
Mapping Who Lives in Border Patrol's '100-Mile Zone' (2018) - aaronbrethorst
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/who-lives-in-border-patrols-100-mile-zone-probably-you-mapped/558275/
======
jcranmer
Unfortunately, the map isn't accurate. The actual definition of the "100 mile
zone" comes from 8 CFR 287 (see
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/287.1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/287.1)),
which says:

> The term external boundary, as used in section 287(a)(3) of the Act, means
> the land boundaries and the territorial sea of the United States extending
> 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in
> accordance with international law.

What does that mean? That means that the 100-mile radius does not start from
the Chesapeake Bay, it starts from about 13 miles off the Eastern Shore.
Washington, D.C., for example, is not within this zone. Nor is Chicago or any
part of Illinois within the zone--Lake Michigan doesn't have any 12-nautical
mile basis to start counting from.

~~~
porphyrogene
The ACLU, MIT researchers, think tank representatives and the border patrol
itself contradict your claim in the article.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357)

[https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-
zone...](https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-
zone?redirect=constitution-100-mile-border-zone)

~~~
jcranmer
Neither of your sources clarifies the interpretation I gave or offers any sort
of refutation. The link I gave and the text I copied provides the definition
of "external boundary" for these purposes.

~~~
porphyrogene
The 100-mile border zone is being enforced. Are you contradicting the news
articles, videos and other first-hand accounts of raids taking place far from
the border? The evidence is right in front of your eyes.

~~~
jcranmer
I'm not disputing that there is a 100-mile border zone.

I'm disputing that the depiction of the border zone is inaccurate with respect
to the water borders, which greatly skews the map around the Chesapeake Bay
and Lake Michigan.

If you want to convince me that my interpretation is wrong, please either:

a) Provide a link to a court ruling or CBP interpretation that the 100 miles
starts at the _coast_ and not the international waters boundary at 12nmi, or

b) Provide a link to evidence that checkpoints are being conducted under the
provision of this regulation that are occurring within 100 miles of the coast
but not within 100 miles of the international waters boundary.

~~~
antonvs
The ACLU page includes the following claim:

> And still CBP cheats its way to more interior encroachment, for example, by
> claiming that the Great Lakes shared with Canada are “functional equivalents
> of the border” so that all of Michigan and Chicago are in its reach.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem to provide any support for that, but presumably
they have some basis for saying that.

~~~
torstenvl
Lake Michigan is not shared with Canada. Chicago is not within 100 miles of
Lake Huron, Lake Erie, or Lake Superior.

~~~
tomjakubowski
I'm sure it's not legally relevant but, hydrologically speaking, Michigan and
Huron are a single lake.

------
Stratoscope
In an odd coincidence, while I was reading this I received an email
announcement about a Cato Institute event on February 4:

"America’s Border Wars: Inside the Constitution-free Zone"

[https://www.cato.org/events/americas-border-wars-inside-
cons...](https://www.cato.org/events/americas-border-wars-inside-constitution-
free-zone)

They will be streaming the panel discussion for free on their site. Should be
interesting!

~~~
kennywinker
Warning: the cato instituit is a “libertarian think tank” funded by the koch
brothers. Be very wary of their particular biases

~~~
Stratoscope
Everyone is biased, and the Cato Institute makes no secret what their biases
are.

Personally I prefer to get information and opinions from a wide variety of
biased sources, instead of trusting some news institution that pretends to be
unbiased.

~~~
kennywinker
I wasn’t suggesting who to trust. I just know that I personally wouldn’t trust
an organization founded by the Koch brothers to be honest debators, and I know
I’m not the only one who would want to know they were involved.

------
vinay427
Is this how the inland CBP checkpoints are allowed to operate? For instance,
there's one on I-5 near San Clemente, CA, and another on I-8 near Yuma, AZ.

They've never been open and actively checking cars when I've passed by, and I
heard that they're only used when looking for vehicles that match a tip they
may have received, but I have wondered about their authority.

~~~
leereeves
Have they shut down?

A few years ago I frequently traveled through Yuma and San Diego, and twice
through New Mexico, and those checkpoints were always open.

~~~
vinay427
They still exist and are staffed with officers in the building and patrol cars
outside, but I've never seen the I-5 San Clemente one actually checking cars.
According to some Google Maps reviews, they only use it when a relevant tip
comes in, so perhaps I've just been lucky. That being said, I don't drive
through the area extremely frequently. It may have been around 5-7 times in
the past year.

------
SubiculumCode
I am not lawyer, however the border-zone sure seems unconstitutional to
me...and if arguments for it Constitutionality rely on the idea that the
border zone represents a very restricted edge case, then this excellent
article clearly makes that position a farce.

~~~
onetimemanytime
IMO, the idea was that smugglers passed the border and now are moving inland.
They should not be safe just because they crossed that line. So they drew
another one. In general a good idea but as always the government abuses it.

~~~
Retric
If the line was say 5 miles you might have a point. But, 100 miles is long
enough to basicly be meaningless.

~~~
refurb
Agreed. Having a zone is reasonable, otherwise people could make it a mile
over the border and CBP would have limited enforcement ability.

However, 100 miles seems excessive.

That said, it’s more complicated than “a 100 mile constitution free zone”. CBP
can have checkpoints and can briefly question people, but they can’t search a
vehicle without a warrant.[1]

[1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception)

~~~
LanceH
Sure, but then there are the warrant issuing dogs.

------
TomMckenny
I note that the number of non-deportable detentions are well above deportable
detentions.

So it certainly seems like the CPB check points are now primarily being used
to spot check for crimes other than immigration. If so, it seems that the
special rules in the border zone are already being widely used to extend
search and seizure beyond what would be legal outside the border zone. Perhaps
this is being justified as yet another semi-exception to the constitution in
the name of the endless war on drugs.

------
inamberclad
A few years ago, the CBP was tracking private aircraft on state-to-state
flights and searching them without warrants on questionable grounds [0].

[0]: [https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-
news/2013/june/19/ao...](https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-
news/2013/june/19/aopa-demands-answers-on-aircraft-searches)

------
mnm1
Hasn't there been a single case that has gone to the Supreme Court over this
in 60+ years? Or do they just refuse to hear them?

~~~
onetimemanytime
Judging by what ACLU says, asking about your alien status is all legal. After
all, USA does have a lot of immigrants staying illegally. We need them etc.,
but the agency is tasked with removing them and stopping the flow.

The main problem is not the law, it's DHS doing illegal stuff:
[https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-
zone...](https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-
zone?redirect=constitution-100-mile-border-zone) _" The Supreme Court has
upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops
consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status. Checkpoints
cannot be primarily used for drug-search or general law enforcement efforts.
In practice, however, Border Patrol agents often do not limit themselves to
brief immigration inquiries and regularly conduct criminal investigations and
illegal searches at checkpoints. The Border Patrol also frequently pulls over
motorists in "roving patrol" stops, often without any suspicion that an
immigration violation has occurred."_

------
superkuh
It's funny how this thing was ignored for 4 whole presidential terms but now
it's suddenly a big deal.

------
ivoras
There's so much fear in the US of A :( And you don't have to be Yoda to
realise what fear leads to...

