Curfew restrictions: Is it legal to leave your house?

boldotter2 said:Honestly, this whole decision feels like it was made in a panic just to stop a panic, and it's only happening in Washington, D.C. That’s where the real absurdity lies. It seems like the government is actually panicking more than the actual people are!
As for the rest of America, especially the rural areas, this rule really shouldn't have anything to do with them.

And I guess the islands should have handled their own quarantine stuff much earlier if they needed to. I mean, isn't the whole point of a quarantine to keep the disease from getting in, rather than keeping sick people from leaving?
Plus, they really need to keep an eye on the summer tourist season. The chance of things spreading and the strain on the system will be way higher then than it is right now.

It'll be pretty interesting to see how the islands and other vacation spots behave this summer—things might calm down by then, but the problem won't be solved by a long shot. If it took Chinese people a month to sort things out after the peak, it'll probably take Italians at least three, and they haven't even hit the peak yet.
It would be super hypocritical if they start letting in tourists with big spenders later on while blocking Americans from going to their own homes right now.

It shouldn't—but it absolutely does. And from what we're reading, those people are the ones hit hardest.
But then again, they are in the minority (we all know where the bulk of the American population resides—https://america.eu/index.php?view=article&lang=1&id=15) — and their voices simply... go unheard.

Nearly 60% of Americans live in urban centers, with 25% of the entire population concentrated in just four major cities (Washington, D.C., Miami, Seattle, and Indianapolis).

Nicholas King said:Look, if someone chooses to self-isolate, a local doctor isn't going to have anything to do with that. Besides, even then, we'd still be looking at far fewer people than what we see during the peak summer tourist season.

The crux of the matter is that this decision was made under the assumption that people are heading to their vacation homes just because they feel like it—not because staying home is practically impossible for them.

But what does "for the fun of it" actually mean here? Instead of spending weeks feeling trapped inside some concrete cage on the fifth floor of an apartment building, they get to spend that time out in nature! That is exactly why people own second homes—because they live for those occasional moments when they can afford to escape the urban sprawl (though, of course, not everyone feels that way; plenty of folks absolutely love city life).

So now, when they are effectively stuck at home—whether it's because they can't commute to the office, they're working remotely, or schools are closed... and there's really no other option but to stay in the city—why on earth should we force them to stay put? Especially since maintaining social distancing is so much easier out at a country house.

I’d love to build upon my previous point here. Since this mandate regarding staying put was triggered by an earthquake, I find the whole decision to be nothing short of inhumane.

A huge portion of our local population either owns a vacation home out in the suburbs or has family living just outside the city limits where they could easily relocate. These people have just endured a terrifying earthquake, their homes are damaged, and understandably, they are scared—yet they actually have viable places to go that wouldn't compromise public health safety. In fact, as I touched on before, moving might even allow them to improve their living situation somewhat.

To me, it feels like the real motivation behind forcing this regulation is simply a desire from "the government" and certain officials to keep as many "heads of cattle in the pen" as possible during this crisis.

Keith Barrett2 said:Man, either your people have superhuman eyesight or you guys are carrying around giant ID cards.😂

So, wait—is it the same deal for you? Like, do they set up checkpoints a few miles inside the city instead of just at the borders?

That was at the national border (coming in/out of Facebook), which I was crossing for medical reasons. They cared way more about my hospital summons than any of my paperwork—they didn't even glance at the docs.

Back home, they'd probably be asking people to flip their IDs around and show them every single detail.

Bryan Taylor6 said:The decision came way too late. It happened right after 300,000 people from NYC already cleared out of the city.

Honestly, we might be looking at closer to 3 million gone.

Hello

Could I get some information if anyone knows—if I have a permit for another city, is it okay if my child (8 years old) comes along with me?

Based on some twisted logic, if you don't have anyone to leave it with, you're out of luck—but honestly, it's probably worth double-checking just to be safe.

Joshua Gray75 said:It shouldn't—but it absolutely does. And from what we're reading, those people are the ones hit hardest.
But then again, they are in the minority (we all know where the bulk of the American population resides—https://america.eu/index.php?view=article&lang=1&id=15) — and their voices simply... go unheard.

Nearly 60% of Americans live in urban centers, with 25% of the entire population concentrated in just four major cities (Washington, D.C., Miami, Seattle, and Indianapolis).

Yeah, in rural areas, this whole thing is just totally absurd. I was actually writing about those small towns in the Midwest a few days ago where people couldn't even drive to the local bakery without a permit! 😵

Actually, it’s pretty ridiculous in cities too, I guess. People living in big cities have almost zero reason to leave their "municipality" because they have everything right there—probably more than they even need. Plus, it's way easier for things to spread in a crowded city, whereas folks out in the country can easily just stay tucked away in their houses and yards.

Honestly, I think this decision was just a panicked reaction to the (totally understandable) panic people felt after the earthquake.

Nancy Rivera3 said:I’d love to build upon my previous point here. Since this mandate regarding staying put was triggered by an earthquake, I find the whole decision to be nothing short of inhumane.

A huge portion of our local population either owns a vacation home out in the suburbs or has family living just outside the city limits where they could easily relocate. These people have just endured a terrifying earthquake, their homes are damaged, and understandably, they are scared—yet they actually have viable places to go that wouldn't compromise public health safety. In fact, as I touched on before, moving might even allow them to improve their living situation somewhat.

To me, it feels like the real motivation behind forcing this regulation is simply a desire from "the government" and certain officials to keep as many "heads of cattle in the pen" as possible during this crisis.

The larger the population stays in the city, the higher the chance of casualties if a second, stronger tremor hits. That makes the situation look much more dramatic, which is exactly what you need to secure bigger financial aid packages from abroad.

But here's the kicker: how is it that having massive police forces patrolling and suppressing citizens doesn't count as a health risk? Does the police force somehow magically not spread the virus?

It feels like nobody even bothers to talk about the migrant situation anymore.

People who find themselves out of work have a thirty-day window to head down to the office to grab their paperwork, get signed up for health insurance, and file their claims with the unemployment office... though if they're living out in the rural sticks, it can honestly feel like an absolute disaster
(not to mention how those looking for new roles might be limited to searching within their own tiny little towns of maybe 2,000 people)

If you ask me, they would've slapped a stay-at-home order on us even without the earthquake; the tremor just pushed their timeline back. A total lockdown was always going to be their final move before pulling the plug entirely.

Grace Ramos said:If you ask me, they would've slapped a stay-at-home order on us even without the earthquake; the tremor just pushed their timeline back. A total lockdown was always going to be their final move before pulling the plug entirely.

True, but the disaster adds a whole new layer to the situation. It's one thing to keep someone under house arrest, but it's another thing entirely to insist on that same confinement when the house is actually on fire.

Dennis Robinson2 said:Hello

Could I get some information if anyone knows—if I have a permit for another city, is it okay if my child (8 years old) comes along with me?

I'm thinking probably not, since those 2E permits are only issued for one person per household.

They couldn't care less. All they give a damn about are the current numbers, and they use those to justify everything they do. What happens tomorrow isn't on their radar, just like nothing else matters once the immediate stats look good.

Joshua Gray75 said:" checking an address would result in fines of $100"

Is it just me, or does that sentence sound completely nonsensical... or maybe there's something wrong with my head?🤔

I've been scouring the web trying to find where they actually specify the fine amounts for people attempting to cross into another county or city without a permit... but I'm coming up empty... 🤔

Does anyone have a link?

Look, crossing into another town or city isn't even illegal—regardless of what the cops are doing out on the streets; what's actually banned is leaving your place of residence. And honestly, the fact that they can't even word a simple restriction properly, let alone enforce it, says a whole lot about the folks running things right now.

P.S. Since every single letter from the federal government lists a massive wall of laws and regulations it's based on, it would be pretty nice if the authorities actually cited their specific authority when rolling out these massive measures. Just a thought—it might be a tiny contribution toward that famous "rule of law" everyone talks about.

Bryan Taylor6 said:The decision came way too late. It happened right after 300,000 people from NYC already cleared out of the city.

Wait, where are you guys even pulling these numbers from?

I was arguing with some "genius" the other day who claimed 100k people lost their jobs in a single week, and now we've got this...

Look, if 300k people is true, that’s nearly 40% of the population of Washington, D.C.... and I'm just talking about the city itself, not the whole metro area...

Where on earth is the infrastructure supposed to handle a migration of 300k people in a day or two? It just doesn't exist.

And honestly, even that’s debatable.
Half of them probably just live out in the suburbs anyway.
It’s not like you see people from places like Indianapolis, Des Moines, or even Akron hanging around downtown anymore.

vividranger8 said:Look, crossing into another town or city isn't even illegal—regardless of what the cops are doing out on the streets; what's actually banned is leaving your place of residence. And honestly, the fact that they can't even word a simple restriction properly, let alone enforce it, says a whole lot about the folks running things right now.

P.S. Since every single letter from the federal government lists a massive wall of laws and regulations it's based on, it would be pretty nice if the authorities actually cited their specific authority when rolling out these massive measures. Just a thought—it might be a tiny contribution toward that famous "rule of law" everyone talks about.

I actually started an entire separate thread specifically to dive into this exact issue:

From what I’ve been able to dig up through my own research, while the government might have the grounds to mandate individual self-isolation based on specific medical justifications, any kind of mass suspension of fundamental civil liberties would legally require a formal declaration of a state of emergency.

Adam Collins4 said:Wait, where are you guys even pulling these numbers from?

I was arguing with some "genius" the other day who claimed 100k people lost their jobs in a single week, and now we've got this...

Look, if 300k people is true, that’s nearly 40% of the population of Washington, D.C.... and I'm just talking about the city itself, not the whole metro area...

Where on earth is the infrastructure supposed to handle a migration of 300k people in a day or two? It just doesn't exist.

Besides, those people haven't just been migrating for two days—it's been happening for weeks.