> 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.
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.
> 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.
So, that covers the “but not within 100 miles of the international waters boundary” part of your request.
This makes perfect sense - the actual border is nearly 300 miles from Chicago - but I guess one question is, does the Border Patrol know this, or do they treat Chicago as being in the border zone?
As someone else pointed out, the ACLU seem to think Chicago is included in the zone. I wonder if that's based on any facts they've seen.
So the 100 air miles mean 114 miles, and those extra 12 nautical miles ends up not mattering for both west and east coasts. You are right about Chicago though.
"America’s Border Wars: Inside the Constitution-free Zone"
They will be streaming the panel discussion for free on their site. Should be interesting!
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.
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.
A few years ago I frequently traveled through Yuma and San Diego, and twice through New Mexico, and those checkpoints were always open.
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.
If a first border line was insufficient, they will eventually complain about the second one being insufficient as well.
Just how many do you think they need to be satisfied?? (answer: no amount will do, because the answer to how much $whatever$ the government needs will always be 'more', and limitations will always be abused)
If they really want to bother people in say St Louis, MO that's not near a border by any stretch of imagination, they will create some legal fiction like any airport being a potential border.
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.
The main problem is not the law, it's DHS doing illegal stuff: https://www.aclu.org/other/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."