Is this kind of partisan dog-whistling really necessary? The ACLU does good work at the end of the day, but this sentence makes their stance on border control loud and clear.
And I call it dog-whistling because it does nothing but detract from an otherwise reasonable stance on surveillance abuse, for the sake of a wink and a nod.
It's both of the major parties that have inconsistent stances on this, which can largely be summed up as "civil liberties for me, but not for thee". That's why the ACLU tends to get flack from both sides of the aisle. Both parties try to define one group of people as their "tribe" and maximize their own liberties, while defining another group as an outgroup and trying to deny their liberties. And it works: there's nothing quite so motivating as an outgroup. But I'm glad that there are organizations that take a principled, logical stance toward freedom without discriminating against who gets that freedom.
Except the right to bear arms, of course.
https://reason.com/2019/04/12/the-aclu-defends-the-rights-of... has some discussion of this.
Civil liberties do not include the right to enter another sovereign country without that country's consent, so yes, the liberty of free movement into and within a country is something that citizens and legal residents have that other people do not.
This is not a simple problem that lends itself well to the kind of pithy soundbites I complained about in the OP.
Have a look at the ACLU website... their position is quite clear.
Many people who are left to on their on recognizance never show up to their court dates.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/26...
Many implies a majority. In fact, far from it. ICE and CBP already have tools to deal with people they deem a flight risk including but not limited to ankle monitors, etc.
The ACLU is rather consistent. It’s you who just happens to believe there are some people undeserving of civil liberties.
A civil liberties Organisation that only acts on behalf of groups enjoying broad sympathy is useless.
Nevertheless, suing these agencies to prevent unwarranted surveillance is justified.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family...
>However, The New Yorker spoke to lawyers and advocates who said there is no formal process or clear protocol for tracking parents and children within the system and that chaotic systems and inadequate record keeping make it difficult even to know which facility a child might be kept at.