5 ms·

This is even more important than it sounds because the US federal goverment considers 100 miles inland from any international border (including the great lakes,

This is even more important than it sounds because the US federal goverment considers 100 miles inland from any international border (including the great lakes, etc) as being "the border". And that is where 80% of the people in the USA live.

tintor 5mo ago
Including 100 miles from international airports?
- dgoldstein0 5mo ago
  I think it's land and sea borders. Which would encompass all large coastal cities, the gulf coast and much of Texas/new Mexico /Arizona / socal due to proximity to Mexican border + Chicago/Michigan/etc due to proximity to Canadian border
  - esseph 5mo ago
    International airports are a border and fall under CBP. So do "vessels", busses that may move between countries, etc. > Employees traveling internationally on behalf of an organization must take steps to protect sensitive, confidential, or proprietary data carried on electronic devices. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has broad authority to inspect electronic devices—regardless of citizenship—at U.S. airports, land borders, seaports, and preclearance facilities abroad. https://www.potomaclaw.com/news-Border-Search-Inspection-of-Electronic-Devices https://www.potomaclaw.com/news-Border-Search-Inspection-of-... It's extremely complicated: https://cdt.org/insights/no-warrants-and-half-a-dozen-different-rules-the-convoluted-and-dangerous-status-of-the-border-search-exception/ https://cdt.org/insights/no-warrants-and-half-a-dozen-differ...
  - ssl-3 5mo ago
    AFAICT, the line is 100 miles from the border as defined as "the edge of the US," not as defined as "100 miles from a foreign country." This line[1] encompasses places even as far inland as Columbus, Ohio, and Columbus, Georgia, which are good examples of being perhaps least border-feeling, non-coastal cities that I've ever spent time in. I wouldn't blame anyone for having never visited the grand metropolis of Fort Wayne, Indiana, but that's within 100 miles of the line, too. Lots of other unlikely cities are this way are this way as well. [1]: Here's a map on ArcGIS. I only found it; I did not have any part in creating it: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=f43e135590624c8ebf959b02d4d0745b https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=f43e...
cvoss 5mo ago
I'm reading the statute this comes from [0] and its associated definitions [1] but I don't see that it's as bad as you made it sound. (I don't love it, still.) The 100 mile "reasonable distance" is used to define where vessels and vehicles may be searched for aliens. But the warrantless search may only be applied to persons seeking admission for whom an officer has suspicion of reasonable cause for denying the person entry. Of the 80% of people living within that distance (which is an upper bound, btw; the agents in charge are required to set a bound not to exceed that by taking into account such things as "density of population, possible inconvenience to the traveling public.") almost none can be suspected of being under reasonable cause for denial of entry. So to do the thing you are fearing, 1) the chief patrol agent has to set the distance to encompass an inappropriately large area in violation of this law, 2) an agent has to stop and search cars randomly, and 3) somehow become suspicious that an occupant is seeking entry and ought to be denied entry, and 4) believe that searching that person's device would reveal information demonstrating that the suspicion is correct. It's not great, but it's not "80% of Americans can have their devices searched without a warrant". [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357 [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/287.1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/287.1
- ceejayoz 5mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_interior_checkpoints https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_in... > The U.S. Border Patrol has stated: "Although motorists are not legally required to answer the questions 'Are you a U.S. citizen, and where are you headed?' they will not be allowed to proceed until the inspecting agent is satisfied that the occupants of vehicles traveling through the checkpoint are legally present in the U.S." I'm not convinced "the law says you can't do that" is super meaningful in 2026.
  - TimorousBestie 5mo ago
    > I'm not convinced "the law says you can't do that" is super meaningful in 2026. Exactly. Everyone reading extremely fine distinctions into the relevant laws should at least do the work of also showing that those laws are currently applied in the manner they imply. To do otherwise is to speculate on how the law would be applied in a country operating under the rule of law, and that’s of little immediate application.
rayiner 5mo ago
That's incorrect, or at best misleadingly incomplete. 8 USC §1357(a) authorizes border agents to, "(3) within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States." The associated regulations, 8 C.F.R. §287.1, interpret "reasonable distance" to mean up to 100 miles from the actual border. But: "In fixing distances not exceeding 100 air miles pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, chief patrol agents and special agents in charge shall take into consideration topography, confluence of arteries of transportation leading from external boundaries, density of population, possible inconvenience to the traveling public, types of conveyances used, and reliable information as to movements of persons effecting illegal entry into the United States." The statute and regulation just mean that agents don't need to patrol the border at the literal border--which in some cases runs through the middle of bodies of water. But they must justify the determinations of what's a "reasonable distance" from the border must be based on what's needed to prevent illegal entry into the United States, based on factors such as topography and transportation routes.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- antonvs 5mo ago
  The problem is that the Trump administration interprets those laws as granting them the power to do warrantless vehicle stops and searches, as well as expedited removal, anywhere in that 100-mile zone. The ACLU has a page about it: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
tptacek 5mo ago
There's Supreme Court precedent establishing that this isn't the case. ACLU itself had backed off it, last I checked, but since they used it for a very long time in fundraising, people will never, ever stop believing that 80% of the United States lives in a "Constitution-free zone". You cannot in fact be border-searched on the streets of Chicago; in fact, you can't even be border-searched at a lawful fixed immigration checkpoint. Border searches need a nexus to an actual border crossing.
- joecool1029 5mo ago
  > There's Supreme Court precedent establishing that this isn't the case. This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuer... or is there newer now? > ACLU itself had backed off it, last I checked They did, the current page greatly narrows the scope of their border-zone guidance to the SCOTUS case I linked before: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
- ryandrake 5mo ago
  The words of the law don't seem to matter much anymore. If the government does something, and they receive no push back (either from the people supposed to be checking-and-balancing, or from the victim in the form of successful lawsuits), then they, for all intents and purposes, can in practice do that thing.
  - tptacek 5mo ago
    Then none of this matters and there's no point discussing it.

tintor 5mo ago

Including 100 miles from international airports?

dgoldstein0 5mo ago
I think it's land and sea borders. Which would encompass all large coastal cities, the gulf coast and much of Texas/new Mexico /Arizona / socal due to proximity to Mexican border + Chicago/Michigan/etc due to proximity to Canadian border
- esseph 5mo ago
  International airports are a border and fall under CBP. So do "vessels", busses that may move between countries, etc. > Employees traveling internationally on behalf of an organization must take steps to protect sensitive, confidential, or proprietary data carried on electronic devices. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has broad authority to inspect electronic devices—regardless of citizenship—at U.S. airports, land borders, seaports, and preclearance facilities abroad. https://www.potomaclaw.com/news-Border-Search-Inspection-of-Electronic-Devices https://www.potomaclaw.com/news-Border-Search-Inspection-of-... It's extremely complicated: https://cdt.org/insights/no-warrants-and-half-a-dozen-different-rules-the-convoluted-and-dangerous-status-of-the-border-search-exception/ https://cdt.org/insights/no-warrants-and-half-a-dozen-differ...
- ssl-3 5mo ago
  AFAICT, the line is 100 miles from the border as defined as "the edge of the US," not as defined as "100 miles from a foreign country." This line[1] encompasses places even as far inland as Columbus, Ohio, and Columbus, Georgia, which are good examples of being perhaps least border-feeling, non-coastal cities that I've ever spent time in. I wouldn't blame anyone for having never visited the grand metropolis of Fort Wayne, Indiana, but that's within 100 miles of the line, too. Lots of other unlikely cities are this way are this way as well. [1]: Here's a map on ArcGIS. I only found it; I did not have any part in creating it: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=f43e135590624c8ebf959b02d4d0745b https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=f43e...

cvoss 5mo ago

I'm reading the statute this comes from [0] and its associated definitions [1] but I don't see that it's as bad as you made it sound. (I don't love it, still.) The 100 mile "reasonable distance" is used to define where vessels and vehicles may be searched for aliens. But the warrantless search may only be applied to persons seeking admission for whom an officer has suspicion of reasonable cause for denying the person entry. Of the 80% of people living within that distance (which is an upper bound, btw; the agents in charge are required to set a bound not to exceed that by taking into account such things as "density of population, possible inconvenience to the traveling public.") almost none can be suspected of being under reasonable cause for denial of entry. So to do the thing you are fearing, 1) the chief patrol agent has to set the distance to encompass an inappropriately large area in violation of this law, 2) an agent has to stop and search cars randomly, and 3) somehow become suspicious that an occupant is seeking entry and ought to be denied entry, and 4) believe that searching that person's device would reveal information demonstrating that the suspicion is correct. It's not great, but it's not "80% of Americans can have their devices searched without a warrant". [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357 [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/287.1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/287.1

ceejayoz 5mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_interior_checkpoints https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_in... > The U.S. Border Patrol has stated: "Although motorists are not legally required to answer the questions 'Are you a U.S. citizen, and where are you headed?' they will not be allowed to proceed until the inspecting agent is satisfied that the occupants of vehicles traveling through the checkpoint are legally present in the U.S." I'm not convinced "the law says you can't do that" is super meaningful in 2026.
- TimorousBestie 5mo ago
  > I'm not convinced "the law says you can't do that" is super meaningful in 2026. Exactly. Everyone reading extremely fine distinctions into the relevant laws should at least do the work of also showing that those laws are currently applied in the manner they imply. To do otherwise is to speculate on how the law would be applied in a country operating under the rule of law, and that’s of little immediate application.

rayiner 5mo ago

That's incorrect, or at best misleadingly incomplete. 8 USC §1357(a) authorizes border agents to, "(3) within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States." The associated regulations, 8 C.F.R. §287.1, interpret "reasonable distance" to mean up to 100 miles from the actual border. But: "In fixing distances not exceeding 100 air miles pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, chief patrol agents and special agents in charge shall take into consideration topography, confluence of arteries of transportation leading from external boundaries, density of population, possible inconvenience to the traveling public, types of conveyances used, and reliable information as to movements of persons effecting illegal entry into the United States." The statute and regulation just mean that agents don't need to patrol the border at the literal border--which in some cases runs through the middle of bodies of water. But they must justify the determinations of what's a "reasonable distance" from the border must be based on what's needed to prevent illegal entry into the United States, based on factors such as topography and transportation routes.

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
antonvs 5mo ago
The problem is that the Trump administration interprets those laws as granting them the power to do warrantless vehicle stops and searches, as well as expedited removal, anywhere in that 100-mile zone. The ACLU has a page about it: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone

tptacek 5mo ago

There's Supreme Court precedent establishing that this isn't the case. ACLU itself had backed off it, last I checked, but since they used it for a very long time in fundraising, people will never, ever stop believing that 80% of the United States lives in a "Constitution-free zone". You cannot in fact be border-searched on the streets of Chicago; in fact, you can't even be border-searched at a lawful fixed immigration checkpoint. Border searches need a nexus to an actual border crossing.

joecool1029 5mo ago
> There's Supreme Court precedent establishing that this isn't the case. This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuer... or is there newer now? > ACLU itself had backed off it, last I checked They did, the current page greatly narrows the scope of their border-zone guidance to the SCOTUS case I linked before: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
ryandrake 5mo ago
The words of the law don't seem to matter much anymore. If the government does something, and they receive no push back (either from the people supposed to be checking-and-balancing, or from the victim in the form of successful lawsuits), then they, for all intents and purposes, can in practice do that thing.
- tptacek 5mo ago
  Then none of this matters and there's no point discussing it.