-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: August 20, 2007 11:03:07 AM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Adios "Freedom of Movement"
Losing Our "Freedom of Movement"
http://sheltersfromthestorm.org/main/shelter/index.php
The freedom to travel has joined habeas corpus and freedom from
unwarranted searches on America's endangered rights list. Over the
last 10 years, a combination of federal legislation, court
decisions and new federal regulations have greatly reduced the
rights of U. S. citizens to travel internationally and domestically.
As Old as the Magna Carta
The right to go where one wishes is among the most fundamental and
ancient of freedoms in the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. Article 42
of the Magna Carta provided:
It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our
kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water,
saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some
short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting
prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of
the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall
be treated as it is said above.
Despite its long tradition, the right to travel has been under
attack at other times in American history. During the Red-baiting
50's, Congress enacted a law requiring that American citizens
possess passports in order to leave or enter the country and
delegated the authority to the Secretary of State to determine the
criteria for issuing passports. Shortly thereafter, Secretary of
State John Foster Dulles denied a passport to Rockwell Kent on
grounds that he was a Communist. Kent challenged the refusal in
court, and the case eventually reached the U. S. Supreme Court.
Justice William O. Douglas wrote the opinion for the majority that
ordered the State Department to issue the passport:
"The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the
citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the
Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In
Anglo-Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as the
Magna Carta. Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 shows
how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is.
Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and
inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel
abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a
livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as
the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement
is basic in our scheme of values. 'Our nation,' wrote Chafee, 'has
thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful
conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks
best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.' (citations omitted)
Whatever Happened to Love it OR Leave it?
Unfortunately, William O. Douglas is no longer on the Supreme Court.
American jurisprudence has always recognized two, somewhat
distinguishable aspects of the right to travel. The Kent case
dealt with a citizen's freedom to leave the U. S. and return.
Since 9/11, that right has been severely restricted. Prior to
January 1, 2007, the U. S. had reciprical agreements with Mexico,
Canada and several Caribbean nations that allowed U. S. citizens to
come and go from these countries with nothing more than a picture
ID like a driver's license.
This year, however, Homeland Security issued new regulations
requiring Americans to show a passport in order to return by air
from these countries. The result was a huge rush for passport
applications that swamped the State Department and forced many to
cancel their vacations when their new passports did not arrive the
usual six weeks' processing time.
Next year, these requirements will apply to all travel outside the
United States, whether by plane, boat or land.
A Right Has Become a Privilege
The U. S. government has also breached the ancient Magna Carta
principal that all citizens are free to travel abroad unless they
have been convicted of a crime. Under "welfare reform" passed by
the Republican Congress and signed by Bill Clinton (newspeak name--
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act),
the State Department's Passport Denial Program began to refuse
passports to American citizens based upon a report that they owed
back child support.
Have the federal courts shown up again to slap down the State
Department and protect the right to travel? Hardly. Eudene
Eunique, a non-custodial parent who had been denied a passport
because she allegedly owed $20,000 in back child support,
challenged the law and the case reached the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. The three-judge panel ruled in favor of the State
Department. Writing for the majority in the 2 - 1 decision,
Circuit Judge Fernandez distinguished the Kent case by claiming
that Eunique might be violating federal law if she left the U. S.
to evade child support payments. There was no allegation that her
purpose was to effect such an evasion nor any hearing on the issue
of her motivation. Suffice it to say that the Court's ruling and
Justice Douglas' opinion in Kent were shown scant respect.
Dissenting Judge Kleinfeld was frank about it:
In this case, unlike those in which the Supreme Court has upheld
restrictions on travel, the government has not offered a foreign
policy or national security justification for the restriction, the
government has not narrowly tailored the restriction to its
purpose, and the apparent purpose of the restriction is to penalize
past misconduct rather than to restrict travel as such. Thus the
travel ban in this case is unconstitutional under controlling
Supreme Court precedent. That Court can revise its approach if it
so decides, but we can’t.
The initial trigger was set at $5,000, but it was recently reduced
to $2,500, and the State Department recently issued a press release
bragging about how much cash they had collected from passport
applicants.
While it may be hard to feel much empathy for deadbeat parents, the
Magna Carta principle that citizens have the right to travel
internationally unless they stand accused or convicted of a crime
has been abrogated.
What's next? Passport refusals on the grounds that one's student
loan payments are delinquent? Denials of passports because of
mortgage defaults?
It's a bit ironic that a nation which historically has been a
refuge for the destitute seeking a new start could become one big
debtors' prison with the combination of provisions like the
Passport Denial Program, oppressive bankruptcy laws and a failing
economy.
See the USA in your Chevrolet Toyota
(as long as you carry your passport)
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is unhappy. It seems
there are several states that are resisting the federal effort to
make them upgrade their state-issued drivers' licenses to meet the
standards for a new national personal ID card.
His response? Issue threats that residents of those states that
don't go along with the national ID will be required to show U. S.
passports to enter federal buildings, national parks and monuments,
even board an airplane for a domestic flight.
"This is not a mandate. A state doesn't have to do this," he said.
"But we've been very clear and the law is very clear, if the state
doesn't have at the end of the day, the end of the deadline, Real
ID compliant licenses, then that state cannot expect that those
licenses will be accepted for federal purposes."
And "federal purposes" will include admission to federal buildings,
federal parks and domestic air flights.
The Systematic Destruction of Precious Right
Middle-aged Americans remember how our leaders, parents and
teachers distinguished our country from the Soviet Union and its
Warsaw Pact allies by pointing to the pictures and films of
desperate East Germans and Hungarians who were forced to risk their
lives just to move to a new country. In those days, there were
people like William O. Douglas who had both the inclination and the
power to defend Americans' right to travel, but today, with so many
fundamental liberties under assault at once, the more subtle attack
on freedom of movement has received little attention.
It would be tragic if some Americans finally come to the conclusion
there is no option but to leave their repressive homeland -- only
to find that they have already lost the right to do so without
risking a dangerous, illegal run across a border.
Finding Your Shelter from the Storm
It seems the world has turned upside down. Nations that were
considered among the world's most secure and free just a few years
ago have become dangerous and oppressive. Many citizens have
become frightened of their own governments, and a majority of
parents, even in the United States, expect their children's lives
to be worse than their own.
The threats of economic collapse, terrorism, war, martial law and
natural disasters have brought many to the point of considering
whether they need to find a place where they and their children can
live free from fear and persecution, and where there are still
opportunities to make an honest living and enjoy life.
People are looking for a shelter from the storm.
This website is a joint project of several American expats who have
left the United States to live abroad. We know what is required to
obtain legal residency, earn money and adjust to a new culture.
At "Shelters from the Storm" we have gathered information that can
help you make a smart choice about where you might make your new
home and what it will take for you to succeed there.
Check back as we add more information about the currently listed
countries and even add new destinations.
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
