> The “100 mile” regulation was an upper limit on what “reasonable distance” could be. The actual regulation requires the CBP to define “reasonable distance” ba

> The “100 mile” regulation was an upper limit on what “reasonable distance” could be. The actual regulation requires the CBP to define “reasonable distance” based on geography. If what you described reflected reality I'd agree with every word of it. Clearly it's absurd in say the case of Alaskan wilderness to require CBP to setup a checkpoint anywhere near the actual border. But as you can read in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte[1] the ACLU is more correct than not, although clearly "Constitution-free zone" is a bit of hyperbolic marketing. The defendant in that case was stopped at a CBP checkpoint halfway up to Los Angeles from the Mexican border. Millions of US citizens permanently live in the San Diego area between the Mexican border and that CBP checkpoint. I don't see how you can look at a map of San Diego and reasonably conclude that the CBP couldn't do its job using only border stations placed within a mile or two of the border. > New York City is not within the extended border, even though it’s within 100 miles of the border, and CBP has never claimed otherwise. So far, but what's at issue is that if they plop down a CBP station between Brooklyn and Manhattan they have existing Supreme Court judgments to back them up. 1. http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep428/usrep428543/usrep428543.pdf http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep428/usrep428543/usr...