Expanded Definition of Our Borders Raises Civil Liberties Issues

The ACLU is Right in Asking Congress to Push Back Our Borders

As a child I was surprised when we crossed the Canadian border from Calais, Maine to St. Stephen, New Brunswick for the first time. I was surprised because St. Stephen didn't look any different than Calais. I had half expected the grass to be red since the map showed that Canada was a different color than the United States.

On the map the border was a thin black line. In reality it hardly existed. Movement between the two countries was easy, and our teachers proudly informed us that the U.S.-Canadian border was the longest undefended border in the world.

All of that changed after 9/11. The border is no longer undefended. While it's true that it is not defended by the military, the Border Patrol has become so militarized and has expanded so much that one can hardly tell the difference. The border is also clearly defined. In fact, it has been redefined. The United States government now says that the border extends 100 miles inland.

While this is not new news, on October 28, 2008 the ACLU brought the subject once again to the public's attention with a press conference and the release of a map which shows that 2/3 of the population of the United States, including most New Yorkers, lives within 100 miles of the border. The ACLU calls this swath surrounding the United States the Constitution-free zone.

What I didn't know until recently is the courts have ruled consistently that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures, does not apply at the United States border. That wouldn't be a problem for me if the border had not been redefined so that it extends 100 miles inland and encompasses 2/3 of the population.