Or better yet, can you explain the difference between a loophole and a deliberate choice of language intending to make one thing legal and another very similar thing illegal?
I meant in a general sense but practices like having other five eyes partners or a private company surveil US citizens to avoid a US agency doing anything illegal come to mind.
The only difference is in the intent of the author or when the law was written. The fourth amendment seems quite clear but we give that up at the border for some apparent reason.
The Supreme Court is the only body charged with interpreting the Constitution, and they've been very consistent and clear that for the most part the fourth amendment doesn't apply at the border. 4A protects against unreasonable searches. Searching people entering the country at an international border is entirely reasonable, so 4A doesn't apply.
Obviously there's debate about considering a state road 98 miles inside the country a "border zone," and I don't think border rules should apply there, but at the border is pretty much settled law.
Laws only matter if they are enforced or if the loopholes used to exploit them are closed.