The NAACP has responded to Missouri‘s recent legislation on discrimination by issuing a travel warning for the state. The advisory calls for travelers to utilize “extreme caution” in the state due to the likelihood of “discrimination and harassment,” CBS NewsreportedTuesday. Rod Chapel Jr., president of the state’s NAACP chapter, has described Republican Governor Eric Greitens’ recent legislation as “the Jim Crow bill,” a reference to the segregation tactics of the South.
The state’s legislation will make lawsuits alleging discrimination much more difficult to win, as victims will now have to present proof that discrimination was the main reason for a defendant’s actions. Previously, suits required proof that bias was a contributing factor. The bill also bars employees from suing any individual for discrimination, meaning only the company itself can be named in a suit.
“The advisory means each individual should pay special attention while in the state of Missouri and certainly if contemplating spending time in Missouri,” the NAACP said in a statement. The NAACP added that the advisory was put into place to make Missourians and visitors aware of “looming danger” in the state, which has a “long history of race, gender, and color-based crimes.” The travel advisory will be sent to the national NAACP board for ratification in October after being voted into adoption last week.
According to a report from the Kansas City Star, the advisory is the first of its kind from the civil rights group. “People need to be ready, whether it’s bringing bail money with them, or letting relatives know they are traveling through the state,” Chapel said. In 2015 alone, 100 hate crimes were reported in Missouri.
The NAACP highlighted a number of recent and troubling incidents in their statement, including the death of Tory Sanders in May. Sanders, a Tennessee resident, ran out of fuel in Charleston, Missouri after taking a drive to “clear his head.” The 28-year-old father of eight called his mother and asked if police could help him, the Riverfront Timesreported in May.
Ultimately, Sanders’ interaction with cops included what they characterized as a “mental break.” Sanders’ aunt, Natasha Nance, said he told his mother on a phone call from jail that officers were “trying to kill” him. Sanders reportedly collapsed while officers attempted to restrain him and was later pronounced dead at a nearby hospital.
Read the NAACP’s (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) full statement on the Missouri travel advisory here.
Wednesday’s White House news briefing began not with press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders but with senior adviser Stephen Miller, whose nationalist immigration positions have been highly influential in the administration. Miller was at the lectern to discuss the Raise Act, legislation crafted by Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) and introduced by President Trump earlier in the day.
During his brief stint addressing the White House press corps, Miller got into two serious arguments with reporters, an impressive if not surprising accomplishment. One, with CNN’s Jim Acosta, included accusations of Acosta having a “cosmopolitan bias” in his thinking about immigration. (Worth noting: Acosta is the son of immigrants.) But the other, a dust-up with the New York Times’ Glenn Thrush, was more significant.
Before getting into that, though, it’s worth isolating part of Miller’s introduction to the topic, the sentence that formed the crux of his rhetoric in defense of a bill that will slice legal immigration in half if it is enacted into law.
“You’ve seen over time as a result of this historic flow of unskilled immigration,” Miller said, “a shift in wealth from the working class to wealthier corporations and businesses, and it’s been very unfair for American workers, but especially for immigrant workers, African American workers and Hispanic workers, and blue-collar workers in general across the country.”
That line does two things that are essential to Miller’s sales pitch. First, it blames income inequality — assuming that money headed to “wealthier corporations” means to those corporations’ owners — on increased immigration. Second, it highlights the effects on black, Hispanic and immigrant workers in particular.
There has been research that links increased income inequality to immigration. A 2015 paper by a trio of researchers found just such a link. But assuming that link, it’s clearly not the only — or even the primary — driver of income inequality. A graph created by those researchers makes clear that the inequality (as measured with the Gini coefficient) would be nearly as high without the effects of immigration.
The effect of immigrants, the researchers say, is “modest.” But Miller presents the “shift in wealth” as being a “result” of the flow of unskilled immigrants. In other analyses of that increased gap, immigration isn’t mentioned.
Miller’s suggestion that those most affected by this shift are other communities of color, meanwhile, is a classic tactic aimed at appealing to working-class Americans and nonwhite voters by blaming immigrants for their problems. (Hillary Clinton did something similarduring a debate in the 2008 primaries.)
When Miller began to take questions, Thrush asked him very specifically for data to back up his points.
THRUSH: First of all, let’s have some statistics. There have been a lot of studies out there that don’t show a correlation between low-skilled immigration and the loss of jobs for native workers. Cite for me, if you could, one or two studies with specific numbers that prove the correlation between those two things, because your entire policy is based on that. …
MILLER: I think the most recent study I would point to is the study from George Borjas that he just did about the Mariel Boatlift. And he went back and reexamined and opened up the old data and talked about how it actually did reduce wages for workers who were living there at the time.
And Borjas has, of course, done enormous amounts of research on this, as has the — Peter Kirsanow on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, as has Steve Camarota at the Center for Immigration Studies, and so on and so on.
We’ll jump in here first to note that Miller offered no statistics but did point to one study.
That study from Borjas looked at the migration of more than 100,000 Cubans into Florida in 1980. Borjas found that wages among the least-educated workers in Miami dropped 10 to 30 percent as a result of the influx. Borjas’s study was a direct rebuttal to a 1990 study by David Card, which found “virtually no effect” on wages or unemployment rates, even among the Cuban immigrant community that was already in the area.
Borjas’s study was itself soon rebutted, as the National Review noted, with researchers pointing out that he didn’t account for other demographic shifts in the area that may have had a significant effect on wages.
Miller also notes two other individuals, one of whom works for the staunchly anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies — and then implies a surfeit of other data with a casual “and so on, and so on.”
THRUSH: What about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine? …
MILLER: One recent study said that as much as $300 billion a year may be lost as a result of our current immigration system, in terms of folks drawing more public benefits than they’re paying in.
Thrush raises a recent study showing that immigrants don’t take the jobs of native-born Americans, with the exception of teenagers who didn’t finish high school, who saw a drop in hours of work.
Miller responds by noting that the study also found that new immigrants cost nearly $300 billion a year more in government spending than they pay in taxes — though that’s the far end of a spectrum of estimates that starts at $43 billion. By the second generation, immigrant families add a net of $30 billion a year.
Then things got tense.
MILLER: But let’s also use common sense here, folks. At the end of the day, why do special interests want to bring in more low-skill workers? And why, historically …
THRUSH: I’m not asking for common sense. I’m asking for specific statistical data. How many …
MILLER: Well, I think it’s very clear, Glenn, that you’re not asking for common sense. But if I could just answer — if I could just answer your question …
THRUSH: Common sense is fungible, statistics are not.
MILLER: … I named — I named — I named the studies, Glenn.
THRUSH: Let me just finish the question …
MILLER: Glenn. Glenn.
THRUSH: Tell me the …
MILLER: I named the studies. I named the studies.
Again: He named one study. At this point, it got personal.
THRUSH: I asked you for a statistic. Can you tell me how many — how many …
MILLER: Glenn. The — maybe we’ll make a carve-out in the bill that says the New York Times can hire all the low-skilled, less-paid workers they want from other countries and see how you feel then about low-wage substitution. …
You know, maybe it’s time we had compassion, Glenn, for American workers. President Trump has met with American workers who have been replaced by foreign workers.
THRUSH: Stephen, I’m not questioning any of that. I’m asking …
MILLER: And ask them — ask them how this has affected their lives.
The exchange went on in this vein for a while, with Miller ultimately pointing not to statistical data showing a need for the policy but to general statistics about unemployment.
Ultimately, Miller again asked Thrush to set aside his request for data and to consider common sense.
“The reality is that if you just use common sense — and, yes, I will use common sense,” Miller said, “the reason why some companies want to bring in more unskilled labor is because they know that it drives down wages and reduces labor costs. Our question as a government is, to whom is our duty? Our duty is to U.S. citizens and U.S. workers, to promote rising wages for them.”
That raised an obvious question, which other reporters subsequently jumped on: Why do Trump’s private businesses continue to seek visas allowing them to hire immigrants for low-wage jobs?
“I’ll just refer everyone here today back to the president’s comments during the primary, when this was raised in a debate,” Miller replied, “and he said: ‘My job as a businessman is to follow the laws of the United States. And my job as president is to create an immigration system that works for American workers.’ ”
It’s just common sense.
Emma Lazarus Poem at Statue of Liberty. Image: http://patriotretort.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Only-a-poem.jpg
Letrado Pedro Angulo dice que modificación planteada por el Ejecutivo atenta contra independencia y autonomía de jueces y fiscales.
Poder del Estado y Organismo Constitucionalmente Autónomo. Composición: http://www.elpolitico.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/comgreso-peru.jpg y http://cde.peru21.pe/ima/0/0/2/4/2/242341.jpg
El proyecto de ley para reformar la conformación del Consejo Nacional de la Magistratura (CNM), presentado por el presidente Pedro Pablo Kuczynski ante el Congreso, ha causado preocupación en algunas instituciones, como los colegios de abogados.
“Este proyecto, que coincide con otro que había presentado el legislador Gilbert Violeta, nos causa gran preocupación, pues se está proponiendo la eliminación de los representantes del colegio de abogados y de los demás colegios profesionales en el CNM”, dijo el decano del Colegio de Abogados de Lima, Pedro Angulo.
El letrado recalcó que se pretende hacer una modificación constitucional, que, según él, afectaría la actual conformación del CNM establecida en la Carta Magna y que violentaría su autonomía. “Lo que se está buscando es que el Ejecutivo y el Legislativo sean los que designen a los miembros del CNM, y eso pondría en una situación de precariedad la independencia y autonomía de los jueces y fiscales. Eso es lo que más nos preocupa”, manifestó a este Diario.
Adelantó que los decanos de los colegios de abogados del país se reunirán en Lima la próxima semana para expresar públicamente su discrepancia con el proyecto y exhortar al Ejecutivo a evaluar bien el asunto.
En el CNM, los colegios de abogados tienen un representante, mientras que el resto de colegios profesionales tienen dos.
El primero en salir a cuestionar el proyecto fue el presidente del CNM, Guido Aguila, quien manifestó a El Comercio que dicha propuesta es un riesgo que acabaría politizando la justicia. “El proyecto propone que los siete miembros del CNM se reduzcan a cinco y que, de esos cinco, uno sea nombrado por el Ejecutivo y el otro por el Congreso. Así, el 40% del CNM tendría un tinte político”, dijo.
Lamentó que el proyecto no se haya conversado en el Acuerdo Nacional por la Justicia, en el que se ha venido trabajando la reforma del CNM. “Ha sido una sorpresa conocer ese proyecto en el mensaje”, subrayó.
A newly married couple are hoping “to show the whole world that you can be gay and Muslim” after their wedding in the West Midlands.
Jahed Choudhury and Sean Rogan married in Walsall, in one of the UK’s first same-sex marriages involving a Muslim partner.
Footage showed the couple dressed in traditional Bangladeshi attire to say their vows while surrounded by loved ones at the town’s registry office.
Mr Choudhury, 24, told the Express and Starhe felt like the “black sheep” of his Bangladeshi Muslim family, being bullied at school, attacked by other Muslims and banned from his local mosque.
He said he attempted to change his sexual orientation and went on religious pilgrimages to Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh but became suicidal and attempted to kill himself before meeting Mr Rogan.
They started living together in 2015 and Mr Choudhury proposed on his husband’s birthday last year.
Mr Choudhury said: “This is about showing people I don’t care, my family doesn’t want to come on the day, they just don’t want to see it, it’s too embarrassing for them.
“They think it’s a disease and can be cured, some of my family still call it a phase.
“I want to say to all people going through the same thing that’s it’s okay – we’re going to show the whole world that you can be gay and Muslim.”
Mr Rogan, 19, told the Express and Star he would stand by his husband “every step of the way”.
“Being gay’s not wrong, it’s not ‘a phase’,” he added. “People just need a bit of support.”
A spokesperson for the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the religion of spouses was not routinely recorded at non-religious ceremonies.
The number of same-sex religious marriages recorded in 2014, the most recent year of available data, was too small for a breakdown to be made available.
The Muslim Council of Britain, which represents more than 500 organisations and mosques, was among the religious bodies including the Church of England opposing the legalisation of same-sex marriage in England and Wales in 2013.
El día de hoy fue publicada una portada tendenciosa, por no decir amarillista, del Diario Exitosa, referida a una supuesta falta cometida por la actual Ministra de Educación Marilu Martens. La “denuncia” hecha por el diario “informa” que el hijo de la mencionada funcionaria fue beneficiado con una beca del Programa “Beca 18”.
Tendencioso titular del Diario Exitosa
La raíz de la denuncia proviene una ex trabajadora del programa Beca 18 quien aduce que fue despedida luego de no otorgársele esta subvención al hijo de Martens. La verdad es que ella era funcionaria de confianza de libre designación y remoción.
Al respecto, es interesante ver como el diario ha sobredimensionado esta situación de forma muy tendenciosa cuando:
1. Confunde el programa Beca 18 (subvención económica para buenos estudiantes con serias limitaciones económicas) con la Beca Presidente de la República (abierto para que cualquier ciudadano peruano pueda postular para estudiar un postgrado tanto en el Perú como en el extranjero).
2. La Constitución Política de 1993 señala que todo peruano tiene derecho a requerir o solicitar ante una autoridad publica un servicio o el otorgamiento de un derecho (art. 2.20).
3. El hijo de Martens aplicó a la subvención económica que otorga la Beca Presidente de la República, lo que es muy distinto a haber sido beneficiado con ella. Obviamente su ficha socioeconómica lo hizo no elegible.
4. La aplicación a la beca fue realizada en el año2014, Añoen que Martens aún no era Ministra de Educación (Funcionaria Publica), sino asesora, es decir funcionaria de confianza. Al respecto se puede notar la diferencia conceptual entre ambas categorías en la ley 30057, artículos 3.a y 3.e.
5. El hijo de la Ministra Martens ya era mayor de edad al momento de realizar el tramite en cuestión, ella no lo hizo postular a la beca. Dicho derecho esta consagrado en la Constitución Política del Perú de 1993 y las normativa emitida por PRONABEC (impedimentos para los familiares directos de trabajadores del programa).
6. El diario en cuestión aprovecha la paupérrima comprensión lectora de algunos peruanos para realizar una denuncia que hace agua por todos lados: “Ministra Marilú Martens hizo postular a su hijo en el programa Beca 18”.
7. Es interesante confirmar que el actual Director del diario en cuestión es Martín Valdivia Rodriguez (al respecto leer: Ex director de diarios, El Chino y El Men, ahora es director de Diario Exitosa). Obviamente este tipo de pasquines no solicitan declaración de la parte involucrada y publican con la mayor frescura una noticia tendenciosa (tiran la piedra y esconden la mano).
Si bien existe libertad de expresión y de prensa en el país, no es posible que se realicen acusaciones que no tienen asidero real. El titular de Diario Exitosa es un insulto a la labor informativa del periodismo en el país. Asimismo, no sorprende que los intereses por llevar a la actual Ministra a una interpelación en el Congreso estén motivados por grupos religiosos ultraconservadores que se la tienen jurada a cualquier Ministro de Educación que no comulgue con su postura anti inclusiva y que avala los crímenes de odio contra la comunidad LGBTQI (léase evangélicos radicales), asi como los propietarios de varias “universidades chicha”. Ver: Pleno aprobó derogatoria del DL 1323 en un duro golpe contra los crímenes de odio.
Diario Exitosa ha patinado horrible así como muchos borregos y “Trolls” de la oposición, quienes simplemente reaccionaron e insultaron sin analizar la fuente de la “noticia”. Incluso las declaraciones de los congresistas Lourdes Alcorta y Yonhy Lescano Ancieta demuestran una ignorancia supina sobre el caso. Ello dice mucho del nivel de comprensión y análisis de muchos peruanos en redes sociales, lo que asusta en demasía ya que el Perú puede llegar a ser un excelente caldo de cultivo para el desarrollo del triste y creciente fenómeno denominado “Fake News”.
Many people think that border-related policies impact only 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, about 200 million people, lives within the 100-mile zone that an outdated federal regulation defines as the border zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal border.
Although this zone is not literally “Constitution free”—constitutional protections do still apply—the Border Patrol frequently ignores those protections and runs roughshod over individuals’ civil liberties.
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.
La Carta de los Derechos de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos señala en la Cuarta Enmienda:
“El derecho de los habitantes de que sus personas, domicilios, papeles y efectos se hallen a salvo de pesquisas y aprehensiones arbitrarias, será inviolable, y no se expedirán al efecto mandamientos que no se apoyen en un motivo verosímil, estén corroborados mediante juramento o protesta y describan con particularidad el lugar que deba ser registrado y las personas o cosas que han de ser detenidas o embargadas.”
“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.”
Así mismo, la Primera Enmienda:
“El Congreso no podrá hacer ninguna ley con respecto al establecimiento de la religión, ni prohibiendo la libre práctica de la misma; ni limitando la libertad de expresión, ni de prensa; ni el derecho a la asamblea pacífica de las personas, ni de solicitar al gobierno una compensación de agravios.”
“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.”
Recent detentions and seizures of phones and other material from travelers to the United States have sparked concern and alarm.
Travelers arrive at the international terminal at John F. Kennedy International Airport on March 6th, 2017, in New York City. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
A NASA scientist heading home to the United States said he was detained in January at a Houston airport, where Customs and Border Protection officers pressured him for access to his work phone and its potentially sensitive contents.
Last month, CPB agents checked the identification of passengers leaving a domestic flight at New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport during a search for an immigrant with a deportation order.
And in October, border agents seized phones and other work-related material from a Canadian photojournalist. They blocked him from entering the U.S. after he refused to unlock the phones, citing his obligation to protect his sources.
These and other recentincidents have revived confusion and alarm over what powers border officials actually have and, perhaps more importantly, how to know when they are overstepping their authority.
The unsettling fact is that border officials have long had broad powers — many people just don’t know about them. Border officials, for instance, have search powers that extend 100 air miles inland from any external boundary of the U.S. That means border agents can stop and question people at fixed checkpoints dozens of miles from U.S. borders. They can also pull over motorists whom they suspect of a crime as part of “roving” border patrol operations.
Sowing even more uneasiness, ambiguity around the agency’s search powers — especially over electronic devices — has persisted for years as courts nationwide address legal challenges raised by travelers, privacy advocates, and civil rights groups.
We’ve dug out answers about the current state-of-play when it comes to border searches, along with links to more detailed resources.
Doesn’t the Fourth Amendment protect us from “unreasonable searches and seizures”?
Yes. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution articulates the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” However, those protections are lessened when entering the country at international terminals at airports, other ports of entry, and subsequently any location that falls within 100 air miles of an external U.S. boundary.
How broad is Customs and Border Protection’s search authority?
According to federal statutes, regulations, and court decisions, CBP officers have the authority to inspect, without a warrant, any person trying to gain entry into the country and their belongings. CBP can also question individuals about their citizenship or immigration status and ask for documents that prove admissibility into the country.
This blanket authority for warrantless, routine searches at a port of entry ends when CBP decides to undertake a more invasive procedure, such as a body cavity search. For these kinds of actions, the CBP official needs to have some level of suspicion that a particular person is engaged in illicit activity, not simply that the individual is trying to enter the U.S.
Does CBP’s search authority cover electronic devices like smartphones and laptops?
Yes. CBP refers to several statutes and regulations in justifying its authority to examine “computers, disks, drives, tapes, mobile phones and other communication devices, cameras, music and other media players, and any other electronic or digital devices.”
According to current CBP policy, officials should search electronic devices with a supervisor in the room, when feasible, and also in front of the person being questioned “unless there are national security, law enforcement, or other operational considerations” that take priority. For instance, if allowing a traveler to witness the search would reveal sensitive law enforcement techniques or compromise an investigation, “it may not be appropriate to allow the individual to be aware of or participate in a border search,” according to a 2009 privacy impact assessment by the Department of Homeland Security.
CBP says it can conduct these searches “with or without” specific suspicion that the person who possesses the items is involved in a crime.
With a supervisor’s sign-off, CBP officers can also seize an electronic device — or a copy of the information on the device — “for a brief, reasonable period of time to perform a thorough border search.” Such seizures typically shouldn’t exceed five days, although officers can apply for extensions in up to one-week increments, according to CBP policy. If a review of the device and its contents does not turn up probable cause for seizing it, CBP says it will destroy the copied information and return the device to its owner.
Can CBP really search my electronic devices without any specific suspicion that I might have committed a crime?
The Supreme Court has not directly ruled on this issue. However, a 2013 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — one level below the Supreme Court — provides some guidance on potential limits to CBP’s search authority.
In a majority decision, the court affirmed that cursory searches of laptops — such as having travelers turn their devices on and then examining their contents — does not require any specific suspicions about the travelers to justify them.
The court, however, raised the bar for a “forensic examination” of the devices, such as using “computer software to analyze a hard drive.” For these more powerful, intrusive, and comprehensive searches, which could provide access to deleted files and search histories, password-protected information and other private details, border officials must have a “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity — not just a hunch.
As it stands, the 2013 appeals court decision legally applies only to the nine Western states in the Ninth Circuit, including California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. It’s not clear whether CBP has taken the 2013 decision into account more broadly: The last time the agency publicly updated its policy for searching electronic devices was in 2009. CBP is currently reviewing that policy and there is “no specific timeline” for when an updated version might be announced, according to the agency.
“Laptop computers, iPads and the like are simultaneously offices and personal diaries. They contain the most intimate details of our lives,” the court’s decision said. “It is little comfort to assume that the government — for now — does not have the time or resources to seize and search the millions of devices that accompany the millions of travelers who cross our borders. It is the potential unfettered dragnet effect that is troublesome.”
During the 2016 fiscal year, CBP officials conducted 23,877 electronic media searches, a five-fold increase from the previous year. In both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years, the agency processed more than 380 million arriving travelers.
Am I legally required to disclose the password for my electronic device or social media, if CBP asks for it?
That’s still an unsettled question, according to Liza Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “Until it becomes clear that it’s illegal to do that, they’re going to continue to ask,” she said.
The Fifth Amendment says that no one shall be made to serve as “a witness against himself” in a criminal case. Lower courts, however, have produced differing decisions on how exactly the Fifth Amendment applies to the disclosure of passwords to electronic devices.
Customs officers have the statutory authority “to demand the assistance of any person in making any arrest, search, or seizure authorized by any law enforced or administered by customs officers, if such assistance may be necessary.” That statute has traditionally been invoked by immigration agents to enlist the help of local, state, and other federal law enforcement agencies, according to Nathan Wessler, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. Whether the statute also compels individuals being interrogated by border officials to divulge their passwords has not been directly addressed by a court, Wessler said.
Even with this legal uncertainty, CBP officials have broad leverage to induce travelers to share password information, especially when someone just wants to catch their flight, get home to family, or be allowed to enter the country. “Failure to provide information to assist CBP may result in the detention and/or seizure of the electronic device,” according to a statement provided by CBP.
Travelers who refuse to give up passwords could also be detained for longer periods and have their bags searched more intrusively. Foreign visitors could be turned away at the border, and green card holders could be questioned and challenged about their continued legal status.
“People need to think about their own risks when they are deciding what to do. U.S. citizens may be comfortable doing things that non-citizens aren’t, because of how CBP may react,” Wessler said.
What is some practical advice for protecting my digital information?
Consider which devices you absolutely need to travel with, and which ones you can leave at home. Setting a strong password and encrypting your devices are helpful in protecting your data, but you may still lose access to your devices for undefined periods should border officials decide to seize and examine their contents.
Another option is to leave all of your devices behind and carry a travel-only phone free of most personal information. However, even this approach carries risks. “We also flag the reality that if you go to extreme measures to protect your data at the border, that itself may raise suspicion with border agents,” according to Sophia Cope, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “It’s so hard to tell what a single border agent is going to do.”
The EFF has released an updated guide to data protection options here.
Does CBP recognize any exceptions to what it can examine on electronic devices?
If CBP officials want to search legal documents, attorney work product, or information protected by attorney-client privilege, they may have to follow “special handling procedures,” according to agency policy. If there’s suspicion that the information includes evidence of a crime or otherwise relates to “the jurisdiction of CBP,” the border official must consult the CBP associate/assistant chief counsel before undertaking the search.
As for medical records and journalists’ notes, CBP says its officers will follow relevant federal laws and agency policies in handling them. When asked for more information on these procedures, an agency spokesperson said that CBP has “specific provisions” for dealing with this kind of information, but did not elaborate further. Questions that arise regarding these potentially sensitive materials can be handled by the CBP associate/assistant chief counsel, according to CBP policy. The agency also says that it will protect business or commercial information from “unauthorized disclosure.”
Am I entitled to a lawyer if I’m detained for further questioning by CBP?
No. According to a statement provided by CBP, “All international travelers arriving to the U.S. are subject to CBP processing, and travelers bear the burden of proof to establish that they are clearly eligible to enter the United States. Travelers are not entitled to representation during CBP administrative processing, such as primary and secondary inspection.”
Even so, some immigration lawyers recommend that travelers carry with them the number for a legal aid hotline or a specific lawyer who will be able to help them, should they get detained for further questioning at a port of entry.
“It is good practice to ask to speak to a lawyer,” said Paromita Shah, associate director at the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. “We always encourage people to have a number where their attorney can be reached, so they can explain what is happening and their attorney can try to intervene. It’s definitely true that they may not be able to get into the actual space, but they can certainly intervene.”
Lawyers who fill out this form on behalf of a traveler headed into the U.S. might be allowed to advocate for that individual, although local practices can vary, according to Shah.
Can I record my interaction with CBP officials?
Individuals on public land are allowed to record and photograph CBP operations so long as their actions do not hinder traffic, according to CBP. However, the agency prohibits recording and photography in locations with special security and privacy concerns, including some parts of international airports and other secure port areas.
Does CBP’s power to stop and question people extend beyond the border and ports of entry?
Yes. Federal statutes and regulations empower CBP to conduct warrantless searches for people traveling illegally from another country in any “railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle” within 100 air miles from “any external boundary” of the country. About two-thirds of the U.S. population live in this zone, including the residents of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Houston, according to the ACLU.
As a result, CBP currently operates 35 checkpoints, where they can stop and question motorists traveling in the U.S. about their immigration status and make “quick observations of what is in plain view” in the vehicle without a warrant, according to the agency. Even at a checkpoint, however, border officials cannot search a vehicle’s contents or its occupants unless they have probable cause of wrongdoing, the agency says. Failing that, CBP officials can ask motorists to allow them to conduct a search, but travelers are not obligated to give consent.
When asked how many people were stopped at CBP checkpoints in recent years, as well as the proportion of those individuals detained for further scrutiny, CBP said they didn’t have the data “on hand” but that the number of people referred for secondary questioning was “minimum.” At the same time, the agency says that checkpoints “have proven to be highly effective tools in halting the flow of illegal traffic into the United States.”
Within 25 miles of any external boundary, CBP has the additional patrol power to enter onto private land, not including dwellings, without a warrant.
Where can CBP set up checkpoints?
CBP chooses checkpoint locations within the 100-mile zone that help “maximize border enforcement while minimizing effects on legitimate traffic,” the agency says.
At airports that fall within the 100-mile zone, CBP can also set up checkpoints next to airport security to screen domestic passengers who are trying to board their flights, according to Chris Rickerd, a policy counsel at the ACLU’s National Political Advocacy Department.
“When you fly out of an airport in the southwestern border, say McAllen, Brownsville, or El Paso, you have Border Patrol standing beside TSA when they’re doing the checks for security. They ask you the same questions as when you’re at a checkpoint. ‘Are you a U.S. citizen?’ They’re essentially doing a brief immigration inquiry in the airport because it’s part of the 100-mile zone,” Rickerd said. “I haven’t seen this at the northern border.”
Can CBP do anything outside of the 100-mile zone?
Yes. Many of CBP’s law enforcement and patrol activities, such as questioning individuals, collecting evidence, and making arrests, are not subject to the 100-mile rule, the agency says. For instance, the geographical limit does not apply to stops in which border agents pull a vehicle over as part of a “roving patrol” and not a fixed checkpoint, according to Rickerd of the ACLU. In these scenarios, border agents need reasonable suspicion that an immigration violation or crime has occurred to justify the stop, Rickerd said.
The ACLU has sued the government multipletimes for data on roving patrol and checkpoint stops. Based on an analysis of records released in response to one of those lawsuits, the ACLU found that CBP officials in Arizona failed “to record any stops that do not lead to an arrest, even when the stop results in a lengthy detention, search, and/or property damage.”
The lack of detailed and easily accessible data poses a challenge to those seeking to hold CBP accountable to its duties.
“On the one hand, we fight so hard for reasonable suspicion to actually exist rather than just the whim of an officer to stop someone, but on the other hand, it’s not a standard with a lot of teeth,” Rickerd said. “The courts would scrutinize it to see if there’s anything impermissible about what’s going on. But if we don’t have data, how do you figure that out?”
This story originally appeared on ProPublica as “Can Customs and Border Officials Search Your Phone? These Are Your Rights” and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
It was the most dramatic night in the United States Senate in recent history. Just ask the senators who witnessed it.
A seven-year quest to undo the Affordable Care Act collapsed — at least for now — as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) kept his colleagues and the press corps in suspense over a little more than two hours late Thursday into early Friday.
Not since September 2008, when the House of Representatives rejected the Troubled Asset Relief Program — causing the Dow Jones industrial average to plunge nearly 800 points in a single afternoon — had such an unexpected vote caused such a striking twist.
The bold move by the nation’s most famous senator stunned his colleagues and possibly put the Senate on the verge of protracted bipartisan talks that McCain is unlikely to witness as he begins treatment for an aggressive form of brain cancer.
“I’ve stated time and time again that one of the major failures of Obamacare was that it was rammed through Congress by Democrats on a strict party-line basis without a single Republican vote,” he said in a statement explaining his vote. “We should not make the mistakes of the past.”
Rumors swirled late Thursday that the Arizona Republican, who had captured the nation’s sympathy this week after delaying his cancer treatment in order to return to Washington, might vote against the GOP’s “skinny repeal” plan — a watered-down version of earlier Republican proposals to repeal the 2010 health-care law.
McCain warned at a hastily arranged news conference Thursday afternoon that he was leaning against supporting the legislation unless House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) assured GOP senators that the House would not move to quickly approve the bill in its current form. McCain and Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) wanted Ryan to launch broad House-Senate negotiations for a wider rollback of the law. Two hours later, Ryan issued a statement signaling he would launch negotiations, and Graham and Johnson announced their support.
McCain headed for the stage — the Senate floor — around midnight, emerging from his office in the Russell Senate Office Building for the subway ride to the U.S. Capitol.
When he arrived, he held a brief conversation with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer ( D-N.Y.), an exchange that left the New Yorker smiling.
“I knew it when he walked on the floor,” Schumer later recounted, explaining that McCain had already called to share his plans.
But few, if any, of his Republican colleagues realized what was about to transpire.
Two votes were called just after midnight. The first was on a Democratic proposal to refer the “skinny repeal” bill back to a committee. The second vote was to pass “skinny repeal,” which would have repealed the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate and rolled back a tax on medical devices.
“Let’s vote against skinny repeal,” Schumer told his colleagues before the votes as he once again derided the rushed nature of the health-care debate.
McCain stood on the Republican side of the room nodding in agreement.
With Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) already planning to vote against the plan, Republicans could not afford to lose McCain. Vice President Pence was already at the Capitol prepared to break a tie. Instead, he launched a last-ditch effort to win McCain’s support.
As the first vote began, McCain took his seat next to Graham, his closest friend in the Senate. The South Carolinian mostly nodded as McCain gesticulated, and signaled — through his body language — that he was likely to vote no. When Murkowski walked over to join the conversation, McCain winked and gave her a thumbs down — signaling his intentions.
Collins joined the group as another clutch of Republican senators formed in the well of the Senate Chamber. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who operates in McCain’s long shadow, stood next to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who counts GOP votes, and Pence. Eventually, Flake was dispatched to talk to McCain.
He obliged, walked over to McCain and asked Graham to move over one seat. But McCain did not acknowledge Flake, focusing instead on Murkowski and Collins.
That left Flake, one of the most polite members of the Senate, leaning into the conversation uncomfortably with a pained look on his face, as if he had to tell his father that he had run over the family dog with his car.
Seeing that Flake was not making progress, Pence walked over at 12:44 a.m. McCain smiled, pointed at Collins and Murkowski, said something about “marching orders,” and stood up.
“Mr. Vice President,” he said, greeting Pence. For the next 21 minutes, the vice president cajoled McCain, Collins and Murkowski. Twice during the conversation, a Pence aide came to whisper in the vice president’s ear — other reporters learned it was the White House calling. Pence finally left to take a call, but later returned to speak with McCain.
By then, other senators around the room realized what was happening.
“You could see the body language in the entire chamber change in two hours,” Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) recalled. “One side was kind of ebullient, moving around and talking and the other side was subdued, and all of a sudden it began to change. There was an instinctive reaction that maybe this thing wasn’t going to pass. Nobody knew for sure.”
“It was pretty somber,” added Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).
At 1:10 a.m., McCain crossed the Senate Chamber to talk to Schumer, Klobuchar and other Democrats, including Sens. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.). As he approached, McCain told them he worried that reporters watching from the gallery above could read his lips. When he realized that the press was indeed watching, he looked up at the ceiling and shouted, “No!” as senators and reporters laughed. Then, Democrats beamed when McCain shared his news. Feinstein gave him a hug.
Walking back to the Republican side of the room, McCain was stopped by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) who also offered a hug.
“I love John McCain. He’s one of the great heroes of this country,” Hatch explained later. “Whether we agree or not, I still love the guy.”
The vote on “skinny repeal” began at 1:24 a.m., but McCain was out in the lobby once again conferring with Pence. In his absence, Collins and Murkowski cast their “no” votes along with the 48 members of the Democratic caucus.
McCain returned at 1:29 a.m. without Pence, approached the Senate clerk and gave a thumbs down — the third “no” vote.
Several people gasped. Others applauded. Reporters dashed out to report the news.
McCain returned to his seat, walking past Cornyn and Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who stood grim-faced and despondent. Cassidy rubbed his face several times with his hands. Thune’s face contorted. The color in Cornyn’s face seemed to drain.
“Certainly Senator McCain knows how to improve the drama,” Cassidy recalled later.
The vote concluded, and the results were announced — the bill was voted down, 51 to 49. Just days before, McCain had fired a warning shot with a lengthy floor speech that criticized the rushed, secretive process that led to “skinny repeal.” Early Friday morning, McCain, Collins and Murkowski delivered the fatal blow.
McConnell, humiliated by the results, stood to address his colleagues. The color of his face now matched the pink in his necktie.
“This is clearly a disappointing moment,” he said.
Bell Middle School teacher Shane Parmely was detained for over an hour by Border Patrol agents at a checkpoint in New Mexico because she refused to say whether she was a U.S. citizen.
Parmely’s family helped her film the incident, which she posted Friday evening on her Facebook account in several segments that were widely shared. Parmely told Border Patrol agents that she believed she did not have to answer their questions. One agent showed her a card listing immigration law and a Supreme Court case decision that give Border Patrol agents authority to operate checkpoints within 100 miles of the border and to ask questions about citizenship without warrants.
“Citizens?” an agent asked her as she drove up to the checkpoint.
“Are we crossing a border?” Parmely responded.
“No. Are you United States citizens?” he repeated.
“Are we crossing a border?” Parmely repeated. “I’ve never been asked if I’m a citizen before when I’m traveling down the road.”
As the agent continued to repeat his question, Parmely told him that he could ask her the question, but she didn’t have to answer.
“You are required to answer an immigration question,” the agent said. “You are not required to answer any other questions.”
When Parmely refused to answer the question, the agent told her that she was being detained for an immigration inspection.
“So if I just come through and say, ‘Yes, I’m a citizen,’ I can just go ahead?” Parmely asked.
“If the agent is justified by the answer, then yes,” the agent responded.
“So if I have an accent, and I’m brown, can I just say, ‘Yes,’ and go ahead or do I have to prove it?” she asked. “I have a bunch of teacher friends who are sick of their kids being discriminated against.”
“Ok, I’m not discriminating against anybody,” the agent said.
Later during the encounter, Parmely’s son asked to use the bathroom. One agent told Parmely that he could not use the bathroom until his mother answered the question about her citizenship. Another agent came over shortly after to escort the boy to a bathroom.
Border Patrol agents eventually let Parmely go without answering their question.
While most praised Parmely for her actions, some criticized what they saw as disrespect to law enforcement doing their jobs.
“I’m SICK of people claiming that law enforcement is the problem. Until of course you need them,” wrote Jaime N Jerry Bevan, who said that her husband is a detective.
Parmely responded, “What was the point of refusing to move to the back of the bus?”
“Enforcing racist laws perpetuates institutional racism,” Parmely added in another comment. “I’m sick of helping perpetuate racist laws just because I’m not inconvenienced by them.”
Parmely responded to a Facebook message from a Union-Tribune reporter, saying she might be able to talk later but could not for now.
The school website indicates that she teaches English, art and theater.
According to a flier from the American Civil Liberties Union, Border Patrol has the authority to stop vehicles at checkpoints and ask questions to verify citizenship.
The flier says that people can exercise their right to remain silent but may be detained if they refuse to answer citizenship questions. Agents cannot detain someone for an extended time without cause.
Border Patrol spokesman Mark Endicott issued a statement in response to the incident saying the agency’s policy is to treat people with dignity and respect.
“Border Patrol checkpoints are a critical tool for the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws,” the statement said. “At a Border Patrol checkpoint, an agent may question a vehicle’s occupants about their citizenship, place of birth, and request document proof of immigration status, how legal status was obtained and make quick observations of what is in plain view in the interior of the vehicle.
“During the course of the immigration inspection, if an occupant refuses to answer an agent’s questions, the agent may detain the driver for a reasonable amount of time until he or she can make a determination regarding the occupant’s immigration status.”
