the utter disaster which our Government has become.

Re:What?

[Steve Hamlin]

Article 4, Section 4: "The United States shall...protect [every State] against Invasion;"

Amendment 14, Section 1, Clause 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Re:What?

[spire3661]

You can only swing the Hammer of the State so hard before you become the monster. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:What?

[wiredlogic]

He must have been reading the Chinese constitution which reserves all power and has a lengthy list of freedoms which are granted to the people.

Re:What?

[TechyImmigrant]

There is no American Union outside the United states.

That's rather my point.

The American governments have failed to get together and ensure freedom of movement and labor.

Re:What?

[spire3661]

That time has LONG since passed. Its foolish romanticism.

Re:What?

[Tokolosh]

Invasion is entry of a group bent on non-democratic overthrow of the government - not applicable here.

14th Amendment does not address border control, so I don't know why you cite it? Citizens may vote, and therefore change the government democratically. The Constitution grants the power to confer citizenship, but not to restrict entry, except for invasion, supra.

Re:What?

[geekmux]

Because it's impossible to secure 3,000 miles of border, and he would just sneak back in if that's all we did.

Pardon me, but that's bullshit.

Let's just take the forces we already have today. We have 1.4 Million in active duty military personnel and 850,000 reserves. Obviously we can't take every single one, so let's take half: 1.1 Million people. Now stick them on a 3-man rotation minus 1/3 for duty rotations and leave and spread them out across the 1,954 mile border with Mexico. That puts 125 people plus their equipment per mile of border, plus all their R&D budget going into technologies to increase protection. Those personnel aren't just idle all day....

Are you sure those personnel aren't just idle all day?

No, that's not a stupid question. I'm asking this because of your assumption that 1.1 million active duty personnel are doing jack shit right now, and thus have plenty of time to go pull guard duty.

It's not like they're maintaining a global presence or anything...

Re:What?

[currently_awake]

You are assuming the Mexican/American border problem is merely an engineering problem, but It's not. It's a political one. If you don't want illegal immigrants coming north then keep them from working in the USA. Random spot checks of low wage employers coupled with massive fines for illegals would cut the number by half in a single year. But that won't happen because big business likes to export jobs to the third world (and that is effectively what illegal guest workers do to your economy).

Re:What?

[Archangel Michael]

Mexico's Immigration requirements are what we should all aim for. But if we did what Mexico does, we would be labeled "racists" by La Raza (literally "the Race") crowd who want unfettered and open boarders to America, but not the inverse where Americans could invade Mexico. BTW, poor Mexico also has VOTER ID requirements that make America's whining about having to get off their lazy asses so that they can vote. It is pathetic.

The US and Canada, have a much more polite (thanks Canadians!) relationship.

Re:What?

[Fire_Wraith]

It's certainly feasible. It takes political will, but more importantly it takes _Money_. All of that stuff is going to cost money. It's not so simple a matter as saying "Well we already spend $X on Y, let's put it on Z instead." You have to house those soldiers and feed them. Field operations are an increased cost over using the established housing and facilities on their old bases. Trucks using fuel moving food/water/etc. That said, it's certainly in the realm of possibility. Congress isn't interested in paying, and it's not just a matter of the left not wanting to stop immigrants. The entire reason the President was able to make his most recent order on how to prioritize deportations is because the law Congress passed only allocates enough money to deport a small fraction of the people here, and gives him the authority to prioritize how it's spent. They're certainly able to try and pass a new law changing that, or to spend money to really secure the border, but they're not likely to do that.

Re:What?

[aardvarkjoe]

Support of the term "illegal Immigrant" is just another form of slavery. Different input, same results.

Right. The good old "the illegals just can't stop themselves from jumping the border!" argument.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I appreciate your candor. I wish more on the right would have the courage to articulate what they are really thinking.

It would be easier for the rest of us to see who the fascist psycho nut-jobs truly are, and shun them accordingly.

Re:What?

[Goetterdaemmerung]

>You can freely move through the 50 States with more ease than EU nationals can establish themselves in another EU State.

But what about all the other American countries?
As a Brit I could move to France without asking permission. I don't think that's true for a US citizen to move to Mexico or Canada.

Mexico and Canada are not part of the United States. They do not have the same treaties with each other as do the the EU or the Commonwealth countries.

As a Brit can you freely move and work in those countries outside of the European Union that are still in Europe or the surrounding area? I don't know why you'd want to move to, say Serbia or Albania however can you do so without permission? What about Ukraine, which is usually considered part of Europe?

Re:What?

[currently_awake]

Odds are he was in a constitution free zone (border zone), as that includes almost the entire country. Just call up the Department of Homeland Insecurity and have him arrrested.

Re:What?

[enjar]

When I was growing up it was a pretty decent way to pass some time. My dad grew up on a farm, so we'd go back for visits and do some target practice with whatever old stuff we might find around the farm. I'd shoot .22 long rifle, my dad had a .38 pistol, and my uncle had a rifle and a .45.

Re:What?

[Dragonslicer]

The great wall of china is 5,500 miles long. If they could build that a thousand years ago, surely we could do better now?

Because the Great Wall was never intended to keep out people. The purpose was to keep out horses (and their riders).

Re:What?

[thaylin]

Why would they? Governments in the EU is relativity similar, politics in North and Central America is vastly dissimilar, some completely opposite.

Re:What?

[jxander]

It's a long and sordid tale, where those in power vehemently refuse to help Mexico build anything resembling a modern society. The reasons are numerous, but it mostly boils down to cheap labor.

Simply put: if Mexicans were allowed to come across legally, employers would have to pay them minimum wage. And if Mexico wasn't so shitty (especially the border towns) people wouldn't be leaving in droves.

If we really wanted to solve the whole immigration problem, securing the border isn't the proper answer. Notice the lack of emergency situation at the US's northern border, despite the lack of a fence to keep out the hockey-lovers (or to keep us Statesfolk out of Canada). Take the proposed Mexico fence budget (however much that is) and pour it into getting Mexico's infrastructure up to snuff. Spend some money weeding out corrupt policemen. Work some real campaign reform (lord knows we can't do it here.) Build some roads and hospitals. Help bring Mexico up to the same standards of living as the rest of the first world, and the immigration problem will solve itself.

Re:What?

[jamesborr]

Not sure how one could come to such an assumption. Let's take a real example: Israel with a population of 8 million people has already built a fence of 300+ miles, with a final length of 400+ miles (the project started in 2002). This fence has nearly shutdown any and all intrusion attempts from some of the most "determined" border crossers on the planet. Any you to suppose that a country of 300+ million people (nearly 40 times more people) cannot build an equally competent fence of 3000 miles (only 7 to 8 times longer) then the Israeli's have? We might not have the political will to do so -- but the task is certainly not "IMPOSSIBLE".

Re:What?

[cheater512]

Erm members of the EU are *countries* not states.

Kinda a big difference.

Re:What?

[causality]

When I was growing up it was a pretty decent way to pass some time. My dad grew up on a farm, so we'd go back for visits and do some target practice with whatever old stuff we might find around the farm. I'd shoot .22 long rifle, my dad had a .38 pistol, and my uncle had a rifle and a .45.

I seem to be more accurate with heavier handguns like a .44 Magnum or a .357 myself. Of course the nice thing about a .357 is that you can target practice with the cheaper .38 Special rounds, at least if it's a revolver. The gas pressure may not be high enough to cycle the action on a semiautomatic pistol -- at least, that was my experience trying to use .38 Special rounds in a Desert Eagle .357 weapon.

I also had lots of fun firing a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with slugs, trying to hit targets out of easy range for buckshot.

Re:What?

[TsuruchiBrian]

EU and non-EU governments have failed to get together and ensure freedom of movement and labor.

Re:What?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Just playing devil's advocate, but all that sounds more expensive than a fence....

Re:What?

[darkNeko]

A fence would be breached withing the hour of it's inaguration. And you still need personal to keep it up, to patrol it, etc. All that money accumulates, its not "just a fence".

Re:What?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Sure it's easy to stop 90% or 99% of illegal immigration if you are willing to do at all costs. But we are not willing to do it at all costs. What is the point of spending all this money to build a giant fence, when the net harm caused by illegal immigration is no where near the cost of the fence?

This is like spending $100K on a security system that stops $5K of damage/theft over it's lifetime

All this is assuming *that* illegal immigration is harmful on average. Maybe it is, but the evidence is not convincing either way. In any case it would probably be easier to institute policies on our side of the fence in order to make illegal immigration less harmful to our society.

These are human beings most of whom are willing to do whatever it takes to make a better life for their family. Sure some are criminals, but some people in our native population are criminals too.

Re:What?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I don't want to give the impression that a fence would be cheap, or that we should build/man it. I'm just saying that it doesn't sound more expensive than "Fix Mexico".

Re:What?

[CanHasDIY]

I thought I used a bad example, so I double checked - turns out there is no distinction on all accounts, at least as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned.

Re:What?

[TechyImmigrant]

I did.

Re:What?

[Steve Hamlin]

One of the fundamental tenants of the (literally) pre-historical concept of sovereignty, by which the people ordain and establish the U.S. Constituion, includes the ability to controls one's borders. The federal government, through the 14th amendment, has supremacy in defining citizenship of the United States, and through Article 4, at least a parallel duty to defend the States against invasion. You object that invasion means a group meaning to overthrow the goverment - a definition not found in the Constitution. Another definition of invasion is infrigment by intrusion, which ties back to the ability of the people's goverment to control borders.

So, historical pre-Consitutional ideas of sovereignty give the people the power to form a nation and the ability of that nation to control its borders, Amendment 14 specifically empowers the federal government with defining who is and is not a citizen of the United States, and Article 4 specifically empowers the federal goverment to protect the state's borders (against invasion, which necessarily posits who can and cannot legally cross the border) . You can add to that the Preamble, which states that the purpose of the Constitution is to insure domestic tranquility - legality of residence being central to national domesticity.

Perhaps you're a 10th amendment supporter getting confused about primacy in federalism, and instead of objecting to the argument that Federal law on border security preempts all State law on the topic (i.e. arguing that it does not and States also have the parallel authority to secure the borders), are thinking the inverse: that the federal government has NO rights to secure the State's borders? Which doesn't seem to be correct, because no one, not even 10th Amendmentists, are currently arguing that the federal government has NO right to deport non-citizens not legally in the U.S.; the argument is that the States should be able to do so independently of and in parallel to the federal government.

Re:What?

[mccrew]

I'm a little surprised that the recent ruling about being pulled over for a tail light out and the subsequent drug bust, when it was not illegal to have a tail light out, hasn't also fallen into the same category, actually

A broken tail light constitutes probable cause to pull the car over, and then if the officer can either see anything incriminating or get the occupants' permission to search ("You don't have any drugs in there? No, good. So then you wouldn't if mind if I had a look?") then he's in and it's constitutionally kosher.

Re:What?

[amxcoder]

And why should we dump our money (which we have none of at the moment) into another countries infrastructure, when that country is run by corrupt government officials that are in collusion with drug cartels and organized crime?

Maybe, just maybe... they should get their own "act together" to better the people that live there.

Re:What?

[Tokolosh]

Your argument hinges on the meaning of "invasion", which is where we shall have to agree to disagree.

With respect to liberties, I am not a states-righter, in that if the federal government does not have to power to limit freedoms, neither do the states, or anyone else. On the other hand, if a state grants a freedom, the feds cannot take it away (marijuana).

Re:What?

[jxander]

Initial investment. Probably.

Long term maintenance and upkeep: probably not.

Re:What?

[jxander]

How's that working out so far?

If we're going to dump some money into the problem, we should target the root of the problem, not a symptom.

Re: What?

[BeaverCleaver]

There's plenty of money being dumped into "fixing" the Middle East right now. What of some of that was re- allocated to improvements closer to home?

Re:What?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

No, they don't have that power.

The case a few years ago throwing out Congress' law banning guns within a certain distance of schools was ruled a rare overreach of the general welfare clause justifying domains of legislation for Congress.

To this day, the Supreme Court still acknowledges this principle, even if deliberate misinterpretations of things like General Welfare have voided most limitations.

Re:What?

[HornWumpus]

More 'Indians' alive today then in 1492. Go back to your cave troll.

Re:What?

[tombeard]

You forgot to say "yet". Fences work both ways.

Re:What?

[dryeo]

My wife by treaty is supposed to be free to walk into the States with a backpack full of whatever. It's damn near impossible for her to do that now and is likely to get shot or at least imprisoned if she doesn't cross over at a border checkpoint.
Jay treaty and whatever the treaty was that ended the War 0f 1812 which reaffirmed the Jay treaty and as treaties override everything except the American Constitution her not being allowed to walk into the USA is illegal, but then the American government (and mine) doesn't care much about following the law.

Re:What?

[TheCarp]

This was the whole point with the NDAA too.... when you allow someone to decide that a person can be denied a trial indefinitely because the president said the magic word "Terrorist" then; in point of fact, nobody had any rights at all except the President anymore.

If you are denied your right to face your accusations in court and state your case, then you have no rights at all. If a man can decide when the law applies and when it doesn't, then the law is, in fact, not the highest power in the land and....its all a pack of lies.

Re:What?

[Shakrai]

We don't have a fence. And if you think the US wasn't going to increase security after 19 foreigners got into the country (legally I might add) and killed nearly 3,000 people you're crazy. What country on this planet wouldn't have tightened border controls after such an incident?

We can argue about the need for some of these measures (I would do away with the fingerprint requirement, at least for people holding Schengen Area passports and those from other countries we have excellent relations with) or even their effectiveness but the equation to the Berlin Wall is both offensive and laughable. I'm guessing the person that made it didn't have the privilege of actually living in the East Bloc and is a spoiled Westerner.....

Re:What?

[drinkypoo]

Right. The good old "the illegals just can't stop themselves from jumping the border!" argument.

I think it's the "The illegals are fleeing from a situation which we created with our War On Some Drugs For Profit" argument.

Re:What?

[spitzak]

I suspect the North Korean will not have a problem getting the USA to give him a tourist visa. He *will* have some trouble getting access to ask the USA for one, and for actually getting out of North Korea to use it.

Re:What?

[causality]

Because it's impossible to secure 3,000 miles of border, and he would just sneak back in if that's all we did.

Pardon me, but that's bullshit.

Let's just take the forces we already have today. We have 1.4 Million in active duty military personnel and 850,000 reserves. Obviously we can't take every single one, so let's take half: 1.1 Million people. Now stick them on a 3-man rotation minus 1/3 for duty rotations and leave and spread them out across the 1,954 mile border with Mexico. That puts 125 people plus their equipment per mile of border, plus all their R&D budget going into technologies to increase protection. Those personnel aren't just idle all day....

Are you sure those personnel aren't just idle all day?

No, that's not a stupid question. I'm asking this because of your assumption that 1.1 million active duty personnel are doing jack shit right now, and thus have plenty of time to go pull guard duty.

It's not like they're maintaining a global presence or anything...

Yes, a global presence, especially (though not exclusively) because we just insist on constantly fucking with the Middle East. If we didn't have such a global presence feeding the military-industrial complex, we would have plenty of personnel to deal with the real national security issue of a wide-open border. We'd have far fewer enemies that way as well, but then the anti-terrorism propaganda would have to find another issue to excuse draconian laws.

The USA is a military and economic empire that doesn't like to call itself an empire because that might sound bad.

Re:What?

[causality]

It's certainly feasible. It takes political will, but more importantly it takes _Money_. All of that stuff is going to cost money. It's not so simple a matter as saying "Well we already spend $X on Y, let's put it on Z instead." You have to house those soldiers and feed them. Field operations are an increased cost over using the established housing and facilities on their old bases. Trucks using fuel moving food/water/etc.

If you understand how federal politics and the well-connected military-industrial complex actually works, you would know that costing lots of money would make it MORE likely, not less.

Re:What?

[spitzak]

Because they wanted to arrest him for drug trafficking.

Deporting him would mean he would probably sneak back or arrange with his friends still in the USA to continue drug trafficking. If you assume that drug trafficking is something that you don't want (and under current USA laws is something the police are supposed to prevent) then this is a totally logical approach.

Re:What?

[MorePower]

Most illegal immigrants could not ever qualify for any of the existing visa categories, no matter how many hoops they were willing to jump though.
That's why they come illegally, the vast majority would never be able to get even a tourist visa into the US, let alone a work authorization.

Re:What?

[Glarimore]

Fair, but when the Federal Government's power trumps that of the States more often than not ("Make your drinking age 21 or we take away your highway funding!"), living in one state is the same as another, so there is no point in moving.

Re:What?

[david_thornley]

It couldn't keep out horsemen. It could keep them in.

Standard practice, in event of a breach by mounted barbarians, was to put a strong defensive force at the breech they made, then use the rest of the available troops to push the barbarians back until they were pinned against the Great Wall. At that point, they wouldn't have time to make another breech, so their only way out would be to go over the Wall, leaving loot and horses behind.

Re:What?

[Shakrai]

It's not as big of a difference as you would think. The 50 American States retain all powers except for those specifically surrendered to the Federal Government. They are every bit as sovereign as the members of the EU. The critical difference is they've surrendered more powers to the central government than EU members have. In certain areas US States have more power to flip the bird to the central government than EU members do. They're certainly more powerful than any political subdivision of a European State, unless you want to talk about special cases like Åland.

Re:What?

[Jane Q. Public]

It should also be noted that Federal law aside, the surveillance activities of the police is clearly against Washington State privacy laws.

In general, it is illegal for law enforcement to use ANY means that is not available to a casual passerby on the sidewalk, to see what is happening on private land. Using a stepladder on the sidewalk to look over the back fence is illegal without a warrant, as is the use of a drone, or even just standing in front of a house and peering through the front window with binoculars.

In general, the activity is undertaken specifically in order to see what cannot be casually seen, or is done over a period of time ("surveilling"), it is illegal without a warrant.

Re:What?

[nukenerd]

What is the point of spending all this money to build a giant fence, when the net harm caused by illegal immigration is no where near the cost of the fence? ... This is like spending $100K on a security system that stops $5K of damage .. All this is assuming *that* illegal immigration is harmful on average.

It depends who is doing the calculation. If you are the boss of a cheap clothes factory I expect your calc will come down very favourably for illegal immigrants - favourable to your own pocket anyway which is where most people's calcs stop. OTOH if you are an out of work "native" it will come out unfavourably.

But it is not just money. Also needing to be taken into account are social factors such as the fragmentation of society, sex ratio balance, divided loyalties, the import of other countries' fueds and the attitudes of people who feel they have nothing to lose whatever they do.

Re:What?

[nukenerd]

You think that maintaining Mexico would be cheaper than maintaining a fence? I'd change tablets if I were you.

Re:What?

[cheater512]

Only Americans think their states are like countries. No one else does. :P
(e.g. http://en.webfail.com/c281aaef... )

Re:What?

[Sabriel]

You're quite right - and still missing the GP's point. GP was calling out a bullshit statement. GP never asserted whether being able to secure the border was a good or bad thing to do, just pointing out that it was entirely doable from an engineering perspective.

Re:What?

[TsuruchiBrian]

OTOH if you are an out of work "native" it will come out unfavourably.

You mean if you are an out of work native hoping to work in a cheap clothes factory?

But it is not just money. Also needing to be taken into account are social factors such as the fragmentation of society, sex ratio balance, divided loyalties, the import of other countries' fueds and the attitudes of people who feel they have nothing to lose whatever they do.

If we are going to take into account negative social factors we should also take into account good scoial factors, such as more diversity of cultures (e.g. music, food, languages, experiences). They are also usually pretty hardworking compared to out of work natives, and provide some much needed competition in the labor market.

Re:What?

[TsuruchiBrian]

It is not entirely doable even according to the GP. The GP was throwing out numbers like 90% and 99% (i.e. not secure).

Re:What?

[TsuruchiBrian]

What are you counting as long term? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years? I think *maybe* fixing Mexico is a better investment than manning a fence for 100 years, and that's a big maybe.

I don't think fixing Mexico would necessarily cost *that* much money, if the people fixing it knew what they were doing. Even if we (the U.S.A) knew what we were doing (which we don't, look at who our politicians are), sending Mexico a bunch of money to fix themselves will just be sending a bunch of money to drug cartels. We need our shit together in addition to Mexico having their shit together. It's quite the bootstrapping problem.

We have a long history of pouring money (and weapons) into fixing problems in foreign countries only to have all that money end up in the hands of exactly the people we didn't want it to.

Re:What?

[Loki_1929]

Thank you, I'm quite flattered by the comparison.

Re:What?

[Neil Boekend]

They are finishing things that SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STARTED.

Re:What?

[Sabriel]

If we only built security devices that were 100% secure, could we build any at all?

Re:What?

[bingoUV]

Illegal

Law is generally for 2 broad purposes :

1. Codifies morality : The parts of morality that can be enforced without much effort, shared by most people in the state/country/culture often becomes law. One extreme example in some places is prohibition of gay sex.

2. Convenience : Things that are perfectly morally justified in themselves, but it is very convenient if people not do it. One extreme example is driving on right side - morally there is nothing superior about left vs right but it is awfully convenient if we choose one of these and stick to it.

3. Third, false purpose, is - law for its own sake. Do this because it is law - don't question why it is law.

Some laws could serve both true purposes. Now no one will disagree with you that those immigrants are illegal ones. But what is the purpose of the law(s) that make them illegal?

From your reply, it appears that purpose number 3 is your answer.

Re:What?

[bingoUV]

They get paid to arrest one

I am somewhat aware of the prison industry in the US - but has it come to that? What is the mechanism by which a police officer, or department, gets paid to arrest people?

thanks

Re:What?

[Shakrai]

I have no idea what the point of that link is, but in response to:

Only Americans think their states are like countries.

That's because very few non-Americans have actually studied our political system or our history in depth. Have you actually read our Federal Constitution? I'm sure I know the answer to the question if I pose it regarding a State Constitution. You do know that the 13 original colonies each had their own charters? Or that two of the American States (Vermont and Texas) existed as Independent Republics prior to joining the United States? Have you ever wondered why things like drivers licenses are done at the State level rather than the Federal level? Or why alcohol policies vary so broadly across the United States? Gambling? And so forth?

These are all rhetorical questions of course. I don't know where you're from but I'm almost certain I know more about the political/legal system in your country and the history thereof than you do about the United States of America. Look, the answer is even in the name....

Re:What?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Depending on where this guy was the nearest neighbor may have likely been several miles away. For example one of my friends has a cabin in norther Minnesota the nearest neighbor is about 10 miles away. We frequently toss empty cans out the door at night and the next day walk out and shoot them from the porch, no sense in letting perfectly intact cans go unshot. Yes we do clean up the cans when we leave but why not shoot them for target practice first. This type of thing is very common in rural areas and would only really be a concern if it were in a developed are. Also in the fall it is very common to see people walking around in blaze orange with a shotgun or rifle over their shoulder out hunting

Re:What?

[aardvarkjoe]

From your reply, it appears that purpose number 3 is your answer.

I don't see how you could possibly make that assessment based on my statement, which was simply that you can be against illegal immigration without being against legal immigration.

Re:What?

[cheater512]

Australian drivers licences are done on a state level. That is pretty normal.

The history there is fairly irrelevant. Right now, the US has more or less what Australia has (just as an example) with minor differences in implementation.
Country, State, County/Local Council.

Re:What?

[jxander]

I'm not saying that we should bankroll them indefinitely. Just get the ball rolling.

But really, it's all hypothetical anyway. Considering the job we've done helping other countries around the world, I doubt we could actually improve our southern neighbors.

Re:What?

[jxander]

True. The cost becomes moot if we simply don't have the ability to fix anything

But we've done it in the past. Japan and Germany are looking quite nice these days, despite one of them getting nuked twice and the other going through a REALLY rough stretch post WWII. Of course, the US didn't single-handedly help those countries back onto their feet, but I don't see why we couldn't leverage some UN assistance in the matter.

I think you hit the nail on the head though, in defining "long term." For most lawmakers these days, "long term" is "the next election date." Anything that happens beyond that may as well not exist We need to be able to plan for 10, 25 or even 50 years out. Mexico is going to be our neighbor for a long long time. It would behoove us to help them out.

Re:What?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I think it's important that you bring up Japan and Germany of examples of when we succeeded in "fixing" a country. We occupied those 2 countries after defeating them in a war. I think we could probably eventually fix Mexico if we invaded and occupied it. I was sort of assuming letting Mexico keep their sovereignty, but it is precisely doing this that makes it so difficult given how much of their government is corrupt.

I think if we had the task "Fix Mexico", and failure was not an option, I think we would *have* to invade and occupy it, and even then our chances of success would be questionable.

I think we do have the resources to do this. We had the resources in WW2, we had them when we invaded other countries (even if we didn't do such a great job), and we could probably have to resources to invade Mexico if the political will existed. But ultimately I nearly certain that the harm caused in likely scenarios would vastly outweigh the good for nearly everyone involved.

Mexico is going to be our neighbor for a long long time. It would behoove us to help them out.

It would, but sometimes you can't help. Sometimes helping makes things worse. How do you help a drug addict? Not by giving them money. Sometimes the best help you can give is nothing. Sometimes the best help you can give is to let them go to jail.

Maybe Mexico needs a revolution fix their problems. If that's true, us meddling in their affairs might taint any legitimacy of a revolution, or simply solidify and otherwise conflicted population against a common foreign enemy (us).

Re:What?

[Coren22]

So than what gives them the RIGHT to break the law to come work here for practically free? There are reasons we have the laws we have, it is hard enough to support the 50% of legal people in this country which are on some kind of support. Why is it we are required to support all these people who come over illegally and drain more on our services?

Re:What?

[TsuruchiBrian]

No we couldn't, and I agree that "100% secure" is not a realistic metric for any security measure. But that also doesn't imply 90% or 99% effective are good enough to be worth doing.

Just having a huge desert might be 98% effective already. So if the fence is keeping out 99% of people, it is possible that the fence is just a super expensive way to keep out a relatively small number of people.

Re:What?

[davydagger]

romantic, but somewhat BS.

Most people come here illegally because they are fleeing the problems caused either by US intervention abroad, or the effects of neo-liberal "free" trade, that destroyed their previous livelyhood, are more than willing to work for far less than both what Americans are, and less than min wage, and are made desperate enough not to care.

Congresscritters, at the behest of corporate intrests have legitimized a quasi-legal system where they are permitted to live here, but not afforded protection of labor laws, or any law, but exist in a grey legal area, big enough to profit off them by exploitment. Regardless of position, few if any people in congress are working towards a real solution to end the grey status of the millions of illegal workers.

The most perverse aspect of the system as it encourages seperatism, and uses the newly out of work natives as an enforcement body to keep the new indentured servant class in line.

Its a sick rotten system that needs fixing.

Ending free trade, the invulerbility of US based global corporations to local law, and stoping the exploitation of people in these countries that people emmegrate from is the only thing that is really going to help.

Re:What?

[bingoUV]

It is because you still emphasize only one difference between these, and that is the law. Now discussing law on /. is useless on multiple levels, and it is also irrelevant because in this context no one is questioning the illegality of the immigration.

Hence there is only space for deeper argument - about the purpose of the law itself. You make no such argument.

Re:What?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The population of Americas just before the contact with Europeans is estimated at up to 100M+ people.

Re:What?

[aardvarkjoe]

The context of this discussion is that TechyImmigrant claimed that someone who would support deporting an illegal immigrant "has something against immigrants." So TechyImmigrant was equating the two. I simply pointed out that doing that is dishonest.

I have several reasons for being against illegal immigration while not being against legal immigration. I did not expound on them in my post, as they were not relevant to the point I was making, but I still see no reason why you should immediately jump to the conclusion that those reasons do not exist.

Re:What?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I think the idea that the US is the sole evil force in the world, and all these other countries would be doing great if only we stopped messing with them, is romantic BS.

We have a pretty corrupt government. Lot's of less developed countries have even more corrupt governments. I think it is naive to think that local governments left to their own devices would not exploit their own people. Even if it is your view that free trade is the problem (and I'm not disagreeing), then it is precisely these local governments that are complicit in the selling out of their own people for personal profits.

I still maintain that these immigrants coming to the US are not a bad thing. There is no good reason that they should not have the protection of labor laws if they are working in this country. I see these people as potential contributing members to our ever more diverse society.

Re:What?

[davydagger]

I think the idea that the US is the sole evil force in the world, and all these other countries would be doing great if only we stopped messing with them, is romantic BS.

I think thats a strawman. No wait, it is a strawman, because thats not the point I made, its the point you wish I made. Your concept of Freedom is. Well, hey, as long as there is a single other country on earth worse than us, we can do whatever we want and call it freedom, and then say everyone else "hates freedom".

Re:What?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I never put any words in your mouth, or attributed any ideas to you. You on the otherhand have done exactly that to me. You claim to know what I wish (when you say I wish that you had made that point). You then proceed to talk about "your (my) concept of freedom", when you have no idea what my concept of freedom is. It's ironic that you are the only one doing the thing that you are accusing me of.

Re:What?

[davydagger]

no, I'm pretty damn sure I got it right. "some people say", generally means "all my critics believe this".

Re:What?

[TsuruchiBrian]

The thief that always thinks everybody is stealing, because he assumes everyone is like him.

this is ridiculous

[hammarlund]

I'm all for the forth amendment and all, but having a camera pointed to the outside of his house is no different than having a cop sitting outside the house in a car.

Re:this is ridiculous

[BarbaraHudson]

Actually, it is different. For one thing, even an unmarked car sitting there 24/7 is going to raise eyebrows, as well as probably get the police some phone calls for suspicious activity.

Mounting a camera 24/7 at his house lowers the cost barrier - eventually it will be cheap enough to do this to everyone. You can be sure that, at that point, there will be selective enforcement. After all, if they enforced every law on the books on everyone, the only people who wouldn't be in jail would be???

Re:this is ridiculous

[__aaclcg7560]

If you have a cop car parked outside, most drug dealers would hightail over the back fence and take their business elsewhere. What most communities need are officers out of their comfortable police cars and walking the beat to know the neighborhood.

Re:this is ridiculous

[enjar]

The cop in in a car is a little more obvious than a camera mounted on a pole. Depending on the size of the equipment (think: GoPro that's a small enough to hold in your hand), it could be effectively invisible, especially when compared against a Crown Vic with police markings, lights and a siren. Since it's evidently a rural location, even a unmarked car parked on the side of the road for a month would be rather obvious.

Re:this is ridiculous

[aynoknman]

I'm all for the forth amendment and all, but having a camera pointed to the outside of his house is no different than having a cop sitting outside the house in a car.

Your Comment Subject is correct, but only if it's referring to your comment. There are huge differences. Six weeks of 24/7 undercover surveillance for a petty drug dealer. That would be the equivalence you're drawing.

Re:this is ridiculous

[hammarlund]

Cost has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Aside from cost, what is the difference between anyone watching the front door from the street and a camera? Nothing. There is no difference. That's why it's perfectly legal to have the thousands of street level cameras on the streets of everywhere. I don't like it either. But, they are perfectly legal. This decision will surely be overturned.

Re:this is ridiculous

[Russ1642]

Well, we know there simply aren't enough cops to sit in front of every house. Video monitoring needs to be restricted because there are enough cameras to watch every house, and the police will do it. They'll give you a surveillance state that would rival a Las Vegas casino.

Re:this is ridiculous

[hammarlund]

Would I be ok with it? No. Would I like a cop sitting in a car outside my house? No. Again, cost is not the question. Aside from the cost, what is the difference? There is none.

Re:this is ridiculous

[Gription]

There is a major difference. The wholesale government surveillance of the Internet, the ramp up of government drones, and the government "video surveillance state" comes down to one thing:

It is now cost effective for governments to micromanage EVERYONE'S life.

If you you don't recognize that this is the most dangerous thing that has happened to liberty and civilization in general you aren't awake. If they felt that this person was dangerous enough that they were willing to pay for a manned 24/7 stakeout then that has already introduced a massive self limiting level of restraint on the process. Popping something on a pole for a cost that is less then one day's wages and then letting it mop up anything is not remotely like a stakeout.

Be very clear about this: A government is a hierarchy. A hierarchy is just an organizational construct. By definition a hierarchy CANNOT HAVE A MORAL CONSCIOUS!. Only an individual can be moral. The basic drives and influences of a person in a hierarchy is not remotely focused on exercising morality. It is focused on power dynamics of having someone above you and someone below you. (Not a great way to exercise "morality" ehh?!)

Always remember: If you had a teenaged child with the same fiscal responsibility and penchant for dancing around the truth as ANY government you would ground them for life.
(And I have to listen to people who want to give up MY rights because they believe an organization chart called "government" will magically take care of things for them. Shheeeshh!!!)

Re:this is ridiculous

[jythie]

Something I am trying to track down but so far have found only really long legal texts... do the police require a court order to conduct 24/7 surveillance? Undercover work does not, but the 24/7 stakeout seems to be in a bit of a grey (or at least hard to track down) area.

Re:this is ridiculous

[bhcompy]

No problem if plain sight from public property, but if they stuck it on the pole to see in the backyard that's otherwise obscured, that's a violation of privacy.

Re:this is ridiculous

[fhage]

I'm all for the forth amendment and all, but having a camera pointed to the outside of his house is no different than having a cop sitting outside the house in a car.

As long as the car was 2 inches tall and could perch on top of a utility pole. The police would have gotten a warrant if they had any real evidence against this guy. Perhaps they just wanted his money.

Re:this is ridiculous

[Curunir_wolf]

I'm all for the forth amendment and all, but having a camera pointed to the outside of his house is no different than having a cop sitting outside the house in a car.

The courts are starting to recognize that using technology in ways like this is different. They've decided that placing a GPS tracker on your car is different than than following you around, and that using infrared scanning of your house is different than a visual inspection, and that searching through your smart phone when they arrest you is different than looking through your wallet.

The reason these things are looked at differently is that courts have recognized that our privacy protections, as conceived in the 18th century, still need to be enforced, and that technology makes violating privacy a lot less costly for law enforcement. That is, there were natural protections due to resource constraints - pervasive surveillance of every citizen was simply not possible. Just because a technology comes along that eliminates those resource requirements does not mean that privacy is no longer protected.

Re:this is ridiculous

[Frosty Piss]

Mounting a camera 24/7 at his house lowers the cost barrier - eventually it will be cheap enough to do this to everyone.

The Brits already do this.

Re:this is ridiculous

[BarbaraHudson]

No problem if plain sight from public property, but if they stuck it on the pole to see in the backyard that's otherwise obscured, that's a violation of privacy.

Actually, it is still a problem. Cyber-stalking, for one thing. The cops, without a warrant, have no more right to stalk someone than you do.

Re:this is ridiculous

[mythosaz]

You don't 24/7 videotape a petty drug dealer to catch a petty drug dealer.

You do it to catch a much bigger criminal.

Do the police need a warrant to set up shop in the building across the street? If my neighbor is already recording the street in front of his house with his home security system, and volunteers to turn over angles that cover my house, do they need special permission to look at that? If my house is next to a traffic camera, can they look at all the background photos captured when someone runs a red light without getting a warrant?

I'm asking.

Re:this is ridiculous

[mythosaz]

It is now cost effective for governments to micromanage EVERYONE'S life.

The cameras may be next-to-free, but the cost to review their video and type up laborious transcripts isn't...yet.

Re:this is ridiculous

[itzly]

In that case, why not get a warrant ?

Re:this is ridiculous

[Sir_Eptishous]

eventually it will be cheap enough to do this to everyone.

I can't wait!

Re:this is ridiculous

[njnnja]

tl;dr: Many functions are non-linear

Once upon a time, I owned a VCR and could have time-shifted shows whenever I wanted. All I had to do was set up the timer once, then when it was time to record a show, make sure there was a tape in there, and push a couple of buttons to define the start time, end time, and channel. I could watch the show just by finding the right tape (which took all of 5 seconds to label properly), inserting, spending less than a minute or so to rewind to the proper place, and watch the show.

Now I have a DVR and I can still time-shift, although it is a bit easier. Instead of finding the correct time and station in the TV Guide magazine, I use the on-screen guide to find it, push the appropriate button, then (generally) click straight through the defaults and it will record the show. To watch, I press the "DVR" button, scroll around until I find the show, and press play. It's probably a total difference of 2 minutes to program the VCR vs 30 seconds to record on a DVR.

But when I had a VCR, I almost never time-shifted, but with a DVR, I almost never watch live tv. Sometimes what appears to be a slight change in the quantitative cost of something can lead to a large qualitative change in behavior. And the difference between surveillance by squad car and having cameras everywhere is like the difference between a 4000 lb VCR versus a DVR that records every station all the time.

Re:this is ridiculous

[macsforme]

The legal meaning of terms like "stalking" are significant in this context. Generally, stalking refers to behavior like surveilling, threatening, or harassing which makes the victim feel that they are in danger. In some states, a stalking charge is a felony. Law enforcement conducting surveillance on a suspect's property to verify the credibility of a tip and to obtain probable cause for a search warrant is hardly "stalking."

Re:this is ridiculous

[darkain]

Interesting on this point.

One of the clients that I manage, the cops came to their house. They asked the resident to allow the cops to setup security video cameras in my client's back yard. The client's back yard faced the back yard on the next street over of a suspect of a crime (not sure if drugs or something else). The cops came in and installed all their own video equipment to point at this other house to monitor them 24/7, from my client's property, NOT from a public location.

So, this is like your scenario of someone turning over security footage from their own cameras, only taking it one step further because the cops installed security cameras on private property (with permission of course... but what did they DO get get that permission, I don't know)

Re:this is ridiculous

[thaylin]

Peeping then.

Re:this is ridiculous

[spire3661]

If they assigned a patrol car to just sit on his house without a warrant, that would be a problem too. Its not the specific action, its the scope that makes it wrong.

Re:this is ridiculous

[spire3661]

The police are far more constrained in their use of resources like this. They dont get to use the plain sight defense when doing longterm surveillance like this. The wrong here is the use of police resources to surveil a person long-term without talking to a judge about it.

Re:this is ridiculous

[spire3661]

Its the length of time they went about it. 4 months is too long without talking to a judge.

Re:this is ridiculous

[thaylin]

There are lots of differences. For example a cop is obstructed by things like passer byes cars, small fences and the such. A camera mounted 30 ft up is not obstructed by any such things.

A camera mounted that high sees everything, a cop on a steak out only sees a very small subset. Also this was the appeals process. If I am not mistaken it is pretty much only the SCOTUS it can go to now.

Re:this is ridiculous

[jfengel]

We have an odd kind of expectation of privacy even in public places. I'm not saying we don't; I'm just pointing out that the expectation strikes me as not obvious. The Fourth Amendment calls out "their persons, houses, papers, and effects", which notably omits anything outside your immediate control.

The expectation comes from a pre-technological age, and I certainly don't fault the Fourth Amendment for failing to see how technology would change the ways in which we expect to be private even in public. But I do think it ends up calling for a recalibration of both the law and our expectations.

Ideally, I'd like to see that codified in a new amendment. Unfortunately, given that even simple, popular legislation seems impossible to pass, I can't imagine getting agreement on something with even the faintest whiff of controversy past the rather higher bar of a Constitutional amendment. So I'd be happy for a decent national conversation on the topic.

Personally, I wouldn't have thought that the law extended to an expectation of privacy on your front lawn, since you already expect your neighbors to be watching. It's interesting to see a court disagree. I wouldn't be surprised if this is overturned at a higher level, though unfortunately, at this point I've given up thinking of the Supreme Court as anything other than an ideology engine, so really just figure out which side is which and assume that it'll go that way.

Re:this is ridiculous

[thaylin]

Government agencies dont consider manpower to be a cost in some cases.

Re:this is ridiculous

[mythosaz]

Seems a fair distinction, and one worthy of a judge reviewing it, and something I can see going either way. ...which is why we have judges :)

Thanks.

Re:this is ridiculous

[currently_awake]

Having a computer listening to your phone calls is no different than having a cop outside your door with a parabolic microphone.

Re:this is ridiculous

[gatzke]

How is it different? In both cases, the police are accessing publicly available visual information. In one case, you have officers and another a camera. Surveillance was not illegal before, but now it is? Can cops still sit and watch without a warrant?

Just do your illegal stuff in the privacy of your own home with the blinds drawn.

Re:this is ridiculous

[BarbaraHudson]

Cops cannot simply park in front of your place 24/7 for a month and watch you. Nobody can.

Re:this is ridiculous

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It's more than just privacy -- that they nailed him on something irrelevant...that he wasn't even doing for a month of surveillance yet, smacks of using a de facto general warrant, which the Constitution specifically forbids.

They must list the crime they suspect you of, and present some evidence, and list the things to search and stuff to seize.

They cannot just go get a general warrant to filch through your stuff indefinitely until they find some little law of a myriad existing ones you violated.

That was how politicians abused their power, keeping down uppity people, or people who, you know, didn't pay their donations.a
So government surveillinh him for wn indefinite period, looking for violations of anything, amounts to this behavior.

It would be interesting to see if the decision touches on this.

Re:this is ridiculous

[camperdave]

There is no definition of a hierarchy that precludes a moral conscience. For example, the Salvation Army is an example of a hierarchy with a moral conscience.

Re:this is ridiculous

[Gription]

You can ascribe the actions of a hierarchy as being what you think of as moral but a hierarchy is not sentient so it cannot be moral.
You are an individual sentient being so you are able to judge that the Salvation Army acts in a way that you perceive as moral. That is your perception not the thinking judgment of a hierarchy.

--------
BTW - Good example using the Salvation Army. They are the only charity that I support!!!

Re:this is ridiculous

[camperdave]

We seem to both agree that an individual is sentient and moral. However, you seem to be arguing that there is some emergent property of a hierarchy that robs the collective of those characteristics. It's like saying an individual can sing, but a choir cannot.

Re:this is ridiculous

[bingoUV]

Because of this enormous ease of understanding the morality of an individual that you recognize - we can simply *define* morality as applying to only individuals. Hence hierarchies are by definition amoral - neither moral nor immoral.

Now remains the question whether hierarchies can behave as if they were moral :

There will inevitably be conflicts between morality of different individuals in the hierarchy. At such a time, does an individual follow the morality of his superiors, or his own? If his own, it is not a hierarchy any more. If of his superiors, the hierarchy is not behaving morally - it could be immoral or amoral but definitely not moral at this point.

Secondly, consider individuals performing duty when they will have to answer a superior but cannot ask the superior for instructions on the field because situation demands urgent response. His thought process is not only about legal and moral implications of his action - but also how it would appear to his superior whose morality he is partially aware of. So the aforementioned undue influence on an individual is not only of his superiors' morality , but also of his perception of their morality.

Thirdly, it is possible that under some circumstances, certain individuals' morality may not permit them to do some activities but they can more easily order others to do those same activities. In their own minds, they can blame the subordinates - or rationalize it away. Human beings, especially in moral department, are not rational animals - we are rationalizing animals.

So it is like an individual can playback sing for an individual actor - but a choir cannot. Due to the inevitable differences in frequencies and timings of members of the choir.

Re:this is ridiculous

[flink]

It is now cost effective for governments to micromanage EVERYONE'S life.

The cameras may be next-to-free, but the cost to review their video and type up laborious transcripts isn't...yet.

Yes, but if they have hundreds of hours of tape on everyone, then whenever a government official wants to compel you to do something, all they have to do is threaten to laboriously review your tapes.

Don't challenge this eminent domain taking, or else we'll review your tapes. Don't fight this speeding ticket, don't attend that protest, don't report that dirty cop, etc.

Re:this is ridiculous

[camperdave]

By that same logic, if I define singing as something only an individual can do, therefore choirs cannot sing. Thus the Hallelujah Chorus is a figment of my imagination.

Re:this is ridiculous

[Gription]

. . .

So it is like an individual can playback sing for an individual actor - but a choir cannot. Due to the inevitable differences in frequencies and timings of members of the choir.

This gets to the heart of it. The type of person you put in an organization obviously fuels the traits of an organization but over time it will be trumped by the structure of an organization.

First off, If you haven't read "The Peter Principle" (1969) find a copy. It is funny but the humor is built on the fact that it is based on truth. Once you start getting a feel for how the normal actions of people are influenced by life inside a hierarchy then turn your head to the problem of how people get to the upper portions of the hierarchy. The leading motivations of people will be getting a raise or bonus, getting a better position or a promotion, and avoiding being terminated. The way you do this is by currying favor with people above you in the hierarchy, and creating alliances with people at the same level or below you. (And yes, "currying favor" can be as simple as simply doing a good job but it also includes making other people's work look bad...)
The number one way to accomplish this is to have a convincing, persuasive personality. The ability to actively manipulate someones impression of you is not tied to any level of morality and is commonly found in sociopaths. A famous quote, "Power corrupts ..." leads in to an observation in many financial news sources over the last 10 years that CEOs have a MUCH higher percentage of psychopaths then the general population. Just one example: Do psychopaths make good CEOs? The pretty obvious conclusion that the tendencies that lend well to the "climb to the top" also tend to lean away from moral functioning.

Existing in a framework of power is not a way to build toward actions that would be perceived as moral. A new organization can be a wonderful thing because it was created in situ. But as time passes the inexorable influences of a hierarchy will bend it in much less altruistic directions. Over time your only real influences to counter this are the need to counter outside negative perception ("Hey! They aren't moral!") and the need to fight stagnation which leads to reorganization.

He's already an illegal...

[CajunArson]

None of this crap would have been necessary in the first place if the police actually enforced these things called "immigration laws" instead of using this type of surveillance to set a precedent where they can do it to anybody and everybody for whatever reason.

Re:He's already an illegal...

[jythie]

On the other hand, none of this crap would have been necessary if they had simply gotten a court order either.

Re:He's already an illegal...

[thaylin]

Umm, they did not have a couthouse, because they did not have permanant structures generally, but they had laws and standards of a civilization.

Re:He's already an illegal...

[HornWumpus]

A stone age civilization.

Re:He's already an illegal...

[thaylin]

The make of their tools was not in question.

Re:He's already an illegal...

[HornWumpus]

Civilizations have the standards they can afford. Stone age ones couldn't afford much, hence might pretty much made right. See also: the Aztecs.

If you point the camera on a politician..

[denis-The-menace]

If you point the camera on a politician you won't have to wait a month to watch a crime to happen.

Re:If you point the camera on a politician..

[TheGratefulNet]

if you point a camera or mic at any of us, sooner or later we'll all be guilty of some crime on the books.

its by-design, too. have so many laws that, if 'the man' wants to come after you, there is always a reason he can find.

THIS is why it should not be allowed. plus, well, its NOT the kind of world we would want to live in. we get the world we want, and do we (as a people, human beings) want to live in a world where this is allowed to happen?

we better stop this invasive spying shit. its already gone on more than it should. will we, as a people, have the wisdom and forsight to stop this before we truly become an orwellian society, in every literal sense of the word?

Re:If you point the camera on a politician..

[BarbaraHudson]

If you point the camera on a politician you won't have to wait a month to watch a crime to happen.

If you point a camera at a politician, you won't have to wait a month to see the camera removed.

Re:If you point the camera on a politician..

[gstoddart]

If you point a camera at a politician, you won't have to wait a month to see the camera removed.

And if you pointed a camera at a police station ... you are not going to last very long at all.

Because to the police, they can point a camera at you, but if you do it to them you've committed a crime. Just look at how many police try to confiscate/delete video taken of them, despite being repeatedly told they have no legal authority to do that.

Because apparently the police neither know nor care what the law says.

Which is why I say mandatory body cameras on police. Because otherwise they're just thugs with guns and badges when nobody is looking.

I think it's high time police were charged with crimes when they do shit like this. Send a few of these bastards into prison with the rest of the crooks.

Re:If you point the camera on a politician..

[dgatwood]

If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged.
—Cardinal Richelieu (allegedly)

Re:If you point the camera on a politician..

[wonkey_monkey]

Although it doesn't really fit the quote, one theory is that what's actually meant is that six lines is a decent amount on which to base a forgery, with which to condemn.

Re:If you point the camera on a politician..

[CanHasDIY]

Problem with body cams is the same as with dash cams - somehow they'll either be conveniently turned off, or facing the wrong way, when an officer is accused of wrongdoing.

What REALLY needs fixed is the cultural belief that law enforcement officers are above the punishments they dole out to others. Until that happens, the "commit a crime - get 2 weeks paid vacation - go back to work and commit another crime" cycle will never end.

Re:If you point the camera on a politician..

[Ichijo]

Problem with body cams is the same as with dash cams - somehow they'll either be conveniently turned off, or facing the wrong way, when an officer is accused of wrongdoing.

And because body cams are turned off when the evidence can be used against the officer but on when the evidence can be used against the people, body cams only give the police more power. That makes them worse than nothing, at least until their footage is automatically backed up to the cloud, permanently archived (incapable of being erased), and available to anyone with a FOIA request.

Re:If you point the camera on a politician..

[mrchaotica]

We could also fix it by simply making a rule that "malfunctioning" camera + complaint of misconduct = bullet between the cop's eyes.

Re:If you point the camera on a politician..

[HornWumpus]

Everybody will carry a cam, on all the time.

The cops won't have a choice. They will have to carry a cam so the citizens edits of the incident become obvious.

They won't like it, but eventually cops will carry body cams for their own protection, even if that means they can't beat as much ass as they're used to.

Re:If you point the camera on a politician..

[pipedwho]

More likely is that 6 lines was enough general text where Richelieu could inevitably find subset that could be taken out of context from the whole where the inference would be contradictory or cross purpose to the original text.

For example:
One may write: The assumption that I would kill a man is preposterous.
After omissions of text at the beginning and end: I would kill a man.
The argument: Were these words not truly written by your own hand?
The result: An innocent man goes to the gallows.

Re:If you point the camera on a politician..

[eric_harris_76]

There's a book about it, "Three Felonies a Day".

Don't know that the author says it's deliberate.

Personally, I'm skeptical, as it would require a higher level of organization and a greater commitment to the long term than I think they could manage.

Papers please, comrade ...

[gstoddart]

America is rapidly deciding that her guiding principles are optional, and that the law only applies if law enforcement says it does.

Wide spread warrantless wiretapping, surveillance, and parallel construction all say that the police and government will do whatever the hell they like, and your rights be damned. And if they have to lie to the court to get what they want, that's OK too.

And for all of those who claim you still have free speech and all that ... the answer is simply for now. When it becomes expedient to take away that right, they will.

Land of the free, home of the brave. If it wasn't so scary it would be hilarious.

Re:Papers please, comrade ...

[Anonymous Coward]

As an average american, I have no clue what laws are on the books. I know the big ones, don't steal, don't kill, pay your taxes. Apart from that there are 198,000 laws that at any given moment can be dropped on my head like a sack of feces. The act of going to court to defend myself would bankrupt my family and cost us our home.

This free speech you talk about, that is for the privileged and rich ruling class. a

Re:Papers please, comrade ...

[myowntrueself]

As an average american, I have no clue what laws are on the books. I know the big ones, don't steal, don't kill, pay your taxes. Apart from that there are 198,000 laws that at any given moment can be dropped on my head like a sack of feces. The act of going to court to defend myself would bankrupt my family and cost us our home.

This free speech you talk about, that is for the privileged and rich ruling class. a

The primary purpose of the law is to ensure that everyone is guilty of something.

Re:Papers please, comrade ...

[Drethon]

You make it sound like something new. How much of warrantless wiretapping and surveillance are recent and how much are things the government has been doing for as long as it existed and are just being brought to light by new technologies?

Re:Papers please, comrade ...

[Drethon]

The primary purpose of the law is to ensure that everyone is guilty of something.

The primary purpose of the law was at one time to ensure those not in power have to do what they are told. Fortunately things are at least a little better than that.

Re:So if I've got this right...

[Applehu Akbar]

Because before you can win the war you have to win a first battle.

If I were that man I would have shot out the damn camera before doing anything at all on my front porch.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[TWX]

The wording of the natural rights in the Constitution's Bill of Rights don't mention citizenship as a requirement for those rights applying. Court rulings have allowed for narrower interpretations (ie, firearms potentially) but otherwise, the same rules governing the treatment of citizens govern the treatment of everyone else.

This is part of the reason why so many peopel got upset by the 'black sites' used to hold those grabbed in 'extraordinary rendition' protocols and held, and likely tortured, it was an attempt to get around the Contitution's rules regarding the treatment of people by keeping them off of US soil. What was argued and is still argued, is that those engaging in the business of the United States of America, whether on American soil or abroad, should still be bound by the Constitution and laws when working in their official capacity. This is also why rules of war matter, as those rules are what are supposed to allow for different treatment.

But we haven't declared war since WWII if memory serves, so I guess in practice, those conditions have been eroding since the Korean War.

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[Tokolosh]

Please quote the part of the Constitution that is relevant here.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[mean pun]

Why does the fourth amendment apply? If he is not a citizen of the US, our laws shouldn't protect him.

Did you think about the consequences of what you are saying even for a second?

Re:undocumented immigrant

[Tokolosh]

But our rights are endowed by our Creator, and apply to everyone, not just American citizens.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[Dareth]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. However, if you go to court, you will be informed that you are not qualified to defend yourself because your knowledge of the law is limited.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[tehcyder]

But our rights are endowed by our Creator, and apply to everyone, not just American citizens.

There is an obvious flaw in that argument, namely that there is no such thing as our Creator.

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[mc6809e]

"...he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..."

Re:So if I've got this right...

[DocSavage64109]

If the police just followed procedure and got a warrant for the camera, this would have not been a problem. Requiring the police to have oversight and get the approval of a judge for is a good thing.

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[Anonymous Coward]

Please quote the part of the Constitution that is relevant here.

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Are you capable of following that logically or not?

Re:undocumented immigrant

[Anon-Admin]

Really? If you don't believe in god then you have to at least admit that your mom created you and thus endowed you with rights as a human being.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[__aaclcg7560]

My parents would disagreed. I was constantly reminded as a child that they brought me into the world and could take me out of the world.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[causality]

Why does the fourth amendment apply? If he is not a citizen of the US, our laws shouldn't protect him.

Because the Constitution is a document describing what powers the government has and how these powers may be used. It's like a default-deny firewall: the government has no powers whatsoever, except these enumerated powers. The Constitution is emphatically not a document describing what rights a person (citizen or not) has and when they will be honored.

The document was written based on the idea of "natural rights". You have certain rights simply because you are a human being; the government either recognizes that or it becomes dysfunctional and fails to fulfill its major purpose, which is to protect your natural rights. The Founders (mostly Deists) explained it in terms of us having been "endowed by our Creator" with such rights. You could also remove the Creator-concept entirely and argue that such a system simply works better and does the greatest good for all involved, and thus is inherently superior to systems that reject the concept of natural rights.

You don't have rights merely because the government deigned to let you have them, or decided that depriving you of them wasn't worth the trouble. A system where that's the foundational principle has lost even the pretense of human dignity. That kind of system wouldn't even have to bother with the incremental "hey we have an excuse that sells (protect the children! stop the terrorists!)" encroachment of liberty that we're seeing now. It could just go straight into open tyranny without having all those little baby steps for naive people to ignore.

You may wish to brush up on a little American history, specifically why the Tenth Amendment was written. It affirms that the federal government has only those powers which are delegated to it, with the rest being reserved by the states and the people. I'm all for deporting this guy, by the way. We should either enforce our immigration laws (like Mexico and every other sovereign nation) or repeal them, but if we're going to arrest this man, there's a process that must (and should) be followed.

Re:Go Ahead ... Cam Me

[jythie]

On the other hand, are you (or are other people) ok with being singled out for surveillance, or for that matter, ok with tax money going to such a dragnet?

Re:undocumented immigrant

[Russ1642]

I hear it's open season on tourists. I'm going to Vegas to hunt me some Brits.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[jythie]

I would love to see a judge who ruled US protections do not apply have someone use that logic on them.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[jythie]

America is God's chosen country, and as a chosen people with an exceptional destiny manifested for them, we have more rights than those dirty foreigners. If God had meant them to have the same rights, he would have made them be born here to people who were citizens of european ancestry.

Re:hum

[itsdapead]

So let me get this straight, so people with visas and greencards can be deported for many reasons including petty crimes or mistakes on applications, which has happened, but this illegal immigrant is complaining that his rights have been violated?

People with visas etc. sign away their right to contest deportation when they fill in their landing card (or click "I agree" on the new electronic system) - along with declaring that they're not a drug dealer, convicted felon, terrorist or war criminal (so, if you turn out to be any of those, they can book you for giving false information whether or not you've actually committed any other crime in the US).

Re:So if I've got this right...

[jklovanc]

Warrants can be a catch-22. To get a warrant one needs evidence that a crime has been or is beginning committed which is difficult to get if a warrant is needed to gather evidence that a crime has been or is beginning committed. In my opinion anything visible from the street is fair game.

but pointing camara at police = death

[moonlandingchap]

like the yanks spying on anything legally is ever going to happen. they don't care about laws, they just care about bending them enough to get their own way. simple citizens pointing cameras at police and legally filming them doing their job (well or poorly) seems to get guns pointed at people and the cops taking the law into their own hands and removing data from devices etc. even when a film comes out of a copper breaking the law, they never get done for it. waaay to protectionist for that. one rule for them and another for the rest of us.

Re:So if I've got this right...

[Russ1642]

Yes, it's a good thing. You can't simultaneously use the evidence collected againts this guy but not allow the police to collect evidence this way in the future. The police knew it was illegal.

Re:So if I've got this right...

[causality]

A cop bought a video camera to catch an illegal alien unloading a firearm at bottles on his own porch, among other things...catches the guy, along with a significant drug operation no less...and the court "nixes weeks of warrantless video surveillance" is a GOOD THING? You'll notice they aren't nixing the YEARS of warrantless surveillance that every citizen of the U.S. has been under, nor the YEARS of collusion with friendly nations to extend that surveillance program to every citizen, worldwide. No, they're nixing the one bit of fucking video that might actually have been worth recording in the fucking first place. Footage of a criminal, committing a crime. How novel.

The EFF logo for this story was perfect, "extremely fucking foolish" was the first thought that came to mind.

It's simple enough. This was a local police department in a small rural area, so they were held to the rules. If they were a national agency with an effectively unlimited budget, ties to major military-industrial corporations, and loads of political clout, the courts would have performed some mental gymnatics and invented a bullshit reason why that inconvenient Fourth Amendment doesn't really apply. Currently "anti-terrorism" is popular.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[gstoddart]

I would love to see a judge who ruled US protections do not apply have someone use that logic on them.

You want to know something scary?

Alberto Gonzales, the moron who was Bush the 2nd's Attorney General ... he once said that habeus corpus wasn't a right. So the legal advice he was giving Shrub? Entirely based on a complete lack of understanding of the law and the Constitution.

Government has reached the point that if they can get a lawyer to craft an opinion about what is legal, it's valid.

Which is how you ended up with police and governments increasingly doing shit which isn't legal. Because they no longer give a damn about what is legal, or follows a set of principles, it's what you can get some sleaze bag of a lawyer to argue in court.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[kilfarsnar]

But our rights are endowed by our Creator, and apply to everyone, not just American citizens.

There is an obvious flaw in that argument, namely that there is no such thing as our Creator.

Am I to understand that you do not exist, having never been created?

Re:undocumented immigrant

[jythie]

I mostly agree with that assessment, except the time part. While it is getting a lot of press latetly, it could be argued that things were actually MUCH worse in the past. Judges have been getting better about sticking to actual law, where as they used to be even worse about 'well of COURSE we did not mean that!'.

Re: undocumented immigrant

[larkost]

It is not actually necessary to have/believe in a creator in order to have a concept of right and wrong. There are many places without a concept of a judgement at death that have well developed (and followed) moral systems.

And oddly for your point you seem to be the one that is making the "might makes right" argument in the idea that there needs to be an enforcer for most people to do right.

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[smooth wombat]

Do you let random people walk into your home any time of the day or night without knowing who they are?

If not, why should the United States?

Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[mythosaz]

The problem with Law in the United States is that it's based not on the SPIRIT of the law but the LETTER of the law, so if some lawyer happens to get some weird ruling then it's on the books and then it's citable as law... and so the system grows on itself.

The laws are Byzantine and increasingly unimportant, it's all about who can pay for the best representation, even basics like Civil Rights are virtually non-existent.

Watching this decline is disturbing and saddening.

Criminal law, I find, is pretty straightforward at the local and state level.

I'm amazed anyone can do their taxes, however.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[gstoddart]

Maybe in some small way things are coming back around.

But the problem is that many of these abuses have already happened, or are still ongoing -- precisely because top level people spend so much effort undermining those Constitutional protections and making them "optional".

That the police no longer give a damn about probable means it'll be broken for years to come.

And until police start having actual consequences for crap like this, they'll keep doing it.

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[__aaclcg7560]

Let's repeat the Trial of Tears from the 1830's.

no state shall abridge ... citizens of the United

[raymorris]

The Bill of Rights is extended to state governments by the 14th amendment, which says:

      No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

So yeah, you're simply wrong. The Consitution applies only due process applies to non-citizens. The first, second, fourth, and fifth amendments, at least are protected for "citizens of the United States". People here illegally are entitled to due process, a hearing, before they are nailed or their property is taken. Other than that, they are intruders and have about the same rights as someone who broke into your home. Legal immigrants are guests in the country and you can think about the difference in rights between a guest you invite into your home versus you in your own home. Only one of two is allowed to touch the thermostat, or go upstairs.

Re:So if I've got this right...

[kilfarsnar]

A cop bought a video camera to catch an illegal alien unloading a firearm at bottles on his own porch, among other things...catches the guy, along with a significant drug operation no less...and the court "nixes weeks of warrantless video surveillance" is a GOOD THING? You'll notice they aren't nixing the YEARS of warrantless surveillance that every citizen of the U.S. has been under, nor the YEARS of collusion with friendly nations to extend that surveillance program to every citizen, worldwide. No, they're nixing the one bit of fucking video that might actually have been worth recording in the fucking first place. Footage of a criminal, committing a crime. How novel.

The EFF logo for this story was perfect, "extremely fucking foolish" was the first thought that came to mind.

The police can't violate people's rights in pursuit of law breakers. The ends don't justify the means.

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[TechyImmigrant]

Do you let random people walk into your home any time of the day or night without knowing who they are?

If not, why should the United States?

Because a free market in labour is as important as a free market in goods.

nailed = jailed

[raymorris]

The word should be "jailed", of course, not nailed.
Jesus did have a hearing before Pilate before he was nailed, but in the US people get a hearing when they are jailed.

lazy cops

[jsepeta]

It is very rare that judges do not approve requests for warrants from police departments. The fact that they did what they did without going through the proper channels proves that they're lazy.This guy Vargas is a drug-dealing asshole, and he should hang. Police laziness means he gets to walk. That's not a Christmas gift - that's a lump of coal.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[Shadow IT Ninja]

In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment says "... All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States are entitled to equal protection under the laws..." This amendment was passed after the US Civil War since slave owners had argued that slaves had no rights because they were not citizens. In Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo Bay is within the jurisdiction of the US and therefore, detainees there have consittutional rights, particularly Habeus Corpus defined in the Ninth Amendment. Even though GTMO is legally part of Cuba's soverign territory, the US has full control.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[myowntrueself]

But our rights are endowed by our Creator, and apply to everyone, not just American citizens.

There is an obvious flaw in that argument, namely that there is no such thing as our Creator.

But our rights are endowed by our Creator, and apply to everyone, not just American citizens.

There is an obvious flaw in that argument, namely that there is no such thing as our Creator.

First, can you prove there is no Creator?

Second, if there is none then there is no reason to obey any laws other than because of the immediate consequences caused by man (get arrested), or by the actions themselves (die or be maimed from the impact due to a crash while speeding). That means the "might makes right" approach is logically the result. Is that what you believe and therefore how you live?

How about the case where there is a Creator who now doesn't care about what we do? Then there'd be a Creator and there'd also be no reason to "obey any laws etc".

Re:So if I've got this right...

[causality]

Warrants can be a catch-22. To get a warrant one needs evidence that a crime has been or is beginning committed which is difficult to get if a warrant is needed to gather evidence that a crime has been or is beginning committed. In my opinion anything visible from the street is fair game.

As the saying goes, "it is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be falsely prosecuted". In a slightly different wording this is sometimes called Blackstone's Formulation or Blackstone's Ratio. As that Wiki page explains, this is a much older concept and it's closely tied to the entire notion of a presumption of innocence.

The requirement that cops go through proper procedures, including obtaining warrants, exists to protect you and me. There is no perfect system. There will be errors. The only decision to be made is whether we try to err on the side of imprisoning the innocent, or on the side of acquitting the guilty. The former is much, much better.

If you want a real solution to most of these cases, we need to wake up and realize that nothing confined to consenting adults should ever be a crime. If you're paying attention you will notice two things: these cases are almost entirely drug cases, and that drug prohibition is failing to make drugs scarce. You simply can't tell people how to live. The financial and social costs of trying are far too high, greatly in excess of any good achieved by trying. The US has the highest proportional prison population of any industrialized nation in the world, and the vast majority of those prisoners are there because of drug charges.

Speaking of prisons, when they find a way to keep illegal drugs out of prisons, then and only then can we have a reasonable discussion about keeping them out of general society. Until then, we should recognize that the laws and rulings coming out of prohibition are a threat to the liberty of everyone. The only reason this case was remarkable, the only reason it made a headline, is because this time the court rightly favored following the Constitution over prosecuting a drug criminal. That isn't the way it usually goes. Usually they perform various mental gymnastics to justify the actions of cops, like when using a dog to search your car (using its nose as a substitute for the officer's hands and eyes) is somehow not a search and doesn't require a warrant.

Re:So if I've got this right...

[causality]

The former is much, much better.

Should have written, "the LATTER is much, much better". Heh.

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[magarity]

But the children are American citizens because of the Constitution. You can't deport American citizens

You can give passports to american citizens, regardless of age, so they can have a choice to stay or go to the other country to stay with their parents.

"powers not delegated reserved to States, people"

[raymorris]

The powers of the federal government are lusted in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution says:

      The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts ...

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You might want to read that last part twice. Anything not explicitly allowed to the feds is reserved to the states and the people.

By 1819, Chief Justice Marshall said the meaning of that is so clear that McCulloch didn't need to spend time belaboring the point, everyone knows the feds can only do what they are specifically authorized to do. Marshall wrote:

      "This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted."

Re:undocumented immigrant

[myowntrueself]

even if you dont believe in a god, there is still a creator, what exactly that is is up to you however

creator of what? If you are talking about a 'creator of the universe' then, no there doesn't have to be one of those. If you are talking about 'creator of me', ok thats part of biological reproduction.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[myowntrueself]

But our rights are endowed by our Creator, and apply to everyone, not just American citizens.

There is an obvious flaw in that argument, namely that there is no such thing as our Creator.

Am I to understand that you do not exist, having never been created?

By your argument, if your god wasn't created then it doesn't exist either. Do you believe your god was created? Because that opens up a whole can of logical worms...

Please proceed...

[StevenMaurer]

I find it very amusing to hear from all these one-man Supreme Courts, constitutional scholars all, willing to declare in internet chat-rooms that the President has violated some part of the law, at least in their own mind.

But please, here's your chance. Quote the relevant case law that makes you think you know more than judges who have spent their lives studying this stuff.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[causality]

But our rights are endowed by our Creator, and apply to everyone, not just American citizens.

There is an obvious flaw in that argument, namely that there is no such thing as our Creator.

But our rights are endowed by our Creator, and apply to everyone, not just American citizens.

There is an obvious flaw in that argument, namely that there is no such thing as our Creator.

First, can you prove there is no Creator?

Second, if there is none then there is no reason to obey any laws other than because of the immediate consequences caused by man (get arrested), or by the actions themselves (die or be maimed from the impact due to a crash while speeding). That means the "might makes right" approach is logically the result. Is that what you believe and therefore how you live?

How about the case where there is a Creator who now doesn't care about what we do? Then there'd be a Creator and there'd also be no reason to "obey any laws etc".

Unless you manage to get beyond ego-consciousness and realize how interconnected and interdependent we all are. Then you realize that harming others without cause is really an indirect way of harming yourself, both in terms of consequences and in terms of what you become by so doing. Shallow minds miss this because they can see only immediate and obvious effects, and so they believe they ever "get away with" anything. A more mundane form of it is sometimes called enlightened self-interest.

The idea behind "love thy neighbor as thyself" is that you shouldn't have to be told to do it. Those who do it "because God/church/mama said so" are missing the point entirely. The funny thing is, you can only realize how interconnected we are as an individual. It's why the numerous efforts to make it into a doctrine have achieved so little. "The Creator will punish me if I'm bad" is a shallow and childish form of pseudo-morality for people who have to be threatened with punishment before they will behave a certain way. Lawrence Kohlberg lists it as the very most primitive form of moral development.

Re:hum

[causality]

I think you are missing the point of the story. Nobody really gives a flying fuck whether this one guy happens to get deported or not, because he's no longer an interesting or important part of it. What happened is that the government Got Caught, yet again, doing illegal shit. Whoever they were investigating during the commissions of their own infractions, is irrelevant. It doesn't have anything to do with Latin-vs-other, or even presidents. It was a local PD that got caught acting like criminals. That's bad, because we want PDs to be fighting crime, not being the crime.

It will also continue as long as there is no real penalty for getting caught. If a cop breaks the rules in this manner, the worst that happens is the case gets thrown out and the defendant goes free. Start throwing these cops in state penitentiaries for a year or two, making sure they go in the general population and get no special treatment, and you will see an immediate and drastic decline in this kind of abuse. And why shouldn't we do this? Cops who engage in this behavior are violating the very highest law of the land. That should carry a penalty.

The way I see it, when a cop breaks the law it's much worse than when an ordinary citizen breaks the law, because the cop is entrusted with special powers and has sworn to uphold the law. It follows that cops should be punished much more harshly when they break the law than a citizen who does the same thing. There is no other way you're going to return to being a free nation.

Talk to old people sometime about what cops used to be like. They were once genuine public servants. If you had a problem, you could find a cop and he'd help you. Average people didn't fear the police the way they do now. That's what we should return to.

I should point out that WA has stronger privacy

[WillAffleckUW]

I should point out that citizens of Washington State have a State Constitution which specifically gives us stronger privacy rights than most Americans.

You can't even use GPS trackers on our cars without a specific court order, even though you can do this in most states.

Same goes for our cell phone data.

Same goes for our front yards.

Now turn off your cop cam you're recording my lawn illegally, copper!

Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[TheCarp]

That is, unless you are the police. Sure, they may see evidence tossed in a case they spent time on, but that is the absolute extent of it.

It doesn't matter if someones rights have been violated, lives turned upside down, the police know they will NEVER be held to account.

Diary entry from 2150

[Sloppy]

Told kid about nano-cam dust today. He's only 4 years old, so he didn't know about them yet, and I'm trying to teach him basic hygiene. I explained for that for nearly a a hundred years we have all lived in an environment where other peoples' cameras are always in our homes. We track them in, on our shoes. The AC intake blows them in. The servers the cameras send video too, aren't owned by people who are practicing subterfuge. It's not like they snuck "spy" dust onto our porches in the hopes we'd track them in. It just happens; it's an inevitable consequence of the stuff blowing around everywhere.

My great grandparents complained about it. They thought they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes, because nanotech was new. They didn't see the dust, so they didn't know it was there. In the absence of sensual confirmation, the default expectation (at least to the layman) was that it wasn't there. That was naive, but my grandparents didn't work with nanotech or even use consumer models themselves, so perhaps their ignorance could be forgiven. (Just as my own ignorance of hyperspace can perhaps be forgiven, since I'm not a miner.)

My grandparents, though, grew up with the stuff, though it was still a bit expensive, so it wasn't totally ubiquitous yet. By their time, almost everyone at least knew about it, and if in a gathering of any five people you were to say "nobody sees me inside my home," chances were there would have been a few guffaws and someone would likely point out that the statement was likely incorrect. Sometimes the stuff got innocently tracked into your house, and sometimes it was manipulated into getting there, through subterfuge. The law and social norms lagged, though, and people debated privacy a lot.

By the time their children (my parents) grew up, though, it was all over. Everyone knew about nano-cam dust, and unless you did a rad-flash a few minutes earlier, fucking in your own bed was just as public as doing it in Times Square.

And now my kid knows too. It's just something everyone is expected to know about and deal with. If I were to write a story about it, I think I would set the story in the time of my grandparents, back when society was truly conflicted and in the midst of change. I bet those were interesting times.

No, You are All Misinformed

[Strangely Familiar]

The Supreme Court does not interpret the constitution to be either completely restrictive of the Federal Government only to those powers and authorities granted to it by the Constitiution, nor is it completely free to do whatever it wants so long as it is not prohibited by the Constitution. An example is a federal bank. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Feds can have a bank, or create the Federal Reserve (try to find authority for this in the Constitution). Early on in the republic, there was a big fight over this. Eventually the Supreme Court decided that anything that was necessary and proper to effect the powers granted to the feds by the Constitution was allowed. So, a federal bank was allowed, because that was considered necessary and proper for collecting taxes, and spending the revenues collected. Many of the States Rights folks specifically raised the ninth and tenth amendment arguements, but they did not win with the Supremes. But not just anything is allowed. My guess is that if the Feds decided to open Federal Liquor Stores or have a Federal Lottery that would get struck down in the courts for being unnecessary and/or improper to effect some federal power. States can do these things, but the Feds probably can't. So, the real situation is not so black and white as either post tries to make it.

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[thaylin]

Umm, that does not counter what he said. The article 3 quote above does a better job. The question was, in effect which part of the constitution was be breaking, not what part covers the oath.

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[spire3661]

At what point do we have the right as a sovereign to say 'no more, we are full?' When is the cut off to you?

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[smooth wombat]

Which has nothing to do with the question I asked.

No one is saying people from other countries shouldn't be allowed to work in the U.S. (I'm not), what is being asked is they do it legally and with proper documentation.

So again, I ask the question, do you let random people walk in and out of your place without knowing who they are?

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[spire3661]

NO ITS NOT. Holy shit. Part of the reason my sovereign exists is to protect MY interests, which includes protecting the labor market. ALL MARKETS HAVE REGULATIONS, there is no such thing as a free market.

Firearms usage

[leadfoot]

I can understand the fourth amendment violation in this case.

Playing devils advocate, what would the argument be if a police officer was driving by on the street and had observed the suspect shooting the bottles with a firearm? I do know here in Arizona, that you cannot discharge a firearm within 1/4 mile of any occupied building. If that is the case in Washington, wouldn't thus give the police probable cause to search the home?

Re:Firearms usage

[currently_awake]

Eye witness testimony from a public place is usable. The problem was spying on him for months without a warrant.

Re:Firearms usage

[LessThanObvious]

Why would discharging a firearm outside be cause to search a home? In this case he's undocumented immigrant so possessing a firearm may be a crime, so it makes sense to see if he has more firearms. For a U.S. Citizen or legal resident alien I don't think they should have that ability based on a minor infraction committed outside the home.

Re:Firearms usage

[leadfoot]

Yes, I figured that was the case, Specifically targeting one household with unwarranted surveilance.

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[smooth wombat]

It's not? Funny, I live in this country just as much as I live in my home.

The only ones who are insane are those who believe a country doesn't have a right to know who is coming and going across their borders.

Re:So if I've got this right...

[jklovanc]

If you're paying attention you will notice two things: these cases are almost entirely drug cases, and that drug prohibition is failing to make drugs scarce.

So your premise is that all drug laws should be abolished/not enforced. Sorry but I only partially agree. Certain drug laws, marijuana for example, are overreaching. Other drugs do cause harm to society.

nothing confined to consenting adults should ever be a crime.

I agree but some drug consequences are not confined to consenting adults. Some drugs cause people to be unable to hold jobs, cause them to commit crimes to support their habit, etc. I realize that alcohol does similar things but to a much lesser extent. The percentage of productive crackheads is much less than the percentage of productive alcohol use. The consequences of this drug use is spread to the rest of society in welfare costs, health costs, insurance costs, policing costs, etc.

favored following the Constitution over prosecuting a drug criminal.

The problem with the US Constitution is that it is imprecise.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

The issue is around the word "unreasonable" which can be interpreted differently by different people. What is unreasonable to one person may be reasonable to another. Too many people seem to interpret this an "any search without a warrant" but that is not what the Constitution says.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[jc42]

Why does the fourth amendment apply? If he is not a citizen of the US, our laws shouldn't protect him.

So you think tourists shouldn't be protected by US law?

There are a lot of people and companies in the tourism industry who would strongly disagree with you. Not to mention the shipping industry, whose employees often make short visits to places where they aren't citizens, as part of their jobs.

If your suggestion were put into effect, it would be a disaster for a lot of valuable businesses. For that reason, it's not how the law works in the US or in any other country.

Re:no state shall abridge ... citizens of the Unit

[thaylin]

The Bill of Rights is extended to state governments by the 14th amendment, which says:

      No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

So yeah, you're simply wrong. The Consitution applies only due process applies to non-citizens. The first, second, fourth, and fifth amendments, at least are protected for "citizens of the United States". People here illegally are entitled to due process, a hearing, before they are nailed or their property is taken. Other than that, they are intruders and have about the same rights as someone who broke into your home. Legal immigrants are guests in the country and you can think about the difference in rights between a guest you invite into your home versus you in your own home. Only one of two is allowed to touch the thermostat, or go upstairs.

it says any PERSON, not any CITIZEN.. So he is correct, you are wrong.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[thaylin]

Are you trying to make a distinction? The antigun liberals dont think people should have the right to guns, not that one group should have the right and the other should not. Your attack fails because there is no analogy here.

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[ShanghaiBill]

At what point do we have the right as a sovereign to say 'no more, we are full?

We are no where close to "full". Most immigrants settle in cities, and the population of most cities has actually fallen in recent decades. Detroit has lost 60% of its population since 1950. A half million hard working Mexicans would be a huge boost to that city.

When is the cut off to you?

A long, long way from where we are now.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[bmo]

Oh look at the poor persecuted "christian" that is so bent out of shape because his publicly funded school or courthouse doesn't have a monument to the 10 commandments. Paying 5 or 6 figures for a monument, as has happened in the past, is an endorsement.

Look, numbnuts, it's not "your" school or courthouse, it's our school and our courthouse, and "us" includes atheists, hindi, buddhists, jews, etc., as well as christians, or so-called "christians" that have completely forgotten the Sermon on the Mount.

--
BMO

Re:no state shall abridge ... citizens of the Unit

[currently_awake]

Your quote contradicts you. "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" means that non citizens get due process of law.

Re:Go Ahead ... Cam Me

[buck-yar]

You say this, but judging from the responses Surveillance Man gets, I bet you'd tell a different tale IRL.

u r ignrant

[luis_a_espinal]

This has been my argument since my first exposure to the American "Free Movement" propaganda in the 4th grade. Teachers didn't like that. Especially when I made statements on the order of "the U.S.S.R doesn't have checks on their people moving from providence to providence either." Hell, even to go into Canada, I remember having to pass through a checkpoint where they reviewed my dad's license before permitting access (passport wasn't required back then).

If you made that statement, you were idiotically wrong, since there were checks in place to move to certain "special" regions, not to mention the wholesome deportation of ethnic groups within the USSR during and post WWII from their homelands to the other side of the union (without permission until many decades later to return, or even move from their new "homelands".)

Re:u r ignrant

[dryeo]

America did the same (wholesale deportation of certain ethnic groups), only difference was they finished earlier then the USSR and did a better job of genocide.

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[ShanghaiBill]

Do you let random people walk into your home any time of the day or night without knowing who they are?

If not, why should the United States?

That is a ridiculous analogy. You could use the same argument to say that every state, city, and neighborhood should build a wall to control who comes and goes. And "knowing who they are" is not the same as tearing apart families that have been here for a decade or more, working hard, and being (otherwise) law abiding.

And since you asked, yes, I do let "random" people stay in my house. I have sponsored two Naxi girls that came to America as students, and are now permanent residents. I will be sponsoring another immigrant next year.

They Dropped The Ball

[luis_a_espinal]

Even though police did not have a warrant,

And that deserves a Darwin award. Seriously, couldn't they have gotten one in the first place? I seriously doubt, if they had well documented reasons to believe something was up, that they wouldn't have been able to find one.

This case was in the bag (or would have been in the bag), but authorities dropped the ball. I've been on jury duty, and I've seen this before. Cops drop the technical ball, and we in jury duty have to say "not guilty" even though we know deep in our guts that the guy on the stand did it.

It is annoying, but this is how the law is meant to operate in a civilized country. This just stresses the point that authorities need to do their shit better, all the time.

Re:They Dropped The Ball

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize that you have to die before bearing offspring to qualify for a Darwin award? Darwin?? Evolution ... not passing your defective genes on ...

Re:They Dropped The Ball

[luis_a_espinal]

Wooosh?

Re:undocumented immigrant

[causality]

Oh look at the poor persecuted "christian" that is so bent out of shape because his publicly funded school or courthouse doesn't have a monument to the 10 commandments. Paying 5 or 6 figures for a monument, as has happened in the past, is an endorsement.

Look, numbnuts, it's not "your" school or courthouse, it's our school and our courthouse, and "us" includes atheists, hindi, buddhists, jews, etc., as well as christians, or so-called "christians" that have completely forgotten the Sermon on the Mount.

-- BMO

The only thing I haven't heard discussed before, that I think is a big part of this: in previous generations, Americans had a stronger shared culture. Yes it was mostly religious in nature, but it was something that nearly everyone agreed on and celebrated together. There was of course political division, but there was much less cultural divison than there is today. Among those who would like to keep the Ten Commandments etc. in public buildings, I've never heard them actually cite this aspect, but I think it's a major underlying reason for their desire.

I am against religious symbols in public buildings, by the way. I just find it useful to understand the motivations of people with whom I disagree. Personally I disagree with it for a different reason. I believe one's spirtuality or lack thereof is a deeply personal decision, something one must arrive at as an individual. I try to practice the teachings of Christ (among others), but I really find distasteful the shallow groupthink and lemming behavior I observe in any church I've been to.

In churches I've visited, I generally see a bunch of insecure people who need to be in a group of the like-minded in order to feel validated, repeating the same basic and unenlightening themes over and over again to feel like they belong somewhere. Once I understand a concept, I understand it, and I'm ready to move on to deeper subjects myself. I've never personally seen a church of courageous individuals with real, meaningful insight into the difficult struggles we all face in life, sharing hard-won wisdom for which they paid dearly. Nor have I seen anything resembling advanced philosophy and theology, an appreciation for the majesty and mystery of our very existence and the quest to find meaning and purpose in this life. It's just the same list of do's and don'ts, platitudes, and regurgitated ideas you would find in any other social club.

Government is shitty enough without adding (more of) this element to it.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[nadaou]

and likely tortured,

Feinstein and McCain delivered a 6000 page report on the floor of the Senate last week. You can drop the "likely" part now.

reading comprehension

[raymorris]

Since you utterly failed to read the first time, I'll try very short, Dr. Sues sentences for you this time.

Citizens have rights and privileges.
Citizens have 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th amendments ...
Non-citizens get a hearing before they go to jail.

It's two sentences. Really not that complicated.

2 sentences. citizens rights and privileges.

[raymorris]

Since you utterly failed to read the first time, I'll try very short, Dr. Sues sentences for you this time.

Citizens have rights and privileges.
Citizens have 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th amendments ...
Non-citizens get a hearing before they go to jail.

It's two sentences. Really not that complicated.

Re:2 sentences. citizens rights and privileges.

[thaylin]

Ahh Mr Sues, now you are adding stuff not in there. It does not say rights.. It says privileges and immensities.

Even still you are incorrect.

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No PERSON

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

Of the people.

The others are the same. It does not say citizen, and it has been interpreted to not mean citizen. So unless you are claiming better qualifications than the SCOTUS, you are definitely wrong.

Re:So if I've got this right...

[causality]

So your premise is that all drug laws should be abolished/not enforced. Sorry but I only partially agree. Certain drug laws, marijuana for example, are overreaching. Other drugs do cause harm to society.

If the laws prohibiting those drugs actually made them unavailable to would-be users, then and only then would I see your point. They're failing to do so, have always failed, and will continue to fail for the foreseeable future. These are simply facts and these facts are not controversial at all. As I said, even in the highly secured, scrutinized, searched, regimented environment of a prison, where all the variables favor the people trying to prevent drug use, not even in those places can we keep drugs out. One way or another, they continue to be smuggled in.

What these drug laws are accomplishing is the enrichment of violent gangs/cartels, for whom the illicit status of drugs means far greater profits. Even the occasional large drug bust just amounts to less competition, and it's generally not the big kingpins who are bearing the risk. What the prohibition laws also accomplished is the steady buildup of a police state and the erosion of the 4th Amendment. The asset forfeiture laws alone are an abomination in any country that even pretends to be a free society. All of this is caused by trying to enforce an unenforcable law. It's the only outcome that can be expected from trying to do so.

I agree but some drug consequences are not confined to consenting adults. Some drugs cause people to be unable to hold jobs, cause them to commit crimes to support their habit, etc. I realize that alcohol does similar things but to a much lesser extent. The percentage of productive crackheads is much less than the percentage of productive alcohol use. The consequences of this drug use is spread to the rest of society in welfare costs, health costs, insurance costs, policing costs, etc.

Again if the prohibition were actually capable of stopping the drug use, this would be a legitimate concern. The policing costs could be eliminated entirely. Legal drugs would cost far less per dose, removing much of the incentive for addicts to rob and steal from others, reducing crime. Hell, state governments could give away free drugs to addicts and it would cost less than what we're doing now, both monetarily and socially. The reason productive crackheads are less common than productive alcoholics is that the alcoholic can easily purchase his drug anywhere and can afford it since it's legal and cheap. The other costs you mention like welfare, health, and insurance are effectively fixed costs, because right now anyone who really wants drugs can get them.

The best way to reduce the harm caused by irresponsible drug use is to treat it as a public health issue, not a law-enforcement issue.

The issue is around the word "unreasonable" which can be interpreted differently by different people. What is unreasonable to one person may be reasonable to another. Too many people seem to interpret this an "any search without a warrant" but that is not what the Constitution says.

Indeed, unfortunately that isn't what the Constitution says, but it would be wonderful if we actually had a pro-freedom Supreme Court to make such a ruling. These days the Court is little more than a mouthpiece articulating bullshit justifications for what the police are going to do anyway in order to create the appearance of legitimacy. Also, if drugs were legal and regulated, the incentive for the vast majority of police searches would disappear, as the vast, vast majority of prisoners got there because of drug charges. Then most searches would be for important things like murder weapons, not for unimportant and futile things like trying and failing to tell adult people how to live.

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[DaHat]

Because a free market in labour is as important as a free market in goods.

Do away with the welfare state and fewer people will have a problem with unchecked immigration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I cut out the entire list. 10th amendment LATER

[raymorris]

I cut out pretty much the entire list of powers, because the exact list isn't the point.

If you want to make the argument that the "general welfare" clause essentially strikes the rest of the article, you then have to answer the question "why would the authors write out a list of allowed powers, then nullify that list by saying 'or anything else they want to do'?" There an old, old principle of law, going back thousands of years, that essentially says when interpreting law, any sentence in the law means SOMETHING. When the framers said "the federal government can only do the things in this list", that has to mean SOMETHING. What do you think it means, if not exactly what it says?

If we stop with just that article, we do have a bit of a conundrum - the list must be there for a reason, but then again the phrase "general welfare" must mean something too. That would leave room for debate.

Fortunately, the framers later came back and AMENDED the Constitution with the 10th amendment. The later amendment changes, or overrides, the earlier wording. This amendment, or change, is one simple sentence:

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Pretty clear, that. The states and the people reserve all powers not delegated to the feds. The feds have only those powers delegated to them.

Re:I cut out the entire list. 10th amendment LATER

[david_thornley]

Congress can spend money for the general welfare. That's what that clause covers. It's pretty broad, but it only covers spending. It doesn't give Congress the ability to make anything illegal, for example. Were you around when the national speed limit became 55? It wasn't a Federal law, it was a condition on Federal highway funding. A lot of Federal influence on education is like that: do what the Feds want, and get the money.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[myowntrueself]

as i said, its up to you how you decide, but the facts remain, there is a creator, in some sense at least

I might have existed for infinite time, thereby not having had a creator at all!

Huge difference...

[Gription]

The cost of reviewing video with nothing going on IS free, as even the cheapest camera will only show video where there is motion detected. I would bet the average single family residence (with no kids) probably has less then 5 minutes of motion at the front door and driveway during a day. Fast forward and your time is now down to close to nil.

Add to this the rapid development and falling cost of machine intelligence with video processing and you are looking at the beginning of a totalitarian "video state". The technology exists to use video surveillance to use facial recognition and processing of objects to automatically issue citations for j-walking or littering. I bet we could think of hundreds of other profitable invasive uses that are possible. Of course people (sheep) say, "Oh they would never do that." And a few decades ago people would never have believed that the government would have the ability to look at every purchase transaction that people make, and they certainly wouldn't have believed that "The People" would ever stand for that level of intrusion. But you have a credit/debit card with you right now and using it doesn't make you flinch.

Governments nowadays ALL coin the phrase "sources of revenue". What this means is the people working in government see the citizens that they are supposed to serve as their source of $$$. The fact is that government cannot resist getting their hands on more money (numerical unit of power).
The law used to be a framework where if someone caused a problem they could find a way to deter them from being a problem. There was no intention of enforcing all laws 100% of the time. Now when something happens the agents of the government never ask, "Should we apply this law? but instead only ask, "Can we apply this law?". Add this to the endless search for more revenue and you have a future where the video camera sees you drop a $5 bill, detects dropped paper, and the facial recognition system mails you a $1000 littering fine.

The endless creep of intrusion is headed that way and unless something huge happens it will slowly become the norm. But thank god!!! It will make you safer!!!!
But safety is a FEELING, especially when it doesn't come with a real percentage of improvement in life expectancy. And LIBERTY (all in caps!) is a RISK and it always was a risk. A risk that a lot of people died for.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[man_ls]

And how does that even work, anyway? Don't we have an embargo against Cuba - and yet we're leasing some of their land for our black site? Or, was the Bay of Pigs more successful of an operation than we thought and we've been occupying them secretly ever since?

What you want it to say != what it says

[raymorris]

I don't necessarily disagree with you as to what I'd LIKE it to say. I'm talking about what it DOES say.

The first 10 amendments say "CONGRESS shall make no law ..." etc. By themselves, prior to the 14th amendment, they (like the rest of federal Constitution) talk about what the FEDERAL government may and may not do. You seem to acknowledge this when you write "Federal law and what the federal government may do is unchanged by [the 14th]".

For 76 years, the Constitution limited only the feds, and everybody was pretty clear about that fact. 76 years later, the 14th put two limitations on the states. The 14th says, in plain English, that states may not abridge the rights of "citizens of the United States" (the Bill of Rights). It's right there, it says "citizens of the United States" get protection from state government abuses. What part of "citizens of the United States" do you not understand? It then goes on to say the one thing states must do regarding "all persons" (non-citizens) - they must have due process (a hearing, with a lawyer, etc.).

> And Federal law trumps any State ones, so the first ten stand as the ultimate law of the land.

Since you were just talking about "the first ten", read the tenth amendment. It's a sentence or two, easy to read. That's one of several places in the Constitution where it makes clear that the states delegate specific powers to the feds - it's the states who have the power, and they allow the feds to act under a grant of power from the states, not the other way around.

> the 14th somehow takes away rights enumerated in the first ten ...
> You also seem to entirely miss the framing of the document, what "natural", "inalienable", and "all men" fundamentally mean, and the part where the people grant the power to the government, which presupposes that the natural rights are inherent before any governmental construct is created

See the problem there? You're supposing that the Bill of Rights grants rights, in order to argue that the 14th can't take them away. As you correctly state, the rights existed before the Constitution. The first 10 amendments bar the feds from VIOLATING those (pre-existing) rights. Seventy-six years later, the 14th amendment barred the STATES from violating the rights "of citizens of the United States". Neither CREATES rights. The first ten say the feds can't legally violate rights, the 14th says the sates can't legally violate the rights _of_citizens_. Lest anyone think that the authors merely forgot to mention non-citizens, the second sentence of the 14th then says that all people get DUE PROCESS (only).

If you think about it in certain practical terms, this makes perfect sense. Citizens have the right to bear arms (5th amendment). Guests who are Syrian nationals don't necessarily need the right to bear arms while they are visiting here. The revolution was fought, in part, about "taxation without representation". Does that mean foreign visitors don't have to pay any taxes, no sales taxes, no income taxes for H1-B visitors? Nope, visitors to a place don't have exactly the same rights.

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[Coren22]

The problem is, the labor isn't free market, as they will work for illegal wages as they cannot complain about it.

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[ShanghaiBill]

Mexicans come here to bring a piece of Mexico with them, wanting bilingual schools and lots of other accommodations

This is complete nonsense. Bilingual education is deeply unpopular among Latinos, who overwhelmingly prefer English immersion for their kids. Latinos are transitioning to English just as quickly as other waves of immigrants in the past, such as Italians, Germans, etc. You should read some history books on the Italian speaking tenements in Brooklyn a century ago. People then were spouting the same xenophobic nonsense that you are today.

 

Re:So if I've got this right...

[mi]

The police knew it was illegal.

I don't understand, why... They didn't enter his house — they recorded his front door — and front yard. That ought to be Ok — whatever can be legally seen, can be legally recorded is the general principle.

A camera is just an extension for a policeman's eyes. Would it have been illegal for the department to post an officer in front of the man's house? No. So the camera standing there instead should be just as legal...

Re: undocumented immigrant

[Zenzilla]

The problem is that there are no external standards are defined. A group of people take what they want morality to be codify it and say it came from a creator. It is still just as subjective. Your whole argument fails.

Re:So if I've got this right...

[mi]

so they were held to the rules

Which rules are those, that prohibit police from looking at one's front yard? They didn't enter any premises and whatever can be legally observed, can be recorded...

Re:undocumented immigrant

[Gavagai80]

The USA goes through the motions of attempting to pay Cuba, which rejects the money because the Cuban government doesn't recognize the legitimacy of the lease the USA signed with the old puppet dictatorship.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[Zenzilla]

This is not a fair argument. The problem is not with religion as a whole, it is that the religion being talked about or being displayed is a very thin slice of what religion is. The is the very definition of respecting an establishment of religion. If you value the constitution that display must go. Now if you wanted to have a weekly prayer choosing a different religion each week that would satisfy me, even as a rabid atheist. I doubt in the situations you are complaining about you would accept that.

What part of...

[RavenLrD20k]

...my first exposure to the American "Free Movement" propaganda in the 4th grade

did you not get?

Re:undocumented immigrant

[TWX]

Also, my point in specifically citing firearms, is that the courts interpret what the laws say, and at times they've ruled that it's possible to have what are considered, at the time, to be reasonable restrictions. Whether or not these restrictions are reasonable is later discussed and adjudicated, but fact of the matter is, the Constitution is subject to interpretation, and that interpretation by the legal system is what matters, more than the words themselves.

Demore v. Kim, Porterfield v. Webb, Yamataya v. Fi

[raymorris]

> Of the people. The others are the same.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms". Do you think that visitors from Syria have the right to keep and bear arms? Do you think SCOTUS ruled that way?

> So unless you are claiming better qualifications than the SCOTUS, you are definitely wrong.

Let's have a look at what the court has ruled:

Demore v. Kim - the 8th amendment (bail) doesn't apply to foreign nationals
Yamataya v. Fisher - Racial discrimination okay in respect to foreign nationals
Porterfield v. Webb, - States may bar foreign nationals from owning land
Foley v. Connelie - States may require citizenship for hiring

Would you like a dozen more? They've been pretty consistent in following the plain language of the 14th amendment - everyone gets due process - a hearing with a lawyer, etc. Citizens have the various rights listed in the bill of rights and elsewhere.

Did you notice the one part of the 5th you quoted regarding "no person" is - surprise - the due process part, that "no person shall .. unless under indictment of a grand jury ... without due process of law"? Like I said, several times now, the 14th applies due process (right to a fair trial) to all persons. It does not give the right to vote, bear arms, etc. to visitors.

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[david_thornley]

I'd suggest it's more a matter of jobs than welfare. Employers have no incentive to get rid of cheap and vulnerable labor. Welfare departments are under pressure to reduce the number of recipients, and they get a LOT more intrusive than employers.

Re:undocumented immigrant

[TWX]

Well, apparently the new Cuban government did accept payment a few times on the base, which the US interprets as having been recognized by the Castro government as legitimately agreeing with the treaty that established the base in the first place.

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[nukenerd]

No it is not ridiculous. I regard my country as my home, albeit shared with the other people legally in it. As for "tearing apart families", it is immigration that does that because it is not generally whole families that migrate; it tends to be the men who migrate. The immigrants I know spend a lot of time (and CO2 emissions) travelling back and forth to their country of origin to see their families (and no, those families do not necessarily want to leave where they are).

As for you taking in girls and "sponsoring" immigrants, you clearly have an agenda. I am not sure what you are trying to prove, or is it just to wind people up? Or is it to knock the Naxi culture out of them by westernising them? Are you not yourself involved in "tearing" them from their families? Ironic that you give the Naxi link, it shows an admirable culture; don't you feel guilty about having a part in destroying it?

Why did they think he was a trafficker?

[russotto]

Did they perhaps have OTHER illegal evidence that they couldn't bring to a judge to get a warrant, like a tip from the NSA perhaps?

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[amxcoder]

Yes, you can deport the illegal parent(s), and if they want to break up their family and leave their "citizen" children behind, then that is THEIR decision and the moral decision will rest then on the children's parents rather than the state. They would have the chance to take their children (and/or spouse) with them when they go, or not, it's up to them. This is something that they should have thought about prior to illegally entering the country, and therefore the is a price to have to pay for breaking the law.

Quit trying to put the moral delima in "our" lap as a country and instead put it where it belongs.

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[reve_etrange]

Do you let random people walk into your home any time of the day or night without knowing who they are?

Classic fallacy of composition. You need to provide arguments, not bald assertions about incommensurables like large nation states and individuals.

Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[amxcoder]

Exactly this... Our judicial system started going down hill once we started using the system we call "case law", in which each judicial decision is put into the books and used as an argument for all the next cases down the road. This creates a wavering, or gentle slope away from the actual "Spirit of the Law" that was originally put forth in all aspects.

Re:Presidential Oath of Office - how quaint

[LordWabbit2]

I used to back in my party days, woke up one afternoon and found someone sleeping in my cupboard. Left him there and went to find something to eat. Once after a serious night out I woke up and someone had cleaned my lounge, still don't know who it was.

Re:Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I have wondered if it is even possible to know all of the laws and government regulations that one has to abide by. There is the United States Code, all of the various federal regulations, laws and regulations for the state you are a resident in, and various local laws and regulations. Is it even reasonable to assume that someone could read them all in a year? When you have congress passing massive bill like the ~2400 page Affordable Care Act, or how ever many are in the US patriot act, or even the annual federal budget which gets all sorts of other random crap stuffed in it, that all makes changes to existing law or create new laws it seems like it is an impossible task. Given that even the federal government can't state how many federal crimes there are it seems that it should entirely be a reasonable defense to be ignorant of the law given that even the government is.

How about we say

[davidwr]

It's "practically impossible short of turning the border into a DMZ" like North/South Korea's border?

If that's too strong, how about "It clear with anyone with eyes to see that it's so far from being economically cost-effective that sealing the border for the purposes of immigration control might as well be considered practically (albeit not literally) impossible."

Note that both statements leave open the fact that if the need became great enough, as it is in the North/South Korea situation, sealing the border may become cost-effective. It will still be extremely expensive but if the benefits of sealing it (preventing another country from making a credible effort to over-run ours - the threat South Koreans currently face) it might become cost-effective.

But when I had a VCR, I almost never time-shifted

[davidwr]

But when I had a VCR, I almost never time-shifted

I did. So did many others.

For them though, the "slight change in the quantitative cost" was the up-front price of a VCR that allowed more than 1 or 2 pre-programmed, recurring (i.e. "weekly" or "daily") events dropping below a certain price and/or the slight upward change in their income making a previously-too-expensive device suddenly affordable.

Trivia: You can now get bring-your-own-USB-storage DVR set-top-box from certain major American electronics stores for well under $50. These have been available online for awhile but it's nice to see them in stores. The one I've seen is not as good (or expensive) as a Slingbox or $299+ ChannelMaster and it's not as fun as building your own MythTV box but it gets the job done and you don't have to be a geek to set one up or use it.

nypd stop and frisk

[perih60]

unfortunetly any department will ( on rare occation ) have , a wrong person in a possition of power ! and how will we protect our children from A STOP AND GROPE !! i strongly feel this problem should get more attention . i also sadly include female officers . who watches the guards ?

Re:hum

[perih60]

i totally agree . it is a pity that our opinion , and your well written reasoning , is not heard by more people

Re:undocumented immigrant

[perih60]

well put ! as a believer (christian ) , however i do not like manmade institutions , cos time after time they have proven that they can not be trusted ! and a scientist , we seem to have forgotten what civilatation and society means ! apart from having very adaptable bodies what sets us apart from other mammals , we send our offspring into wars , not for food or room , mostly we send them to die for believes , religeous , political , and this does not make sense . for at least 2 reasons , 1st evelution , how will our species evolve . 2nd " go forth and multiply " not go forth and kill people who do not share your opinion !

Re:undocumented immigrant

[perih60]

our liberty depends on the freedom of the press which can not be limitet without being lost , jefferson ! i saw that statement daily for years in the brisbane courier mail , QLD australia , the newspaper was sold , and that line disappeard ,