Constitution-Free Zone Alive & Well!

Old Jan 23, 18, 2:02 pm
  #16  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 17,596
Originally Posted by bitterproffit View Post
I was talking about the citizens on the bus that were forced to provide proof of citizenship in violation of the constitution.
What section of the constitution makes providing proof of citizenship/ID to CBP a violation?
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jan 23, 18, 2:08 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,604
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
What section of the constitution makes providing proof of citizenship/ID to CBP a violation?
The entire state of Florida is in the CBP exclusion zone, making Constitutional protections of its citizens a sham dependant solely on the whim of CPB policy or, even more egregious, individual officers.
wrp96 and scottpenderson like this.
rickg523 is offline  
Old Jan 23, 18, 2:10 pm
  #18  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: BNA (Nashville)
Programs: HH Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 4,089
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
What section of the constitution makes providing proof of citizenship/ID to CBP a violation?
wow, you are willing to give up your rights pretty easily.

I don't want to live in a country where citizens have carry ID at all times to prove their citizenship to federal authorities upon random demand.

We could go back in forth, but since the CBP is part of the executive branch, they can only carry out specific laws authorized by Congress. And no one has been able to provide the law that requires citizens to always carry proof of citizenship upon demand in the US. If you can provide me that law, then you can make the claim that requiring citizens to carry ID at all times is constitution. It isnt.
aquamarinesteph likes this.
bitterproffit is offline  
Old Jan 23, 18, 2:37 pm
  #19  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 17,596
Originally Posted by bitterproffit View Post
wow, you are willing to give up your rights pretty easily.

I don't want to live in a country where citizens have carry ID at all times to prove their citizenship to federal authorities upon random demand.

We could go back in forth, but since the CBP is part of the executive branch, they can only carry out specific laws authorized by Congress. And no one has been able to provide the law that requires citizens to always carry proof of citizenship upon demand in the US. If you can provide me that law, then you can make the claim that requiring citizens to carry ID at all times is constitution. It isnt.
I haven't given up anything. I don't think you fully understand the original topic of this thread.

I never stated that a citizen has to carry ID. I said that visitors to this country are required to carry certain documents. I did say that in some cases it might be the lesser of evils to show some form of identity. In other words I would present ID before going to jail. The law allows a CBP officer to determine citizenship, how they do that is usually just a question but if they question your status you can be taken into custody until your status is determined.

You did state that it is a violation of the constitution to provide ID. Since we are talking about in the border zone I have to question the accuracy of that statement.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jan 23, 18, 3:24 pm
  #20  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: MidSouth
Programs: AA; Delta GM
Posts: 729
Hypothetical situation: You, a citizen of the United States of America, are traveling on a public road. You encounter a random checkpoint where officers are demanding proof of you citizenship. So what proof is acceptable?

In my case, I don't know what I'd offer. My driver's license? That just shows that my home state issued me a driver's license. I do not travel with my Social Security card because the risk of identity theft is high if my purse or wallet were stolen.

I also do not travel within the US with my passport, my birth certificate or marriage license which shows why my last name is different on my driver's license than it is on my birth certificate.

My word on it? Clearly that is not the case, or nobody would have to present papers.

I am not arguing the point that it is against the law to be here without proper documentation. I am asking how everyone here would prove their US citizenship if they ran into a random roadblock tonight in their automobile or while riding a bus, train, etc. within US borders.
aquamarinesteph is offline  
Old Jan 23, 18, 3:50 pm
  #21  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CT USA
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by aquamarinesteph View Post
Hypothetical situation: You, a citizen of the United States of America, are traveling on a public road. You encounter a random checkpoint where officers are demanding proof of you citizenship. So what proof is acceptable?

In my case, I don't know what I'd offer. My driver's license? That just shows that my home state issued me a driver's license. I do not travel with my Social Security card because the risk of identity theft is high if my purse or wallet were stolen.

I also do not travel within the US with my passport, my birth certificate or marriage license which shows why my last name is different on my driver's license than it is on my birth certificate.

My word on it? Clearly that is not the case, or nobody would have to present papers.

I am not arguing the point that it is against the law to be here without proper documentation. I am asking how everyone here would prove their US citizenship if they ran into a random roadblock tonight in their automobile or while riding a bus, train, etc. within US borders.
-->As a veteran of at least 150 crossings of random immigration check points I was never once asked for my papers, how ever, Iím clearly white and fluent in English.Occasionally I would be driving a box truck and they would ask to look inside, which I gladly obliged (I didnít want CHP doing it as they can find something wrong with any truck). While giving a cursory glance inside I would be subject to questions like where was I born, where I grew up and so forth. Questions the average Mexican citizen probably couldnít answer effectively.If Iím not mistaken how you react to these interactions determines a lot. I was totally cool I knew I was suppose to be there.
JumboJet is offline  
Old Jan 23, 18, 3:50 pm
  #22  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: BNA (Nashville)
Programs: HH Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 4,089
Even more realistic (because if you are driving, you have to at least show a driver's license).

Lets say you are in South Florida and you are on a Greyhound Bus and you are Hispanic but you don't have any ID on you.

Then what happens?

Are we really ok with people being detained inside the US because they cannot provide proof on their person that they are a US citizen?

When I pass the customs and Border patrol checks in California and Florida, they simply as me my nationality, and I tell them USA. I don't have to prove it, because that is not a requirement in the constitution or any law.
wrp96 and scottpenderson like this.
bitterproffit is offline  
Old Jan 23, 18, 3:53 pm
  #23  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: BNA (Nashville)
Programs: HH Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 4,089
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
I haven't given up anything. I don't think you fully understand the original topic of this thread.


You did state that it is a violation of the constitution to provide ID. Since we are talking about in the border zone I have to question the accuracy of that statement.

You should question that, because that is definitely not what I said. Fort Lauderdale is not a 'border zone'. And there is no law that says you have to carry proof of US citizenship.

What you really implied that was the most disturbing was that if one couldn't provide something specific in the constitution saying a procedure was unlawful, it must therefore be lawful. That is a really scary way to interpret the constitution. Its really the other way around.
bitterproffit is offline  
Old Jan 23, 18, 4:44 pm
  #24  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
What section of the constitution makes providing proof of citizenship/ID to CBP a violation?
that's an upside down way to read the constitution. It doesn't describe all the actions the feds can't do, it only describes the ones the feds are permitted to do.

The federal government has no powers except the ones enumerated therein. Shaking down the citizenry (papers please) for ID without probable cause is not one of them, AFAIK.
nachtnebel is offline  
Old Jan 23, 18, 4:49 pm
  #25  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 17,596
Originally Posted by bitterproffit View Post
You should question that, because that is definitely not what I said. Fort Lauderdale is not a 'border zone'. And there is no law that says you have to carry proof of US citizenship.

What you really implied that was the most disturbing was that if one couldn't provide something specific in the constitution saying a procedure was unlawful, it must therefore be lawful. That is a really scary way to interpret the constitution. Its really the other way around.
The Border Exclusion Zone most certainly includes Fort Lauderdale. CBP has expanded authority in this zone. If a question of status is raised in this zone CBP can take a person into custody until status is determined.

You stated it is a constitutional violation to be made to prove citizenship. I'm not questioning your knowledge but am not familiar with that passage. Since the constitution lays out what federal government can do it should be no problem to cite that clause.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jan 23, 18, 5:19 pm
  #26  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
The Border Exclusion Zone most certainly includes Fort Lauderdale. CBP has expanded authority in this zone. If a question of status is raised in this zone CBP can take a person into custody until status is determined.

You stated it is a constitutional violation to be made to prove citizenship. I'm not questioning your knowledge but am not familiar with that passage. Since the constitution lays out what federal government can do it should be no problem to cite that clause.
The fourth used to do it for me, although it's pretty much dead these days:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What this thread describes certainly looks like a search and seizure.
nachtnebel is offline  
Old Jan 23, 18, 5:23 pm
  #27  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,604
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
The Border Exclusion Zone most certainly includes Fort Lauderdale. CBP has expanded authority in this zone. If a question of status is raised in this zone CBP can take a person into custody until status is determined.

You stated it is a constitutional violation to be made to prove citizenship. I'm not questioning your knowledge but am not familiar with that passage. Since the constitution lays out what federal government can do it should be no problem to cite that clause.
4th Amendment would seem to be in play here. They call it an Exclusion Zone precisely because Constitutional protections are excluded. It extends 100 miles around every port of entry. This includes any airport with international service (Canada included). That's why the entire state of Florida is in the Exclusion Zone. That's why you and I likely live in one as well.
But even beyond the Constitutional issues involved, what kind of society allows uniformed officers - border guards - to detain its own citizens in their own nation incommunicado on their whim?Capriciously if they choose. Is that a place you would enjoy living? Not happening to you in particular? Please reread Pastor Niemoeller before taking that easy out.
rickg523 is offline  
Old Jan 23, 18, 6:24 pm
  #28  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 17,596
Originally Posted by nachtnebel View Post
The fourth used to do it for me, although it's pretty much dead these days:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What this thread describes certainly looks like a search and seizure.
I agree in principal but if I was in Fort Lauderdale and had a CBP encounter I would show ID before going to detention. We may not like the 100 miles exclusion zone but until the law/regulation is changed that's what we have. In this case CBP identified a person who shouldn't be in the country.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jan 23, 18, 6:38 pm
  #29  
Hilton Contributor BadgeMarriott Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: DCA
Programs: Marriott GLD; Hilton GLD; Free Agent (former AA PLT/US GLD)
Posts: 1,301
Originally Posted by JumboJet View Post
She shouldn't have overstayed her visa. That's a crime and subject to arrest.
Oh, is it? Can you point to the statute which makes overstaying a visa a crime?

I don't want to live in a country where citizens have carry ID at all times to prove their citizenship to federal authorities upon random demand.
​​​​​​​Agreed. And thankfully, we don't. It's worrisome how eager some people are to give up their freedoms though.
Beltway2A is offline  
Old Jan 23, 18, 7:12 pm
  #30  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CT USA
Posts: 2,577
Originally Posted by Beltway2A View Post
Oh, is it? Can you point to the statute which makes overstaying a visa a crime?
Actually overstaying isn't a crime but it did result in her visa getting immediately revoked which subjected her to detention and deportation.That's much different than getting arrested.
JumboJet is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: