Their stance on civil liberties has been pretty consistent. All people are equal, and all are entitled to equal protection of their fundamental civil liberties. Their position on border control follows from this: you are entitled to civil liberties because you are human, not because you are an American citizen. There're some pragmatic limitations on this (there's little that the ACLU can do to protect the civil liberties of people residing in China or Russia, for example), but they've consistently fought to extend civil liberties to everyone - even, for example, American citizens of Iraqi descent residing in Iraq.

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.

> Their stance on civil liberties has been pretty consistent.

Except the right to bear arms, of course.

It's the interpretation of the second amendment by SCOTUS that has been inconsistent over time, not the ACLU's position. Collective/militia rights is a widespread interpretation of the second amendment (which the ACLU holds). Interpreting "right to bear arms" as unrestrained individual gun ownership is not the default position just because modern NRA advocacy says it is.

This isn't responsive to Rayiner's point. "Why" the ACLU doesn't expansively support the right to bear arms the way they do speech and freedom from search is interesting, but doesn't rebut Rayiner's point "that" they don't.

You're painting their position with a brush the size of a small planet. Here's their actual position, which is for Constitutionally-consistent gun regulations and against proposed gun regulations which raise civil liberties concerns: https://www.aclu.org/blog/civil-liberties/mobilization/aclus...

This article approaches gun regulation from the standpoint that the 2nd amendment mostly doesn't exist. It's arguing that the regulations should be consistent with the equal-protection clause. That's basically in-line with what rayiner said: the ACLU doesn't care about the 2nd amendment, and only defends gun issues when they touch other constitutional issues.

Has the ACLU's stance on the right to bear arms has been inconsistent, as in, changed quite a bit over time? Or they just haven't had much of a stance to speak of? Honest question.

In 1991, they believed it was an individual right. Now they believe it's a collective right. I don't know of any major cases the ACLU brought on behalf of gun owners (but probably wouldn't know if they had).

https://reason.com/2019/04/12/the-aclu-defends-the-rights-of... has some discussion of this.

I can't speak to that - but they also haven't felt as much of a need to devote resources to it as they feel, accurately, I believe, that the NRA has enough resources and a loud enough voice on that topic.

Those liberties are restricted, justly, when one violates a law. Setting aside the perfectly reasonable outrage at mass surveillance techniques, the ACLU seems to have a problem with any border enforcement, including the kind of temporary detainment that is a requirement for any kind of justice system to function!

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.

It’s not “for the sake of a wink and a nod” or “dogwhistling.” The ACLU is actively campaigning against the way the US Government and ICE in particular treats immigrants and people around the borders.

Have a look at the ACLU website... their position is quite clear.

The case they mention was about tracking someone who re-entered illegally. How else are they to get people to comply? Send them a nice note to comply?

Many people who are left to on their on recognizance never show up to their court dates.

Most asylum seekers do show up to for their court dates.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/26...

Certainly not by means of unconstitutional mass surveillance.

> Many people who are left to on their on recognizance never show up to their court dates.

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.

Do you believe the ACLU‘s other/typical cases to be uncontroversial, to not have much opposition?

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.

Easy for you to say if you're not in the effected communities...

To say that ICE or CBP's "effort" is to "target and tear apart communities" is the kind of dishonesty that would be rightly flagged off of HN as inflammatory nonsense.

I don't think it rises to the level of dishonesty, but I do think the writer should not have included something as unknowable and irrelevant as the possible hidden motives of these agencies.

Nevertheless, suing these agencies to prevent unwarranted surveillance is justified.

It’s what people who were working for the agencies themselves have said:

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/656/let-me-count-the-ways

It sure looks like tearing apart to me:

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.

Their stance is the only one compatible with their core aims. I'm not sure why you would expect anything else.

They've had the same stance since at least 2014.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/aclu-florida-v-city-sarasota-stin...

They did actually - but while Obama was in office information about the program was far less public - here's a summary of events leading up to a Jan 13, 2016 lawsuit[1] and here's an article from early 2016 on a different lawsuit[2]. The ACLU has had a consistent stance as far as I'm aware - if you have some sources to indicate otherwise please do supply them.

And, not doing a thing because it wasn't done before is a whataboutism appeal that prevents us from improving our actions - it isn't a really logical argument except within the realm of US law and prior precedent.

1. https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/legal-docket/aclu-v-doj-stin...

2. https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/watchdog/article59...

I don’t think it’s a dog whistle, because the ACLU is stating it openly and clearly: ICE and CBP are unconstitutionally violating our civil rights. Nothing winky or noddy about it, and good on them for not mincing words!