Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
-snip-
That zone should be at the border not 100 miles inland.
Yes, it should.
But too often the people who oppose real border control will agree with the aclu on this activity within our borders.
So, taken as a whole their position appears to be they want open borders and no control on immigration, legal or illegal.
If the border were fixed I don't believe we'd need road blocks inland to catch illegal immigrants and/or drug shipments originating from Mexico.
The article is amusing in it's *spin* etc, even though it's clearly about border security (or rather lack thereof) and illegal immigration and drug shipments these are not mentioned once. It's totally slanted as if the whole point is to harrass citizens.
And "Constitution free zone", is that hyperbole? Are the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and so on being violated, or is it just claims about one Amendment - the 4th? Shouldn't it be entitled "4th Amendment free zone"? Guess that just doesn't the *marketing zing* the aclu is looking for. Too many people don't what the 4th is.
Fern