LordofHats wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Ok, so if a state can't leave on its own, is there any mechanism whereby we can just kick them out?

Nothing in the Constitution speaks of any means by which a state may leave. Congress could always pass a law for such provision but a law to "kick someone out" would be... Well things would be pretty fethed if we actually did that. Negotiating an exit maybe, but the Court might have to rule on whether or not that is legal. It's something that could end up requiring an Amendment legally, but then again we have ignoring certain aspects of the Constitution for the sake of pragmatism throughout our history.

 AndrewC wrote:
I just got the feeling that this was coming from a more central bloc rather than the fringe groups, and no offence, but the EU rather thought that the UK wasn't going to leave either.

Whether or not it may happen (probably not) could it happen?

 Peregrine wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Yes I know about reputable news sources, but could this be the shape of the future US?

No. Fringe groups putting up secession proposals is just business as usual. It's probably never going to go beyond fringe groups saying stupid stuff, and the federal government is certainly not going to allow it to happen even if it does.

 Compel wrote:
So, um, well. I'll be honest...

That press conference went WAY, WAY better than I expected. Trump behaved himself, even acted like an adult, overall.

I will admit, I kinda might have p**-ed myself a little bit when Laura Kuenssberg asked her question but after only a little awkwardness, it kinda worked out ok.

I'm not gonna say it was the best press conference on the face of the planet but, well, considering what it could very well have been, I'd call it a win.

If we're lucky, May (and, apparently, General Mattis), might be able to keep an eye on Trump, rein him in a little.

 Just Tony wrote:


The problem is the LGBTQAI (I apologize if I missed any of the letters recently added, I believe I got them all) community...

President Trump has signed an executive order that bans citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East from entering the United States for 90 days, according to the White House. His proposed list doesn’t include Muslim-majority countries where his Trump Organization has done business or pursued potential deals. Properties include golf courses in the United Arab Emirates and two luxury towers operating in Turkey.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
I assume that you're talking Texas V White?

I'm talking about the civil war where it was rather thoroughly established that states are not permitted to leave.

 AndrewC wrote:
I disagree, the Civil War established that to the victor the spoils.

You are right in that the Constitution doesn't contain any system by which members can leave, not that they cant. (A fine legal distinction I know, but there nonetheless)

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) recently filed complaints against U.S Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for, in part, demanding social media information from Muslim American citizens returning home from traveling abroad. According to CAIR, CBP accessed public posts by demanding social media handles, and potentially accessed private posts by demanding cell phone passcodes and perusing social media apps. And border agents allegedly physically abused one man who refused to hand over his unlocked phone.

CBP recently began asking foreign visitors to the U.S. from Visa Waiver Countries for their social media identifiers. Last fall we filed our own comments opposing the policy, and joined two sets of coalition comments, one by the Center for Democracy & Technology and the other by the Brennan Center for Justice. Notably, CBP explained that it was only seeking publicly available social media data, “consistent with the privacy settings the applicant has set on the platforms.”

We raised concerns that the policy would be extended to cover Americans and private data. It appears our fears have come true far faster than we expected. Specifically, we wrote:

It would be a series of small steps for CBP to require all those seeking to enter the U.S.—both foreign visitors and U.S. citizens and residents returning home—to disclose their social media handles to investigate whether they might have become a threat to homeland security while abroad. Or CBP could subject both foreign visitors and U.S. persons to invasive device searches at ports of entry with the intent of easily accessing any and all cloud data; CBP could then access both public and private online data—not just social media content and contacts that may or may not be public (e.g., by perusing a smartphone’s Facebook app), but also other private communications and sensitive information such as health or financial status.

We believe that the CBP practices against U.S. citizens alleged by CAIR violate the Constitution. Searching through Americans’ social media data and personal devices intrudes upon both First and Fourth Amendment rights.

CBP’s 2009 policy on border searches of electronic devices is woefully out of date. It does not contemplate how accessing social media posts and other communications—whether public or private—creates chilling effects on freedom of speech, including the First Amendment right to speak anonymously, and the freedom of association.

Nor does the policy recognize the significant privacy invasions of accessing private social media data and other cloud content that is not publicly viewable. In claiming that its program of screening the social media accounts of Visa Waiver Program visitors does not bypass privacy settings, CBP is paying more heed to the rights of foreigners than American citizens.

Finally, the CBP policy does not address recent court decisions that limit the border search exception, which permits border agents to conduct “routine” searches without a warrant or individualized suspicion (contrary to the general Fourth Amendment rule requiring a warrant based on probable cause for government searches and seizures). These new legal rulings place greater Fourth Amendment restrictions on border searches of digital devices that contain highly personal information.

As we recently explained:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in U.S. v. Cotterman (2013) held that border agents needed to have reasonable suspicion—somewhere between no suspicion and probable cause—before they could conduct a “forensic” search, aided by sophisticated software, of the defendant’s laptop….

The Supreme Court held in Riley v. California (2014) that the police may not invoke another exception to the warrant requirement, the search-incident-to-arrest exception, to search a cell phone possessed by an arrestee—instead, the government needs a probable cause warrant. The Court stated, “Our holding, of course, is not that the information on a cell phone is immune from search; it is instead that a warrant is generally required before such a search, even when a cell phone is seized incident to arrest.”

Although Riley was not a border search case, the Riley rule should apply at the border, too. Thus, CBP agents should be required to obtain a probable cause warrant before searching a cell phone or similar digital device.

Both Riley and Cotterman recognized that the weighty privacy interests in digital devices are even weightier when law enforcement officials use these devices to search cloud content. A digital device is not an ordinary “effect” akin to a piece of luggage or wallet, but rather is a portal into an individual’s entire life, much of which is online.

The Ninth Circuit wrote:

With the ubiquity of cloud computing, the government’s reach into private data becomes even more problematic. In the “cloud,” a user’s data, including the same kind of highly sensitive data one would have in “papers” at home, is held on remote servers rather than on the device itself. The digital device is a conduit to retrieving information from the cloud, akin to the key to a safe deposit box. Notably, although the virtual “safe deposit box” does not itself cross the border, it may appear as a seamless part of the digital device when presented at the border.

And the Supreme Court wrote:

To further complicate the scope of the privacy interests at stake, the data a user views on many modern cell phones may not in fact be stored on the device itself. Treating a cell phone as a container whose contents may be searched incident to an arrest is a bit strained as an initial matter…. But the analogy crumbles entirely when a cell phone is used to access data located elsewhere, at the tap of a screen. That is what cell phones, with increasing frequency, are designed to do by taking advantage of “cloud computing.” Cloud computing is the capacity of Internet-connected devices to display data stored on remote servers rather than on the device itself. Cell phone users often may not know whether particular information is stored on the device or in the cloud, and it generally makes little difference.

The Riley Court went on to state:

The United States concedes that the search incident to arrest exception may not be stretched to cover a search of files accessed remotely—that is, a search of files stored in the cloud…. Such a search would be like finding a key in a suspect’s pocket and arguing that it allowed law enforcement to unlock and search a house.

Thus, the border search exception also should not be “stretched to cover” social media or other cloud data, particularly that which is protected by privacy settings and thus not publicly viewable. In other words, a border search of a traveler’s cloud content is not “routine” and thus should not be allowed in the absence of individualized suspicion. Indeed, border agents should heed the final words of the unanimous Riley decision: “get a warrant.”

We hope CBP will fully and fairly investigate CAIR’s grave allegations and provide a public explanation. We also urge the agency to change its outdated policy on border searches of electronic devices to comport with recent developments in case law. Americans should not fear having their entire digital lives unreasonably exposed to the scrutiny of the federal government simply because they travel abroad.

The Problem

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from random and arbitrary stops and searches.
According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle.
Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary."
In this 100-mile zone, Border Patrol agents have certain extra-Constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol can operate immigration checkpoints.
Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred).
In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority in the course of individual stops, resulting in violations of the constitutional rights of innocent people. These problems are compounded by inadequate training for Border Patrol agents, a lack of oversight by CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the consistent failure of CBP to hold agents accountable for abuse. Thus, although the 100-mile border zone is not literally "Constitution free," the U.S. government frequently acts like it is.
Much of U.S. Population Affected

Many people think that border-related policies only impact people living in border towns like El Paso or San Diego. The reality is that Border Patrol's interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.
Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the 100-mile zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal border. That's about 200 million people.
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont lie entirely or almost entirely within this area.
Nine of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas, as determined by the 2010 Census, also fall within this zone: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and San Jose.
Outdated Legal Authority and Lack of Oversight

The regulations establishing the 100-mile border zone were adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1953—without any public comments or debate. At the time, there were fewer than 1,100 Border Patrol agents nationwide; today, there are over 21,000.
The Border Patrol often ignores this regulation and rejects any geographic limitation on agents' authority. At least two federal circuit courts condone Border Patrol operations outside the 100-mile zone, federal regulations and Supreme Court precedent notwithstanding.
Federal border agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing, and often in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
For example, Border Patrol, according to news reports, operates approximately 170 interior checkpoints throughout the country (the actual number in operation at any given time is not publicly known). The ACLU believes that these checkpoints amount to dragnet, suspicionless stops that cannot be reconciled with Fourth Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status. Checkpoints cannot be primarily used for drug-search or general law enforcement efforts. In practice, however, Border Patrol agents often do not limit themselves to brief immigration inquiries and regularly conduct criminal investigations and illegal searches at checkpoints. The Border Patrol also frequently pulls over motorists in "roving patrol" stops, often without any suspicion that an immigration violation has occurred.
The ACLU has documented numerous cases of abuse by Border Patrol and filed lawsuits to obtain more information about the agency's practices. Given Border Patrol's lack of transparency, and in the absence of any meaningful oversight, there is still much that we don't know about the full extent and impact of these interior "border enforcement" operations.
Part of a Broader Problem

The spread of border-related powers inland is inseparable from the broader expansion of government intrusion in the lives of ordinary Americans. For example, CBP claims the authority to conduct suspicionless searches of travelers' electronic devices—such as laptops and cell phones—at ports of entry, including international arrivals at airports. These searches are particularly invasive as a result of the wealth of personal information stored on such devices. At least one circuit court has held that federal officers must have at least "reasonable suspicion" prior to conducting such searches and recent Supreme Court precedent seems to support that view.
These practices also coincide with the spread of numerous border technologies, including watch list and database systems (such as the Automated Targeting System traveler risk assessment program), advanced identification and tracking systems (including electronic passports), and intrusive technological schemes such as the "virtual border fence" and unmanned aerial vehicles (aka "drone aircraft"). With many of these technologies in the hands of private companies, there are powerful financial incentives for the continued "militarization" of the border zone.
The expansion of government power both at and near the border is part of a trend toward expanding police and national security powers without regard to the effect of such expansion on our most fundamental and treasured Constitutional rights. The federal government's dragnet approach to law enforcement and national security is one that is increasingly turning us all into suspects. If Americans do not continue to challenge the expansion of federal power over the individual, we risk forfeiting the fundamental rights and freedoms that we inherited—including the right to simply go about our business free from government interference, harassment and abuse.

 Peregrine wrote:

And my point is what the law says is irrelevant. States are not permitted to leave, and the federal government will use force to crush any attempt at secession. The secessionists can quote whatever law they want, it won't change anything when the US military arrives to execute the traitors and restore order.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

And my point is what the law says is irrelevant. States are not permitted to leave, and the federal government will use force to crush any attempt at secession. The secessionists can quote whatever law they want, it won't change anything when the US military arrives to execute the traitors and restore order.

The worlds 'foremost democracy' in action.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

And my point is what the law says is irrelevant. States are not permitted to leave, and the federal government will use force to crush any attempt at secession. The secessionists can quote whatever law they want, it won't change anything when the US military arrives to execute the traitors and restore order.

The worlds 'foremost democracy' in action.

I didn't realize 'democracy' meant anything goes as long as you have a majority vote. As long as a majority says that redheads must be put to death it is ok to do so it would seem. Normally it would seem like a poor argument but with Great Leader in charge even silly 'alternative' arguments are suddenly fine.

 Ahtman wrote:

I didn't realize 'democracy' meant anything goes as long as you have a majority vote.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

I didn't realize 'democracy' meant anything goes as long as you have a majority vote.

In essence that's exactly what democracy means.

 Ahtman wrote:

Which is why most countries aren't purely democratic, including the USA, which is why making the argument is silly.

 Ahtman wrote:
Trump's ban on immigrants from Muslim countries doesn't include Muslim countries he has business interests in.

What a coincidence!

President Trump has signed an executive order that bans citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East from entering the United States for 90 days, according to the White House. His proposed list doesn’t include Muslim-majority countries where his Trump Organization has done business or pursued potential deals. Properties include golf courses in the United Arab Emirates and two luxury towers operating in Turkey.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-criticizes-impact-on-staff-of-trump-immigration-order-1485596067?tesla=y

Google staff amongst those affected by the new EO.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-order-blocks-green-card-visa-holders-airports-article-1.2957910

people with green cards/visas being denied admission into the USA.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/fear-materialized-border-agents-demand-social-media-data-americans

 Vaktathi wrote:
So apparently Christian middle eastern refugees will be receiving priority over others.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38778322

No mention that Shia muslims are pretty much kill/enslave on sight targets for ISIS, but...

 d-usa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So apparently Christian middle eastern refugees will be receiving priority over others.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38778322

No mention that Shia muslims are pretty much kill/enslave on sight targets for ISIS, but...

Remember, it's not a "ban on Muslims" though. It's just a ban on refugees from certain countries, unless they are Christians.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Wait. They did this on Holocaust Remembrance Day? The one day every year when you hear that story of the boat full of refugees that was sent back to the nazis who killed them all?

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Wait. They did this on Holocaust Remembrance Day? The one day every year when you hear that story of the boat full of refugees that was sent back to the nazis who killed them all?

Yep! The same Holocaust Remembrance Day where Trump just "failed" to mention the actual word Jews or Jewish people by name in his comments on the day. Not that they'd bear any special mention with regards to the Holocaust... him.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Yep! The same Holocaust Remembrance Day where Trump just "failed" to mention the actual word Jews or Jewish people by name in his comments on the day. Not that they'd bear any special mention with regards to the Holocaust... him.

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

Yep! The same Holocaust Remembrance Day where Trump just "failed" to mention the actual word Jews or Jewish people by name in his comments on the day. Not that they'd bear any special mention with regards to the Holocaust... him.

Whereas most people just don't mention the other people exterimated by the Nazi's. Or say Jews and other people... Why is the killing of Jews of so much more import? Simply due to numbers?