A U.S. surveillance tower seen from Nogales, Mexico, near the wall that runs between Mexico and the United States. (Photo: Jonathan McIntosh/Flickr/cc)
Jan 10, 2019
Progressives in recent weeks have applauded Democrats' refusal to bend to President Donald Trump's demands for a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, a key component of his xenophobic anti-immigration agenda. But on Friday, digital rights advocates called on Democratic lawmakers to expand their fight against the wall into a fight for all human and constitutional rights--instead of suggesting alternative "border security" proposals that would infringe on civil liberties.
Fight for the Future launched a campaign Friday to fight against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) suggestion on Thursday that a so-called "technological wall" would be an appropriate alternative to Trump's planned concrete or steel wall.
\u201cCongressional Democrats are calling for a "technological wall" at the border, meaning increased warrantless surveillance that could impact up to two-thirds of all people in the U.S. \n\nSign our petition to tell Congress "NO TECH WALL" at the border: https://t.co/cjmdDvqEFX\u201d— @team@fightforthefuture.org on Mastodon (@@team@fightforthefuture.org on Mastodon) 1547167991
Trump, Pelosi said in a press conference, "knows we all support border security and that there's a better way to do it...90 percent of the drugs come in through the ports of entry. So what we are proposing is to build the infrastructure of the ports of entry...to have the scanning technology to scan cars coming through, for drugs, contraband of any kind, weapons even."
"The positive, shall we say, almost technological wall that can be built is what we should be doing," Pelosi said.
Fight for the Future swiftly circulated a petition following Pelosi's speech, calling on Democrats including Senate Majority Leader Schuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) not to replace Trump's proposed wall--which critics say would further endanger migrant families coming to the U.S.--with a surveillance system that would threaten their right to be protected from unlawful search and seizure.
"Increasing border surveillance is a nefarious move that widely threatens the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." --Fight for the Future"Schumer and Pelosi's position may seem appealing in light of Trump's bizarre plan to build a costly and unnecessary wall, but in reality--increasing border surveillance is a nefarious move that widely threatens the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," wrote the group.
Sarah St. Vincent, a surveillance researcher at Human Rights Watch, wrote on Twitter that "'more surveillance' has become the default answer to far too many difficult policy questions."
"Replacing more visible rights harms with--potentially--less visible ones is not a good answer," St. Vincent said.
Fight for the Future pointed to border surveillance programs that already exist and "desperately need Congressional review" instead of being expanded, including searches of electronic devices and monitoring by drones.
"Current border surveillance programs subject people to invasive and unconstitutional searches of their cell phones and laptops, location tracking, drone surveillance, and problematic watchlists," wrote Fight for the Future in its petition.
The group addressed Democratic leaders directly, writing, "Drop your plan for a 'technological wall,' or increased surveillance, at the border."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. The final deadline for our crucial Summer Campaign fundraising drive is just hours away, and we’re falling short of our must-hit goal. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Progressives in recent weeks have applauded Democrats' refusal to bend to President Donald Trump's demands for a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, a key component of his xenophobic anti-immigration agenda. But on Friday, digital rights advocates called on Democratic lawmakers to expand their fight against the wall into a fight for all human and constitutional rights--instead of suggesting alternative "border security" proposals that would infringe on civil liberties.
Fight for the Future launched a campaign Friday to fight against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) suggestion on Thursday that a so-called "technological wall" would be an appropriate alternative to Trump's planned concrete or steel wall.
\u201cCongressional Democrats are calling for a "technological wall" at the border, meaning increased warrantless surveillance that could impact up to two-thirds of all people in the U.S. \n\nSign our petition to tell Congress "NO TECH WALL" at the border: https://t.co/cjmdDvqEFX\u201d— @team@fightforthefuture.org on Mastodon (@@team@fightforthefuture.org on Mastodon) 1547167991
Trump, Pelosi said in a press conference, "knows we all support border security and that there's a better way to do it...90 percent of the drugs come in through the ports of entry. So what we are proposing is to build the infrastructure of the ports of entry...to have the scanning technology to scan cars coming through, for drugs, contraband of any kind, weapons even."
"The positive, shall we say, almost technological wall that can be built is what we should be doing," Pelosi said.
Fight for the Future swiftly circulated a petition following Pelosi's speech, calling on Democrats including Senate Majority Leader Schuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) not to replace Trump's proposed wall--which critics say would further endanger migrant families coming to the U.S.--with a surveillance system that would threaten their right to be protected from unlawful search and seizure.
"Increasing border surveillance is a nefarious move that widely threatens the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." --Fight for the Future"Schumer and Pelosi's position may seem appealing in light of Trump's bizarre plan to build a costly and unnecessary wall, but in reality--increasing border surveillance is a nefarious move that widely threatens the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," wrote the group.
Sarah St. Vincent, a surveillance researcher at Human Rights Watch, wrote on Twitter that "'more surveillance' has become the default answer to far too many difficult policy questions."
"Replacing more visible rights harms with--potentially--less visible ones is not a good answer," St. Vincent said.
Fight for the Future pointed to border surveillance programs that already exist and "desperately need Congressional review" instead of being expanded, including searches of electronic devices and monitoring by drones.
"Current border surveillance programs subject people to invasive and unconstitutional searches of their cell phones and laptops, location tracking, drone surveillance, and problematic watchlists," wrote Fight for the Future in its petition.
The group addressed Democratic leaders directly, writing, "Drop your plan for a 'technological wall,' or increased surveillance, at the border."
Progressives in recent weeks have applauded Democrats' refusal to bend to President Donald Trump's demands for a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, a key component of his xenophobic anti-immigration agenda. But on Friday, digital rights advocates called on Democratic lawmakers to expand their fight against the wall into a fight for all human and constitutional rights--instead of suggesting alternative "border security" proposals that would infringe on civil liberties.
Fight for the Future launched a campaign Friday to fight against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) suggestion on Thursday that a so-called "technological wall" would be an appropriate alternative to Trump's planned concrete or steel wall.
\u201cCongressional Democrats are calling for a "technological wall" at the border, meaning increased warrantless surveillance that could impact up to two-thirds of all people in the U.S. \n\nSign our petition to tell Congress "NO TECH WALL" at the border: https://t.co/cjmdDvqEFX\u201d— @team@fightforthefuture.org on Mastodon (@@team@fightforthefuture.org on Mastodon) 1547167991
Trump, Pelosi said in a press conference, "knows we all support border security and that there's a better way to do it...90 percent of the drugs come in through the ports of entry. So what we are proposing is to build the infrastructure of the ports of entry...to have the scanning technology to scan cars coming through, for drugs, contraband of any kind, weapons even."
"The positive, shall we say, almost technological wall that can be built is what we should be doing," Pelosi said.
Fight for the Future swiftly circulated a petition following Pelosi's speech, calling on Democrats including Senate Majority Leader Schuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) not to replace Trump's proposed wall--which critics say would further endanger migrant families coming to the U.S.--with a surveillance system that would threaten their right to be protected from unlawful search and seizure.
"Increasing border surveillance is a nefarious move that widely threatens the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." --Fight for the Future"Schumer and Pelosi's position may seem appealing in light of Trump's bizarre plan to build a costly and unnecessary wall, but in reality--increasing border surveillance is a nefarious move that widely threatens the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," wrote the group.
Sarah St. Vincent, a surveillance researcher at Human Rights Watch, wrote on Twitter that "'more surveillance' has become the default answer to far too many difficult policy questions."
"Replacing more visible rights harms with--potentially--less visible ones is not a good answer," St. Vincent said.
Fight for the Future pointed to border surveillance programs that already exist and "desperately need Congressional review" instead of being expanded, including searches of electronic devices and monitoring by drones.
"Current border surveillance programs subject people to invasive and unconstitutional searches of their cell phones and laptops, location tracking, drone surveillance, and problematic watchlists," wrote Fight for the Future in its petition.
The group addressed Democratic leaders directly, writing, "Drop your plan for a 'technological wall,' or increased surveillance, at the border."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.