Rhode Island expands car stops from only New York to all states | Hacker News Reader

Rhode Island expands car stops from only New York to all states

bloomberg.com

30 pointshhs21 comments

It feels like Cuomo is on the wrong side of this. Like it or not, national and state boundaries are the only boundaries we can reliably use to segment the general population right now, and while it may be rudimentary, it’s one way of identifying those coming from a very dense area with a very high rate of infection.

But Rhode Island’s stops aren’t segmenting the population. They’re not turning anyone around, just giving out-of-state travelers a verbal warning that they need to self-quarantine for 14 days.

It’s the worst of both worlds: the extremely shaky legal situation of a real border lockdown, without any of the supposed benefits.

A simple sign can probably accomplish the same thing.

Most people won't pay attention to signs. When the police stop you, you'll remember.

I live in Rhode Island, and it's been interesting to see my own gut reactions to this.

The short summary is:

- I'm sympathetic to their urge to escape ground zero.

- But I'm angry at those who put Rhode Islanders at greater risk when they ignore the stay-at-your-residence order from our governor.

- It's a little frightening to see the xenophobic and reactionary feelings this brings me. I feel a strong tug towards us-vs-them mentality.

I'm interested what the legal basis is for this? I thought that the US constitution provided fairly unconditional protections, unlike say in Europe. (Not saying this is right or wrong, just wondering how the technicalities work in the US).

One of the fairly explicit exceptions to federal jurisdiction on interstate travel is precisely to prevent the spread of diseases, both human and agricultural. Agriculture inspections and quarantine type cost recovery are pretty much the only "taxes/tarrifs" the states are allowed to prescribe on interstate (and international) travel and trade.

From US Constitution Article 1 Section 10:

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws

Like much of the US Constitution, it's both a very loaded and ambiguous statement, with much of it's meaning implied.

The right of free movement between states is not explicitly in the Constitution but has been established by Supreme Court case law. However, Supreme Court case law has also established pretty wide ranging government powers and abrogation of otherwise protected constitutional rights in the face of public emergencies like natural disaster and war.

The ironic thing is that while the wealthy 1% are driving to their second homes in southern Rhode Island, the ultra-wealthy 0.1% are flying in their private jets to the state's regional airports and are ignored. The governor has admitted that the state can only afford to police one airport, TF Green.

The 0.1% only go to Rhode Island during yacht racing season in Newport. I wouldn't worry about the three of them going to RI during all this.

I mean it does make more sense to stop the 90% than the remaining 10%.

There is that; oddly some of those rich people are staying safe(1) all the while the administration appears to consider opening the US to the low caste Americans.

For the record, I have no intention of turning it into anti-rich tirade, but now more than ever people should be careful how they present themselves in public eye. In my view, pitchforks are a much closer possibility this time than in 2008..

References:

1. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/as-coronavirus-ravages-the...

The 'house by house' bit with the national guard is disturbing. I'd be concerned with someone pitching girl scout cookies door to door, much less something like this.

As folks are getting back from spring breaks... I suspect it is too late to really stop the spread. If I had vacation property in a sparsely populated area, I'd take full advantage of it. (As things stand for us, we have more ID'd infections in our county than RI, but several orders of magnitude under what is happening in NYC right now)

If all New York residents are under a shelter-in-place directive, then why is anyone with a home in New York driving to Rhode Island or to any other state? In other words, why isn't Cuomo policing his own border?

Why would Cuomo spend his resources policing the rather enormous NY state border? What does NY have to gain from that? This whole thing smacks of the decision to suspend travel to and from Europe. Maybe not the worst idea, but also ultimately not going to make that much of a difference. This virus is already everywhere. Rhode Island and Florida want to blame all their trouble on New York rather than their own social distancing decisions.

Without debating the legality of these orders, stopping people from leaving seems counter productive. The government / police has more important things to do in this time of crisis. The people leaving are going to become someone else's problem.

Will the police stand six feet away while they issue these instructions?

I mean what could possibly go wrong by systematically exposing your law enforcement to every person that enters the state at the moment of their arrival?

They probably will. I don’t think it’s reasonable to think they are throwing caution to the wind and not taking some measures to protect the folks working at these checkpoints, who are trained professionals following orders.

Not to be obtuse but I'm from eastern Connecticut and Rhode Island's "southern border" is with the Atlantic, not CT.

So the real question is.. what happens if you do not stop? As I stated before, most reasonable people allow for a lot of leeway to the government during a crisis, but.. the government response has been inconsistent ( at best ). I don't feel good about it at all. It makes me feel like Super Sad Love Story was basically a prophecy.

Can't they introduce border controls like in Europe?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com