Bill Introduced To Create A Warrant Requirement For Border Device Searches

from the 4th-amendment-matters dept

With a great deal of luck, we may finally get a bit more respect for Constitutional rights at the border. The Supreme Court may have ruled that searches of cellphones require warrants, but that ruling doesn't apply within 100 miles of any US border (that includes international airports). Warrantless device searches happen regularly and with increasing frequency.

So far, courts have been hesitant to push back against the government's assertions that border security is more important than the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. And if the courts do feel something should be done to protect US citizens and foreign visitors, they feel it should be done by Congress, not by them.

So, it's good to see Congress may actually do something about this. Jack Corrigan of Nextgov has the details:

Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Wednesday introduced legislation that would increase digital privacy protections for U.S. residents crossing the border and limit the situations in which agents could legally seize their devices. If enacted, the Protecting Data at the Border Act would curb law enforcement’s extensive authority over electronic information at the border.

Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., introduced a companion bill in the House.

The bill [PDF] would institute a warrant requirement for border device searches, which is a really weird sentence to type considering the Supreme Court of the United States of America instituted a warrant requirement for device searches five years ago. But there it is: an attempt to codify a SCOTUS decision so it's respected by US government agencies.

It also prevents border agents from denying entry to anyone refusing to disclose passwords or unlock devices during screening. It also blocks them from detaining anyone for more than four hours in hopes of turning denials into consensual searches.

Unfortunately, there are some loopholes. And one of those is sizable. "Emergency situations" allow border agents to bypass the Constitutional niceties. One of those is an old -- and super-vague -- favorite:

[c]onspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest of the United States

That's the catch-22. The law can't pass without this exception and it's this exception that will be abused the most. But the institution of a warrant requirement will force the government to put a little more effort into its "national security" hand-waving if it hopes to use evidence pulled from devices in court.

Also important is the institution of documentation procedures for consent searches. It won't be enough for officers to claim detainees volunteered passwords or otherwise agreed to have their devices searched. They'll need to have the whole thing documented and the form signed by the detainee. Every device search must be documented as well, whether or not a forensic search was performed.

It's a good bill, national security exception notwithstanding. But it's being lobbed into an unwelcoming political arena. President Trump is still demanding a wall and has declared a national emergency simply because he wants to discourage immigrants from coming to this country. Border security is national security, according to this administration, even when there's little evidence showing immigrants are more likely to commit acts of terrorism, never mind regular crime. This administration and those backing it (and they are many) are more than happy to suspend the Bill of Rights at the border for as long as they're in power. That's the reality of the situation.

While this bill would bring border agencies into alignment with Supreme Court precedent, it's highly unlikely this won't be rejected by the President if it even manages to make it that far.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, border, border search, cbp, device searches, warrants


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 May 2019 @ 6:49pm

    "[c]onspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest of the United States"

    I suppose if they tried to create some definitions that described the types of 'activities' that constituted this clause it would sink the bill. On the other hand without any definition they could rely on the old and very tired 'I relied on my training and experience, I know conspiracy when I see it' strawman.

    The very least they could do is require specificity when documenting what those specific activities were and how they not only were a part of a conspiracy, but actually threatened the national security.

    Oh, and no mention of the 100 mile wide border? Or is this a one step at a time type of thing?


    (b) EMERGENCY EXCEPTIONS.— (1) EMERGENCY SITUATIONS GENERALLY.—
    (A) IN GENERAL.—An investigative or law enforcement officer of a Governmental entity who is designated by the Secretary of Home-land Security for purposes of this paragraph may access the digital contents of electronic equipment belonging to or in possession of a United States person at the border without a warrant described in subsection
    (a)(1) if the investigative or law enforcement officer—
    (i) reasonably determines that—
    (I) an emergency situation exists that involves—
    (aa) immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person;
    (bb) conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest of the United States; or
    (cc) conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime;
    (II) the emergency situation described in subclause (I) requires access to the digital contents of the electronic equipment before a warrant described in subsection (a)(1) authorizing such access can, with due diligence, be obtained; and (III) there are grounds upon which a warrant described in subsection (a)(1) could be issued authorizing such access; and
    (ii) makes an application in accordance with this section for a warrant described in subsection (a)(1) as soon as practicable, but not later than 7 days after the investigative or law enforcement officer accesses the digital contents under the authority under this subparagraph.


    Well, it sure seems to me that in order to make use of those 'emergency' exceptions they would have to have some prior knowledge of the activities of the individual(s) who's equipment they want to search. It doesn't seem like acting 'furtively' in the airport or at the border crossing is going to suffice. Or will it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2019 @ 8:25pm

      Re:

      Careful where you're stepping, fam.

      blue doesn't like it when other posters question authority. Or use horizontal lines; he's got a monopoly on those.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Romantic Robot gives you the gears., 30 May 2019 @ 8:41pm

        Re: Re: Since when does any fanboy question the NYT / WaPo view?

        blue doesn't like it when other posters question authority.

        This is THE most Establishment site I know of, where mild-mannered ME is the rebel! Sheesh. I'M the one tells ya don't give in to the OBVIOUSLY IMMINENT corporate control system, kids. It's literally fascism with a rainbow color facade.


        Or use horizontal lines; he's got a monopoly on those.

        Those aren't showing up for me in two widely disparate browsers. I concluded, perhaps wrongly, that had been disabled in "Markdown". If you're seeing one above the second blockquote above, that's fine with me, enjoy.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2019 @ 11:17pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The establishment right now is Trump. Which you regularly criticize the site for not kissing the feet of.

          So by your own metrics, you claimed the site is pro-establishment... by being the most anti-establishment.

          Hook, line and sinker. Thanks for playing!

          How's that "Shiva Ayyadurai invented email" fund coming along? John Smith stop crying yet?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2019 @ 6:30am

          Re: Re: Re: Since when does any fanboy question the NYT / WaPo v

          "THE most Establishment site"

          What does this mean? Are you attempting to communicate or are you just babbling?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      AnonyOps, 31 May 2019 @ 12:28am

      Re:

      This is a catch all clause per their subsection headings. Anyone obtuse can see it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Romantic Robot gives you the gears., 30 May 2019 @ 8:35pm

    Yet another flight of fancy. As Shatner said: "This won't go."

    Borders are not ordinary places nor ordinary conditions. NEVER have been anywhere since invented. The obvious REASON why set up borders in first place is to keep out undesirables. And, YES, We have a right to do so, while no one has ANY right to enter the US without permission and on our terms. Period.

    But it's always a shock to Techdirt that even have borders! Techdirt being of globalist views has the notion that all borders should be done away with. [By the way: "BlackListedNews" and others who are STILL linking to this corporatist site: just LOOK at Techdirt. This is not a "libertarian" outpost. It's Ivy League / Establishment like the New York Times / WashPo!]

    Wyden and Paul are impractical loonies. No country EVER practiced "libertarianism" because it's simply witlessly inviting people to "control themselves", which will never work, and without any awareness that are truly evil people around. It's the "philosophy" of overly-mothered thirteen-year-olds.

    And why even worry about gov't when the same fools with "smartphones" give away as much to utterly unknown entities? -- Which almost certainly gets to gov't! Only requires specific search, just as whatever they put in directly does.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/28/its-middle-night-do-you-know-who-your-iph one-is-talking/

    Whatever drawbacks you suffer are deserved.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      OGquaker, 30 May 2019 @ 9:16pm

      Re: your an ignorant xenophobic fuck

      Wiki: ...."On 30 December 1853, the [two] countries by agreement altered the [ 1,900 mile ] border from the initial one by increasing the number of border markers from 6 to 53. Most of these markers were simply piles of stones, ...later conventions, in 1882 and 1889, further clarified the boundaries, as some of the markers had been moved or destroyed. Photographers were brought in to document the location of the markers. These photographs are in Record Group 77, Records of the Office of the Chief Engineers, in the National Archives."

      California is the 6th or 9th largest economy on the planet BECAUSE of brown "illegals". France imports Algerians, Germany Turks, England Pakistanis, Japan Vietnamese, because their working age populations are shrinking, and fresh first generation aliens work hard. Thus, America had no immigrant boundary except the last century. Disclaimer; this Quaker meetinghouse started as a USC sorority for Asian students, they had no legal place to live in the 1930's. Hitler gave credit and precedents to our 1920's exclusion laws

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 30 May 2019 @ 9:22pm

      The obvious REASON why set up borders in first place is to keep out undesirables.

      In the case of the Trump administration, “undesirables“ means “brown people” regardless of any other context. I would ask if you share his views, but I’m pretty sure you don’t have any of your own to begin with.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2019 @ 10:53am

        Re:

        In the case of the Trump administration, “undesirables“ means “brown people” regardless of any other context.

        Sorry to burst your bubble, but you might be surprised to learn that Trump's immigration authorities have been arresting and deporting White, English-speaking Christians in record numbers.

        https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/us-crackdown-on-illegal-irish-intensifies-in-boston-1.3322 514

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 1 Jun 2019 @ 12:23pm

          And yet, the immigrants he targets in the press and on Twitter are from south of the American border. I haven’t heard him talk about Irish immigrants in any of his rants on the subject.

          Also, from that two-year-old article:

          the number of Irish deported from across the US since the Trump administration took power has risen to 34 from 26 last year

          That might be a “record number” of deported Irish people. But I doubt that number was significantly higher than the number of deported Mexican/Southern American people in 2017.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2019 @ 12:34pm

          Re: Re:

          Do any Irish immigrants get yelled at for speaking their native language?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 May 2019 @ 11:33pm

      Re:

      Whatever drawbacks you suffer are deserved.

      I agree. Now you have to pass the "whether the judge thinks your porn lawsuit is copyright trolling" test.

      Your tears are delicious. Please don't stop.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      AnonyOps, 31 May 2019 @ 12:34am

      Re: Yet another flight of fancy. As Shatner said: "This won't go

      What does an iphone have to do with "ut it's always a shock to Techdirt that even have borders! Techdirt being of globalist views has the notion that all borders should be done away with. [By the way: "BlackListedNews" and others who are STILL linking to this corporatist site: just LOOK at Techdirt. This is not a "libertarian" outpost. It's Ivy League / Establishment like the New York Times / WashPo!]"

      I think you have no path in logic or you're pathological.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        OGquaker, 31 May 2019 @ 11:25am

        Re: Re: Yet another flight of fancy. As Shatner said: "This won'

        Shatner was the epitome of white male privilege, after spouting BS about 'not interfering' with each and every obviously inferior culture around our Universe, Star-Dreck always had to introduce American exceptionalism & violence to resolve the Alien's 'problem'. At the Sci-Fi Convention® in 1977, Shatner answered the first question from the audience about StarWars; Are there no Blacks in Space? by inferring that Wookies are black inside.

        "It's death to cinema, I can't watch those Star Wars films, they're dead things." -film director Terry Gilliam

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 5 Jun 2019 @ 7:25am

      Re: Yet another flight of fancy. As Shatner said: "This won't go

      "Borders are not ordinary places nor ordinary conditions. NEVER have been anywhere since invented. The obvious REASON why set up borders in first place is to keep out undesirables."

      And this is absolutely irrelevant to the debate which has border patrol agents able to refuse entry if you don't unlock your phone - which is tantamount to giving up EVERY vestige of personal privacy without any cause or suspicion given.

      Actually dangerous criminals, meanwhile, who know there's the risk someone will demand they unlock their device, won't be dumb enough to actually carry one containing compromising data.

      As usual, Baghdad Bob, it appears the concept of "law" to you has nothing to do with proportionality, actual guilt, or reason.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Waitman (profile), 30 May 2019 @ 10:22pm

    Ah yes officer, my password is "DELETEALLFILES" . Thats all caps, no spaces.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 31 May 2019 @ 12:52am

    This week on 'Bills that should in NO way be needed...'

    It's just beyond sad that there is actually a need to make it explicit(again) that if you want to engage in a search you need a gorram warrant and can't just do it on a whim.

    While I'd give a snowball better odds of surviving hell than this bill surviving both houses and Trump, the fact remains that it is needed, and dearly, given how many government agencies/employees(and the gutless and/or corrupt judges that support them) consider that pesky 'Constitution' to be entirely optional and binding only at their whim.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2019 @ 2:41am

    They’re not “immigrants”; they’re illegal immigrants. Not acknowledging the difference disrespects those who put in the hard work to come to the country legally and shows your bias. It’s not about whether they commit more crime or not (not even counting the crime of entering illegally); it’s about respecting rule of law, the foundation of our country.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2019 @ 2:58am

      Re:

      You get called a racist a lot don’t you. And you also think that instead of you being a racist it’s everyone else’s problem isn’t it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2019 @ 8:51am

        Re: Re:

        You get called a racist a lot don’t you. And you also think that instead of you being a racist it’s everyone else’s problem isn’t it.

        You get called an idiot a lot don’t you. And you also think that instead of you being an idiot it’s everyone else’s problem isn’t it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 31 May 2019 @ 11:19am

        Re: Re:

        You get called a racist a lot don’t you.

        Fuck off with that noise. The whole "you're racist if you don't support unchecked illegal immigration" schtick is beyond tired at this point. No one actually believes it, even the ones hurling the accusation. It's just become a convenient way to shut up the opposition on the issue.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 31 May 2019 @ 8:03pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Support unchecked illegal immigration" is nothing more than a shit-filled strawman.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2019 @ 7:40am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            wth does that mean anyways

            I have not heard of anyone, even the anarchists, that suggest the borders be completely open - as in no walls, no customs, no checking at all. How ridiculous.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Toom1275 (profile), 1 Jun 2019 @ 8:55am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              It certainly is a bizarre false dichotomy - that the only alternative position to this administration's willful breaking of the law is to want no laws at all.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              btr1701 (profile), 1 Jun 2019 @ 10:43am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Then you haven't been paying attention. The open borders crowd on the Left is significant and vocal. And if you disagree with them and/or don't support anything less than unchecked movement of people from Central and South America into the U.S., you're immediately branded a racist by them.

              The Case for Opening Our Borders
              http://inthesetimes.com/features/immigration-reform-open-borders-ice-border-wall.html

              What if There Was No Border?
              https://www.vogue.com/article/open-borders-america-history-surveillance-citizenship

              Progress ives Should Support Open Borders — With No Apology
              https://fpif.org/progressives-should-support-open-borders-with-no-apology/

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2019 @ 12:41pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                The people you are accusing of wanting completely open borders are not "the crowd on the left" as you have attempted to portray them.

                Where do any of those articles claim anyone wants completely open borders? Where does it say that open borders means there is nothing at all stopping anything from crossing?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  btr1701 (profile), 3 Jun 2019 @ 11:11am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Where do any of those articles claim anyone wants completely open borders?

                  Jeezus Christ, it's in the damn title of one of the articles: "What if There was No Border?"

                  I can't tell if you actually that thick or if you're just playing stupid for effect.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              OGquaker, 1 Jun 2019 @ 2:57pm

              Your under a rock for a reason

              As a lifetime member of the basic anarchist religion of America (historically, 'Yearly' and '1/4ly' meetings only have a phone number, no desk, office or decision power, which rests only in the local meetings) i argued OPEN BORDERS at the 2000 Democratic Convention. Under NAFTA, our nations border are transparent to goods, services and capital; the French & Israel own & run our LA city bus system. Only persons (wages) are restricted. Thus, when GM opens a new plant in Chihwhwa Mexico, skilled employees are screwed. When GM shuts down their Detroit plant for each model change.... In a few years, the reverse happens, over and over since January 1, 1994. Under 'GDP', only that which is 'monetized' AND CROSSES A BORDER COUNTS, not like the GNP of Bretton Woods.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2019 @ 4:09pm

                Re: Your under a rock for a reason

                "Your under a rock for a reason"

                My under a rock? I assume you meant to type you're. Which, having looked around a bit, is absolutely not the case.

                Please tell us what you think open borders means.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2019 @ 9:24pm

                  You'r rock is the same wage for 40 years & a x10 house price

                  www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2012/06/01/gm-unloads-26-billion-in-white-collar-pensions-could-uni on-workers-be-next/

                  MIT says: " The top exports of Mexico are Cars ($45.1B), Vehicle Parts ($28B), Delivery Trucks ($26.7B), Computers ($22.5B) and Crude Petroleum ($19.5B), $307B into the US. "

                  He He, I'v misused You'r at least thrice, & nue some1 wood hook me, Jerk.

                  Webster spent the later half of his life creating his diction-ary too stratify America according to his vision based on white cristian & a class-based diction. A sub-set of Quakers have spent generations replacing Webster's spelng and enunciation to thwart the prerequisite of twelve years of formal education before entering polite society; thus a peculiar and deliberate Quaker lingo and a resistance to language oppression, manifest in Ebonics et al.

                  Wiki; " Noah preached the need to Christianize the nation.[46] Webster grew increasingly authoritarian and elitist, fighting against the prevailing grain of Jacksonian Democracy. Webster viewed language as a tool to control unruly thoughts. His American Dictionary emphasized the virtues of social control over human passions and individualism, submission to authority, and fear of God; they were necessary for the maintenance of the American social order. "

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2019 @ 11:36am

        Re: Re:

        You’re the only one talking about race, dimwit. The discussion is about rule of law, regardless of what race you are or where you come from. Try flying into the country (any country) from Norway, Mexico, or Canada without a passport, and I guarantee that your results will be the same, regardless of nationality. Get ready for a swift kick in the ass out of the country.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2019 @ 12:09pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          They also don't do daft things, like having border officers lie to asylees in express contravention of statute and international convention to prevent them from applying for asylum...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2019 @ 7:43am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Yeah.
            They do not rape the immigrants either. And they immigrants are provided sweet accommodations, why it is the life of riley. I might leave and come back simply for the free stuff!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2019 @ 8:40am

      Re:

      Hint: it's ICE who hasn't been respecting the rule of law re: asylum applicants as of late. (And that's but one of their many lawless acts, up to and including occasionally managing to deport US citizens in violation of their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Coyne Tibbets (profile), 31 May 2019 @ 5:52am

    Well, that's everyone isn't it?

    With the conspiratorial activities clause in there, the rest of the bill text might as well be quiche. The government already think every single living person is conspiring against the government. That's why they're searching all the devices in the first place.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2019 @ 6:28am

    Why?

    These are people who already spit on their oath to uphold the Constitution; why do you think that they'd be any more likely to obey a law that Congress passed?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2019 @ 6:35am

    Let's have our cake and eat it too.

    Proudly proclaim that citizen privacy and dignity is paramount, prove it by sponsoring a bill.

    Said bill has fine print and the fine print you are not supposed to be aware of says none of the above is applicable anywhere under certain circumstances ... which happens to be all the time.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2019 @ 7:21am

    Bill Introduced To Create A Warrant Requirement...

    Bill Introduced To Create A Warrant Requirement For Border Device Searches

    Gee, and here I was thinking that we already had such a requirement in the 4th amendment to the US Constitution.

    You know, it's getting pretty bad when the courts ignore the rights enshrined in the US Constitution and say "Oh that doesn't matter. If the government really wanted people to have those rights they would make a law saying so."

    So far, courts have been hesitant to push back against the government's assertions...

    Well, they are part of the same system, aren't they? What do you expect?

    Fuckers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    btr1701 (profile), 31 May 2019 @ 11:14am

    President Trump is still demanding a wall and has declared a national emergency simply because he wants to discourage immigrants from coming to this country.

    Pure baloney. He's not doing because he "wants to discourage immigrants from coming to this country".

    He's doing it because he "wants to discourage illegal aliens from illegally jumping the border into this country.

    You can be (justifiably) critical of Trump's wall effort without lying, Cushing. A little honesty in your rhetoric would go a long way.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2019 @ 11:46am

      Re:

      Unless his plan is to put it in the middle of the Rio Grande, they will already be in this country when they encounter the wall.

      It's a retarded idea that caters to xenophobic dimwits who apparently aspire to be melon-pickers and think Mexicans are taking their dream away from them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2019 @ 12:45pm

        Re: Re:

        It's funny to watch those who accuse immigrants of taking their jobs, but when offered they refuse to take the same jobs.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          R,og S/, 2 Jun 2019 @ 12:22pm

          Re: Re: Re:tired trope

          Have you ever scrubbed a toilet that wasnt your own, or tilled soil for a strangers garden?

          If not, please retire that trope that just sharted out of your faceass.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2019 @ 11:56am

      Re:

      You can be (justifiably) critical of Trump's wall effort without lying, Cushing. A little honesty in your rhetoric would go a long way.

      You (and other cops) should just be glad that this author no longer focuses on police brutality stories.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2019 @ 1:52pm

      Re:

      And here I thought he was doing all these crazy machinations for the votes.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 31 May 2019 @ 8:06pm

      Re:

      Pure baloney. He's not doing because he "wants to discourage immigrants from coming to this country".

      He's doing it because he "wants to discourage illegal aliens from illegally jumping the border into this country.

      [Asserts facts not in evidence]

      You can be (justifiably) critical of Trump's wall effort without lying, Cushing. A little honesty in your rhetoric would go a long way.

      That's so easy, in fact, that that's... exactly what Tim already did.

      Perhaps you should lay off potent hallucinogens like Sean Hannity's emissions.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 1 Jun 2019 @ 10:46am

        Re: Re:

        > > Pure baloney. He's not doing because he "wants to discourage immigrants from coming to this country". > > He's doing it because he "wants to discourage illegal aliens from illegally jumping the border into this country. > [Asserts facts not in evidence] The evidence is that a wall wouldn't stop anyone *but* illegal aliens. Legitimate immigrants don't cross the border in the open desert out in the middle of nowhere, genius.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2019 @ 12:47pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yeah, your wall will stop a few. Only problem is that most illegal immigrants are not from Mexico and did not cross the border from Mexico.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            btr1701 (profile), 2 Jun 2019 @ 4:44pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Yeah, your wall will stop a few.

            Ah, here we have another member of the Disingenuous Ad Hom Brigade.

            It's not 'my wall'. I've never advocated for it. In my initial post, I even said criticism of the wall was justified. But here you are calling it 'my wall' so you can take a cheap shot.

            That trick might be effective if you can find someone stupid enough to fall for it.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 1 Jun 2019 @ 10:17pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Exactly - no evidence whatsoever.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            btr1701 (profile), 2 Jun 2019 @ 4:42pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Toom1275: "Asserts facts not in evidence"

            Me: <points out the evidence is basic logic and common sense>

            Toom1275: "No evidence!"

            It's impossible to do anything with that. You're basically doing that thing that 5-year-olds do when they shut their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, and chant 'la-la-la' to avoid an unwanted truth.

            You have fun with that.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Toom1275 (profile), 2 Jun 2019 @ 8:29pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Me: points out the evidence is basic logic and common sense

              Emulating Jhon's call-hallucinations-logic-and-common-sense schtick lole that isn't that great of an idea.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                btr1701 (profile), 3 Jun 2019 @ 11:13am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Well, then why don't you tell me how many legal immigrants cross the border out in the middle of the open desert where there is no port of entry?

                Tell me how that works in detail, since you're so clever and I'm 'hallucinating'.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Toom1275 (profile), 4 Jun 2019 @ 9:53am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  DHS counts ~60k asylum seekers from South American origins in 2017. As Trump keeps shutting down the legal ports of entry to keep the browns out, 'illegal' ones have to pick up the gap.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Toom1275 (profile), 4 Jun 2019 @ 9:58am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Addendum: Legal presence (asylum) overrides "illegal" method (desert).

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      btr1701 (profile), 4 Jun 2019 @ 11:59am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Legal presence (asylum) overrides "illegal" method (desert).

                      No, it doesn't. Asylum requests have to be made according to the established policies and procedures found in the enabling treaty. You don't get to do whatever you want and then claim it's legal because asylum.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Toom1275 (profile), 4 Jun 2019 @ 7:20pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Crossing the border illegally, then suddenly declaring asylum only when caught

                        do whatever you want and then claim it's legal because asylum.

                        [citation needed]
                        (from a fact-based source, please)

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    btr1701 (profile), 4 Jun 2019 @ 11:58am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    (1) Asylum is not immigration. Legally, they are two completely different things. People requesting asylum are not immigrants.

                    (2) Crossing the border illegally, then suddenly declaring asylum only when caught, is not a legitimate way to seek asylum, so 'picking up the gap' doesn't turn illegal aliens into legal ones.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 31 May 2019 @ 12:14pm

    REALLY..

    So, they can HOLD my phone until they get the warrant????
    And that takes how long?? And my Phone is no longer in my possession??

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2019 @ 5:44am

    "President Trump is still demanding a wall and has declared a national emergency simply because he wants to discourage immigrants from coming to this country."

    Way to insert your bias way way up in there. False statement by the way, but you knew that already.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.