Quote:
sorry let me qualify that... Illegal Aliens on US Soil...
If you're dragging Guantanamo Bay into the conversation, then it's only right that it's not as simple as you are stating.
|
Right?
One of the current justifications for what goes on the southern border is that so-called "terrorists" might sneak into the US via Mexico. That's one reason why Guantanamo and so-called "national security" issues are very much relevant to the discussion. Another is that the borders have been militarised, and constitutionally speaking, that gives the president more than the usual executive control. According to the Bush cabal's interpretation of the constitution, in the current state of exception, they, as agents of the Commander in Chief, have "broad discretion" to do whatever the hell they want. See section V of their 2002 memo on torture.
Quote:
|
But see these borders and customs with searches and siezures existed pre-9/11... so there's some sort of connection to how the laws are interpreted.
|
That is not in question.
Quote:
|
You are free to travel, you aren't free to ENTER into a country. There is a very large difference. People have been turned away by immigration officers from many countries that deny people entry. But they are not barred from travel.
|
Tell that to someone on the no-fly list. Yes, you can theoretically canoe to London or Tokyo so in a certain, perverse sense of the word, you are still "free to travel". More generally, though, what good does it do us to be "free" to travel if we can't go anywhere?
You must have a passport to travel, but they don't have to issue you a passport. Furthermore, the one you have can be revoked if you do something they don't like. (Bobby Fischer had his taken away for playing chess in Yugoslavia and being an all-around jerk.) So, no, you aren't exactly free to travel. Remember it wasn't so long ago that a passport was not always necessary, not even for overseas trips.