I'm reading this now and already you run into the issue of it claiming that Chicago would fall within this supposed extended border zone, despite not being anywhere close to 100 miles from 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States, per 8 CFR 287 (this is an analysis I've shoplifted from 'jcranmer).
That said: the rotating CBP checkpoints around places like Tucson are, as this article observes, probably unlawful! You've got Almeida-Sanchez that says straight out that warrantless evidence collected from intrusive searches far from the border without any reasonable belief of a recent border crossing are inadmissible, and then you're left to figure out how to deal with the harassing impact of these checkpoints on locals.
I'm not here to stick up for CBP. I've had only bad experiences with them. But also, I don't live within a 100 mile "Constitution-free zone", no matter what ACLU may claim.
Start on page 404 of this to see it basically reciting the same argument I'm making.
Per page 399 'Although Chicago is well beyond the 100-mile limit for CBP activity, the entire city (and 100 miles southward into Illinois) are all subject to extended Border Patrol enforcement authority and the “border search exception” because Chicago is adjacent to Lake Michigan, which is considered an “external boundary.”'
I don't think the ACLU is claiming the 100 mile zone exists de jure but rather that CBP and successive executive branches rely on a specious claim, it's extremely hard to sue them, and so the 100 mile zone is a de facto reality. You can of course tell a CBP agent to get bent and that you'll fight it in court, but (assuming you're driving) you'll probably stop if waved down.
I agree with your legal analysis, but absent a court or executive order explicitly stating the CBP has no such authority, they act as if they do. It is this reality which the ACLU is describing, howbeit shallowly.
Right, and I'm observing that 'jcranmer went and looked at the statutory definition of "external boundary" and it conclusively does not not include Lake Michigan; I even cited the statute for you. :)
A reminder here that Lake Michigan is entirely bounded by the United States. I think it's as internal as the Great Salt Lake.
The times I’ve seen Lake Michigan claimed as an external entry point it’s because you can come by boat from outside the US to it.
This is of course ridiculous because by that definition lots of US cities sit next to that sort of body of water including any city on the Mississippi.
That said: the rotating CBP checkpoints around places like Tucson are, as this article observes, probably unlawful! You've got Almeida-Sanchez that says straight out that warrantless evidence collected from intrusive searches far from the border without any reasonable belief of a recent border crossing are inadmissible, and then you're left to figure out how to deal with the harassing impact of these checkpoints on locals.
I'm not here to stick up for CBP. I've had only bad experiences with them. But also, I don't live within a 100 mile "Constitution-free zone", no matter what ACLU may claim.
Start on page 404 of this to see it basically reciting the same argument I'm making.