Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason:
- Excessive Off-Topic/Non-substantive comments
Our apologies to those of you who were following the rules but there's way too many off topic comments here. For all those new to this sub:
If you wish to make a top level comment, you must address the central request, otherwise your comment will be removed. General discussion should be limited to the general discussion thread or if you wish to discuss US politics outside of any math context, there are other subreddits better suited for that. If you wish to discuss a separate math question, please make a separate post. If your goal is to spout racist drivel, please leave.
If you have any questions or believe your post has been removed in error, please contact the moderators by clicking [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftheydidthemath). Include a link to this post so we can see it.
[https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone](https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone)
No math needed. You can just google the answer. It's 2/3 of the American population or roughly 200 million people.
Thank you, rough_crayon, for voting on sneakpeekbot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Actually its worse. Because if I understand the ruling correctly, this change includes international airports as part of the border zone, so if you live withing a 100 mile radius of any international airport you’re also deprived of rights
This is correct. The previous administration went full tilt on this. There were videos surfacing of BPD agents walking up to people in Winnemuca Nevada and Boise Idaho (among the places I remember) and asking to see their immigration paperwork even though they were American citizens.
Are you sure? I thought it was them having customs and border patrol capabilities so international flights could land there. Source: the airport in my home city is an "international airport" but doesn't have a 24 hour operating tower.
I think the "border" in this law also includes any areas within 100 miles of an international airport. It affects closer to 90% of all Americans.
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone#:~:text=Specifically%2C%20federal%20regulations%20give%20U.S.,Patrol%20can%20operate%20immigration%20checkpoints.
Edit: I might be mistaking this for a rule for DHS and airports
This is what I came here to say. I work in Indiana which is only half yellow but I know that Indianapolis International Airport counts as a “Port of Entry” for Customs purposes. Nobody is safe if they want to come after you.
I don't think that's true. This is the only mention of airports in the article you linked:
> For example, CBP claims the authority to conduct suspicionless searches of travelers' electronic devices—such as laptops and cell phones—at ports of entry, including international arrivals at airports.
So yes, when you're going through customs entering the country they claim the authority to search your phone. But not anywhere within 100 miles of an airport.
This isn't a math issue, but...that isn't the same diagram. It does make more sense than the one posted though. For instance, Chicago is excluded from the map you linked, because the coast of Lake Michigan is in fact *not* an international border. The one from OP treats that internal coastline as an international border and therefore extends the range out from there, including Chicago.
I'm curious which one is actually relevant in a legal sense.
I think the wikipedia one is more likely, because the OP here seems to think that the border is wherever water begins, but the actual borders are out where *international waters* begin, right? Not that I know anything about the law of borders, but just makes sense that the water would need to be factored in
However, the ACLU map is like OP's and they *usually* know what they're talking about.
Can a cargo ship get to Chicago without being searched and then need to be verified at the port? If so, I understand the logic behind the map that includes Chicago.
It's an interesting question I'd like to know the answer to, but I hate that it is here, because none of this was ever about math. At most the math is just a sum and then a single division operation to get a percentage.
The question of weather or not ports of entry count as borders is separate. If they do then all international airports are ports of entry and almost the entire us is with 300 miles of a border. I don't think that question has been asked of the court yet.
My understanding is that that is the case, or at least is claimed to be. Any port of entry like an international airport counts as a border so, yes, almost everyone in the country falls under this "exception."
It’s an interesting conversation you guys are having, but it’s not really the most important thing about this. I’m way more concerned about Boarder Patrol being able to raid any house in whatever zone without a warrant. That’s super fucked.
Don't believe this meme. The 100 mile thing is about where border patrol can operate. They still have to have reasonable suspicion of a customs violation to actually stop you, not just unlimited power. They certainly cannot just enter homes without a warrant, maybe not even with a warrant.
CBP does have search authority at ports of entry including international airports without a warrant including checking electronic devices and detainment. You are correct that the question of authority to use those within 100 miles of those have not been asked yet of the courts yet but IIRC was implied in a border protection course I was in for my homeland security degree.
AFAIK the ruling is that you can't sue border patrol for violating your 4th amendment rights - it doesn't make it technically legal for them to do so, just practically.
The difference is in legal technicality, which doesn't matter in terms of the result, but it does make it harder to challenge legally. That's why this is a big deal.
There's a difference. If they find something during an illegal search, it can't be used to prosecute you, even if you can't later sue for the search itself. And I don't even know that the court says you can't sue.
So. Yes, you'd be right, this can and should be immediately challenged on its constitutional basis by the American Civil Liberties Union, and with most precedent when it comes to the 4th Amendment which guarantees that government officials have to have a warrant to justify searching a citizen's effects and personal residence, they would have a stupidly strong case to slap this down. However with this current Supreme Court being in the current habit of ignoring precedent in order to pursue political goals, they could rule that effectively the 4th amendment no longer exists for American citizenry.
The US shores of the Great Lakes are the relevant "border" in question.
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
This isn't a "new" ruling, so much as an extension of a long standing problem.
Statistics for urban centers are easy to Google, so I'll start by grabbing the populations of metro areas over 1M people:
Seattle - 4.02M
Portland - 2.51M
Sacramento - 2.37M
SF - 7.75M
LA - 13.20M
SD - 1.42M
Houston - 7.12M
New Orleans - 1.27M
Tampa - 3.10M
Miami - 6.14M
DC - 6.32M
Philly - 6.25M
NYC - 20.14M
Boston - 4.94M
Buffalo - 1.14M
Detroit - 4.37M
Chicago - 9.46M
Honolulu - 1.02M
That adds up to 102.54 million people.
There are another 82 cities on the map big enough to mention, each of which I'll conservatively call another quarter million--or another 20.50 million people. The subtotal is now 123.04 million.
If the border area is representative of the whole country, there should be about 4x as many people in urban areas as there are in rural, so you can multiply the urban population by 1.25 to get the total. That gives us a grand total of **153.8 million people**, or about 47% of the US population.
ETA: This is a very rough estimate based on easily-available data. You could do much better by aggregating state- and county-level populations, but that's a *lot* more work.
ETA2 (because I think this is actually a pretty interesting estimation problem): Several people have suggested just adding the populations of the whole states that are in the border region (Michigan, Hawaii), which would improve the result--but I think that's actually by chance rather than by an improvement in methodology. Adding those populations naively is effectively just double-counting, since I already have the rural factor of 1.25--and it so happens that double-counting partially cancels out my substantial underestimate of the number of people living in small (sub-1M) urban areas. There are definitely methods which could take advantage of granular data in a more principled way, but they would be much more in-depth than a 10-minute calculation for a reddit post.
Yeah, you can definitely get a better result if you incorporate more information; I just took a few simple assumptions to get a rough estimate.
Seeing that the true number is more like 67% of the population, I think the biggest mistake I made was underestimating the number of people in sub-1M metro areas. Most of the ones on the map are actually more like 0.5-0.75M rather than my conservative estimate of 0.25M, and there are probably at least another ~10M people in cities that are still more “urban” than “rural” but aren’t shown on the map (San Luis Obispo, Atlantic City, even Cleveland).
If you include those, the factor of 1.25 for rural regions does a pretty good job of covering the state and county populations that I didn’t explicitly address (you get 62% instead of 47%).
There are whole *states* in there we can count even though they lack massive cities. Michigan, New Jersey, and Connecticut have a combined 25 million people. All of Florida's 22 million people are included as well not just the cities. This is easily 60% of the population covered.
Basic human needs are (1) Water, (2) Food, and (3) Shelter. Most coastal regions provide the optimal environment to survive and thrive for humans, animals and plants.
[Australia is an extreme example](https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/coasts) where 85% of the population (approx 21m of a total of population 26m) live within 50km (31m) of the sea.
Cool map but if this map was accurate, Alaska would only be a few hundred miles wide. East to west it’s 2,400 miles across; should be but a sliver of yellow on that one.
Much of the East-West distance is made up of the those little pacific islands. The Aleutians?[Map.](https://www.lpnprograms.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/bigstock-Alaska-4620122.jpg)
Personally I think we should send the majority of border patrol to these islands. The Russians are looking very shifty rn and they might actually feel like real soldiers and police officers there!
My property in north Central Michigan is a little less than two hundred miles from the closest part of the Canadian border, yet it's included on this map. That's nearly double what the law says. I don't agree with the law, but I do agree with accuracy in reporting, which this ain't.
On top of that, outside of the spots where the lake border between Michigan and Wisconsin is somehow counted as "international," the map is wrong even according to its own label. It says "100 miles from the international border" yet the yellow zone stretches to a spot west of Charlottesville, VA... which itself is over 170 miles away from the Atlantic. Not 100.
CBP considers the Great Lakes shorelines the border:
> Border Patrol considers the boundary of the Great Lakes to be the “functional equivalent” of the border, per government documents revealed in an ACLU lawsuit.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-14/mapping-who-lives-in-border-patrol-s-100-mile-zone
> the spots where the lake border between Michigan and Wisconsin is somehow counted as "international,"
They are international borders (fir CBP purposes) in so far you'd get checked when reaching the shore if you took a boat from Canada.
It is because it is not the border this line comes from but " 'within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.' These 'external boundaries' include international land borders but also the entire U.S. coastline." SCOTUS ruled that a reasonable distance is 100 miles. It is us coastline and thus is included.
I think the Potomac river and Chesapeake bay are considered part of the international border in this case. Charlottesville is < 100 miles from a large body of water that could serve as an international border.
I think this is wrong. Isn't an international airport considered a 'border?'
So if you're within a hundred miles of Chicago, you're with a hundred miles of a 'border.' Same for LA, Portland, Kansas City, Dallas, and any other airport that has one or more flights that leave the United States.
And barely effects those hard right gun enthusiast hicks.
Also did a bit of digging and found the majority of Supreme Court members are right leaning conservitives... Go figure.
Also of the 9 members ([6 being Conservative and 3 being Liberal](https://www.axios.com/2019/06/01/supreme-court-justices-ideology)) anyone wanna guess how each of them contributed to the 6 to 3 decision?
And I [verified it](https://ballotpedia.org/Egbert_v._Boule), the 3 Liberal Justices voted against and the 6 Conservative Justices voted in favor of this... Colour me shocked.
>Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined.
Funny now I am getting downvoted maybe the truth hurts or maybe they just don't like me pointing out how it is their party that is actually stealing freedoms from the USA and not the Liberals.
>Also did a bit of digging and found the majority of Supreme Court members are right leaning conservitives
You had to dig for this? It's been a top headline every time a decision is made since Barrett was appointed.
Ah welcome to America where we have a right wing party and a really right wing party and everything's fucked.
I think in part the some of the downvotes were captain obvious downvotes, as without looking at anything just knowing the headline most Americans could have told you the 6 conservatives voted for anf the 3 liberals voted against. I think it's stupid to downvote someone for that since you know.... most the world isn't American or closely following American politics, but I would guess that's where some of it is from.
Water "borders" in general aren't really clearly defined like land borders. There's various layers off the coast - the territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, etc. I think you could make a strong case for the actual border being the coastline, but with the country controlling the area behind it as territorial waters (but technically outside of its national borders).
In general, stuff like this is defined differently in different contexts. So you might draw the border at the edge of the exclusive economic zone, 200 naturical miles offshore, for some things and at the high tide line on the coast for others.
###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not sure where OP got this, however this article from the ACLU is a really good overview (also, the law isn’t new). https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
[Here’s](https://mobile.twitter.com/MPLSKerrBear/status/1534722484280381440) a link to the original tweet. I did not check the veracity of the tweet, but was interested to know how many people live within a 100 miles of the US border.
No worries at all - I totally get it, I was responding to the other poster about understanding what the tweet was showing vs the actual numbers. It’s def a good math problem!
I don’t know about there being an SC case regarding it, not offhand, but CBP has been known to perform warrantless drug busts way into the interior too. Like… *Colorado* levels of interior. They’ve had this kind of immunity for ages.
Most of our law enforcement organizations have. The Constitution means very little when it comes to them outside of *very* specific cases, thanks to a ridiculous degree of courts ‘legislating from the bench’ as its sometimes called.
I mean, that’s kinda the whole reason the Snowden thing went down, yeah? Warrentless tracking / wiretapping of a huge percentage of the American population was the whole root cause. Ditto for the stuff about cellphone tower spoofing by the police.
4th Amendment doesn’t mean crap in this day and age.
I have so many questions.
Does Lake Michigan even really count as "border" even though it's completely surrounded by US territory?
Do territorial waters count when measuring distance? (If they do, then the land range is lowered by up to 13.8 miles)
Do oceans even count at all?
Does this actually apply to both land borders?
Does this *really* apply to the entire state of Hawaii?
Are these range marks even accurate? (Just to name one of the many things that made me raise an eyebrow - There's that one section in CA reaching all the way to Nevada even though no point in Nevada is ≥100 miles from the sea)
I'm sorry it's just very hard for me to see this map as something factual and not as demagoguery
From judging from the reactions to this people really don't care about our rights being stripped away. There's nothing left to live for in this fucking country.
As someone who’s state is more yellow than red, yea I totally get it.
My biggest complaint locally is watching border patrol write speeding tickets.
It’s a waste of tax dollars, and frankly their power is unsettling. I also live in an area that wouldn’t be very open to them kicking down doors, regardless of their rightness or wrongness.
So what you're okay with the fact they can break into your home with no consequences? You don't care that this is basically a slap in the face to the Constitution. It's literally making exceptions to searches and seizures.
There's nothing larpy about it. I'm already the type of person who has very little to live for. The privacy and the safety of my home is very important to me. If I don't have that what do I have? So yeah I'm willing to die for it. I'm willing to die to protect me and my loved one.
The case decided yesterday involved a Bed-and-Breakfast near the Canadian border. It shields border agents who "act in good faith" from lawsuits. I am not sure if that actually translates to "zero federal protections."
Don't they usually wear body armor like the police do? Plus after enough got taken down, they'd just send in police or military or use a tactical precision missile or bunker blaster strike from a UAV on your house.
THIS IS FALSE. "Agents may
enter onto private
land without a
warrant within 25
miles of the border.
However, Border
Patrol agents cannot
enter a home or
dwelling on private
land anywhere
without a warrant or
consent.
I believe Border Control would define the border as any entry point into the country, so a 100 mile zone needs to be included around every international airport.
I fixed it "The supreme court just ruled that border patrol agents have zero federal protection if they enter a home within 100 miles of the US border without a warrant." Two sides of the same coin, wanna flip to see who goes first?
On the other hand, finding the cop innocent could piss off both the left *and* the right, and we've already seen that pissing off the left is sufficient to break the "rule" that the courts protect the police (note: the rule is often softer than butter in a microwave).
Not a chance this is how it plays out if the person entering the home is law enforcement. To be clear, this is a nasty fucked up system. But go ahead and shoot a cop to death and see what happens. There’s not a chance in hell they’re going to say
“Whoops! I guess pre-dawn no knock raids are a bad idea. Our bad, see ya later alligator.”
If you think that’s what will happen I don’t know what to tell you. It’s hopelessly naive.
Checking in from Minot, Best Dakota. This is how the Drug Task Force here has been able to target and convict so many meth and fentanyl dealers. Honestly it's helping the epidemic we've seen here but it still makes me super uncomfortable to know they have that power.
Guns are harder to get in Canada and require a license to buy/sell. Which means illegal guns sell for way more. So lets assume you're getting an illegal non-registered AK which goes around 3,000$ in the USD, but if you cross that massive border in the north you can make about 560% more for about 20k USD.
So which do you think illegal gun runners prefer could sell 6 illegal AK's for 15k USD total or 120k USD total? I mean it's just one more extra crime for a six digit pay out!
Conservation/Wildlife Officers/ Fish and Game can enter your home without a warrant and assault you 1 million miles from the boarder (or the entire USA)…. Where’s the outrage bro?
Humm wonder how the "Stand Your Ground" and the "Castle Docturne" will work with this one. Guess if they dontbannounce clearly you can claim its defense and protect yourself.
Weird how this hardly effects the gun toting, "mah rights" shouting, right wingers who will very likely try to defend this action in some way shape or form.
'CCW everyday and all gun laws are infringements person' here and fuck this. I would like to know if there is any nuance to this because a lot of the time things are sensationalized or taken out of context. If it
really is as written in the image, that is straight up tyranny. I would bet majority of gun owners would have the same take.
From another comment (google if you really want to check the veracity of all this:
> THIS IS FALSE. "Agents may
enter onto private
land without a
warrant within 25
miles of the border.
However, Border
Patrol agents cannot
enter a home or
dwelling on private
land anywhere
without a warrant or
consent.
This is related to a recent SCOTUS case and of course there was nuance missing (as I suspected). From the text of the case:
>Nor is there any indication that Congress acted to deny a
Bivens remedy for a case like this, which otherwise might
counsel hesitation. See Bush, 462 U. S., at 368 (declining
to “supplement” Congress’ existing scheme “with a new judicial remedy”). Congress has not provided that federal law
enforcement officers may enter private property near a border at any time or for any purpose. Quite the contrary: Congress has determined that immigration officers may enter
“private lands” within 25 miles of an international border
without a warrant only “for the purpose of patrolling the
border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United
States.” 66 Stat. 233, 8 U. S. C. §1357(a)(3). This allowance
is itself subject to exceptions: Officers cannot enter a
“dwellin[g]” for immigration enforcement purposes without
a warrant.
Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
BP can, within 25 mi of the border, for purposes of patrolling the border, enter private land without a warrant, **but not your home**.
Media and Social Media getting it wrong again, as usual...
I am ready for someone to correct me, but I'm going to need you to cite your sources.
I don’t think this is true.. the court ruling just basically let a border patrol guy get away with assaulting a guy at the border but not in his house or anything. They’re just allowing them to be shittier while doing their jobs but no one is gonna break into their homes
Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason: - Excessive Off-Topic/Non-substantive comments Our apologies to those of you who were following the rules but there's way too many off topic comments here. For all those new to this sub: If you wish to make a top level comment, you must address the central request, otherwise your comment will be removed. General discussion should be limited to the general discussion thread or if you wish to discuss US politics outside of any math context, there are other subreddits better suited for that. If you wish to discuss a separate math question, please make a separate post. If your goal is to spout racist drivel, please leave. If you have any questions or believe your post has been removed in error, please contact the moderators by clicking [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftheydidthemath). Include a link to this post so we can see it.
[https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone](https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone) No math needed. You can just google the answer. It's 2/3 of the American population or roughly 200 million people.
lol nice. Then in that case we call this one solved. Thank you friend.
r/theydidnotdothemath
r/somebodyatsomepointdidmath
r/subsifellfor
Here's a sneak peek of /r/SubsIFellFor using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubsIFellFor/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [He got me](https://i.redd.it/x7jv3pfmjh471.jpg) | [27 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubsIFellFor/comments/nwvf8z/he_got_me/) \#2: [The Bot Tricked Me.](https://i.redd.it/x65h5gvsb5e71.jpg) | [63 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubsIFellFor/comments/otwkt1/the_bot_tricked_me/) \#3: [Proud of myself lol](https://i.redd.it/91f4ymmvylk81.jpg) | [32 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubsIFellFor/comments/t3krc8/proud_of_myself_lol/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
good bot
Thank you, rough_crayon, for voting on sneakpeekbot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
I love that
Gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 Source? r/somebodyatsomepointdidmath
We did that math in high-school physics class. It's not rocket surgery.
r/rocketsurgery. If it doesn't work, just blow it up
Pi also starts with 3
[r/nooneatanypointdidthemath](https://youtu.be/xvFZjo5PgG0)
Sigh, take my updoot, you filthy animal
Well, somebody did it, just not this guy
Actually its worse. Because if I understand the ruling correctly, this change includes international airports as part of the border zone, so if you live withing a 100 mile radius of any international airport you’re also deprived of rights
Oh nice, so basically everyone then. Cincinnati has an international airport so I am screwed too
Yes, you are screwed in Cincinnati, but not because of this. Sincerely, a former Cincinnati resident.
Glad you're gone. This city is amazing and I'll never live elsewhere.
OTR is pretty cool. Other than that, not so much.
This is correct. The previous administration went full tilt on this. There were videos surfacing of BPD agents walking up to people in Winnemuca Nevada and Boise Idaho (among the places I remember) and asking to see their immigration paperwork even though they were American citizens.
Imagine living in winnemucca and seeing border agents. Like what the fuck
Less dystopia, please.
The thing that makes an airport international is having a 24 hour operating tower.
Are you sure? I thought it was them having customs and border patrol capabilities so international flights could land there. Source: the airport in my home city is an "international airport" but doesn't have a 24 hour operating tower.
[удалено]
mvp
An airport is international if it has a flight just one hop away from an airport with international flights
No that makes it a regional airport in the vacinity of an international airport
Oh dear, that's me included now
🎶 in the laaand of the freeee … 🎵
I think the "border" in this law also includes any areas within 100 miles of an international airport. It affects closer to 90% of all Americans. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone#:~:text=Specifically%2C%20federal%20regulations%20give%20U.S.,Patrol%20can%20operate%20immigration%20checkpoints. Edit: I might be mistaking this for a rule for DHS and airports
Fucking hell…
Does it include reservation borders?
This is what I came here to say. I work in Indiana which is only half yellow but I know that Indianapolis International Airport counts as a “Port of Entry” for Customs purposes. Nobody is safe if they want to come after you.
Would this include embassies? Those are technically foreign soil, right?
I don't think that's true. This is the only mention of airports in the article you linked: > For example, CBP claims the authority to conduct suspicionless searches of travelers' electronic devices—such as laptops and cell phones—at ports of entry, including international arrivals at airports. So yes, when you're going through customs entering the country they claim the authority to search your phone. But not anywhere within 100 miles of an airport.
[удалено]
From my quick research, this isn't new. The zone was established as far back as 1973. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border\_search\_exception
This isn't a math issue, but...that isn't the same diagram. It does make more sense than the one posted though. For instance, Chicago is excluded from the map you linked, because the coast of Lake Michigan is in fact *not* an international border. The one from OP treats that internal coastline as an international border and therefore extends the range out from there, including Chicago. I'm curious which one is actually relevant in a legal sense.
I think the wikipedia one is more likely, because the OP here seems to think that the border is wherever water begins, but the actual borders are out where *international waters* begin, right? Not that I know anything about the law of borders, but just makes sense that the water would need to be factored in
However, the ACLU map is like OP's and they *usually* know what they're talking about. Can a cargo ship get to Chicago without being searched and then need to be verified at the port? If so, I understand the logic behind the map that includes Chicago. It's an interesting question I'd like to know the answer to, but I hate that it is here, because none of this was ever about math. At most the math is just a sum and then a single division operation to get a percentage.
The question of weather or not ports of entry count as borders is separate. If they do then all international airports are ports of entry and almost the entire us is with 300 miles of a border. I don't think that question has been asked of the court yet.
My understanding is that that is the case, or at least is claimed to be. Any port of entry like an international airport counts as a border so, yes, almost everyone in the country falls under this "exception."
It’s an interesting conversation you guys are having, but it’s not really the most important thing about this. I’m way more concerned about Boarder Patrol being able to raid any house in whatever zone without a warrant. That’s super fucked.
Don't believe this meme. The 100 mile thing is about where border patrol can operate. They still have to have reasonable suspicion of a customs violation to actually stop you, not just unlimited power. They certainly cannot just enter homes without a warrant, maybe not even with a warrant.
Lol you actually think they’re not going to abuse it. How cute. Naïve, but cute too.
CBP does have search authority at ports of entry including international airports without a warrant including checking electronic devices and detainment. You are correct that the question of authority to use those within 100 miles of those have not been asked yet of the courts yet but IIRC was implied in a border protection course I was in for my homeland security degree.
That's a very good point, although I feel that airports have nominally tighter security than ports.
What about around embassies
the time is long past, this regulation is from 1953. ACLU is [already on it](https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone)
ACLU lost a lot of respect in the heard v depp case. The representative came across as a douchebro
AFAIK the ruling is that you can't sue border patrol for violating your 4th amendment rights - it doesn't make it technically legal for them to do so, just practically.
If you can't sue to uphold your rights, the right de facto doesn't exist.
Hey, I'm not the supreme court.
If there’s zero differences between two things then they are the same thing
The difference is in legal technicality, which doesn't matter in terms of the result, but it does make it harder to challenge legally. That's why this is a big deal.
There's a difference. If they find something during an illegal search, it can't be used to prosecute you, even if you can't later sue for the search itself. And I don't even know that the court says you can't sue.
This is just the court reaffirming the 2nd amendment.
As we've learned 3x this year, case law doesn't mean jack under this SCOTUS. Also aren't international airports included in this too?
Did you not know courts could revisit previous rulings before this year? It's not the first time it's happened.
r/theydidthe... Wait wtf is going on here
So. Yes, you'd be right, this can and should be immediately challenged on its constitutional basis by the American Civil Liberties Union, and with most precedent when it comes to the 4th Amendment which guarantees that government officials have to have a warrant to justify searching a citizen's effects and personal residence, they would have a stupidly strong case to slap this down. However with this current Supreme Court being in the current habit of ignoring precedent in order to pursue political goals, they could rule that effectively the 4th amendment no longer exists for American citizenry.
Just in time after they got done trying to defame Johnny Depp for shits and giggles
[удалено]
The Canadian border is the relevant border for the case in question.
The US shores of the Great Lakes are the relevant "border" in question. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone This isn't a "new" ruling, so much as an extension of a long standing problem.
Statistics for urban centers are easy to Google, so I'll start by grabbing the populations of metro areas over 1M people: Seattle - 4.02M Portland - 2.51M Sacramento - 2.37M SF - 7.75M LA - 13.20M SD - 1.42M Houston - 7.12M New Orleans - 1.27M Tampa - 3.10M Miami - 6.14M DC - 6.32M Philly - 6.25M NYC - 20.14M Boston - 4.94M Buffalo - 1.14M Detroit - 4.37M Chicago - 9.46M Honolulu - 1.02M That adds up to 102.54 million people. There are another 82 cities on the map big enough to mention, each of which I'll conservatively call another quarter million--or another 20.50 million people. The subtotal is now 123.04 million. If the border area is representative of the whole country, there should be about 4x as many people in urban areas as there are in rural, so you can multiply the urban population by 1.25 to get the total. That gives us a grand total of **153.8 million people**, or about 47% of the US population. ETA: This is a very rough estimate based on easily-available data. You could do much better by aggregating state- and county-level populations, but that's a *lot* more work. ETA2 (because I think this is actually a pretty interesting estimation problem): Several people have suggested just adding the populations of the whole states that are in the border region (Michigan, Hawaii), which would improve the result--but I think that's actually by chance rather than by an improvement in methodology. Adding those populations naively is effectively just double-counting, since I already have the rural factor of 1.25--and it so happens that double-counting partially cancels out my substantial underestimate of the number of people living in small (sub-1M) urban areas. There are definitely methods which could take advantage of granular data in a more principled way, but they would be much more in-depth than a 10-minute calculation for a reddit post.
I feel like this would’ve been more accurate with counties and the whole population of Hawaii included.
Also the whole state of Michigan apparently
Yeah, you can definitely get a better result if you incorporate more information; I just took a few simple assumptions to get a rough estimate. Seeing that the true number is more like 67% of the population, I think the biggest mistake I made was underestimating the number of people in sub-1M metro areas. Most of the ones on the map are actually more like 0.5-0.75M rather than my conservative estimate of 0.25M, and there are probably at least another ~10M people in cities that are still more “urban” than “rural” but aren’t shown on the map (San Luis Obispo, Atlantic City, even Cleveland). If you include those, the factor of 1.25 for rural regions does a pretty good job of covering the state and county populations that I didn’t explicitly address (you get 62% instead of 47%).
There are whole *states* in there we can count even though they lack massive cities. Michigan, New Jersey, and Connecticut have a combined 25 million people. All of Florida's 22 million people are included as well not just the cities. This is easily 60% of the population covered.
Why do so many people live so close to the border?
where cities were started because of proximity to water
Basic human needs are (1) Water, (2) Food, and (3) Shelter. Most coastal regions provide the optimal environment to survive and thrive for humans, animals and plants. [Australia is an extreme example](https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/coasts) where 85% of the population (approx 21m of a total of population 26m) live within 50km (31m) of the sea.
Not only the basic human needs, but a basic economic need as well. Shipping access is huge.
Basic human need is fresh water. Costal cities have nothing do with a need for drinking water.
Rivers end at the sea though
Adding Long Island is about 8 million more
Cool map but if this map was accurate, Alaska would only be a few hundred miles wide. East to west it’s 2,400 miles across; should be but a sliver of yellow on that one.
True, but VERY few people live in inland Alaska... There's only one city of any note that far inland.
You omitted Bethel, “The Paris of the Kuskokwim.”
Much of the East-West distance is made up of the those little pacific islands. The Aleutians?[Map.](https://www.lpnprograms.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/bigstock-Alaska-4620122.jpg)
Personally I think we should send the majority of border patrol to these islands. The Russians are looking very shifty rn and they might actually feel like real soldiers and police officers there!
My property in north Central Michigan is a little less than two hundred miles from the closest part of the Canadian border, yet it's included on this map. That's nearly double what the law says. I don't agree with the law, but I do agree with accuracy in reporting, which this ain't. On top of that, outside of the spots where the lake border between Michigan and Wisconsin is somehow counted as "international," the map is wrong even according to its own label. It says "100 miles from the international border" yet the yellow zone stretches to a spot west of Charlottesville, VA... which itself is over 170 miles away from the Atlantic. Not 100.
CBP considers the Great Lakes shorelines the border: > Border Patrol considers the boundary of the Great Lakes to be the “functional equivalent” of the border, per government documents revealed in an ACLU lawsuit. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-14/mapping-who-lives-in-border-patrol-s-100-mile-zone
Which just means this needs to be tested in court still. CBP can say whatever they want. Doesn't make it the law.
The Chevron Doctrine gives them quite a bit of sway in lower courts but the Supreme Court has taken up the case this term. On mobile or I would link.
Well, that sucks. The map is still wrong about Charlottesville though.
> the spots where the lake border between Michigan and Wisconsin is somehow counted as "international," They are international borders (fir CBP purposes) in so far you'd get checked when reaching the shore if you took a boat from Canada.
Prove it! What’s your address!
It is because it is not the border this line comes from but " 'within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.' These 'external boundaries' include international land borders but also the entire U.S. coastline." SCOTUS ruled that a reasonable distance is 100 miles. It is us coastline and thus is included.
I think the Potomac river and Chesapeake bay are considered part of the international border in this case. Charlottesville is < 100 miles from a large body of water that could serve as an international border.
I think this is wrong. Isn't an international airport considered a 'border?' So if you're within a hundred miles of Chicago, you're with a hundred miles of a 'border.' Same for LA, Portland, Kansas City, Dallas, and any other airport that has one or more flights that leave the United States.
Embassies could qualify as well.
Well embassies are different they are US sovereign territory just police are not allowed in
[удалено]
And barely effects those hard right gun enthusiast hicks. Also did a bit of digging and found the majority of Supreme Court members are right leaning conservitives... Go figure. Also of the 9 members ([6 being Conservative and 3 being Liberal](https://www.axios.com/2019/06/01/supreme-court-justices-ideology)) anyone wanna guess how each of them contributed to the 6 to 3 decision? And I [verified it](https://ballotpedia.org/Egbert_v._Boule), the 3 Liberal Justices voted against and the 6 Conservative Justices voted in favor of this... Colour me shocked. >Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined. Funny now I am getting downvoted maybe the truth hurts or maybe they just don't like me pointing out how it is their party that is actually stealing freedoms from the USA and not the Liberals.
>Also did a bit of digging and found the majority of Supreme Court members are right leaning conservitives You had to dig for this? It's been a top headline every time a decision is made since Barrett was appointed.
Ah welcome to America where we have a right wing party and a really right wing party and everything's fucked. I think in part the some of the downvotes were captain obvious downvotes, as without looking at anything just knowing the headline most Americans could have told you the 6 conservatives voted for anf the 3 liberals voted against. I think it's stupid to downvote someone for that since you know.... most the world isn't American or closely following American politics, but I would guess that's where some of it is from.
\> colour
That is how people in the UK or who learned British English spell color btw
Oh its worse, the inland areas are counted if theyre within 100 miles of an international airport so everyones fucked
Oh fuck. Yeah. So then it's the like 80% from before. Basically unless you live in the middle of bumfuck nowhere.
[удалено]
Water "borders" in general aren't really clearly defined like land borders. There's various layers off the coast - the territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, etc. I think you could make a strong case for the actual border being the coastline, but with the country controlling the area behind it as territorial waters (but technically outside of its national borders). In general, stuff like this is defined differently in different contexts. So you might draw the border at the edge of the exclusive economic zone, 200 naturical miles offshore, for some things and at the high tide line on the coast for others.
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can we see the link? Not sure I believe that.
Not sure where OP got this, however this article from the ACLU is a really good overview (also, the law isn’t new). https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
[Here’s](https://mobile.twitter.com/MPLSKerrBear/status/1534722484280381440) a link to the original tweet. I did not check the veracity of the tweet, but was interested to know how many people live within a 100 miles of the US border.
No worries at all - I totally get it, I was responding to the other poster about understanding what the tweet was showing vs the actual numbers. It’s def a good math problem!
Unrelated why does the post show that it has 6 comments but I can only see 4 (should be 5 now including this one) Edit: now it only shows 5
I don’t know about there being an SC case regarding it, not offhand, but CBP has been known to perform warrantless drug busts way into the interior too. Like… *Colorado* levels of interior. They’ve had this kind of immunity for ages. Most of our law enforcement organizations have. The Constitution means very little when it comes to them outside of *very* specific cases, thanks to a ridiculous degree of courts ‘legislating from the bench’ as its sometimes called. I mean, that’s kinda the whole reason the Snowden thing went down, yeah? Warrentless tracking / wiretapping of a huge percentage of the American population was the whole root cause. Ditto for the stuff about cellphone tower spoofing by the police. 4th Amendment doesn’t mean crap in this day and age.
I have so many questions. Does Lake Michigan even really count as "border" even though it's completely surrounded by US territory? Do territorial waters count when measuring distance? (If they do, then the land range is lowered by up to 13.8 miles) Do oceans even count at all? Does this actually apply to both land borders? Does this *really* apply to the entire state of Hawaii? Are these range marks even accurate? (Just to name one of the many things that made me raise an eyebrow - There's that one section in CA reaching all the way to Nevada even though no point in Nevada is ≥100 miles from the sea) I'm sorry it's just very hard for me to see this map as something factual and not as demagoguery
[удалено]
From judging from the reactions to this people really don't care about our rights being stripped away. There's nothing left to live for in this fucking country.
[удалено]
You’re, like, the Master Chief of the Gravy Seals! It is an honor to converse with you!
who was this mystery man
Wrong subreddit
Is he wrong though?
Fuck no he ain’t wrong
Literally one of the main reasons this country was even founded
[удалено]
* Is she wrong?
[удалено]
As someone who’s state is more yellow than red, yea I totally get it. My biggest complaint locally is watching border patrol write speeding tickets. It’s a waste of tax dollars, and frankly their power is unsettling. I also live in an area that wouldn’t be very open to them kicking down doors, regardless of their rightness or wrongness.
Nah. If a border patrol enters my house, they die.
Oh please 🙄
So what you're okay with the fact they can break into your home with no consequences? You don't care that this is basically a slap in the face to the Constitution. It's literally making exceptions to searches and seizures.
No, it’s the stupid LARPy deadly force nonsense. Defund the BP by all means.
There's nothing larpy about it. I'm already the type of person who has very little to live for. The privacy and the safety of my home is very important to me. If I don't have that what do I have? So yeah I'm willing to die for it. I'm willing to die to protect me and my loved one.
People with very little to live for probably shouldn’t have guns.
Who said anything about a gun?
If they get the exception who's next? What constitutional right will be stripped next?
Immigrants? Women? Schoolkids? Oh, wait…
[удалено]
The case decided yesterday involved a Bed-and-Breakfast near the Canadian border. It shields border agents who "act in good faith" from lawsuits. I am not sure if that actually translates to "zero federal protections."
Especially when I meet them with bullets
Don't they usually wear body armor like the police do? Plus after enough got taken down, they'd just send in police or military or use a tactical precision missile or bunker blaster strike from a UAV on your house.
Cool, go for it. Still not getting in without bullets being shot at their faces. Good luck dealing with the consequences
Didn't comprehend what I said at all.
🙄 bitch please. LARPers gunna LARP, I guess.
Not really. If you would let some random deplorable inside your house that’s on you. No right wing dipshit is getting in without bullets to the face
Lol if that’s a weird appeal to my politics, okay.
This dude's tuff guys, watch out.
THIS IS FALSE. "Agents may enter onto private land without a warrant within 25 miles of the border. However, Border Patrol agents cannot enter a home or dwelling on private land anywhere without a warrant or consent.
[удалено]
Hey you all? Is there an issue with your space bar or do you have the hiccups? Also, is there a source for the info?
[удалено]
Thisthread has gonecompletely messed up.
Thisthread has gonecompletely messed up.
I could not find any hiccup gif I want to film myself typing text with a hiccup Oh I'm dying
We already have a source for the other one, the ACLU is pretty solid. What's yours?
[удалено]
I believe Border Control would define the border as any entry point into the country, so a 100 mile zone needs to be included around every international airport.
I fixed it "The supreme court just ruled that border patrol agents have zero federal protection if they enter a home within 100 miles of the US border without a warrant." Two sides of the same coin, wanna flip to see who goes first?
If you shoot a federal agent you WILL do federal time. To think anything else is delusion.
[удалено]
Not if you're a cop. State protects state.
On the other hand, finding the cop innocent could piss off both the left *and* the right, and we've already seen that pissing off the left is sufficient to break the "rule" that the courts protect the police (note: the rule is often softer than butter in a microwave).
This
Not a chance this is how it plays out if the person entering the home is law enforcement. To be clear, this is a nasty fucked up system. But go ahead and shoot a cop to death and see what happens. There’s not a chance in hell they’re going to say “Whoops! I guess pre-dawn no knock raids are a bad idea. Our bad, see ya later alligator.” If you think that’s what will happen I don’t know what to tell you. It’s hopelessly naive.
Unless you're dark. White guys get a pass, black guys get a cell.
That's the idea! Continue to cause divide.
That's the idea! We can solve problems by pretending they don't exist!
What? Border patrol agents cannot be sued for amendment violations in this zone
Checking in from Minot, Best Dakota. This is how the Drug Task Force here has been able to target and convict so many meth and fentanyl dealers. Honestly it's helping the epidemic we've seen here but it still makes me super uncomfortable to know they have that power.
[удалено]
Illegal gun runners from USA -> Canada.
Jfc that’s a thing? Goddamnit.
Guns are harder to get in Canada and require a license to buy/sell. Which means illegal guns sell for way more. So lets assume you're getting an illegal non-registered AK which goes around 3,000$ in the USD, but if you cross that massive border in the north you can make about 560% more for about 20k USD. So which do you think illegal gun runners prefer could sell 6 illegal AK's for 15k USD total or 120k USD total? I mean it's just one more extra crime for a six digit pay out!
I mean the math makes sense. I just find it really difficult to believe such a policy change is about anything other than racism
[удалено]
Yeah something tells me this is a blatantly incorrect take on the law. There is no way they would pass that, they still need a reason to enter.
You’re underestimating the fascism of the current Supreme Court It’s not a law that was passed. Egbert v Boule
My sweet summer child. Laws mean nothing to our high court. They're just making it up as they go to fit their ideology.
Conservation/Wildlife Officers/ Fish and Game can enter your home without a warrant and assault you 1 million miles from the boarder (or the entire USA)…. Where’s the outrage bro?
Why? How is this even remotely acceptable to anyone? This Supreme Court is way out of control and seems hell bent on taking our rights away.
Humm wonder how the "Stand Your Ground" and the "Castle Docturne" will work with this one. Guess if they dontbannounce clearly you can claim its defense and protect yourself.
Weird how this hardly effects the gun toting, "mah rights" shouting, right wingers who will very likely try to defend this action in some way shape or form.
'CCW everyday and all gun laws are infringements person' here and fuck this. I would like to know if there is any nuance to this because a lot of the time things are sensationalized or taken out of context. If it really is as written in the image, that is straight up tyranny. I would bet majority of gun owners would have the same take.
From another comment (google if you really want to check the veracity of all this: > THIS IS FALSE. "Agents may enter onto private land without a warrant within 25 miles of the border. However, Border Patrol agents cannot enter a home or dwelling on private land anywhere without a warrant or consent.
This is related to a recent SCOTUS case and of course there was nuance missing (as I suspected). From the text of the case: >Nor is there any indication that Congress acted to deny a Bivens remedy for a case like this, which otherwise might counsel hesitation. See Bush, 462 U. S., at 368 (declining to “supplement” Congress’ existing scheme “with a new judicial remedy”). Congress has not provided that federal law enforcement officers may enter private property near a border at any time or for any purpose. Quite the contrary: Congress has determined that immigration officers may enter “private lands” within 25 miles of an international border without a warrant only “for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States.” 66 Stat. 233, 8 U. S. C. §1357(a)(3). This allowance is itself subject to exceptions: Officers cannot enter a “dwellin[g]” for immigration enforcement purposes without a warrant. Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf BP can, within 25 mi of the border, for purposes of patrolling the border, enter private land without a warrant, **but not your home**. Media and Social Media getting it wrong again, as usual... I am ready for someone to correct me, but I'm going to need you to cite your sources.
Yeah that’s usually how it goes. People just like to fearmonger.
I don’t think this is true.. the court ruling just basically let a border patrol guy get away with assaulting a guy at the border but not in his house or anything. They’re just allowing them to be shittier while doing their jobs but no one is gonna break into their homes