The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution contains a border-related exception to unreasonable search and seizure laws, permitting searches at border checkpoints that wouldn't be permitted elsewhere. But federal statute 8 CFR 287.1 (a)(1-3) defines the border zone for enforcement purposes as encompassing an area within 100 miles of the actual border, with the possibility of extending it further under certain circumstances. This means that the US Border Patrol could conceivably set up random checkpoints asking travelers for a passport in places like Columbus, Ohio; Houston; or anywhere in the state of Florida.I had thought the map exaggerated the distance, but when I measured at another site, it appears the orange margin is correct.
I think this article is particularly worth noting in that it dates from 2008 - well before the current concerns about Arizona's new immigration law.
That would explain the border checkpoint they have on highway 85, just north of Las Cruces, NM.
ReplyDeleteI think they need to check their math around Michigan... I don't think the west coast of Michigan is within 100 miles of a boarder (last I checked).
ReplyDeleterfdeshon, I am pretty sure all of Lake Michigan is considered a "border" to the country.
ReplyDeleteLake Huron is the lake that borders up with Canada. Lake Michigan borders up with IN, IL, & WI.
ReplyDeleteHmm. My two cents. Lake Michigan as a "border" to the US: except for Lake Michigan, which is totally within the US, all the Great Lakes border Canada, but Lake Michigan is not landlocked and can be accessed from Lake Huron (Mackinaw Bridge on I-75).
ReplyDeleteMichigan all orange: I would think Michigan would be vulnerable and strategically located because of being bordered by Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, and Erie, and by Canada for that 100 or so miles between Lake Huron and Lake Erie. In all, the US border around the Great Lakes--not a border I'd want to be responsible for patrolling.
Wait, for this to be right, the USA would have to be saying that its legal border is at the shore, and it's jurisdiction doesn't extend into the sea at all.
ReplyDeleteMark, I'm sure the point of the graphic was not to deny seaward extension of sovereignity, but to emphasize to landlubbers their residence in the realm of authority. Extending the color scheme outward would have just clouded the point they were trying to make.
ReplyDelete